FFJC-Electronic-Monitoring-Fees-Survey- Sept. 2022

• Locations: United States of America • Topics: Electronic Monitoring

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Electronic
Monitoring Fees
A 50-State Survey of the Costs Assessed
to People on E-Supervision

Fines & Fees
Justice Center
September 2022

Electronic
Monitoring Fees
A 50-State Survey of the Costs Assessed
to People on E-Supervision

Contents
1

The Problem of Electronic
Monitoring Fees

Electronic Monitoring Fee
Authorizations

States That Authorize Electronic
Monitoring Fees

Obstacles to Determining the
Extent of EM Fees

Shifting the Cost Burden

The Real-World Costs of
Electronic Monitoring

Fee Collection and Allocation

Failure to Pay EM Fees

About Us
The Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC) is
catalyzing a movement to eliminate the fines and
fees that distort justice. Our goal is to create a
justice system that treats individuals fairly, ensures
public safety and community prosperity, and is
funded equitably. We work together with affected
communities and justice system stakeholders to
eliminate fees in the justice system, ensure that fines
are equitably imposed and enforced, and end abusive
collection practices. Visit ffjc.us and follow
@FinesandFeesJC on Twitter to get the latest updates
on local, state and national fines and fees reforms.

Contact
If you have any questions on any information within
this report or for any media inquiries, please contact
Jag Davies at jdavies@ffjc.us.

...·. ·..-.. ·,•
50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

. ·.'

·..
..·...
·..

·. ·. ·.

:·.:·-.:
. ·..
·-:·.
. ·..·,
........
·. ·.. ·.

:-:· .. ·
.·-:·
.. ·
. ·..
. ·..

·.'
..·..
·..
. ·.. .

The Problem of Electronic Monitoring Fees
Although there is a long list of fees in the criminal legal system that
can wreak havoc on individuals’ lives, fees imposed for electronic
monitoring (EM) can be among the most costly, least transparent, and
most complicated to quantify.

··.:·-:·

. ·.'

·-.:·-:·
. ·.'

For the purposes of this report, EM is defined as
any technology used to track, monitor, or limit
an individual’s physical movement or alcohol
consumption. It, and the costs associated with it,
may be imposed as a condition of probation, parole,
diversion, or some other community-based sentence
or as a condition of pretrial release for those who
have not been found guilty of anything. Its use is
widespread in both the juvenile and adult criminal
court systems. In most states, the individuals on EM
are required to pay—daily, weekly, monthly, or flat
fees—in order to be tracked, monitored, and have
their liberty curtailed. Failure to pay such fees can
lead to extended periods of supervision, additional
fees, or even jail.
EM fees are often an additional cost beyond other
supervision fees, as well as any other case-related
fines, fees, and costs that are imposed. Because
people of color and those from lower-income
communities are disproportionately drawn into the
system and tend to spend longer periods of time
under supervision,1 EM fees and the consequences
stemming from them impact these communities
at disproportionate rates.2 Moreover, EM is often
administered by private companies seeking to
make a profit, which further adds to its costs. As
the recurring costs add up, those on electronic
monitoring can be responsible for an astronomical
amount of money. The seeming lack of oversight
on who can impose fees, and general lack of limits
on the amounts, can also be strikingly nonchalant
in a system that is supposed to operate on values
of fairness and justice. For these reasons, the Fines
ffjc.us

and Fees Justice Center has developed this report
to shed some light on the murky world of electronic
monitoring fees.
From 2005 to 2015, the number of individuals on
electronic monitors increased by nearly 140 percent,
from 53,000 to over 125,000.3 Since then, this
number is believed to have dramatically increased,
especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when more
people were placed on monitors to decrease jail and
prison populations.4
This report will primarily focus on the ways state,
local, and municipal governments or courts
impose fees on people placed on these devices.
It specifically examines the quagmire of how and
when states are charging, or allowing others to
charge, EM fees to individuals ordered into these
programs. We do this by focusing our examination
on legislative authorization and statewide court rules
that authorize EM fees. We examined statutes and
rules from all 50 states and the District of Columbia
to determine whether their codes authorize fees
for electronic monitoring at any point in the criminal
legal system and to what extent.5 We explore
statutes related to both pretrial release and postsentencing supervision, the fee amounts authorized,
consequences for nonpayment and, to a limited
extent, electronic monitoring fees at the local level.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Common Electronic Monitoring Devices
There are varying types of technology used in EM, and each has a
different and distinct use. Some of the most common devices include:
»

Global Positioning System (GPS) Monitors, which
transmit specific geographical coordinates of the
wearer on a continuous basis, enabling roundthe-clock location monitoring. Depending on the
jurisdiction or company, GPS monitoring can be
through a strap-on device, like a watch or ankle
monitor, or through a smartphone app.
Radio Frequency (RF) Monitors, which inform
the monitoring organization about the general
whereabouts of the wearer in relation to a home
base unit. RF is similar to an invisible fence in that
it alerts the monitoring agency when a person isn’t
at the location, but does not indicate where the
person may be.

Electronic Monitoring
Fee Authorizations
Like many processes in the legal system, how EM
programs operate and under what authority varies
widely from state to state and even among counties
within states. EM programs can be run by courts,
law enforcement agencies, state Departments of
Corrections, or parole and probation agencies, or
managed through a contract with private, for-profit
monitoring companies. In many states, these private
vendors are allowed to set their own rates that are
charged directly against individuals and add additional
administrative fees and interest for missed payment
deadlines. Private companies are also responsible for
monitoring compliance with the program and reporting
violations to the court. Infractions while on a monitor
may increase a person’s time under EM supervision
and can increase their liability for EM costs.

ffjc.us

Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring
(SCRAM) Monitors, which tests the wearer’s sweat
for alcohol content, reporting it to the monitoring
organization, and which can include location
monitoring if requested.

Breathalyzer Monitors, which test a person while
at home for alcohol content.

Similarly, an Ignition Interlock Device is a machine
that is installed in a person’s vehicle so that the
engine won’t start if it detects alcohol.

Infractions while on a monitor may
increase a person’s time under EM
supervision and can increase their
liability for EM costs.

In the pretrial stage, EM can be imposed as a
condition of release through the courts or a bail bond
agreement as a defendant awaits their trial. EM can
also be imposed at sentencing as a condition of
probation, or after being released from jail or prison
as a condition of parole or community monitoring. EM
has also been built into home detention programs,
work release programs, drug and alcohol treatment
programs, diversion, and protective orders.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

The costs related to any of these are often assessed
directly to the person ordered to participate in
the program, and the participant may have to pay
installation fees on top of regularly recurring program
rates. Some EM providers even mandate participants
pay for the first couple of weeks before they can even
enter an EM program.6 Beyond direct EM program
fees, many EM monitoring systems carry prerequisite
financial requirements before an individual can be
eligible for the program. For example, some programs
explicitly require the person to install or maintain a
landline telephone or have a working and consistent
cell phone along with stable access to electricity.7
As a result, working families or those living in poverty
who struggle to pay basic utilities may find themselves
denied access to EM as an alternative to incarceration
simply because they cannot afford the basic
requirements to enable the technology.

ffjc.us

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Some programs explicitly require
the person to install or maintain a
landline telephone or have a working
and consistent cell phone along
with stable access to electricity. As
a result, working families or those
living in poverty who struggle to pay
basic utilities may find themselves
denied access to EM as an alternative
to incarceration simply because they
cannot afford the basic requirements to
enable the technology.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

States That Authorize Electronic Monitoring Fees
yes
no

D.C.

43 states have statutes or rules explicitly authorizing fees for
electronic monitoring.
Beyond simply authorizing the use of electronic
monitoring, these states’ statutes include language
that authorizes fees for EM as a condition of a
person’s pretrial and/or post-sentencing release.

New Jersey is the only state that expressly
authorizes EM fees at the pretrial stage but lacks
any statute authorizing EM fees at the postsentencing phase.

13 states expressly authorize EM fees during
the post-sentencing phase but not during the
pretrial phase.9

29 states expressly authorize EM fees for
individuals both during the pre-trial and postsentencing phases.8

Only 2 states expressly prohibit the use of EM fees, at least
at some stages.
10

In 2022, California passed legislation expressly
prohibiting the use of EM fees.11

ffjc.us

Rhode Island expressly prohibits EM fees for
those not yet convicted of an offense,12 but still
allows it as a condition of a sentence.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

6 states & the District of Columbia lack statutory authority for EM
fees at any point during the criminal legal process, but this is not
necessarily preventing EM fees.
»

The District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont lack
explicit statutory authority to impose EM fees at
any stage. This, however, does not mean that some
other authorization may not exist.13

In New York, for example, although there is no
explicit statutory authorization for EM fees, case law
holds that an implicit authorization exists, absent
legislation to the contrary.14 EM fees, both probation
location monitoring and SCRAM devices, are being
charged in some New York counties.15

Oregon amended its statute to eliminate language
that had previously permitted charging fees related
to EM at any stage. Simply removing authorizing

language, however, rather than prohibiting the
practice, may not be enough to end the practice.16
As of July 14, 2022, FFJC identified at least one
county in Oregon that reports it still collects EM fees.17
Similarly, FFJC found that in New Hampshire, some
counties and the state’s Department of Corrections
acknowledge charging EM fees.18

At the pretrial level, there was no explicit statutory or
rule-based authorization for EM fees in 20 states or
the District of Columbia.19 At the post-sentencing
stage, the codes lacked explicit authorization for EM
fees in eight states and the District of Columbia.20
Again, this does not necessarily mean that such fees
are not assessed in those states; it merely means we
were unable to identify legislative authorization for it.

At least 26 states have statutes or rules that impose fees to cover
the costs of an EM program without specifying an amount.
Some states simply authorize a “reasonable fee,”21
which ultimately allows the EM provider–whether a
governmental agency or private for-profit company–
to set any fee it deems appropriate, with little or no
oversight to check such decisions. Similarly, other
statutes require only that EM monitoring fees be

“associated with the cost of monitoring,”22 which is
wholly undefined and could conceivably include the
costs of the devices, supervision fees, administrative
fees, staff salaries, overhead, and a host of other
amorphous and unregulated expenses.

23 states do not statutorily require that someone’s ability to pay be
considered when assessing EM fees.
Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri & Nevada are the only
four states with statutes that expressly mandate
consideration of a person’s ability to pay in both the
pretrial and post-sentencing stage when assessing
EM fees.
ffjc.us

Local Variation in EM Fees

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Broad language in state statutes and rules often
gives local governments considerable latitude in
determining how much to charge. From a limited
review of 31 local jurisdictions with EM programs, fees
ranged from less than one dollar a day up to $40 per
day. Within states, there are also wide variabilities
for the daily cost of EM. In Minnesota, for example,
Ramsey County does not charge participants a fee
related to its electronic home monitoring program,
however, Steele County charges participants $10 to
$11 per day, and Cass County charges participants
$20 per day.23 Fees can also differ based on the
type of monitor a participant is mandated to wear.
For example, in Chippewa County, Wisconsin, an
individual is charged $6 per day more for a GPS
monitor than for a SCRAM device; the county charges
$20 per day for regular EM and $26 per day for EM
and alcohol monitoring.24 Some jurisdictions include
an installation fee that participants must pay to enter
the program, and such fees we identified ranged
from $25 to $250.25 A few counties use a sliding
scale based on the individual’s income to determine
a participant’s fees.26 Still other localities require prepayment of the cost of EM. For example, the Scott
County Sheriff’s Office in Iowa and Stutsman County
in North Dakota require participants to pay the full
cost of EM for the term of their sentence upfront at a
rate of $10 per day and $13 per day, respectively.27

changed the home detention statute in 2020 to say
that local government “shall not impose a program
administrative fee” for EM supervision, the language
in later parts of the statute left some ambiguity as
to whether private companies could continue to do
so. This ambiguity was clarified by new legislation
in 2022 making it clear private companies could not
impose administrative or installation fees either.29
Nonetheless, as of August 9 2022, FFJC found two
counties, Fresno County and Los Angeles County,
that continue to publicize on their website that the
private monitoring company they contract with will
charge participants EM fees, based on a sliding
scale.30 California and Oregon are prime examples
of the need to carefully draft legislation that repeals
fees. In both states, when statutory law does not
authorize fees on EM wearers, contracts with private
monitoring companies may still cause a financial
burden on individuals.

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Obstacles to Determining the
Extent of EM Fees
One of the difficulties in understanding how
electronic monitoring fees are imposed and collected
is the great lack of transparency. Most states that
allow for EM fees do not set a specific fee amount in
the statute. The intermingling of public and private
entities that are allowed to charge these fees makes
it difficult to understand who sets the price, who
enforces it, and what it actually means in terms of
financial obligations for individuals in EM programs.
Additionally, the duration of EM programs is far from
uniform, and costs are typically dependent on how
long one is in the program. Some programs assess
their fees daily, while others assess their fees weekly
or monthly. As a result, how and when EM fees are
imposed and how much can be assessed varies
significantly among and within states. Therefore, it is
impossible to calculate an average daily fee imposed
across the country by looking at what is authorized
by state statutes and rules.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Shifting the Cost Burden

As part of this shift of costs to individuals, many states
and municipalities have made paying electronic
monitoring fees a required condition of a person’s
pretrial or post-sentence release.36 This means
that failure to comply with any of the EM program’s
rules—including cost requirements —could lead to
expulsion from the program, incarceration, or other
sanctions. While EM costs are sometimes part of a
general pretrial release or probationary supervision
fee, more commonly, they are an additional cost. For
those without the means to pay hundreds or even
tens of thousands of dollars for electronic monitoring,
this shifting of costs to individuals means many may
face choices between necessities for their families,
like food and rent, or paying EM costs to avoid
incarceration or other prolonged involvement with the
criminal legal system.37

Even though EM is seen as an alternative to
incarceration, it has also been promoted as a way
to reduce government costs by shifting the bill
from the state to the individual. One EM services
provider advertises on its website, “Since the
cost is paid by the offender, West Virginia saves
approximately $25,000 per year per offender” by
using their services.31 In Fairfax County, VA, the
Sheriff’s Office reported in 2019 that its work-release
program, which uses EM, saved the county over
$600,000 in incarceration costs. Although saving
over half a million dollars, the county imposed EM
fees on individuals in the program, and collected
over $60,000 from them, rather than supporting the
program through the county’s savings.32

The vast majority of people arrested and
prosecuted are those least likely to be
able to afford these fees. Adults living in
poverty are three times more likely to be
arrested than those who are not.
The vast majority of people arrested and prosecuted
are those least likely to be able to afford these fees.
Adults living in poverty are three times more likely
to be arrested than those who are not. Individuals
with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty
level are 15 times more likely to be charged with
a felony.33 People on probation are also typically
low-income individuals. Sixty-six percent of those
on probation earn less than $20,000 a year, and 38
percent earn less than $10,000 a year.34 EM fees can
account for large portions of an individual’s income,
reducing their ability to meet basic family needs and
challenging their overall financial health.35 Electronic
monitoring programs exist to benefit the whole
community by limiting unnecessary incarceration
and ostensibly helping to provide an additional
level of community supervision on those the court
deems need it. Shifting the responsibility of funding
programs that benefit the entire community primarily
to low-income individuals involved in the system is an
inequitable form of taxation.
ffjc.us

Fines & Fees Justice Center

The Real-World Costs of
Electronic Monitoring
In the pretrial stage of a case, EM devices are used
for people who have not been convicted of a crime
and are awaiting trial; they have not been found
guilty of any offense. Nationally, a felony case takes
an average of 256 days (8.5 months) from arrest
to disposition and a misdemeanor case takes an
average of 193 days (6.4 months).38 Defendants
required to be on monitors during this time can be
responsible for paying an astronomical amount of
money by the time their case is adjudicated. For
example, Emass, a private company that operated
a pretrial electronic monitoring program in St. Louis,
MO, charged defendants up to $10 per day.39 At
this rate, a defendant who has been charged with
a misdemeanor and must be on EM for six months
awaiting trial would have to pay approximately
$2,000 without ever being convicted of a crime.
Unlike the bail payment itself, any EM cost a person
pays while awaiting trial is not refundable, even if the
person is acquitted or the charges are dismissed.40
When EM is used for youth in many states’ juvenile
court systems, the youth or their parents are often
held financially accountable for the fees that accrue
while the young person is monitored.
Fees for EM programs can cause difficulties in meeting
basic day-to-day needs and can cause stress for those
7

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

facing difficulties meeting payment deadlines. In a
self-reported study that illustrates the experience of
probationers with supervision fees, many of those
interviewed felt their probation officers focused the
majority of their time discussing monetary sanctions
owed41 rather than other topics that may help with their
reintegration, such as continuing their education, job
training or counseling. In 2021, researchers reported
that data from EM agencies in 30 states revealed
monitoring device fees ranging from $2 to $20 per
day plus one-time upfront installation fees ranging
from $25 to $300.42 From our statutory analysis, FFJC
found that the few states that set rates by statute were
within similar ranges: from about $1 to $15 per day
for EM fees. However, few states have statutes that
provide specific dollar amounts. The vast majority of
state statutes authorizing EM fees provide little or no
guidance on the fee figure.

In 2021, researchers reported that data
from EM agencies in 30 states revealed
monitoring device fees ranging from $2
to $20 per day plus one-time upfront
installation fees ranging from $25 to $300.
Beyond the shift in cost to individuals, researchers
have found there is little clear evidence that EM
significantly impacts public safety or recidivism.43 One
review of 18 studies on the effectiveness of Electronic
Monitoring in reducing recidivism demonstrates the
complexity of how EM is implemented. The authors
of this study found that EM has no statistically
distinguishable effect on recidivism rates, that
problems with technology and program design can
negatively impact an EM program’s effectiveness,
and that although active monitoring is cheaper
than a prison sentence it is a lot more expensive
than traditional supervision.44 Without compelling
evidence that placing a person on an electronic
monitoring device creates safer communities, it is
cruel to require individuals and their loved ones to
bear such an expensive financial burden.

ffjc.us

Fines & Fees Justice Center

A review of EM contracts and policies
uncovered many that require people to
be subjected to random checks at their
place of employment and gain approval
from their supervising agent to go on a job
interview, accept a job offer, or alter their
schedule to meet an employer’s needs.
Many advocates have also raised significant concerns
about the restrictiveness and invasiveness of EM, the
significant data and privacy concern it creates for the
individual and anyone around them, and the lack of
clarity and transparency with how EM programs are
managed and enforced.45 These restrictions on liberty,
free association, and expression are real concerns
inherent in any EM program but are in large part
beyond the scope of this report.
These attendant concerns, however, can have a real
economic impact on individuals and negatively impact
their ability to pay the fees associated with EM. Being
on a monitor can thwart a person’s employment
opportunities. For example, a review of EM contracts
and policies uncovered many that require people
to be subjected to random checks at their place of
employment and gain approval from their supervising
agent to go on a job interview, accept a job offer, or
alter their schedule to meet an employer’s needs.46
These conditions can make it quite difficult for
someone to find or maintain employment and be
successful in their reentry process.
The disproportionate use of EMs on people of
color also creates additional economic intrusion
into communities that are already over-policed
because of racially biased policies. For example, in
Cook County, Illinois, “Black people comprise 24
percent of the population and makeup 67 percent
of the people wearing monitors.”47 Less than 300
miles away in Wayne County, Michigan, Black
people are twice as likely as white people to be
under electronic monitoring.48 Black people are
overrepresented in every aspect of the criminal
legal system, including electronic monitoring.49 EM
fees thus fall disproportionately on people of color.
8

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

The overlap between communities of color and
low-income communities50 means that people of
color are also more likely to be unable to afford to
pay these fees, which results in further financial and
carceral punishment.

is often a condition of pretrial release for defendants,
whether on bond or other release obligations. Failure
to meet payment deadlines or comply with all pretrial
supervision rules can result in defendants being
taken into custody.59 Idaho is the only state with
a statute directly specifying that a person cannot
be denied a chance of pretrial release due to their
inability to pay EM fees.60

Fee Collection and Allocation
Many state statutes and rules that impose EM fees
often lack language as to who is responsible for the
fee collection or where EM fees are to be allocated.
In other states, however, statutes specifically
place responsibility for collection on the courts,
program providers, local law enforcement agencies,
probation departments, or the state’s Department of
Correction.51 After the fees are collected, most states
specify that the money should be directed into a fund
that’s used for EM or supervision.52 However, three
states—Florida, Minnesota, and Rhode Island—use
fees collected from EM programs to raise revenue
for their state general fund.53 Still other states allow
local jurisdictions to retain the funds.54 Finally, other
statutes expressly allow for fees and revenue to
be subject to the contracts governments establish
with private monitoring firms,55 thereby allowing for
private profit generation with little or no oversight
beyond those established by general procurement
practices, which may or may not be informed by
public policy goals beyond the desire to keep
government costs down. Such a system can be
rife with predatory practices, given that monitoring
companies have a financial incentive to prolong
supervision or implement stricter rules to increase
the likelihood of receiving sanctions for violations.56

Fines & Fees Justice Center

At the back end of the system, people may be
placed in EM programs as a condition of a sentence
that includes probation, parole, or some other form
of community release. When fees are imposed
for EM, failure to pay can lead to revocation of
probation, parole, or release, either because the
fees themselves are a condition of the sentence
or because failure to pay leads to noncompliance
with the court-ordered EM program. When success
or failure on probation or parole is predicated on
the ability to pay a fee, we have a justice system
that effectively reinforces economic and social
inequity and conditions liberty, not on behavior, but
on finances. Ultimately, those with limited financial
means can be incarcerated while those with
resources can pay to go free.

Failure to Pay EM Fees
The Supreme Court of the United States has held
that no one may be imprisoned for failure to pay
court-imposed costs, unless the court finds that the
failure to pay was “willful” or, in other words, unless
the court determines the person has the capacity
to pay and simply refuses to do so.57 Despite this,
most states allow for sanctions against people on EM
who fail to pay related fees, including incarceration,
which is particularly problematic given that many
courts often fail to conduct effective ability to pay
determinations.58 In the pretrial stage, paying EM fees
ffjc.us

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Methodology and Limitation of the Findings
To develop this report, FFJC’s research staff conducted an extensive
search of the criminal, traffic, and juvenile codes in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia, looking both for statutes that authorize
the use of electronic monitoring and whether statutes explicitly
authorize the imposition of EM fees. We used statutory databases
(Westlaw and Lexus/Nexus) and publicly published online state
codes. Where statutes indicated imposition of EM fees were subject
to decisions on the county or municipal level, we conducted further
research to find examples of how that played out, at least in one
locality, to give some practical context. We then analyzed and
categorized the statutes and compared authorization language to
compile this report on the scope of how states impose EM fees.

juvenile offenses, for adults prosecuted in criminal court, or as a
sanction for specific categories of offenses. EM authorizations can
be part of the criminal code, criminal rules of procedure, and traffic,
juvenile, and correctional codes, among others. As such, when our
research did not uncover specific authorization, we cannot be one
hundred percent certain that authorization to impose fees does
not exist. Such authorization could exist in unexpected portions of
a code, or authorization could come from non-statewide sources,
such as local rules, ordinances, or case law, a full examination of
which was simply beyond the scope of this report. However, the
challenge in deciphering these authorities itself sheds light on the
scope of the problem.

Although our research was thorough, we cannot claim it to be
exhaustive. Identifying authorization for EM fees posed some
difficulties because statutes and rules use a wide variety of
terminology when referring to electronic monitoring. For example,
while some states use electronic monitoring to encompass the
varying types of monitoring available, others refer to specific kinds
of EM only, such as GPS devices, location devices, ankle monitors,
and breathalyzer monitors. Still, other statutes use language that
incorporates EM into other types of supervision, making it harder to
disentangle from general probation or parole supervision fees. The
section within a state’s code where an EM authorization resides can
also vary widely. For example, some states have overarching laws
that discuss EM for pretrial release and post-sentencing supervision
together. In contrast, others explicitly separate the two stages,
providing differing authority for each, often in different sections
of the code. Some statutes specify EM fees for youth accused of

Additionally, the vague and broad language states use with
respect to EM fees continued to complicate the classification
process and the analysis of how much can be assessed against
a person under EM supervision. This vagueness leaves room for
interpretation. Some jurisdictions may read statutes to provide
the authorization to impose EM fees while others may not. Further
still, some states explicitly authorize the use of EM while staying
silent on whether fees may be imposed. This additional level of
imprecision can allow EM providers to determine their own fees
and impose additional costs, timelines, and compliance metrics
surrounding electronic monitoring, adding to the financial burden
of individuals under EM supervision. Ultimately, this endeavor
revealed a world of electronic monitoring fees that is difficult to
identify, characterize, and quantify. It is our hope that this report is
the first step in shedding light on this murky financial puzzle.

Electronic Monitoring Appendices
Electronic monitoring fees are imposed in almost every state in the
United States. Appendix A outlines the statutory authorities FFJC’s
research team identified that explicitly authorize the imposition
of EM fees by courts or agencies. The fees in the statutes listed
here are almost entirely separate and apart from fees for general
pretrial services fees or parole and probation supervision fees,
thereby creating an additional cost for those ordered into these
programs. In addition, supplemental information is provided
for states that may authorize EM fees for specific categories of
offenses and highlight states that have removed authorization from
their statutes.

ffjc.us

Two additional appendices are included to identify how EM fees
are imposed in practice at the local level for the pretrial and
post-sentencing stages. The fee authorization chart shows how
authorization varies widely from county to county. With over
3,000 counties in the United States,61 we could not investigate
them all for this report. Even in this small sample, however,
county-level pricing varies greately. These charts are not meant
to be exhaustive but are meant to provide a glimpse of how EM
fees assessments differ greatly from state to state and county to
county. Counties included in the charts were chosen because local
jurisdiction websites explicitly identified these costs.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Appendix A

Electronic Monitoring Fee Authorization
by Statutes and Rule
STATE

PRETRIAL EM FEE

POST-SENTENCING EM FEE

Alabama

Fee Authorized.
Ala. Code § 15-20A-20

Fee Authorized.
Ala. Code by § 15-20A-20

Alaska

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
Alaska Stat. Ann. § 33.30.065

Arizona

None Identified in Statute.*

Fee Authorized.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41-1604.13
Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-902

Arkansas

Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses
(in Drug Court).
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-304

Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-923

California

Cal. Penal § 1208.2
Expressly prohibited by statute.

Colorado

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
Colo. Rev Stat. Ann. § 18-1.3-106

Connecticut

Fee Authorized with Certain (DV) Offenses.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-38c

Fee Authorized.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. Sec. 53a-30

District of
Columbia

None Identified in Statute.

Delaware

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
Del. Code Ann § 4332

Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses
(in Drug Court).
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-304

Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Del. Code Ann TI 11 § 4121(u)
Florida

ffjc.us

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 948.09 &
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 947.1405

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

STATE

PRETRIAL EM FEE

POST-SENTENCING EM FEE

Georgia

Fee Authorized.
Ga. Code Ann. § 17-6-1.1A

Fee Authorized.
Ga. Code Ann. § 42-8-104,
Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-8, &
Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-14

Hawaii

None Identified in Statute.

Idaho

Fee Authorized.
Idaho Code Ann. § 20-516A

Fee Authorized.
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-8008A,
Idaho Code Ann. § 20-225, &
Idaho Code Ann. § 31-3201D

Illinois

Fee Authorized.
725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
§ 5/110-10(b)(14-14.3).

Fee Authorized.
730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/5-8A-6,
725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/5-6-3(g),
725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/5-6-3(i-5)

Indiana

Fee Authorized with Certain (DV) Offenses.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-31.5-2-78

Fee Authorized.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-2.5-6 & 11-10-11.5-12

Fee Authorized for parents of youth in
juvenile proceedings.
Ind. Code Ann. § 31-40-1-3.8
Iowa

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Iowa Code Ann. § 905.14.

Kansas

Fee Authorized.
Kan. Stat Ann. § 22-2802

Fee Authorized.
Kan. Stat Ann. § § 21-6609
Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Kan. Stat Ann. § 22-3717

Kentucky

Fee Authorized.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 431.517

Fee Authorized.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.761

Louisiana

Fee Authorized with Certain (DV) Offenses.
LSA-R.S. 46:2143/
LA Code Crim. Proc. Art. 320

Fee Authorized.
LA Code Crim. Proc. Art. 894.2

Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
LA Code Crim. Proc. Art. 320

Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses.
LSA-R.S. 46:2143, LA R.S. 15:560.4,
LA R.S. 15:574.62

Maine

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
Me. Stat. tit. 17-A, §1753 & §1659-A

Maryland

Fee Authorized.
Md. Crim. Proc. § 5-201

Fee Authorized.
Md. Corr. Serv. §6-108

ffjc.us

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

STATE

PRETRIAL EM FEE

POST-SENTENCING EM FEE

Massachusetts

None Identified in Statute.
(EM Generally Not Authorized, Comm v.
Norman, 142 N.E.3d 1 (MA 2020).)

Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Mass Gen. Law Ann. 265, §47 & 127,
§ 133D 1/2

Michigan

Fee Authorized with Certain
(DV or other assaults) Offenses.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 765.6b

Fee Authorized.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 771.3c &
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 791.225a

Minnesota

Fee Authorized for Alcohol Monitoring.
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 169A.44

Fee Authorized.
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 169A.277, Minn. Stat.
Ann. § 631.425, & Minn. Stat. Ann. § 244.18

Mississippi

Fee Authorized.
Miss. Code. Ann. § 99-5-38

Fee Authorized.
Miss. Code. Ann. § 47-7-5 &
Miss. Code. Ann. § 47-5-1011
Intensive Supervision Fee Authorized.
Miss. Code. Ann. § 47-5-1007 &
Miss. Code. Ann. § 47–5–1013

Missouri

Montana

Fee Authorized.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.455 &
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 455.095

Fee Authorized.
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 557.011

Fee Authorized.
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-9-108

Fee Authorized.
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1031

Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses.
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 455.095

Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1010
Nebraska

Fees for Pretrial Services that Include
EM are Authorized.
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-901

Fee Authorized.
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-2262.04

Nevada

Fee Authorized.
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 211.280

New
Hampshire

None Identified in Statute.

New Jersey

Fee Authorized.
NJ R CR R. 3:26-2

None Identified in Statute.

New Mexico

None Identified in Statute.

ffjc.us

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

STATE

PRETRIAL EM FEE

POST-SENTENCING EM FEE

New York

None Identified in Statute.

None Identified in Statute, but
authorized by case law.†

North Carolina

Fee Authorized.
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 7A-313.1

Fee Authorized.
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-208.45

North Dakota

Fee Authorized.
N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12-67-03

Ohio

Fee Authorized.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2746.02

Fee Authorized.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5120-17-05
Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2746.02

Oklahoma

Fee Authorized.
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1105

Fee Authorized.
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 57-510.9

Oregon

None Identified in Statute.**

Pennsylvania

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
Penn. 37 C.P.L. 705

Rhode Island

Fee expressly prohibited.††
1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 42-56-20.2

Fee Authorized.
222 R.I. ADC 50-00-1.1

South Carolina

None Identified in Statute.

Fee Authorized.
S.C. Code § 24-21-85
Fee Authorized for Certain (Sex) Offenses.
S.C. Code § 23-3-540

South Dakota

Fee Authorized for Alcohol Monitoring.
SDCL § 1-11-29

Intensive Supervision Fee Authorized.
SD ADC 17:61:01:12
Fee Authorized for Work Release program.
SDCL § 24-8-9

Tennessee

Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-152

Fee Authorized.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-201

Fee Authorized for Alcohol Monitoring.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-118
Texas

ffjc.us

Fee Authorized.
Tex. Crim. Pro. Art. Art. 17.43

Fee Authorized.
Tex. Crim. Pro. Art. 42.035 &
Tex Local Govt. § 351.904

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

STATE

PRETRIAL EM FEE

POST-SENTENCING EM FEE

Utah

Fee Authorized.
Utah Code Ann. § 77-20-205

Fee Authorized.
Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-107
Fee Authorized for Alcohol Monitoring.
Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-515

Vermont

None Identified in Statute.

Virginia

Fee Authorized.
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-123.4

Fee Authorized.
Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-131.2 & § 9.1-176.1

Washington

Fee Authorized.
Wash. Rev. Code. § 10.01.160

Fee Authorized.
Wash. Rev. Code. § 9.94A.704
Fee Authorized for Alcohol Monitoring.
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 46.61.5055
Fee Authorized with Certain Offenses.
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.94A.704 26.50.110

West Virginia

Fee Authorized.
W. Va. Code Ann. § 62-11B-5

Fee Authorized.
W. Va. Code Ann. § 15A-4-3 & § 62-11B-5.
Fee Authorized with Certain (Sex) Offenses.
W. Va. Code Ann. § 62-11D-3

Wisconsin

Fee Authorized.
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 969.02 & §. 969.03

Fee Authorized.
Wis. Stat. Ann. §. 302.425 & § 301.135

Wyoming

None Identified in Statute.

Intensive Supervision Fee Authorized.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1105 & § 14-6-309

* In Arizona, in addition to a lack of pretrial statutory authority to charge for EM, case law expressly holds that a county cannot shift the cost
of GPS monitoring to defendants awaiting trial. Hiskett v. Lambert, 451 P.3d 408 (AZ Ct. App. 2019).
† The New York Court of Appeals has held that, even when costs are not explicitly authorized by the statute, it is “understood as implicitly
necessary to satisfy the condition itself.” People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 630 (NY 2018).
** In 2020, Oregon amended its statutes to eliminate language that had previously permitted charging fees related to EM at any stage.
†† Although 1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 12-13-1.3 authorizes the use of EM pretrial through the department of corrections, 1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 42-5620.2 provides “a person committed, awaiting trial and not convicted, shall not be liable for the reimbursement.”

ffjc.us

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

County-Level Data
With the lack of clarity on fee amounts or limits at the statutory
level in most states, in practice, counties and municipalities
often have widely varying fees related to electronic monitoring.
To provide a small snapshot into the extent of these fees, we
conducted limited research into counties that list their EM fees
publicly on county, court, or supervisory agency websites.
Appendix B provides EM fee rates in select counties at the local
level during the pretrial stage, and appendix C provides EM fee
rates imposed at the post-sentencing stage. Neither is intended to
be an exhaustive list.

ffjc.us

Both charts include the jurisdiction that imposes the EM fee, the
amount, frequency, and the installation fee if it was provided on
the EM provider’s website. Some EM providers acknowledge that
participants are assessed a fee on a sliding scale based on their
income or household income but do not provide the ranges. A few
EM providers also differentiated the fees between different types
of electronic monitoring devices.
All information included in the chart below is current as of
August 9, 2022.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Appendix B

Pretrial County Level Data
STATE

JURISDICTION

FEE

FREQUENCY

INSTALLATION FEE

Alabama

Mobile Community Corrections Center

Per Day

$50

Kansas

Johnson County

$ 8-14

Per Day

New
Hampshire

Belknap County Pretrial Services

$10.50

Per Day/
Week

daily rental fee

$73.5
per week for
program fee

North
Carolina

Wake County's The ReEntry, Inc

$10

Per Day

$25

North Dakota

Mercer County: (24/7 Sobriety Program)

Per Day

$135

Pennsylvania

Adams City, PA

Per Day

South Dakota

Pennington County
(Pretrial 24/7 Sobriety program)

Per Day

Texas

Bexar County Pretrial Services

$270 for RF

Per Month

$300 for GPS
Virginia

City of Richmond

Sliding Scale

Per Day

Wisconsin

Chippewa County

$20 for GPS

Per Day

$26
for Alcohol
Monitoring

ffjc.us

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Appendix C

Post-Sentencing County Level Data
STATE

JURISDICTION

FEE

FREQUENCY

INSTALLATION FEE

Alabama

Mobile Community Corrections
Center

Per Day

$50

Alaska

Department of Corrections EM
Program

$14

Per Day

California

Fresno County, LA County

Sliding Scale

Colorado

La Plata County

$12

Per Day

$50

Florida

Miami Dade County

Per Day

$100

Idaho

Ada County

$25

Per Day

Illinois

Henry County

$40

Per Day

Iowa

Scott County Sheriff’s Office

$10

Per Day

Kansas

Johnson County

$8-$14

Per Day

Minnesota

Anoka County

$17

Per Day

Cass County’s Electronic Home
Monitoring program

$20

Per Day

New
Hampshire

Department of Corrections,
Strafford County

$5.50-$8.75

Per Day

New York

Suffolk County

Per Day

Clinton County

$5-$6

Per Day

ffjc.us

$250
+$60 for an intact
interview

or sliding fee

$25

paid upfront for
the anticipated
length of program

$25

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

STATE

JURISDICTION

FEE

FREQUENCY

INSTALLATION FEE

North
Dakota

Stutsman County

$13

Per Day

$50

Ohio

Bowling Green

$12

Oklahoma

Department of Corrections
probation/parole

$5.50

Per Day

“passive” monitoring

not to exceed
$300 per month

13.50

Fines & Fees Justice Center

$50

“active” monitoring

Oregon

Jackson County

Pennsylvania

Wyoming County

$11

Per Day

South
Carolina

Department of Corrections

$20

Per Week

South
Dakota

Minnehaha County

$15

Per day

up to $105

Utah

Utah County Sheriff Dept

$70

Per Week

$170

Virginia

City of Richmond

Sliding Scale

Per Day

Wisconsin

Washington County

$30

Per Day

ffjc.us

$30

Per Day

$30
application fee

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Endnotes
1

The Sentencing Project, Report to the United Nations on
Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System, April
19, 2018, https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/
un-report-on-racial-disparities/; Bailey Gray & Doug Smith,
Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door Between Incarceration
and Homelessness, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2019,
6, https://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/
Return%20to%20Nowhere%20The%20Revolving%20Door%20
Between%20Incarceration%20and%20Homelessness.pdf

2 The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Targeted Fines and Fees
Against Communities of Color, September 2017, https://www.usccr.
gov/files/pubs/2017/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf
3 The Pew Charitable Trusts, Use of Electronic Offender-Tracking
Devices Expands Sharply (Sept. 30, 2016). https://www.
pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2016/10/use_of_electronic_
offender_tracking_devices_expands_sharply.pdf
4 Bloomberg.com. “A Bigger Market for Electronic Ankle
Monitors,” (July 14, 2020). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2020-07-14/coronavirus-creates-big-market-forelectronic-ankle-monitors#xj4y7vzkg.
5 Though this analysis focuses on statutory authority and,
therefore, cannot capture all possible sources of authority for
imposing EM fees, the goal is to begin to analyze this complex
issue from a reasonable starting point and to educate readers
about how the legislative process affects EM fees.
6 For example, Johnson County, Kansas, charges individuals
$140 upfront if they are sentenced to 10 days or less, https://
www.jocogov.org/department/department-corrections/
adult-services/house-arrest; and Utah County, Utah, charges
participants $170 in advance for their first two weeks, https://
sheriff.utahcounty.gov/corrections/gps.
7 Ind. Code § 35-38-2.5-6 (6)(A)&(7); Wash. R.Crim.P. L-711.
8 Ala. Code § 15-20A-20; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-98-304,12-12-923;
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 46b-38c, 53a-30; Ga. Code Ann. §§
17-6-1.1A, 42-8-104; Idaho Code Ann. §§ 20-516A, 18-8008A,
20-225; 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/110-10(b)(14-14.3), & 730 Ill.
Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/5-8A-6; Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-31.5-2-78,
35-38-2.5-6, 11-10-11.5-12; Kan. Stat Ann. §§ 22-2802, 21-6609;
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 431.517, 403.761; LSA-R.S. 46:2143 & LA
C.Cr.P. Art. 320 & Art. 894.2; Md. Crim. Proc. § 5-201, Md. Corr.
Serv. §6-108; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 765.6b, 771.3c; Minn.
Stat. Ann. §§ 169A.44, 169A.277; Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 99-5-38,
47-7-5, 47-5-1011; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 544.455, 455.095, 557.011;
Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-9-108, 46-23-1031; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§§ 211.280, 211.280; N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 7A-313.1, 14-208.45;
N.D. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 12-67-03, 12-67-03; Ohio Rev. Code
§§ 2746.02, 5120-17-05, 2746.02; Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1105,
57-510.9; SDCL §§ 1-11-29, 24-8-9, SD ADC 17:61:01:12; Tenn.
Code Ann. §§ 40-11-152, 40-28-201; Tex. Crim. Pro. Art. Art.
17.43, Art. 42.035, Tex Local Govt. § 351.904; Utah Code Ann.
§§ 77-20-205, 77-18-107; Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.2-123.4, 53.1-131.2,
9.1-176.1; Wash. Rev. Code. §§ 10.01.160, 9.94A.704, 46.61.5055,
9.94A.704; W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 62-11B-5, 15A-4-3; Wis. Stat.
Ann. §§ 969.02, 969.03, 302.425, 301.135.

ffjc.us

9 Alaska Stat. Ann. § 33.30.065; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41-1604.13,
Colo. Rev Stat. Ann. § 18-1.3-106, Del. Code Ann § 4332; Fla. Stat.
Ann. § 947.1405; Iowa Code Ann. § 905.14; Maine §1753 & §1659A; MA ST 265, §47 & M.G.L.A. 127 § 133D 1/2; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 29-2262.04; Penn. 37 C.P.L. 705; 1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 42-5620.2 & 1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 12-13-1.3 ; SC Code § 24-21-85, and
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1105 & Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-309.
10 This number does not include Arizona, which does not prohibit
pretrial EM fees by statute but has case law prohibiting them in
practice. Hiskett v. Lambert, 451 P.3d 408 (AZ Ct. App. 2019).
11 Cal. Penal § 1208.2.
12 1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 42-56-20.2 & 1965 R.I. Gen. Law § 12-13-1.3.
13 Emma Anderson, Alyson Hurt, and Joseph Shapiro, “State-ByState Court Fees,” National Public Radio (May 19, 2014) (finding
EM fees being imposed in in practice every state except Hawaii
and the District of Columbia) available at https://www.npr.
org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-court-fees.
14 People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 630 (NY 2018) (Holding that,
because the legislature authorized SCRAM electronic alcohol
monitoring as a possible condition of probation, it implicitly
authorized courts to impose costs on defendants so that the
condition could be met.).
15 See appendix C.
16 For example, in California, initial legislation in 2020 removed
language that authorized local government boards to charge
fees for electronic monitoring but left it unclear whether private
companies could continue to do so. Subsequent legislation—
AB 199—which went into effect July 1, 2022, specifically
prohibited such fees, whether imposed by public or private
entities. Cal. Penal § 1208.2. Oregon’s code does not expressly
prohibit such fees.
17 See appendices C.
18 See appendices B & C.
19 Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Delaware,
Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming.
20 District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.
21 See e.g., Ala. Code § 15-20A-20; Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann § 53a30; LA C.Cr.P. Art. 894.2; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 771.3c &
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 791.225a; Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28201; TX CRIM PRO ART. 42.035.
22 See e.g., Kan. Stat Ann. § 22-2802 & Kan. Stat Ann. § 21-6609;
Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-107.

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

23 Ramsey County Community Corrections 2020-2021
Comprehensive Plan, Ramsey County Community Corrections,
2020, https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/Public%20
Safety%20and%20Law/2020-21%20Ramsey%20County%20
Community%20Corrections%20Comprehensive%20Plan.pdf;
Steele County Probation Services Fee Schedule, Steel County, last
visited June 24, 2022 https://www.steelecountymn.gov/divisions/
community_services/probation_services/fees.php; Cass County,
MN, Electronic Home Monitoring, last visited June 24, 2022 http://
www.co.cass.mn.us/government/county_directory/probation_
department/electronic_home_monitoring.php

33 The Fines and Fees Justice Center, End Fees, Discharge
Debt, Fairly Fund Government: FFJC Policy Guidance for
Eliminating Criminal Legal System Fees and Discharging Debt,
January 2022, https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/
uploads/2022/01/FFJC-Policy-Guidance-Fee-Elimination-1.13.22.
pdf; Bailey Gray & Doug Smith, Return to Nowhere: The
Revolving Door Between Incarceration and Homelessness,
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2019, 6, https://www.texascjc.
org/system/files/publications/Return%20to%20Nowhere%20
The%20Revolving%20Door%20Between%20Incarceration%20
and%20Homelessness.pdf.

24 Chippewa County, Wisconsin, Jail Fees webpage, last visited
June 8, 2022 https://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/government/
sheriff/county-jail/jail-fees#:~:text=Home%20Detention%20
Fees,Track%20is%20%2426%20per%20day.

34 Mack Finkel, “New data: Low incomes—but high fees—for
people on probation,” Prison Policy Initiative, April 2019, https://
www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/04/09/probation_income/.

25 Henry County, Illinois, Electronic Monitoring/GPS, last visited
June 8, 2022, https://www.henrycty.com/FAQ.aspx?TID=26;
Fresno County, California, Electronic Monitoring FAQ, last
visited June 8, 2022, https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/
probation/adult-services/adult-offender-work-program/workfurlough-faq.
26 City of Richmond, Virginia, Home Electronic Monitoring (HEM),
last visited June 8, 2022, https://www.rva.gov/justice-services/
home-electronic-monitoring-hem; Fresno County, California,
Electronic Monitoring FAQ, last visited June 8, 2022, https://
www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/probation/adult-services/
adult-offender-work-program/work-furlough-faq.
27 Scott County Sheriff’s Office, Electronic Monitoring Program,
https://www.scottcountyiowa.gov/sheriff/jail/programs/
electronic-monitoring; stutsman County Correctional Center,
Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) Program - Stutsman County,
last visited June 8, 2022, https://www.stutsmancounty.gov/
departments/correctional-center/ehm/

Fines & Fees Justice Center

35 Ebony Ruhland, “It’s all about the money: an exploration
of probation fees,” Corrections, 6:1, 65-84, DOI:
10.1080/23774657.2018.1564635, (2021).
36 See e.g., Fla. St. Ann. § 948.09; Ga. Code § 42-8-104; LA C.Cr.P.
Art. 894.2; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57 §57-510.9.
37 Alabama Appleseed et. al., Under Pressure: How Fines Hurt
People, Undermine Public Safety, and Drive Alabama’s Racial
Wealth Divide, 4, Alabama Appleseed (2018), https://www.
alabamaappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AA1240FinesandFees-10-10-FINAL.pdf.
38 Brian J. Ostrom et al. National Center For State Courts. Timely
Justice In Criminal Cases: What The Data Tells Us, National
Center For State Courts, (2021) https://cdm16501.contentdm.
oclc.org/digital/collection/criminal/id/352
39 Equal Justice Initiative, “Defendants Driven into Debt by Fees
for Ankle Monitors from Private Companies,” (July 23, 2019)
https://eji.org/news/defendants-driven-into-debt-by-fees-forankle-monitors/

28 Jackson County Community Justice, “Home Detention,” last
visited July 13, 2022, https://jacksoncountyor.org/communityjustice/Adult-Services/Home-Detention

40 Equal Justice Initiative,”Defendants Driven into Debt by Fees for
Ankle Monitors from Private Companies, July 2019 https://eji.org/
news/defendants-driven-into-debt-by-fees-for-ankle-monitors/

29 In California, AB 199 amended Cal. Penal Code 1208.2,
effective July 1, 2022.

41 Ebony Ruhland, “It’s all about the money: an exploration
of probation fees,” Corrections, 6:1, 65-84, DOI:
10.1080/23774657.2018.1564635, (2021).

30 Fresno County, Electronic Monitoring FAQ, last visited July
14, 2022 https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/probation/
adult-services/adult-offender-work-program/work-furlough-faq;
County of Los Angeles Probation, Adult Probation FAQs, last
visited July 14, 2022, https://probation.lacounty.gov/adultprobation-faqs/#electronicMonitoringTab.
31 Alert, Inc. Home Detention in West Virginia webpage, last
visited, July 14, 2022: https://www.alertinc.info/house-arrestwest-virgina.html.
32 Sheriff’s Office Annual Report 2019, Fairfax County, VA, 64,
(claiming Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-131.2 requires participants to
pay for EM), https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/sheriff/sheriffsoffice-annual-report-2019 (last visited July 14, 2022). In reality,
Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-131.2 only requires participants to pay for
damaged or unreturned equipment and provides simply that
“[t]he director or administrator of a home/electronic
incarceration program may charge the offender or accused a
fee for participating in the program.” (emphasis added).

ffjc.us

42 Kate Weisburd, “Punitive Surveillance,” Virginia Law Review
Association Vol. 108:147. March 22, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3808657.
43 See Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). “Can electronic
monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders?”
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 215–237. (“Given
its continued and widespread use and the dearth of reliable
information about its effects, the authors conclude that
applications of EM as a tool for reducing crime are not supported
by existing data.”) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-1615-1
44 Jyoti Belur et. al, “A systematic review of the effectiveness of
the electronic monitoring of offenders,” Journal of Criminal
Justice, 33-34, (May 2020) https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/abs/pii/S004723522030026X.
45 See, e.g., Kate Weisburd et al, “Electronic Prisons: The
Operation of Ankle Monitoring in the Criminal Legal System
(2021). GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2021-41, GWU

50-State Survey: Electronic Monitoring Fees

Fines & Fees Justice Center

Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2021-41, Available
at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3930296; James Kilgore,
Understanding E-carceration: Electronic Monitoring, the
Surveillance State, and the Future of Mass Incarceration (New
York: The New Press, 2022).
46 James Kilgore, Electronic Monitoring Is Not the Answer:
Critical reflections on a flawed alternative, Urbana-Champaign
Independent Media Center (October 2015) https://www.
academia.edu/25362727/Electronic_Monitoring_Is_Not_the_
Answer_Critical_reflections_on_a_flawed_alternative.
47 Equal Justice Initiative, “Defendants Driven into Debt by Fees
for Ankle Monitors from Private Companies,” (July 23, 2019)
https://eji.org/news/defendants-driven-into-debt-by-fees-forankle-monitors/
48 Amy Cross, et al, Reducing the overrepresentation of Black
people in the jail population and criminal justice system more
broadly, Vera Institute of Justice (May 2020). https://www.vera.
org/jail-incarceration-in-wayne-county-michigan/reducing-theoverrepresentation-of-black-people-in-the-jail-population-andcriminal-justice-system-more-broadly.
49 The Sentencing Project, Report to the United Nations on Racial
Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System, The Sentencing
Project (April 2018) https://www.sentencingproject.org/
publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/.
50 The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Targeted Fines and Fees
Against Communities of Color, (September 2017), https://www.
usccr.gov/files/pubs/2017/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf.
51 See e.g., 22 OK Stat § 1105.2; NM § 31-21-13.1; UT 77-18-107;
52 See e.g., AZ ST § 41-1604.13; IC 35-38-2.5-8; NH ST § 504-A:13;
53 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 948.11, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 948.09, & Fla. Stat. Ann. §
947.1405;Minn. Stat. Ann. § 241.272, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 244.18, &
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 241.272; and RI ST § 42-56-20.2 & 42-56-38.
54 See e.g., Ark. Code Ann. §; Idaho Code Ann. § 31-3201J; Idaho
Code Ann. § 31-3201D; 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/110-10(b)
(14.2); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-2.5-8: VA Code Ann § 9.1-182.
55 See e.g., GA Code § 17-6-1.1A; MD CRIM PROC § 5-201.
56 James Kilgore, “Electronic Monitoring: Some Causes for
Concern,” Prison Legal News, (March 15, 2012) https://www.
prisonlegalnews.org/news/2012/mar/15/electronic-monitoringsome-causes-for-concern/.
57 Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983).
58 Ram Subramanian et al., Revenue Over Public Safety: How
Perverse Financial Incentives Warp the Criminal Justice
System, Brennan Center for Justice, 14, (July 16, 2022).
59 See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-915; Ga. Code Ann. § 42-8102 & Ga. Code Ann. § 42-8-34; Idaho Code Ann. § 20-225.
60 See e.g., Idaho Code Ann. § 31-3201J.
61 Paul Mackun, Joshua Comenetz, and Lindsay Spell, “Around
Four-Fifths of All U.S. Metro Areas Grew Between 2010 and 2020,”
(August 12, 2021), United States Census Bureau website, https://
www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/more-than-half-of-unitedstates-counties-were-smaller-in-2020-than-in-2010.html.

ffjc.us