Maryland’s Department of Juvenile Services provided clarity this week about how many young people are under its supervision via ankle monitors.
Currently, DJS uses ankle monitors in a variety of ways. Some kids get an ankle monitor before adjudication, and sometimes they get it after. But there’s a difference between community detention electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring, and until Thursday, DJS hasn’t provided the difference in data points.
As of Oct. 24, there are 105 juveniles on electronic monitoring statewide, according to DJS; there are 118 juveniles on GPS monitoring. That means there are 223 juveniles in Maryland wearing an ankle monitor, under DJS supervision.
When asked why the agency has never made it clear there are different types of ankle monitors, DJS Deputy Secretary for Community Services Lisa Garry said it was not the intention of the department to mislead.
“I think we can do a much better job educating about who the kids are on the various levels of supervision, why they are on those levels of supervision, and what we do in response to providing supervision,” Garry told FOX45 News. “We haven’t really taught the public as well as I wish we could. We are working on that now.”
The ankle monitors for electronic monitoring and GPS monitors are similar devices, according to Baltimore-area defense attorney Jeremy Eldridge. A GPS monitor provides specific details about where the person wearing it is, and the location can be pinpointed. Electronic monitoring allows for geofencing, Eldridge said.
Geofencing creates a virtual geographic boundary, enabling software to trigger a response when a device leaves or enters a particular area.
“Can the child go to school? We know the child is at school. Can the child go home? We know the child is at home,” Eldridge explained. “These two things can be used to restrict movement of a juvenile.”
During a previous interview with FOX45 News, DJS Secretary Vincent Schiraldi touted the effectiveness of ankle monitors, noting there is a 94.6% success rate, according to the latest statistics.
However, Eldridge pointed to the number of instances that have been reported of young people committing crimes while wearing ankle monitors. The ankle monitor has to be functional, there has to be someone watching the movement and compliance of the juvenile wearing the monitor, and the court system must be engaged to work to bring the juvenile back in compliance for the whole system to be considered successful, Eldridge said.
When asked about the examples of young people seemingly not viewing ankle monitors as a deterrent for more crime, Schiraldi said the statistics prove otherwise.
“They are working 94.6% of the time, so 19 out of 20 times. I don’t think that’s a catch and release policy,” Schiraldi said. “Most of the time, but not all of the time because nothing is 100%, they don’t re-offend.”
Follow Political Reporter Mikenzie Frost on X and Facebook. Send tips to mbfrost@sbgtv.com.