In a recent expansion of its juvenile justice system, Philadelphia has increasingly relied on GPS-equipped ankle monitors, which local teens refer to as being “on the band.”
This surveillance initiative is notably more extensive than similar programs in any other U.S. city, prompting concerns about privacy and the treatment of youth in the system.
City officials present the program as a reasonable alternative to costly detention facilities that have been criticized for abuse and for contributing to greater recidivism rates.
However, an investigation by The Inquirer into Philadelphia’s monitoring practices reveals significant issues, including a lack of transparency regarding data sharing with law enforcement agencies.
According to experts in civil rights and juvenile justice, the practices in place may violate state confidentiality rules as well as constitutional protections against unwarranted searches—a troubling prospect for the nearly one-third of monitored teens who are not adjudicated delinquent and are presumed innocent.
Marsha Levick, chief legal officer of the Juvenile Law Center, emphasized the excessive invasion of privacy represented by these practices.
Nicole El, head of the children and youth justice unit at the Defender Association of Philadelphia, raised alarms about the volumes of youth subjected to GPS monitoring, particularly first-time offenders and those with serious mental health issues.
The criteria for placement on GPS have blurred significantly, now appearing to default to the use of surveillance for nearly all released from detention.
Court spokesperson Martin O’Rourke stated that the effectiveness of the GPS program is assessed based on compliance with probation conditions, but did not provide specific data on successful program completions.
The only publicly available document governing data sharing, a 2020 memorandum of understanding, was signed by then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro and addresses information sharing for investigations involving gun violence.
However, data sharing practices have expanded significantly beyond the original task force, including connections to multiple law enforcement agencies, contrary to guidelines restricting third-party access to juvenile probation records.
In responding to crime occurrences, probation officials proactively analyze the GPS data of monitored teens without waiting for warrants or establishing probable cause, leading to a troubling dynamic of surveillance.
In 2023, the GPS unit referred ten teens for investigation based solely on their proximity to carjackings, highlighting the potential for wrongful accusations based on insufficient evidence.
Moreover, the court does not inform teens—or their guardians—of the possibility that location data may be shared with unrelated criminal investigations, raising ethical and legal concerns about informed consent.
Defense attorneys discovered this data-sharing practice only in late 2023, leading to a motion for contempt against a juvenile probation officer for providing location data without appropriate legal protocols.
As part of its budgetary request, the city has dramatically increased spending on GPS monitoring, leasing an increasing number of devices each year in the belief that it is preferable for juveniles to remain in their communities rather than in detention.
Despite a nationwide decline in juvenile crime, advocacy groups are urging the City Council to critically assess the implications of expanded monitoring practices before approving additional funding.
Notably, Philadelphia’s lease of GPS monitors has surged from 155 in 2011 to 400 today, generating significant financial expenditure that some viewers characterize as an alarming trend.
The contract with Track Group, the company providing the monitors, includes mechanisms for tracking locations every five minutes, alongside features that enable a probation officer to communicate directly with the juvenile through the device at any time.
Detention rates have decreased only slightly, while the number of juveniles under GPS monitoring has risen dramatically, suggesting a shift towards surveillance rather than rehabilitation.
The average duration that juveniles are monitored has seen an uptick as well, with a recent uptick in the average period spent on GPS increasing to 68 days.
Critics argue that youth often find themselves subject to monitoring for minor offenses or even charges that are later dropped.
One case involved a girl with significant mental health issues placed on a monitor for an assault at a specialized educational institution; complications ensued due to her inability to understand GPS rules.
This raises critical questions about the ability of the juvenile justice system to adequately address the needs of young people with mental health challenges.
For some juveniles, being placed on GPS monitoring can lead to further violations, with a troubling number ending up in detention because of infractions related to their probation.
Judges can enforce strict measures, making disciplinary actions severe even for minor violations, leading to excessively prolonged sentences for infractions that may not warrant such measures.
Additionally, a system of investigative oversight was forged under the former Attorney General’s collaboration with local police agencies, similarly contributing to the existing concerns about joint intelligence sharing without due process.
Without the necessity for warrants or probable cause, law enforcement can access juvenile GPS data under the purported justification of addressing urgent public safety issues, reflecting a shift in oversight priorities toward policing instead of rehabilitation.
The use of GPS monitoring has also led to questions about broader implications surrounding predictive policing without appropriate legal boundaries, raising concerns in light of U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding Fourth Amendment protections.
Experts critical of the expansion of youth surveillance caution against this trend, with calls for more scrutiny of how monitoring impacts recidivism rates, mental well-being, and educational outcomes for affected young individuals.
A comprehensive review of studies highlights the lack of data supporting the effectiveness of GPS monitoring, as research suggests that electronic tracking yields no significant improvements over traditional house arrest arrangements.
Further analysis indicates higher recidivism rates among juveniles subjected to monitoring compared to their peers not under electronic constraints.
As raised by various sources, Philadelphia faces a worrying trend, with an overall six-year recidivism rate of 57% and a staggering 80% rate for individuals with multiple arrests.
Interviews conducted with teens who had been monitored highlighted the mental health toll associated with being tracked, with many expressing feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness.
All participants recounted experiences of false alarms that impacted their daily lives, often leading to conflicts with probation officers and stress regarding additional violations.
Educators reported dropping engagement as youth wearing monitors struggled with attendance and participation, further impeding their educational progress.
Teens and their guardians expressed mixed feelings about the GPS systems; while some parents found reassurance in knowing their child’s location, others viewed ongoing arrests and violations as evidence of broader systemic failures.
Support programs, such as the Evening Reporting Center that caters to monitored youth, provide constructive opportunities for personal growth despite the pervasive challenge of systemic barriers within the juvenile justice system.
Ultimately, though some find accountability through programming, unanswered needs for basic resources persist, affecting the level of trust and dialogue between teens and the system.
As Philadelphia grapples with the moral and legal implications of its surveillance policies, the community will need to confront the balance between public safety and the rights and welfare of its youths.
This investigation raises complex questions about how the juvenile justice system addresses the needs of minors while respecting fundamental civil rights.
image source from：https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/a/juvenile-electronic-monitoring-gps-track-group-20250513.html
