With the recent deaths of French Quarter tour guide Kristie Thibodeaux and 15-year-old Jvoine Elow Jr., New Orleans’ juvenile electronic monitoring program is facing unprecedented scrutiny given its small size. The city is proposing an additional $2 million dollars in spending to expand the program from its current level of ~20 kids to 200, and to add live monitoring for all participants. LCCR is concerned that this robust and costly expansion will do little to address current deficiencies. Further, we believe adding constant surveillance will result in worse outcomes for both child users and public safety as a whole.
Malfunctions and errors are endemic to the monitors used by our kids. According to LCCR social worker Keva Martin, kids’ monitors frequently lose signal or ping a child’s location several blocks away from their actual location. In one instance, a child was arrested after visiting his grandmother’s house, which the monitor flagged because the home wasn’t yet on the list of approved locations. Says LCCR staff attorney Sam Marrone: “we treat these monitors as if they are infallible, they’re not.” She told us about one of her clients who had to address over 50 violations in court because every time he went into his backyard (where he was allowed to be), it said his location was on the opposite street behind his home. Every alert, real or not, results in deeper legal system involvement.
The social effects and the burden of monitoring also have negative effects on program participants. LCCR youth advocate Curry Isaac shared how kids often face bullying at school for having the monitors; he says some are excluded from school sports and clubs, as the monitors are considered a distraction. He further shared that kids struggle to shower with the monitors on, as one wrong move can cause the devices to short out.
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry recently signed a law that requires every alert from ankle monitor devices, for youth and adults, to be reported to the police. These alerts include losses of signal, monitors that run out of battery, and false alarms, along with real alerts for purposeful noncompliance. We’ve seen the results of this kind of policy in Florida, where the police in one city were inundated with so many alert reports that they were unable to respond them all. Tragically, this resulted in three preventable murders.
We have repeatedly seen that reactive policymaking in response to high profile crimes rarely solves systemic issues within the legal system. In fact, quite the opposite—it typically results in newer problems. This is exactly what we anticipate with a rapid and costly expansion of New Orleans juvenile monitoring and surveillance system.
If we wish to spend tax dollars on short-term solutions, we would be better served by focusing on fixing malfunctioning monitoring equipment; addressing our Risk Assessment Instrument scoring system to increase transparency and reduce bias; and investing more heavily in diversion programs.
Of course, the most effective solution to lowering crime long term is to invest in our poorer communities—housing, healthcare, education, employment, general infrastructure. A well-resourced and healthy community always yields lower crime rates. We at LCCR want what everyone wants: safe and equitable communities. Sadly, the city’s proposed increase in monitoring funding and legal oversight will do little to accomplish that.
