The Limits of Home Detention
Rape Case Raises Flag About Safety of Private Supervision
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 2 1997; Page A01
The Washington Post
Without planning or public debate, judges across Maryland gradually have
entrusted the supervision of hundreds of convicts and criminal suspects to a
small group of unregulated private businesses that run electronic home
detention programs.
Born in Prince George's and Montgomery counties eight years ago, these
little-noted companies have since expanded into much of the rest of the
state and now supervise a significant share of the people under home
detention in Maryland.
Their services became popular with defense attorneys and judges as
government-run home detention programs filled up, and today the firms
supervise at least several hundred detainees statewide.
Like the state and county programs, these private home detention firms use
electronic technology to help supervise detainees. But the companies are not
held to minimum standards by the government, and, as a result, suspects can
shop around for the firm that will impose the least burdensome restrictions
and request that firm from a judge.
Some of the defendants enrolled in these programs are charged with violent
crimes, but no one knows how many. Nor does any government agency keep track
of how often criminals in these privately run programs escape or commit
crimes while in custody.
"I don't want to throw any stones, but I can't understand why somebody isn't
looking over their shoulders," said Maj. Henry Colavita, who heads the
community corrections division in Fairfax County. "It's a real public safety
concern."
In effect, the courts have transferred a segment of the prisoner population
into the custody of private business people. These entrepreneurs acknowledge
a potential conflict of interest: Rejecting a risky applicant or catching a
detainee in violation of the rules and reporting it means losing a client --
and money.
In home detention programs, which began in the area 11 years ago, state
judges have discretion to order people awaiting trial to remain in their
homes rather than in jail. Judges also may sentence convicts to serve their
time that way. Detainees wear ankle bracelets that signal authorities every
time they leave home or tamper with the devices, and they usually are
permitted out of the house to work if they have jobs.
The shift toward private home detention occurred so slowly and so quietly
that elected officials and policymakers were left behind. Now, the arrest of
a Suitland man who police say assaulted six women while under the
supervision of a private detention company has placed the entire system
under scrutiny. Even the companies themselves say adequate safeguards are
not in place to protect the public.
District Court Judge Theresa Nolan, one of the judges involved in releasing
the man now accused of rape into home detention, said the incident has
forced officials to reexamine the use of private detention firms.
"We do need alternatives to jail, and these companies stepped in because
there was a need," she said. "But I think all the judges on my bench are
amazed that there's such a low degree of control."
State and local corrections officials insist they are not responsible for
making sure private home detention businesses adequately supervise their
clients. Leonard Sipes, a spokesman for the state corrections department,
said the department doesn't have the authority to do so under Maryland law.
The home detention firms -- there at least seven of them -- don't even need
a permit to do business. They operate without formal contracts with local
governments, instead taking on clients on a case-by-case basis from
individual judges.
They charge clients $250 or more per month, the government nothing. These
entrepreneurs, and the judges who work with them, say they save taxpayers
money, ease jail crowding and help people eligible for home detention but
facing long waits for spots in government-run programs.
"You've got jails busting at the seams, and people don't want to pay for
more jails. But we don't cost the taxpayers a thing," said Pat Godhard, a
former parole agent and co-owner of Home Tracking in Upper Marlboro. "We're
trying to provide a valuable service and make some money, but we're also
trying to help these people."
Local governments began experimenting with electronic home detention more
than a decade ago. Prince George's County introduced it to the Washington
area in 1986, touting it as a cheaper alternative to jail for nonviolent
offenders.
Today, Prince George's judges place more people into home detention than
judges do in the rest of the Washington area combined, and they routinely
order violent suspects into the programs before trial. The county government
monitors about 70 nonviolent offenders sentenced to home detention and an
additional 35 suspects awaiting trial for violent crimes. But the private
detention companies estimate they monitor at least 100 other convicts and
defendants in Prince George's.
Montgomery County corrections officials said they monitor about 25 people in
home detention, mostly nonviolent offenders, and private firms indicate they
have as many as 50 in their custody.
Statewide, the companies say, judges in Baltimore and at least 17 of the
state's 23 counties have used their services, sometimes because their local
jails don't offer a home detention option.
"In these austere times, we want to save as much money as we can and still
maintain public safety," said William D. Missouri, administrative judge of
the Prince George's Circuit Court. "It's at the judge's discretion whether
to use these companies. If you asked me, I would do it when the individual
can afford it and when the charge isn't a crime of violence."
Critics said the recent case of Brian Lamont Sowell, who is accused of the
rapes in Prince George's, illustrates weaknesses in the system.
Police said Sowell, 24, raped four women and robbed two others while under
the supervision of a private home detention company. Although he had served
five years in prison for stabbing and trying to rape one of his high school
teachers, the courts let him into home detention while awaiting trial on a
charge of armed robbery.
Judge Nolan decided to give county corrections officials the option of
placing him in their home detention program, but Sowell then asked another
judge to put him in a privately run program. Douglas Wood, Sowell's
attorney, assured District Court Judge Gerard Devlin that the program run by
Monitoring Services Inc., a firm that opened in Upper Marlboro in September,
was as safe as the county's tracking program.
Devlin granted the request over the objections of prosecutors, who routinely
oppose the release of violent offenders. But the judge said in an interview
that he had erroneously assumed the private programs were equivalent to the
county's system.
Trena Wagner, president of Monitoring Services, said she did not conduct a
background check before accepting Sowell but relied instead on the court's
judgment and information provided by Sowell's attorney.
Because it is so hard to make a profit, the firms almost always take
whatever clients they can get: usually, people referred to them by defense
attorneys and, sometimes, suspects the county considers too risky for home
detention.
"They're leaving the private services fighting for the difficult cases
because they don't give us access to the larger pool," said Gary Reiner,
president of Electronic Monitoring Services in Rockville. "It's not in our
interest to be taking on the more dangerous offenders, and we shouldn't be
placed in that position."
Reiner said a case such as Sowell's was bound to occur eventually and force
public officials to address the issue. "I've been saying to the state
agencies for 10 years: Please work more closely with me so I can do things
more appropriately," he said.
Although the firms acknowledge there is an economic incentive to be lenient
with detainees who break the rules, they insist they regularly remove
clients from their programs and return them to jail.
Judges agree that sending suspects back to jail happens often, but it is
impossible to say how often because the firms' records are not public.
"In the private industry, the bottom line is this: If you don't do your job
right, something will happen, and you won't be in business for long," said
Charlene Dunn, a lawyer who runs Alternative Correctional Concepts, a
private detention service in Baltimore.
Detention professionals in both public and private sectors said what
happened in the Sowell case could happen in any monitoring program. They
said all home detention programs carry risks because they release inmates
into the general population. The technology tells officials only whether a
detainee is home, not what he or she is doing when out.
Still, such programs can minimize the risks. They can inspect timecards from
detainees' employers. They can conduct drug tests and home inspections. They
can also call employers every day to make sure detainees are showing up and
leaving work on time.
Neither the county nor the private firms use all those safeguards for all
their detainees. The private firms use their own guidelines, and there is no
way to tell how closely they watch their clients.
John Kent, director of Home Confinement Services in Rockville, one of the
oldest and largest such companies in the state, said he is convinced some of
his competitors are not monitoring their clients as closely as he is. And he
said he has lost clients to other firms because his program was strict.
Kent and many of his competitors said the chief judges in each county need
to set minimum standards for detention companies and establish a mechanism
for ensuring that the firms are in compliance.
"If we were all playing on a level field, then that would be great for us
and great for the public," he said.
Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
This information is passed along for non-profit research purposes only.
Be PART of the solution -- People Against Racist Terror/Bx 1055/Culver
City CA 90232-1055/310-288-5003/Order our journal: "Turning the Tide.
]]>
