A study conducted by nonprofit research organization RAND Corp. has found that RFID deployments in correctional facilities require considerable customization to each prison’s unique needs and infrastructure. According to the report, failure to properly anticipate infrastructure installation challenges, as well as the need for proper funding and training for staff members, can delay installations or render the system ineffective. The study, titled “Tracking Inmates and Locating Staff with Active Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID): Early Lessons Learned in One U.S. Correctional Facility,” was conducted by the RAND Corp., with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice‘s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) division. Researchers took a two-pronged approach: determining how many RFID installations were actually in use in U.S. prisons, and studying the installation process in one correctional institution.
The study, posted this summer on the Web site of the DOJ’s National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), follows a previous NIJ-sponsored study, “Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assaults in a Correctional Setting.” Published in October 2009 by the Urban Institute, that study examined the use of RFID at the Northeast Pre-Release Center (NEPRC), a dormitory-style prison located in Cleveland, Ohio, as well as the technology’s impact on inmates’ behavior, such as whether it prevented instances of assault, theft or other prohibited acts.
The study found that because the system had experienced technical difficulties during the year following its installation, and because the staff had been insufficiently trained in the solution’s use, it was ineffective in deterring prohibited behavior. And while NEPRC employed the RFID data to some degree during investigations of incidents that occurred at the prison, the Urban Institute’s researchers determined that RFID evidence did not reduce the number of cases closed due to insufficient evidence.
Those problems have since been rectified, however, says Sean Bannerman, an NEPRC corrections officer who manages the system. With direct assistance from the system’s provider, Elmo-Tech, and several years of maintenance and “fine-tuning,” the system now enables Bannerman and his fellow officers to know where every inmate or staff member is and has been on the campus at any given time.
When it comes to RFID-enabled people-tracking installations in prisons nationwide, RAND researchers found—through Internet research and speaking with vendors—that there were 14 such systems installed by 2009, all of which were provided by either TSI Prism or Elmo-Tech. Three were used to track employees, five to track inmates and six to track both.
The RAND study focused on the Central Detention Facility (CDF), operated by the Washington, D.C., Department of Corrections (DC DOC). The researchers followed the installation process, observing multiple unexpected changes based on the building’s structure and the prison officials’ requests. The various ways in which the system needed to be used made the installation more challenging. “What appeared to us is that this is not a technology you can take out of a box and expect it to work,” says Laura Hickman, the study’s coauthor, a RAND adjunct behavioral scientist and the associate director of Portland State University‘s Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute.
CDF had been seeking an RFID solution that would help the facility track the locations of 1,900 inmates, as well as assist in finding the closest of the prison’s 700 officers in the event of an emergency. Soon after DC DOC officials selected a vendor in June 2008, the process of planning and installing the system began, lasting until late summer 2009.
Approximately 12 months after the department had signed a contract with the system’s provider, TSI Prism, researchers visited the site, at which time the actual installation of software and equipment had been well underway.
The system includes a tamper-resistant wrist or ankle band containing a 915 MHz active RFID tag that transmits a unique ID number every two seconds. Such a bracelet was provided to each inmate during the jail-booking process, the ID number of which was linked to each specific inmate in the RFID system software, which shared data with the jail’s information-management system. The bracelet locks around the inmate’s ankle or wrist so that any attempt to remove it will cause the transponder to transmit an alert. The band is removed from each inmate upon discharge. Each correctional officer would also be required to wear an RFID tag on his belt, to identify that individual’s location and to send alerts in the case of an emergency.
The facility built its own correctional surveillance center, where CDF’s staff could monitor the RFID system, along with the jail’s closed-circuit television surveillance network and any telephone calls the prisoners made using the prison’s telecommunications system. The cost was $3.3 million to install the TSI Prism system, as well as $42,000 for staff training and $60,000 in overtime expenses. Maintenance and support for the system are expected to cost $194,000 annually. RFID readers were installed in the 18 housing units in such a way as to provide full coverage of the entire area. CDF’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment.
The design phase took longer than anticipated, Hickman says, due to the variety of construction materials and floor-space layouts of the facility’s 18 housing units, which were constructed at various times. In addition, CDF had been seeking location granularity within 2 to 5 feet indoors (and within 10 to 15 feet outdoors). Because the initial design did not meet that level of accuracy, a series of tests and modifications were required. According to the study, these types of delays could have been avoided, in part, if prison officials had clearly identified their objectives and expressed them to TSI Prism beforehand.
The study also found that when prisons launch such a system, it is important that staff members receive adequate training and education from the vendor or management, so that they learn how to use the system, make changes in the alert-response protocol and analyze the data. The researchers recommend a pilot of the technology whenever possible, Hickman says, in order to help the users understand how the system can be utilized most effectively, and to teach employees how to access and understand data regarding the inmates’ current and previous locations—for investigative purposes, for example.
One shortcoming to the study, however, was its lack of data about an RFID system after it is installed. Because the research ended at the time that CDF’s installation was being completed, the team was unable to review how well the system provided the information the facility expected to receive.
However, the RAND researchers assert, the benefits offered by an RFID system, when used properly, are significant. For example, an RFID system could be employed to automate the process of restricting specific inmates from visiting particular locations or prisoners, so that alerts would sound if known enemies were to come into the proximity of a restricted cellblock, or of an individual inmate. This would help protect prisoners with enemies in the facility from being harmed.
In the case of NEPRC, which houses approximately 580 minimum- and medium-security adult female inmates, two problems affected the early performance of Elmo-Tech’s Trace system: RFID readers weren’t installed in such a way that they could provide coverage of the entire facility, and thus did not provide a full head count of every inmate, or identify prisoners’ locations at all times; and the system experienced technical problems and was, therefore, inoperable for an extended period of time during the research period. Currently, the prison continues to use the Trace system to track the locations of the inmates, who wear RFID-enabled ankle bracelets.
After NEPRC experienced initial shortcomings from the installation, Elmo-Tech took over integration responsibility from the third-party Minnesota-based integrator that had originally installed the system, and offered two years of free maintenance support to make the solution effective, says Raymond Vintilla, Elmo-Tech’s regional sales representative in charge of Trace sales. For installations in correctional facilities, Vintilla indicates, “there’s a lot of fine-tuning that’s required,” and in the case of NEPRC, which has now purchased a maintenance contract with Elmo-Tech, the technology now works well.
In 2008, the firm removed the readers and reinstalled them in such a way that the system could define zones, based on each reader’s location. The solution now provides full coverage of the entire campus, Bannerman says, with the software displaying not only the building in which particular inmates and staff members are located, but also the exact room. For even greater granularity, Vintilla says—such as knowing when specific inmates are in contact with each other—the facility would need to install additional readers.
For correctional facilities, Vintilla notes, “this technology is always in transition because the customization element is endless.” In fact, Bannerman says he hopes to make several changes to the system in the future, including allowing it to transmit a page if two inmates come within unauthorized proximity of each other. The system has also helped him catch thieves, he says, citing an incident in which an inmate’s new shoes were stolen and he could determine who had been in the vicinity at the time, as well as where the perpetrator (who had taken the footwear to another building) had then gone. The system has prompted a greater number of confessions from inmates, and also deters unauthorized movement, he says, adding, “I love it.”
The lesson learned from NEPRC’s RFID installation, the study found, was that users should ensure that they have sufficient resources to support the full implementation of all of the system’s capabilities, and adequately train staff members on the technology’s use.
The study determined that RFID use in corrections facilities can help confirm head counts, as well as serve as a way to issue alerts if an inmate attempts to leave his or her permitted perimeter. If used properly, the system’s software can also enable more sophisticated applications, such as those described by Bannerman. In addition to employing the technology to monitor whether an inmate attempts to enter unauthorized areas, and provide warnings if specific prisoners get too close to certain other inmates, the prison’s management could utilize the RFID software, for example, to track whether inmates have been through the cafeteria line. This can help officials monitor the diets of diabetic inmates, for instance, or prevent prisoners from “doubling back” for a second serving. RFID could also be used to investigate assaults, by pinpointing which inmates were at the location where an assault took place.
Initially, during the months immediately following installation, when the RFID system had not been working properly at NEPRC, the number of charges for violent offenses, including fighting and physical assaults, increased from five offenses per month during the pre-implementation period to eight post-deployment. In a survey of 89 inmates, conducted by Urban Institute’s researchers, most respondents said they did not feel that the system reduced the amount of privacy they had at the facility. More than 80 percent of those surveyed reported that correctional officers were not more aware of inmates’ locations or activities than they were prior to implementation, while many respondents (44 percent) didn’t think the transponders worked, or were even being used.
“The most that we can conclude from this present evaluation is that, when used in its most basic capacity as a perimeter-control device, RFID technology does not deter inmates from committing either violent and nonviolent acts of misconduct and may indeed increase violence in the short run,” the researchers wrote in their report. “If, however, the system is used in its full capacity, RFID technology may well reduce sexual assault, related violence, and other prohibited acts in prison settings by increasing inmates’ perceived risks of detection. These effects, however, will be short-lived if the system is not operable or is not being used appropriately by staff.”
Going forward, Vintilla says, Elmo-Tech will typically play a role following an installation, which is to make necessary adjustments to optimize levels of resolution and areas of tracking. Maintenance contracts, he adds, are critical in most installations.