WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 547

A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study on the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration in this Commonwealth and to report its findings and recommendations to the House of Representatives.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tim Bonner and 28 co-sponsors

Pennsylvania will commission a formal LBFC study to evaluate electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration, assessing effectiveness, safety, costs, rights, equity, and g

Adopted
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 547

Overview

  • Bill: HR 547
  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
  • Type: Resolution directing a study
  • Principal aim: Commission the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) to conduct a study on the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration in Pennsylvania, and to report findings and recommendations to the House of Representatives.

Purpose and intent

  • The resolution requests a comprehensive assessment of electronic monitoring (EM) as an alternative to incarceration within the Commonwealth.
  • The goal is to determine whether EM can reduce reliance on incarceration, improve public safety, and achieve cost savings or better outcomes for defendants, victims, and the community.
  • The study is intended to inform legislative decision-making by providing data, analyses, and policy recommendations.

Key provisions and scope

  • Directs the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) to conduct a formal study on electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration.
  • The study should examine:
    • Current use of EM in Pennsylvania (program types, technologies, and agencies involved).
    • Effectiveness metrics (recidivism, flight risk, compliance rates, violations of EM conditions).
    • Public safety outcomes associated with EM compared to traditional incarceration.
    • Cost implications, including up-front setup costs, ongoing monitoring expenses, and potential savings from reduced incarceration.
    • Legal, constitutional, and civil rights considerations (due process, privacy, and monitoring standards).
    • Equity and access implications (impact on communities of color, low-income populations, rural vs. urban disparities).
    • Administrative and operational issues (vendor selection, data management, oversight, accountability, and program scalability).
    • Best practices from other jurisdictions and recommendations for program design, governance, and funding.
  • The LBFC must produce findings, conclusions, and specific recommendations to the House of Representatives.
  • The report is to include data-supported policy options and potential fiscal impacts for proposed actions.

Who is affected

  • Defendants and individuals under criminal justice supervision who could be subject to electronic monitoring.
  • Pennsylvania state and local governments funding, operating, or contracting EM programs.
  • Victims and communities affected by EM-related policy changes (e.g., public safety and transparency).
  • Vendors and service providers offering EM technologies and services.
  • Legislators and policymakers who will use the LBFC report to shape future statutes, budgets, and EM program governance.

Procedural and timeline considerations

  • The resolution establishes a mandate for the LBFC to undertake the study; it sets a reporting obligation to the House of Representatives.
  • Details such as timing, scope boundaries, and deliverable format would typically be defined in the resolution’s text or accompanying legislative instructions.
  • The resolution may outline milestones (e.g., interim findings, final report date), but specific dates are not provided in the bill summary here.
  • Upon receipt, the House may use the LBFC report to consider potential legislation, funding adjustments, or program reforms related to electronic monitoring.

Potential impact and policy considerations

  • Could inform a shift toward greater use of EM as a tool to reduce prison and jail populations if findings support effectiveness and cost savings.
  • May highlight needs for robust safeguards around privacy, data security, and civil rights protections.
  • Could identify funding models (e.g., pilot programs, phased expansion) and governance structures to ensure accountability.
  • The recommendations could lead to new or amended statutes, budget allocations, or procurement processes for EM services.

Summary

HR 547 directs a formal, data-driven study by the LBFC to evaluate electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration in Pennsylvania. The study is expected to assess effectiveness, safety, costs, legal and civil rights considerations, equity impacts, and operational governance, culminating in findings and policy recommendations for the House of Representatives.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.