New GEO Memo Expands Electronic Monitoring for People in Federal Prerelease Custody

In early January 2026, GEO issued an internal memorandum announcing “Enhanced Electronic Monitoring Procedures” for all individuals in prerelease custody at Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) operating under contract with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

According to the memorandum, these new procedures take effect January 12, 2026, and will remain in place through July 1, 2026, as part of what GEO describes as a pilot program to evaluate accountability and compliance with contractual requirements.

For individuals preparing to reenter society—and for their families—this memo represents a significant expansion of surveillance during a phase of custody that is legally intended to support reintegration, not continued incarceration.

What the New Requirements Mandate

Under GEO’s new procedures, all individuals in prerelease custody at halfway houses are now required to:

• Wear a GPS monitoring bracelet 24 hours per day, attached to the wrist or ankle, which does not come off

• Carry a GEO-issued monitoring cell phone at all times, which must remain on their person and within approximately 20 feet of them continuously

  
  

These requirements apply regardless of individual risk level, disciplinary history, program compliance, or proximity to release. They remain in effect at all times—including while working, sleeping, commuting, or attending approved activities.

In practical terms, this places individuals who are actively transitioning back into the community under constant dual surveillance—both physical and digital.

A Shift Away from the Purpose of Prerelease Custody

Prerelease custody exists to help people reestablish stability, maintain employment, rebuild family relationships, and prepare for life after federal supervision. The First Step Act (FSA) and the Second Chance Act were both designed to reduce recidivism by encouraging structured reintegration—not to replicate prison conditions in the community.

This new policy raises serious concerns about whether enhanced electronic monitoring aligns with that purpose.

The memo makes no distinction based on individual behavior or assessed risk. Instead, it applies a blanket surveillance model to every person in prerelease custody, treating low-risk, fully compliant individuals the same as those who may require closer supervision.

Surveillance Without Individualized Assessment

One of the most troubling aspects of the new procedures is the absence of individualized review. There is no indication that:

• Risk assessments are being used to determine who actually requires electronic monitoring

• Monitoring is limited to higher-risk cases

• Less intrusive alternatives were considered

  
  

This approach effectively converts halfway houses into digitally monitored extensions of incarceration, even though individuals are legally eligible for community placement and are often already employed, attending treatment, or supporting their families.

Accountability vs. Reintegration

GEO states that the pilot program is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in meeting accountability and contractual requirements.

Constant GPS tracking and mandatory monitoring phones raise legitimate questions about:

• Privacy and data collection

• Impact on employment and workplace dignity

• Mental health consequences

• Whether these measures actually improve outcomes or simply shift costs and liability

Why This Matters

At A Better Tomorrow, we work with justice-impacted individuals every day who are doing exactly what the system asks of them: working, programming, complying, and preparing for release.

Reentry works best when people are treated as participants in their own success, not as perpetual security risks. Policies that default to maximum surveillance—without evidence, transparency, or individualized justification—undermine trust, strain families, and risk increasing, not reducing, barriers to successful reintegration.

Looking Ahead

GEO has indicated that this policy may be revised after July 1, 2026, based on operational outcomes and feedback. That makes this moment critical.

Stakeholders—including impacted individuals, families, advocates, courts, and policymakers—should be asking:

• Is it proportional?

• And most importantly: does it help people succeed after incarceration—or does it simply extend control into the community?

  
  

A Better Tomorrow will continue to monitor these developments closely and amplify the voices of those directly affected.

Because reentry should be about building stability, not expanding surveillance.