Collectively, the brief and the article highlight a consistent pattern: in instances of death, courts meticulously scrutinize the continuity of observation, the timeliness of responses, and the existence of verifiable records. Facilities capable of producing contemporaneous evidence of wellness checks, medical escalation, and staff actions are better positioned to defend their standard of care.

Parallel risks are evident from workforce safety research. Although primarily focused on the medical environment, analyses from The Critical Cost of Violence in Healthcare (911Cellular.com, n.d.) illustrate how assaults and threats generate direct and indirect costs, including injury care, insurance, overtime, and turnover to the tune of $428.5 million annually. Using data from the Indicators of Workplace Violence (Harrell, 2020), we find that corrections occupations had the highest average annual rate of nonfatal workplace violence for all occupations examined—almost six times the rate of nurses (see Figure 2). While the correctional environment diverges in mission and obligations, the economic patterns observed are noteworthy: violence and injury exacerbate staffing instability and budgetary strain.

American Jails features such as "Compassion Fatigue" (Pittaro, 2025) and "Unseen Guardians" (Weldon, 2025) highlight the cumulative effects of trauma, loss, and stress on correctional professionals. This literature reinforces the findings of the O’Neill Institute, which indicate that risks in jails manifest both as individual and institutional challenges. To effectively address these risks, it is imperative to implement mitigation strategies grounded in two fundamental principles: the timely identification of potential deterioration or hazards, and the establishment of verifiable documentation that clearly delineates what staff members were aware of, when they became aware of it, and the actions they undertook in response.

How Technology Meets the Need

The risk factors identified in recent litigation studies and institutional reviews highlight common vulnerabilities: missed medical crises, slow or inadequate emergency responses, gaps in supervision, and a lack of verifiable documentation. Wearable technologies designed for correctional environments can effectively address these issues by providing continuous biometric monitoring, real-time duress signaling, and accurate location tracking.

At the heart of detainee well-being systems is biometric data, focusing on indicators such as heart rate, blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and skin temperature. When these vital signs are monitored continuously, they can provide early warnings of deterioration. For high-risk populations, such as those pregnant, undergoing detox, or experiencing withdrawal, sudden physiological changes may precede observable symptoms. For instance, a drop in SpO₂ can signal respiratory distress or opioid overdose, while an abnormal heart rate may indicate escalating medical or behavioral issues. Wearable devices that trigger alerts based on biometric thresholds enable earlier intervention and potential escalation of care before a situation becomes critical. Combined with backend audit logging, these systems can automatically document key compliance metrics: device uptime, alert acknowledgment times, sensor status, and user interactions.

Staff safety is a parallel priority. When an officer encounters a confrontation, becomes incapacitated, or identifies a threat, time is of the essence. Duress wearables allow officers and personnel to signal distress using a dedicated button or lanyard pull.

However, they necessitate a denser infrastructure, have multi-receiver zone coverage, and require calibration. The accuracy of these systems can diminish in facilities with overly complex layouts, where issues such as signal reflection or obstruction are prevalent. Despite these challenges, AoA BLE remains the most precise RTLS option commercially available in correctional settings, albeit with a higher initial cost associated with both hardware and deployment labor.

Standard 2.4 GHz systems that do not incorporate directional processing typically offer zone-level resolution. These systems exhibit greater simplicity in design and ease of deployment, especially in older facilities where infrastructure placement may be restricted. When paired with strategic receiver positioning and effective zone design, they can provide a reasonable awareness of the movement of detainees and staff across broader areas, albeit without the precision necessary to identify positions at the room level. Certain vendors provide dual-band systems that combine 2.4 GHz technology with 900 MHz communication. This combination enhances signal propagation through challenging environments but does not significantly improve spatial resolution and still lacks the positional accuracy inherent to directional systems.

Sub-GHz architectures, including those utilizing LoRa or other long-range protocols, are designed for broader area coverage while utilizing minimal infrastructure. These systems are appealing in facilities that exhibit limitations in network wiring or with aging construction. However, it is important to note that these systems are not intended for real-time tracking. Their functionality is primarily centered on presence detection at gateway locations or checkpoint nodes, which is sufficient for establishing historical movement patterns but inadequate for incorporating location-sensitive alerts or proximity-based responses. Due to their coarse resolution, these systems are best suited for applications that do not require continuous telemetry.

The capabilities of wearable systems are influenced not only by infrastructure, but also by the design of the wearables themselves. Devices designed for detainees may incorporate biometric sensors to monitor heart rate, SpO₂, and skin temperature, as well as facilitate location tracking. Alternatively, wearables intended for officers may include duress buttons, lanyard pulls, and motion or tilt detection features. Furthermore, these devices can possess proximity-based functionalities such as near-field communication or LED indicators. Each feature introduces varying power demands, thereby impacting battery life and recharging requirements.

By contrast, a Capital Expenditure (CapEx) model concentrates spending in the first year, covering hardware, infrastructure, and software licensing, followed by significantly lower annual payments for maintenance and support. Agencies with capital funding often prefer CapEx for long-term value, data control, and insulation from subscription inflation, while others, especially those reliant on short-term grants, may prioritize the near-term flexibility of SaaS (see Figure 3).

Regardless of the acquisition structure, initial costs include the purchase of wearables for detainees and/or staff, installation of receivers, and IT components such as cabling, network switches, and server infrastructure. Additional expenses may involve mounting hardware, secure charging stations, and labor for installation and commissioning. If integration with an existing jail management system, CCTV, or physical security console is required, additional customization or middleware licensing may apply.

Upon deployment, wearable systems introduce a distinct category of operational responsibilities. These devices require effective management, maintenance, policies, and procedures. Systems utilizing primary cell batteries provide multi-week operational life without the necessity for recharging; however, they require procedures for periodic battery replacements. In contrast, rechargeable units demand regular recharging and systematic oversight, both of which incur staffing requirements. Should these processes falter, the functionality and efficacy of the systems may deteriorate rapidly.

Recurring material expenses may encompass items such as straps, batteries, and clasps. Furthermore, ongoing software costs may involve licensing renewals, user support services, and, for SaaS models, sustained access to the cloud-based platform. Training constitutes another recurring expense. New personnel must be onboarded, policy updates must be communicated following software modifications, and cross-departmental collaboration must be maintained to ensure operational continuity.

As with all new technology, experiences from facilities piloting biometric wristbands have yielded mixed outcomes. While some report successful interventions during medical crises, others have experienced frequent false alarms, missed alerts, or performance limitations (Cook, 2024). In at least one instance, a wearable system was decommissioned early due to failures relating to the pace of deployment and poor scalability to a large jail population, among additional concerns (Jackson, 2024).

Beyond technical performance, concerns have been raised about how collected data might be used. EPIC warns that biometric and behavioral data, such as heart rate variability or movement patterns, could be misinterpreted or repurposed for disciplinary action or behavioral profiling. This apprehension is amplified in cases where individuals feel they cannot opt out of wearing the device, or where oversight is inconsistent.

To address these challenges, correctional leaders approach biometric monitoring as a governance obligation, in addition to a medical initiative. Data should be protected through formal access controls and retention policies, with usage confined to health and safety purposes. Without these boundaries, systems designed to save lives may inadvertently erode privacy, reinforce carceral control, or deepen distrust between staff and those in custody.