This article is based on research conducted as a part of the CA POST Command College. It is a futures study of a particular emerging issue of relevance to law enforcement. Its purpose is not to predict the future; rather, to project a variety of possible scenarios useful for planning and action in anticipation of the emerging landscape facing policing organizations.
The article was created using the futures forecasting process of Command College and its outcomes. Managing the future means influencing it — creating, constraining and adapting to emerging trends and events in a way that optimizes the opportunities and minimizes the threats of relevance to the profession.
Key takeaways
- Transdermal microchips can prevent prison escapes in real time: Microchip technology provides immediate alerts when inmates enter unauthorized areas, enabling staff to intervene before an escape occurs.
- Biometric monitoring improves inmate medical response: Real-time health tracking can detect medical emergencies such as cardiac events or overdoses before symptoms are visible, reducing in-custody deaths and liability.
- Automated inmate tracking reduces human error in corrections: By replacing manual logs with digital monitoring, facilities can eliminate errors in headcounts, security checks, and medical documentation.
- Security and privacy must be balanced in prison technology upgrades: Implementing transdermal microchips requires strict data encryption, limited access, and clear policies to protect inmate privacy and comply with legal standards.
- Correctional facilities must modernize outdated tracking systems: Manual headcounts and legacy tools are no longer sufficient. A multi-stakeholder approach is essential to implement smart, ethical surveillance solutions in corrections.
By Kathleen N. Ratliff
Sergeant Thomas checked his watch. It was 2107 hours on March 1, 2025 — just 53 minutes left in a shift marking nearly 11 years inside the same correctional facility. He moved along familiar hallways, confirming door security, assisting newer officers with their counts, and scanning cell windows — following a routine embedded over time.
Each step was predictable: verify presence, look for chest movement, confirm authenticity. Repetition had trained his eyes to detect anything out of place. Most nights, the process was uneventful.
But not this one. The radio cracked: “Bad count. Emergency count. All units, recount all units.”
An hour later, alarms confirmed it — an inmate serving a life sentence for a double homicide had escaped. The facility entered immediate lockdown. Search efforts were exhaustive. The escapee was located four days later following a multi-agency manhunt costing nearly $2 million. In the aftermath, internal reviews followed, trust in the institution eroded, and staff accountability actions ensued.
What if this incident had been prevented? What if the moment the inmate breached his cell, a silent alert had been issued — delivering real-time location data and enabling swift intervention? What if technology had addressed the gaps left by human error and operational fatigue?
By 2035, correctional facilities have changed. Inmates now wear subdermal microchips — small, embedded devices that continuously transmit location and health data in real time.
When an inmate named Daniels attempted to exploit a shift change by impersonating staff and moving toward a secured exit, the system responded immediately. A silent alert triggered the moment his movement deviated from expected patterns. Officers knew his location before he reached the first secure door. A response team intercepted him within minutes. No lockdown was needed. No manhunt. Operations resumed without disruption.
Incidents that once resulted in multimillion-dollar escapes and system-wide scrutiny now generate only brief operational reports. The microchip system acts as a continuous, invisible security net — instantly identifying unauthorized movement and alerting staff before a breach becomes critical. But its benefits extend beyond security. In one recent case, an inmate’s biometrics indicated cardiac distress before he noticed symptoms. Medical personnel reached his cell and intervened within minutes, preventing a fatal outcome. In 2025, this same situation would likely have ended in tragedy.
Correctional staff still conduct rounds. Headcounts still occur. But the human errors that once led to escapes and preventable deaths have been mitigated by technology that doesn’t fatigue, doesn’t overlook anomalies and doesn’t miss a silent signal. Sometimes, it takes a system failure to drive innovation. In this case, that innovation has transformed correctional operations.
| RELATED: Inmate health monitoring advance helps stop emergencies faster
The problem with inmate tracking systems
Correctional facilities have long depended on outdated methods, such as periodic headcounts, fixed surveillance cameras with blind spots and paper logbooks to track prisoner movement and detect when something’s amiss. Human mistakes, though, have historically undermined even the most robust prison security systems, sometimes leading to inmate escapes.
One remarkable case unfolded at Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York, in 2015. A pair of inmates manipulated staff, exploited blind spots in the surveillance system and evaded capture for three weeks. Their brazen breakout revealed critical weaknesses in the facility’s defenses, triggered a massive search and became a media sensation that captivated the nation. The subsequent investigation revealed that 20 correctional employees were found to be at fault, leading to disciplinary actions, resignations and increased security scrutiny. Sadly, the Clinton facility’s experience is not an isolated case.
A 2022 Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that over 31% of all U.S. prison escapes were due to human error, with faulty head counts and staff miscommunication listed as the primary causes. Notable escapes and incidents include (but are not limited to):
- On December 2, 2024, Caesar Hernandez, serving a sentence of 80 years to life for first-degree murder, escaped from a prison transport van upon arrival at Kern County Superior Courthouse in Delano, California. Hernandez managed to evade custody, promoting a massive search and as of this article, has not been apprehended.
- On January 6, 2025, 35-year-old inmate Santiago Duran simply walked away from a low-security work site at Julius Klein Conservation Camp in Los Angeles, California. Staff discovered his escape hours later, only after an emergency count, which significantly delayed their response.
- In September 2023, 21-year-old inmate Jackie Brown escaped from Iberia Parish Jail in Louisiana by scaling a wall in the recreation yard. Authorities believe the facility’s security lapses and slow response times enabled his escape. Brown was apprehended hours later by the Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office, but the incident raised concerns about the need for improved tracking systems.
Despite billions spent on corrections annually, current tracking systems remain outdated compared to other high-security institutions. Prison escapes are not as rare as the public may believe. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2,231 inmates escaped from state or federal prisons in 2019 alone demonstrating a persistent issue in correctional security. Given the frequency and severity of these incidents, it’s imperative to examine the existing tracking systems within correctional facilities to understand their limitations and explore potential improvements.
Deficits in correctional security
Even in today’s digital age, numerous correctional facilities still rely on outdated manual processes and paper records to monitor inmates. This results in human error, security vulnerabilities and delayed responses during emergencies. At the same time, existing electronic monitoring tools have limitations, making it clear that current tracking systems are failing to keep up with modern correctional needs.
Dr. Matthew DeMichele, a senior research sociologist specializing in criminal justice technology, explains that “Electronic monitoring devices are prone to false positive alerts that overwhelm corrections officials, can be circumvented despite being labeled ‘tamper-proof,’ and suffer from technical glitches that interfere with users’ daily activities.”
Currently, in almost all custody settings, officers conduct routine manual head counts multiple times per day, but errors and record keeping, missed headcounts and distractions can allow an escape to go unnoticed for hours. Officers also make rounds throughout the facility, but blind spots, overworked staff, and understaffing can lead to lapses and observation. Also, inmates who understand the facility routine can take advantage of these weak points to escape detection.
That’s exactly what happened in August 2023, when eight inmates at the Curry County Adult Detention Center in Clovis, New Mexico, exploited staffing shortages and procedural gaps to escape undetected. Officers failed to conduct regular pod checks, allowing the inmates to spend approximately seven hours cutting a hole in the roof without detection. These escapes led to a massive manhunt, costing local law enforcement agencies substantial resources and highlighting critical vulnerabilities in the facility’s security protocols.
Despite technological advances, numerous correctional institutions continue using outdated methods like paper records and voice communications to monitor inmates’ locations, practices that often lead to errors and vital details being missed during crisis situations. While security cameras exist in certain prisons, the footage generally serves as a post-incident investigation tool instead of an active prevention measure for detecting potential security threats in the moment.
RFID ankle/wrist monitors are typically used for house arrest and parolees, tracking if an individual remains within a set perimeter. However, they are easily removed, tampered with, or damaged, making them unreliable for high-risk offenders. GPS tracking devices, with more advanced radio frequency detection capabilities, can provide real-time location data and can set exclusion zones, such as preventing a sex offender from entering a school zone. However, battery life, signal loss and lack of real-time intervention means an inmate could still escape before authorities react.
Some parole and probation programs have begun using mobile applications that track location via GPS and require biometric verification. While this technology is more flexible, it depends on offenders voluntarily complying, making it unreliable in high security correctional settings.
With all of this, it is clear that current security measures are not enough. Despite advancements in tracking technology, escapes still happen, delayed responses put lives at risk and human error continues to be a major factor in security failures. More is needed to bridge these gaps, something that offers real-time monitoring, eliminates manual mistakes and enhances overall safety. One emerging solution that could provide these capabilities is transdermal microchips, which are designed to track movement, detect distress and automate security alerts before incidents escalate.
What are transdermal microchips?
Transdermal microchips are small devices that can be implanted under the skin. They are designed to track movement, monitor health and send automatic alerts in real time. They use RFID and biometric sensors to provide constant feedback without relying on manual monitoring. Even though this technology is still new to correctional settings, similar technologies are already being used in high-security environments, military operations and medical monitoring. If implemented in prisons, transdermal microchips could change the way facilities track inmates due to their ability to provide instant location updates, detect medical emergencies before they escalate, and reduce the risk of escapes by eliminating blind spots in supervision.
The debate over transdermal microchips as a correctional tool has sparked strong opinions from legal scholars, policymakers, correctional leaders and civil rights advocates, with compelling arguments both in support of and objecting to their use.
Supporters: Why we need microchips
Legal researcher James Boezi argues that transdermal microchips represent the only truly tamper-proof method of inmate tracking. Unlike RFID bracelets or GPS devices, microchips cannot be removed or disabled by the wearer and enable real-time location monitoring without risk of manipulation.
David P. Mulholland, Director of Correctional Technology at the National Institute of Justice, emphasizes that the technology goes beyond security. “Microchips offer an unparalleled ability to monitor movement, detect medical distress and even track contraband circulation,” he states. “This is not just about security. It’s about modernizing how we manage corrections.”
Former warden and security consultant Michael Johnson reinforces this point, noting that correctional systems spend millions of dollars on escape manhunts. “Imagine if, instead, we had immediate, pinpoint location data,” he says. “The cost savings and public safety benefits are undeniable.”
Critics: Ethical, legal and operational concerns
Even with the advantages of transdermal microchips, issues of privacy and civil rights remain. According to, legal expert on privacy rights Emma Kerrison, “The fundamental problem with implanting microchips in inmates is consent. Even convicted offenders maintain bodily autonomy under the Eighth Amendment. This could set a dangerous precedent for forced state surveillance.” In the Duke Law & Technology Review, John Pishko says, “E-carceration is the next frontier of mass surveillance. Microchip tracking raises serious concerns about mission creep, what starts as a security measure in prisons could become widespread government tracking beyond correctional facilities.”
Sentencing Law and Policy Expert Alex Berman says, “There are too many unknowns. Will the data be secure? Will it be used only for location tracking, or will it expand to monitoring inmates’ thoughts, emotions, and medical conditions without consent?”
Is this the most effective technology for corrections?
Despite the use of RFID tags, GPS tracking and biometric systems, escapes still happen, response times are slow and security gaps exist. The question isn’t just whether we need better tracking technology, it’s whether transdermal microchips are the best option for correctional facilities today.
Right now, some prisons use RFID bands, GPS ankle monitors and biometric scanners, but all have flaws:
- RFID tracking only works in designated areas and can be blocked by walls and interference.
- GPS ankle monitors need constant power, and if batteries die or signals drop, tracking stops.
- Biometric scanners require inmates to pass through checkpoints, so they don’t track movement in real time.
Transdermal microchips can fix these issues. Unlike external devices, they can’t be removed, lost, or blocked, and they provide live tracking, instantly alerting officers if an inmate moves into an unauthorized area. But just because it’s the most advanced option doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for every facility. Introducing microchip tracking would require a major investment in software, training and cybersecurity. But so do escapes, delayed medical responses and preventable in-custody deaths, and those add up fast.
Every time an inmate escapes, agencies are forced to put millions into search operations, emergency response teams and legal expenses. A single escape, like the 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility breakout, cost New York taxpayers $23 million in just 23 days. And with over 2,200 reported escapes from U.S. prisons in a single year, it’s clear these incidents aren’t just rare, one-off occurrences.
Beyond escapes, delayed medical responses also contribute significantly to correctional system costs. In emergencies such as heart attacks, overdoses, or suicide attempts, every second is critical. In California, the use of telepsychiatry saved the Department of Corrections approximately $850 per inmate in transportation costs, totaling $4 million in savings. If that level of efficiency can be achieved through virtual care alone, the potential impact of real-time biometric alerts is even greater.
Transdermal microchips could not only accelerate medical response times, but also help prevent costly emergency hospitalizations, reduce liability exposure, and ultimately save lives. With appropriate policies and oversight, this technology could also deliver instant security alerts and eliminate manual errors in inmate tracking and medical documentation.
Among the most significant advantages of transdermal microchips are:
1. Instant alerts when inmates enter unauthorized areas
Even though correctional officers conduct headcounts and monitor surveillance feeds, the human eye has limitations — especially during high-stress periods. Microchip technology can enhance institutional safety by providing real-time alerts when inmates move into unauthorized areas, enabling immediate staff response and preventing potential escapes.
This capability is already in use in select facilities. For example, Minnesota’s Lino Lakes facility implemented an RFID tracking system to monitor inmate movement and alert staff when a designated boundary was breached. This system helped reduce escape attempts and improved overall response times. Broader studies on electronic monitoring show that automated alerts significantly reduce escape rates by notifying staff in real time rather than relying on delayed manual checks.
2. Real-time health monitoring for medical emergencies
Life-threatening conditions in custody often emerge without warning. Whether it’s cardiac arrest, overdose, or self-harm, the timing of the response can determine the outcome. Real-time biometric monitoring through transdermal microchips can continuously track vital signs and notify medical staff the moment anomalies occur.
A 2025 study found that wearable biometric devices enabled earlier intervention, resulting in fewer in-custody deaths due to preventable medical issues. The U.S. Department of Justice has also promoted real-time health tracking in correctional settings as a critical tool for reducing avoidable fatalities.
3. Eliminating human error in inmate record-keeping
One of the most persistent challenges in corrections is the potential for human error in logging inmate activity, including counts, medical checks and security rounds. Many facilities still rely on paper logs, which are susceptible to mistakes, falsification, or omission.
Transdermal microchips could automate these functions, logging inmate movements in real time, linking alerts to actual behavior, and generating verifiable records of compliance. Some facilities have already begun this shift. Guard1’s Mobile RFID Inmate Tracking System, for example, replaces manual logs with digital tracking and has improved staff accountability while reducing workload.
4. Cybersecurity and privacy safeguards
The effectiveness of any monitoring technology hinges not just on its capability but on how securely the data is handled. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that without strong privacy safeguards, biometric tracking could lead to surveillance overreach and abuse.
To mitigate these risks, correctional agencies must adopt strict cybersecurity protocols. These include encrypting all location and biometric data, restricting access to authorized personnel only, and ensuring post-release data is not retained or used beyond incarceration.
5. Alternative options for inmates who refuse microchips
Some inmates may object to microchip implantation on religious, medical, or personal grounds. To avoid legal and ethical violations, facilities must offer viable alternatives, such as wearable RFID devices or smart uniforms.
A documented opt-out process should be in place to protect the rights of objecting individuals, and refusal to comply should not affect parole or sentencing outcomes. By maintaining flexibility, agencies can ensure compliance while respecting individual rights.
How to get there and what can be done
Even with the clear operational and safety benefits of transdermal microchips, transitioning to this technology will require time, oversight, and strategic planning. Correctional institutions must move deliberately, addressing legal, ethical and infrastructure challenges through phased implementation.
1. Conduct a pilot program in a high-risk facility
Before adopting the technology systemwide, agencies should test microchip tracking in a controlled environment to assess real-world effectiveness, staff training needs, and system reliability. One such example is a U.S. Navy study in a military brig that successfully used biometric tracking — including fingerprint and iris scans — though it required careful protocol development and staff training.
2. Establish clear regulations for data collection and inmate consent
As biometric systems expand, so do concerns over data use and consent. Regulatory frameworks must address how personal information is gathered, stored, and used. A lack of safeguards, as seen in South Africa’s correctional fingerprint scanning program, can spark controversy and legal challenges.
3. Implement strong cybersecurity and data protection
Tracking sensitive biometric and location data creates inherent cybersecurity risks. Agencies must adopt systems with encryption, multi-layered access controls, and strict protocols modeled after systems like the FBI’s Next Generation Identification platform, which protects vast amounts of sensitive information.
4. Collaborate with legal experts and civil rights organizations
A major misstep in technology implementation is excluding key stakeholders. In the U.S., GPS parolee tracking programs faced legal backlash because they were deployed without civil rights consultation, resulting in lawsuits over privacy violations.
5. Invest in secure infrastructure and backup systems
Reliability is essential. A case from Hong Kong’s Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution demonstrated that power disruptions can compromise biometric systems, emphasizing the need for backup power and redundant safeguards.
6. Establish an independent ethics committee for oversight
Oversight is critical to maintaining public trust. The United Kingdom’s Biometric and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) offers a strong model for independent review bodies that monitor compliance and guide responsible use.
Would authorities accept it?
The path to implementation will face internal and external resistance. Some correctional officers worry that automation may displace staff or devalue their roles. Civil rights advocates argue that forced implantation violates the Eighth Amendment.
Emma Kerrison, a privacy law expert, warns: “The biggest problem with microchip implants is consent. Even convicted offenders still have bodily autonomy under the Eighth Amendment. This could set a dangerous precedent for government tracking.”
Still, others see it as a logical evolution in public safety. As James Boezi notes, “Microchips are the only truly tamper-proof tracking system. Unlike ankle monitors or RFID bracelets, they cannot be removed or disabled. They allow real-time location tracking without risk of manipulation.”
Ultimately, the success of any implementation will depend on how the technology is introduced, managed, and regulated.
Conclusion
Current prison tracking methods are failing. Manual headcounts remain vulnerable to human error, and even today’s electronic systems have critical limitations that allow escapes to occur. The debate over transdermal microchips reflects broader tensions in the field — between advocates for modernization and those concerned about privacy and civil liberties. Yet the reality is clear: traditional security measures are no longer sufficient. Correctional facilities must explore new, technology-driven solutions to enhance safety, prevent escapes, and protect the public.
Transdermal microchips offer one such solution. By enabling real-time tracking, automating alerts, and monitoring inmate health, they have the potential to close long-standing gaps in institutional security. But implementing this technology will require more than just infrastructure — it will demand a coordinated strategy involving correctional leaders, legislators, privacy experts, and cybersecurity professionals. Regulations, ethical guardrails, and robust oversight must be in place from the outset.
The 2035 scenario illustrates what’s possible. A breach that once led to a multi-agency manhunt now ends in minutes because officers are alerted immediately. No guesswork. No delay. This isn’t just a leap in efficiency — it’s a fundamental shift in how correctional institutions operate.
Privacy concerns remain valid, and consent must be part of the conversation. But by establishing transparent policies and third-party oversight, correctional leaders have an opportunity to balance operational security with respect for individual rights. The future of effective corrections lies in the smart adoption of technology — designed not to replace the human element, but to reinforce it where the risks are greatest.
References
- ABC News. NY prison escape: Manhunt cost the state $1 million a day, records show. August 10, 2015.
- American Civil Liberties Union. Biometric surveillance and privacy concerns. 2023.
- American Civil Liberties Union. Biometric surveillance and privacy concerns. 2024.
- Berman DA. Are microchip implants for offenders inevitable?. Sentencing Law and Policy. 2007.
- Boezi J. Microchip implants, a constitutional alternative to GPS tracking for convicted sex offenders. N Carolina J Law Technol. 2020;20(2):149–176.
- Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prison escape statistics and human error in correctional security. 2022.
- California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Telepsychiatry program report. 2004.
- California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. CDCR seeking incarcerated person who escaped during transport to Kern County Courthouse. December 2, 2024.
- Carnegie Council. Preemptive bans on human microchip implants. 2023.
- CBS News. NY State Senator proposes using GPS implants to track violent offenders. 2025.
- Wikipedia. Clinton Correctional Facility escape. 2025.
- Wikipedia. Clovis, New Mexico Jail Break. 2023.
- DeMichele M. Decades later, electronic monitoring of offenders is still prone to failure. Brookings Institution. 2017.
- Department of Justice. Correctional healthcare and the future of biometric monitoring. Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2022.
- Wikipedia. Electronic Monitoring in the United States. 2023.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center. Wristwatched: A new frontier of health monitoring in prisons. 2024.
- FBI. Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. n.d.
- Government Technology. Prisons use RFID systems to track inmates. 2008.
- Guard1. Mobile RFID inmate tracking system. n.d.
- Kerrison EM, Pishko J. Barcoding bodies: RFID technology and the perils of e-carceration. Duke Law Technol Rev. 2018;16:1–29.
- KATC News. UPDATE: New details released about escaped inmate, now back in custody. September 2023.
- McMullan T. Microchip implants chart new territory, but some experts say they are an ethical nightmare. ABC News. July 24, 2017.
- Miles CA, Cohn JP. Tracking prisoners in jail with biometrics: An experiment in a Navy brig. National Institute of Justice. 2006.
- Mok M. First ‘smart prison’ at Tai Tam. The Standard. 2020.
- Moyo A. SAPS embraces fingerprint biometrics. ITWeb. 2011.
- New York State Inspector General. Clinton Correctional Facility escape report. 2016.
- Patel R, Kim S. Electronic monitoring in correctional institutions: The impact of real-time tracking and automated alert systems on security outcomes. J Correct Policy. 2021;39(4):512–527.
- Nordic Journal of Criminology. Prison break—or a break from prison? Reflections on escapes from custody. 2025.
- Prison Policy Initiative. Economics of incarceration. n.d.
- South University. Prison security goes high-tech. 2016.
- Rutgers A. Tracking predators: Microchip implants, a constitutional alternative to GPS tracking for North Carolina?. N Carolina J Law Technol. 2018;20(2):149–176.
- Security.com. Microchip implants: Big brother in a chip coming our way?. March 15, 2019.
- Sentencing Law and Policy. Legislation authorizing microchip implants for certain violent offenders advances. 2007.
- Statista. Number of escapees from state and federal prisons in the United States from 2000 to 2019. October 2021.
- Statista Research Department. Number of escapees from state and federal prisons in the United States from 2000 to 2019. July 5, 2024.
- Stonehouse L. Wearable technologies can improve safety in county jails. Corrections1. February 11, 2025.
- U.K. Home Office. Biometric and Forensics Ethics Group: Annual Report. 2023.
About the author
Kathleen N. Ratliff is currently serving as the Acting Associate Director over Region II for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), where she has dedicated nearly two decades of service. Since joining CDCR in October 2007 as a Correctional Officer, she has advanced through multiple leadership roles, including Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Community Resources Manager (A) Associate Warden, Chief Deputy Warden (A) and Warden (A) before stepping into her current executive leadership role. She has extensive experience overseeing critical operations, institutional security, and policy implementation.
She is currently completing the California POST Command College Class 74, where her research focuses on the intersection of technology and correctional security, particularly the use of transdermal microchip implants for inmate tracking. She is passionate about modernizing correctional practices while maintaining ethical integrity and enhancing institutional and public safety. She is known for her practical leadership style, commitment to ethical and inclusive correctional practices, and passion for empowering staff to drive sustainable institutional change. Ms. Ratliff is dedicated to fostering safe, secure and rehabilitative environments that reflect the evolving needs of California’s correctional system.