In recent years, the primary argument for adopting electronic monitoring (EM) has been to relieve prison crowding while simultaneously reducing criminal justice system costs. In addition to reducing prison crowding, the increased surveillance that EM provides to pretrial, probation, or parole programs can be expected to have a crime-deterrent effect. The most common configuration of offender monitoring is a radio frequency transmitter unit attached to the offender’s ankle. In light of elected officials’ eagerness to solve persistent issues of prison crowding and public safety, correctional agencies have the responsibility to be clear about typical limitations of EM technology. This article examines the practical and operational challenges of EM. Some of these identified challenges include: (1) the overwhelming quantity of data produced by active GPS causing information overload; (2) EM vendors are not required to meet performance standards or demonstrate the effectiveness of their product; and (3) EM programs unnecessarily limit their effectiveness if they rely solely on punishment as a primary strategy of rehabilitation. Given the unrealistic expectation that surveillance and sanctions, such as the use of EM, will reduce long-term recidivism, a prudent response of monitoring agencies would be to initiate small, exploratory EM programs using positive incentives. The intent for correctional agencies is to make slow, incremental changes in the nature of supervision contacts that will lead to the development of a legally defensible, effective, and evidence-based EM practice. Table, endnotes, and references