Electronic monitoring: uses, challenges and successes

Key Messages

The use of Electronic Monitoring in Scotland and in international jurisdictions:

• In Scotland, Restriction of Liberty Orders (RLOs) and Home Detention Curfews (HDCs) are the two most commonly used forms of electronic monitoring (EM).^[1]

• In other jurisdictions, EM is used at different and multiple points along the justice pathway – as an alternative to remand, as an alternative to sentencing, as a form of probation following release from prison and as part of provisions for early release. 

• The risk assessment process and eligibility criteria for individuals diverted to EM varies across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions focus on the risk posed by the individual whereas others assess risk based on opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration.

• The evidence base on the effectiveness of EM is limited in terms of the comparison and transferability of research from other jurisdictions. 

A review of the evidence on EM

EM technologies 

• The effectiveness of EM is affected by technical issues and the type of monitoring system.

• There are differences in outcomes between Radio Frequency (RF) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) EM technologies. Some studies found GPS EM is more likely to reduce reoffending/non-compliance than RF.

Remote Alcohol Monitoring

• Remote Alcohol Monitoring (RAM) differs from other uses of EM because the main aim is to manage or reduce alcohol consumption.

• There is a limited evidence base on the effectiveness of RAM, however a limited number of empirical studies suggest promising results for the use of RAM.

• A pilot conducted in London in 2014 evidenced a 92% compliance rate with RAM for monitored people on community sentences over 12 months and concluded there were a number of positive opinions and experiences of alcohol abstinence monitoring.^[2]

• One of the recommendations of the 2016 Scottish Government Working Group paper was on legislative change, including the introduction of legislation which would enable the use of RAM.^[3] 

Community supervision and support

• A body of evidence suggests EM is more effective when combined with other supervision and support mechanisms within the community.

• In most jurisdictions EM is understood as a tool in a wider network of community support and supervision of monitored people.

EM and reintegration

• The relationship between EM and reintegration of monitored people is a complex one and is dependent on how reintegration is defined. 

• EM can be used to encourage a pro-social lifestyle by incentivising compliance with the conditions of release, encouraging engagement with treatment, counselling, positive recreational activities, facilitating an offender’s return to their family, reinforcing day-and-night rhythms, and discouraging association with criminal associates. 

• EM can be can be flexibly applied dependent on offence, offender demographic, and the conditions necessary for release,^[4] and its flexible use can be used to incentivise reintegration. 

• EM can provide opportunities for the construction of positive social capital, in that it allows family responsibilities and relationships to be maintained and increases the likelihood of the monitored person gaining or maintaining employment. 

• However, in some cases EM can have a negative impact upon the monitored person’s family, particularly those who reside within the same address. 

The impact of EM on reoffending and reconviction rates

• Caution must be taken when comparing the reconviction rates of those on HDC from those who are released straight from custody, as it likely that individuals who have been granted HDC pose a lower risk of reoffending, so the results may not be directly comparable. However some reconviction studies have controlled for risk to ensure the results are more comparable. 

• There are mixed but promising results regarding reoffending, reconviction and failure/breach rates with use of EM. 

• Some evidence suggests EM reconviction rates for monitored people are lower, or similar, compared to matched groups who serve their full sentence in custody. 

The cost of EM 

• The available evidence suggests EM costs less than imprisonment.

• There is a limited evidence base on the cost incurred by the whole system operational costs of EM. 

• EM’s cost effectiveness is conditional on a number of factors.

The ethical considerations of EM

• There are number of ethical concerns and considerations associated with the use of EM related to its impact on the individual and use in the wider justice system. 

• In some cases, EM can result in feelings of stress, stigma and shame for the monitored person, and can sometimes negatively affect their family or co-habitants.

• EM can allow net widening or penological drift, whereby individuals who would not be sanctioned otherwise are monitored by EM.

EM and domestic abuse

• In cases of domestic abuse, the purpose of EM is different to that in cases of non-domestic crime. Bilateral Electronic Monitoring (BEM) monitors both an perpetrator’s compliance with the conditions of sentence and protects victims of domestic abuse by monitoring the perpetrator’s movements in relation to the victim. 

• Research on BEM in cases of domestic abuse suggests it makes the justice system more victim-centric and can improve victims’ feelings of safety, empowerment and provide space to reassess the relationship and their future circumstances. 

• Domestic abuse perpetrators’ experience of EM is varied and overall the evidence base relating to the use of EM with domestic perpetrators is limited.