Electronic monitoring: uses, challenges and successes

Introduction

Rationale and Methods 

This review focuses on issues of particular relevance to Part 1 of the Management of Offenders (MoO) Bill – namely the different ways in which EM could be used along the justice pathway and the strengths and weaknesses of electronic monitoring. The provisions in Part 1 of the MoO Bill are designed to expand and streamline the use of electronic monitoring (EM) in Scotland. The underlying intention of Part 1 of the Bill is to provide one overarching set of principles for the imposition of EM, drawing together the threads of the pre-existing legislation. 

This paper builds on a comprehensive review of on EM published in 2015 which highlighted the most relevant and reliable studies on electronic monitoring.^[5] New literature was found via database searches conducted by the research officer and Scottish Government Library service between November 2018 and January 2019. 

The review was informed by a range of international studies. In terms of the Scottish literature, the review drew on 5 key reviews on EM in Scotland:

• Armstrong and colleagues’ 2011 Scottish Government report on the ‘Evaluation of the Use of Home Detention Curfew and the Open Prison Estate’;^[6] 
• Barry and colleagues’ 2007 ‘Evaluation Of The Use Of Electronic Monitoring As A Condition Of Bail’;^[7] 
• Graham and McIvor’s 2015 publication on ‘Scottish and International Review of the Uses of Electronic Monitoring; 
• The Scottish Government Working Group’s 2016 report on ‘Electronic Monitoring in Scotland’;^[8] and 
• Reports published from the 2014 EMEU project, which examines the use of EM across EU member states to reduce prison populations.^[9]

Additional literature on electronic monitoring from other jurisdictions may exist but may have been missed because articles were not written in English and/or because they used different terms for ‘electronic monitoring’.^[10] 

Gaps in the evidence base 

There is extensive theoretical literature on EM, a review of which is beyond the scope of this paper.^[11] There are also a number of published systematic reviews which focus on EM but there are fewer empirical studies that employ experimental or quasi-experimental methods that compare the outcomes of EM with other disposals. One of the few was conducted by the Ministry of Justice in 2011 on HDC, which concluded that monitored people released on HDC were no more likely to reoffend than those in a matched sample who were not eligible for release.^[12]  

There is also a lack of evidence from the perspective of monitored people and on rural, female, minorities and non-compliant offenders. Caution should be exercised when comparing findings across jurisdictions due to different models, intended outcomes and different uses of EM. Comparisons from the US and other non-EU states are difficult due to the different human rights frameworks governing judicial decision-making. For Remote Alcohol Monitoring  and drug monitoring, compliance is measured differently making comparisons very difficult. 

A note on the interpretation of the evidence

It should be noted that an assessment of whether EM is effective or not will depend entirely on its particular aims and purpose. An overview of the evidence shows that electronic monitoring has been used to achieve a range of different objectives including to reduce reoffending, reduce the risk of breaching an order, reduce the prison population, or reduce costs (and sometimes a combination of these). Therefore, the effectiveness of EM can only be determined based on whether it achieved the particular objectives defined within an individual study. For example, EM introduced to release pressure on the prison population may be considered effective because it reduces prison populations. It may not be effective at reducing reoffending however, because it does not combine the tag with support to address the criminogenic needs associated with reoffending.