Electronic monitoring: uses, challenges and successes

Risk Assessment and Eligibility

Risk Assessment and eligibility in Scotland 

There are a number of risk assessment processes involved in assessing a person’s suitability for EM. 

RLO assessments are conducted by Criminal Justice Social Work and involve gathering information on the individual’s home circumstances, employment status, and family responsibilities and circumstances.^[39]

Assessment of risk and eligibility for HDC in Scotland is the responsibility of the SPS, drawing on community assessment by criminal justice social work and acting within a legislative framework that sets out a number of statutory exclusions. Research by Armstrong and colleagues (2011) indicated that the majority of prisoners released on HDC were serving sentences of between six months and two years; their offending profile tended to be less serious than that of the Scottish prison population as a whole and proportionately more use was made of HDC with women than with men.^[40]  

The granting of release on HDC has been declining since August 2018 and then reduced substantially since the end of October 2018. This decline followed a review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland.  According to SPS reported ‘stock’ figures, HDC has declined from just under 300 in March 2018 to 62 in late-March 2019.

Risk assessment and eligibility in other jurisdictions

In other jurisdictions, the type of person eligible for release on EM varies. In some jurisdictions EM has been piloted in response to a specific issue, such as the recent GPS monitoring pilot for knife crime in London or to tackle joyriding in Manitoba, Canada.^[41] In the US, EM is used widely for the monitoring of sex offenders, some high risk and some on lifelong monitoring orders.^[42]  In Germany, GPS EM is only used to monitor small numbers of high risk offenders convicted of violent or sexual crime following their complete prison sentence of at least one year, and lifelong GPS monitoring is an available option for people convicted of child sexual abuse.^[43]  By contrast, in Norway and South Australia, EM – specifically HDC – is not available for the most serious/violent offences such as homicide, sexual, or terrorist offences.^[44]  Offenders assessed as ‘low-risk’, who would not be eligible for a custodial sanction for their offence, are excluded in some jurisdictions to avoid potential net-widening effects.^[45]

Eligibility and risk assessments for EM in other jurisdictions varies considerably, and much depends on the purpose for which EM is intended. Scotland relies on a system of structured professional judgement to assess an individual’s risk, and much of the assessment is based on an individual’s conduct while in custody. Elsewhere, some jurisdictions use actuarial prediction, a model based on an empirically developed risk assessment tool that categorises individuals based on their membership of certain subgroups that are positively associated with risk. This section offers a number of examples to illustrate the variety of different processes related to risk assessment and eligibility. 

England and Wales 

A recent evaluation pilot of GPS EM by the Ministry of Justice found that stakeholders were keen to expand the eligibility criteria for GPS EM. The pilot allowed individuals from two regional police force areas to be considered for GPS EM if they were over 18, had a fixed abode, and where EM could be used to monitor:

• court imposed bail, 

• a community sentence, 

• HDC, 

• a licence variation or 

• as a monitoring addition for re-release from prison after recall, 

• or for the release of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoners who would otherwise not be considered for release.^[46] 

This evaluation noted: “HDC boards were able to impose a GPS tag for prisoners eligible for HDC and where it was felt that risks could be managed more effectively by a GPS tag than a Radio Frequency (RF) tag”.^[47]  Monitoring field staff were interviewed and communicated that they would support the extension of GPS monitoring for community sentences that would be otherwise unmonitored, young people who would otherwise be in secure accommodation, and for people who were of no fixed abode, as this particular condition was prohibitively restrictive in some cases.^[48]

Spain

There is a growing literature on the utility of considering ‘strength factors’ in combination with assessing risk. These are factors associated with resilience, a reduced likelihood of reoffending, and a higher likelihood of pro-social lifestyle, such as effective family support or stable home circumstances.^[49]  These factors are specific to each person and so type of risk assessment depends upon an individual analysis of each case. 

In Spain, the eligibility assessment for release on EM was amended in 2006. The amendment meant individuals were not excluded from consideration of EM on the type of crime, nor on the point on the justice pathway the conditions were imposed. Instead, EM eligibility was based on three criteria:

1. Being assessed as eligible following the various evaluation processes related to an individual’s treatment programme;

2. The presence of factors in an individual’s life that “favour social and work integration”; and

3. “Existence of good prospects for rehabilitation of the offender.”^[50]

The purpose of the amendment was to emphasise (re)integration as an objective of EM, meaning if an individual has the opportunity to integrate via work and social life, they will be released on EM.^[51]

The Colorado Actuarial Risk Assessment Score (CARAS)

CARAS is a statistical risk assessment prediction tool used in Colorado to assess an individual’s suitability for parole. Colorado use a series of empirically-developed risk assessment tools along the justice pathway. Prior to trial, the Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool (CPAT) is used for the purposes of assessing pre-trial release to identify an individual’s risk of reoffending and non-attendance at court.^[52]  The CPAT tool is based on 12 indicators of risk, including items such as whether their residence is owned or rented, age at first offence and whether the individual owns a phone.^[53]

CARAS is described as a tool similar to systems that predict a candidate’s insurance differential, based on their characteristics and which group characteristics are most closely associated with risk.^[54] Rather than assessing each prisoner on an individual basis, CARAS assesses a prisoner based on their membership of certain subgroups. Their risk of recidivism is calculated based on a combined analysis of their subgroup memberships and thus individual behaviour is not included in the assessment.^[55]  

The tool is based on a points system accumulated across nine categories of risk:

• Number of convictions;

• Number of code of penal discipline violations;

• Age;

• Number of Level of Supervision Inventory items (an additional risk assessment tool, which included consideration of the level of family support);

• Whether the individual was arrested under the age of 16;

• Assessed custody level (e.g. open prison, medium or close custody);

• Prior parole and whether they have been recalled to prison during a parole period;

• Number of times imprisoned;

• Level of substance abuse need (based on an additional risk assessment tool).^[56]

The risk assessment tool was also split across crime types. The tool produces a score between 1 and 79 that indicates a person’s risk level, the higher the score the higher the risk. Research by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice studied 611 women and 4769 men to identify the indicators associated with success. Five categories of risk were identified ranging from ‘lowest’ to ‘very high’, and individuals’ membership of subgroups was correlated with success across the categories. 

Argentina

In Argentina, EM is used to monitor individuals on pre-trial bail. Risk assessment is conducted by the presiding judge in court, based on information provided to them by the prosecution and the defendant’s criminal history.^[57]  If the defendant poses a flight risk or there is a concern they will interfere with witnesses, they will not be granted bail and will be imprisoned until trial. Judges have the opportunity to release some of this cohort on EM following a three-tier assessment process. First, a technical assessment is made on the availability of a phone line and the suitability of the home address for EM; second, an socio-environmental assessment is conducted to assess the suitability of the individual’s family circumstances. Pending these assessments, defendants will be imprisoned and are thereafter released on EM when a device becomes available.^[58]

Domestic abuse risk assessment

There are slightly different risk assessment procedures for perpetrators of domestic abuse subject to EM. Lethality assessments are used to identify the level of risk a domestic perpetrator poses to their victim.^[59] Research on the use of EM in cases of domestic abuse in the USA outlined the process of risk assessing domestic perpetrators released on EM.^[60]  The process for referral to the EM programme in two US jurisdictions excluded consideration of those perpetrators deemed to pose a risk of lethal harm to their victim.^[61]