Electronic monitoring: uses, challenges and successes

Conclusions

The range of uses of EM

This paper has outlined the possible uses of electronic monitoring systems at different points of the justice pathway. EM is used as a tool in justice systems across a wide number of international jurisdictions. There is evidence to support the use of EM at different points along the justice pathway, including to monitor compliance with pre-trial bail conditions, to support early release from prison and as a condition of probation. There are different types of monitoring systems, including Radio Frequency (RF), Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Remote Alcohol Monitoring (RAM) systems. In general, it is difficult to draw generalisations across the types of monitoring technologies, particularly RAM because it is intended to monitor compliance in a different way. 

The evidence evaluating the effectiveness and use of EM is limited but promising 

There is a significant literature on the theory of EM, a number of reliable empirical studies and various systematic reviews on the use of EM. 

Of the available evidence there are some promising results. Research from France, for example, concluded a 9-11% reduction in reoffending^[353] and an Australian study evidenced a 25% reduction in reoffending for monitored people.^[354] A large study from Florida found that, in terms of breach rates, over a period of 6 years monitored people were 31% less likely to breach the conditions of their sentence than comparable groups not on electronic supervision.^[355] Ministry of Justice research from 2011 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.^[356]  This has led some researchers to conclude that EM and imprisonment are equally effective, but that EM has a number of additional benefits, both for the individual and for the state.^[357]

Despite the range of this literature, the evidence base on EM remains limited because research design and empirical outcomes are highly varied. Research design in some of the studies does not allow for robust conclusions to be drawn. Some empirical studies use self-selecting groups and a number of studies have very small sample sizes. A large number of studies consider GPS monitoring systems, and there are identified differences between RF and GPS EM outcomes. As a result of inconsistent research design, it is difficult to draw reliable conclusions regarding cause and effect. 

An evaluation of the effectiveness of EM depends on the intended aims and purpose of monitoring. From the available evidence it is concluded that EM has been used to achieve a range of different objectives across jurisdictions. The effectiveness of EM can therefore only be judged on whether and how it achieved the particular objectives defined within an individual study. Reliable comparison between studies is not possible in the majority of cases. 

Literature on the use of EM for other offence types suggests there can be better outcomes if EM is used as part of a wider intervention of supports and supervision. 

In terms of reoffending and reintegration outcomes, an evaluation of the available evidence suggests that EM is best considered as one tool to be used in conjunction with a wider package of community supervision and support for people serving their sentence in the community. 

EM can be used to support reintegration 

One of the objectives of EM can be to support reintegration and encourage a pro-social life. Assessing the relationship between EM and reintegration depends upon how reintegration is defined. 

The literature identified that EM can be used to encourage the construction of positive social capital. EM can allow family responsibilities and relationships to be maintained and increases the likelihood of the monitored person gaining or maintaining employment. In addition EM may discourage association with criminal peers. The conditions of EM can also be applied flexibly to incentivise compliance and pro-social behaviour.

EM outcomes tend to focus on reconviction rates and this does not necessarily provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of EM

Evidence on electronic monitoring has tended to focus on reoffending rates and while quasi-experimental conditions have been established in some studies, comparisons between monitored people serving their sentence in the community and a matched groups in prison are problematic in terms of producing reliable conclusions. As noted in the section on risk assessment, the HDC assessment process purposefully targets low risk offenders. Thus, any comparisons made between groups monitored on HDC with those retained in prison are not reliable, as it would be expected that reconviction rates would be lower for a lower risk group.

More reliable and robust research methods would involve examining the cohort of people released on HDC and analysing the proportions of those who breached, who were recalled and the reasons why. The available literature notes that research on the experience of monitored people is also lacking and further research in this area would be beneficial to evaluate effectiveness. 

The available evidence suggests that the cost of EM is lower than imprisonment

The majority of the available literature concludes that EM costs less than imprisonment. There were no studies that considered the whole system cost of implementing EM – in terms of costs associated with monitoring centres, breaches, technology failures and community support. A number of studies identified that cost effectiveness was conditional on certain factors. GPS EM was assessed to be more cost effective than RF monitoring systems. 

There are a number of ethical considerations related to EM

There is some evidence – specifically from qualitative studies that examine the experience of monitored people – that highlight the stigma, stress and embarrassment associated with wearing a tag. In addition a number of the theoretical studies and systematic reviews discuss the risk of penological drift associated with EM. 

Some literature highlights the negative impact on a monitored person’s family and on a monitored person’s employment prospects. There are also a limited number of studies that conclude EM may not be appropriate for all groups, specifically people with additional vulnerabilities and minority groups, and that EM may further disadvantage monitored people of a lower socioeconomic status. 

In cases of domestic abuse, the purpose of EM is different to that in cases of non-domestic crime. 

The use of Electronic Monitoring in cases of domestic abuse is a specialised area of research and is far more limited than the evidence base on the use of EM for other crime types. 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.

In evaluating the use of EM in cases of domestic abuse qualitative evidence on victim experience should be considered

While the evidence base on the use of EM for perpetrators of domestic abuse is limited, there are a number of reliable qualitative studies that suggest BEM can be used to make the criminal justice system more victim-centric, improve victim engagement and perceptions of safety. When considering criminal justice measures for domestic abuse, the hidden nature of domestic abuse must be taken into account. Even if there is a reliable body of evidence detailing reconviction rates for perpetrators on EM, it is unclear what lessons could be learned from this. Increased reconviction rates may indicate increased reporting by victims and an improved engagement with the justice system, while a decrease in rates may indicate the effectiveness of EM in terms of reintegration and rehabilitation. In the absence of such data, the lived experience of victims, practitioners and perpetrators – on which there is a some available evidence – should be considered.