Parts of the Probation Service’s electronic monitoring programme require urgent improvements to keep people safe, according to inspectors.

People on probation can be required to wear an electronic monitor either as a condition of leaving prison or as part of a community sentence. Commonly known as “tags”, electronic monitors can be used for different purposes such as to track an individual’s movements or to test for alcohol intake.

Latest figures show around 8,000 people are subject to electronic monitoring across England and Wales at any one time.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found the Ministry of Justice’s multi-million pound programme is not delivering to its full potential, with electronic monitoring often treated as an extra rather than as an integral part of probation supervision.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Electronic monitoring has come a long way over the past 20 years, thanks to legal changes and advances in technology such as GPS. There is strong political and public interest in this tool – but more needs to be done to realise the full benefits.

“The Probation Service has lots of policies and guidance, but these do not explain clearly how electronic monitoring should be used to complement other activity to manage a person on probation effectively.

“We are particularly concerned about the process that is used to decide whether an individual should be released early from prison and put on a home detention curfew. Probation practitioners told us they felt decisions were almost always weighted towards release.

here is a major gap in the assessment process – it does not include information about the suitability of the proposed address for the curfew. There is no policy to mandate domestic abuse and safeguarding checks at court or before the individual is released from custody, and we found these checks are not conducted routinely.

“The Probation Service must look at this issue urgently – it does not make sense to place people on curfew in homes where they could pose a risk to others.”

Inspectors heard positive accounts from some individuals who are subject to electronic monitoring. One individual said: “It’s the best thing that has ever happened to me as I have now stopped drinking. Prison doesn’t rehabilitate, it’s an easy life compared to life on the streets and this tag has addressed my problem.”

The Ministry of Justice planned to create a portal so probation practitioners could access up-to-date information on individuals’ movements, but this project has not been realised to date. Almost all of the interviewed practitioners told inspectors that a portal could help them to manage cases more efficiently.

Instead, probation practitioners can only request information about an individual’s movements retrospectively through an external agency, which has been contracted to run the electronic monitoring programme. This process can be frustrating, as requesting data is a time-consuming task.

Delays in receiving information are common, as the contract with the external agency does not stipulate how long it will take them to respond to requests. Inspectors found probation practitioners working on high risk of serious harm cases waited up to three days for location information. The Inspectorate recommends a maximum turnaround time of 24 hours.

Inspectors found confusing criteria for GPS monitoring. It is available for lower-risk cases but not for violent or sexual offenders released from prison after fixed-term sentences, where it could add real value. The Inspectorate recommends extending its use to cover these high-risk individuals.

Mr Russell said: “We found probation practitioners did not always discuss electronic monitoring with supervised individuals. These are missed opportunities to discuss and acknowledge positive progress or to signpost people to further sources of help, for example if someone has completed a period of monitoring for alcohol use.”

He added: “We conclude that electronic monitoring has the potential to bring value to the Probation Service’s work, but the programme needs to be evaluated and embedded properly into wider probation activity.

“We have made 17 recommendations including for senior leaders to commission research to understand the impact of electronic monitoring and how to get the most out of this tool. We have also recommended senior leaders set out a strategy for its use across the Probation Service and ensure practitioners are trained and knowledgeable. We have also made a number of operational recommendations to support the tool’s use in protecting the public.”

ENDS

Notes to editor

1. The report is available at justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation on 17 January 2022 00.01.
2. HM Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of youth offending and probation services across England and Wales.
3. Fieldwork for this inspection took place in July and August 2021. We inspected in six areas: Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan; Yorkshire and Humber; Thames Valley; Brent, Camden and Islington; Merseyside; Nottingham City and Nottingham County. See Annexe 3 of the report for the full methodology.
4. For media enquiries, please contact Head of Communications Catherine Chan on 07889 405930 or media@hmiprobation.gov.uk (E-mail address)