Electronic Monitoring as an alternative to custody in Scotland

Dr Hannah Graham and Prof Gill McIvor

‘Women and Remand in Scotland’ hosted by the

Prison Reform Trust, 20th June 2016 in Glasgow.

Co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union. (Hucklesby, Beyens, Boone, Dünkel, McIvor, & Graham, 2016)

This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union. The contents of this

publication are the sole responsibility of the project partners and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.

2013: Scottish Government

national consultation on

electronic monitoring (EM);

2014: Scottish Government

Working Group on Electronic

Monitoring established.

2015: Gill McIvor and I were

commissioned by the Scottish

Government EM Working Group

to conduct an in-depth review of

the international and Scottish

literature and policy on

electronic monitoring, which is

available online at:

www.sccjr.ac.uk

The EU EM Study: Scottish sample

Literature and policy review, process mapping, statistics.

Ethnographic observation: 53 hours at the National Electronic

Monitoring Centre and with EM field officers across Scotland.

Interviews: 30 interviews conducted across different

stakeholder organisations and geographic locations:

G4S Scotland

Criminal justice social workers

Members of the judiciary

Scottish Prison Service

Representative organisation (third sector)

Parole Board

Police Scotland

Scottish Government Justice policymakers

Electronic Monitoring Technologies

Currently: From 2002-2015, radio frequency (RF) tags and

home curfews only in Scotland. No capacity for tracking.

Other EM technologies: GPS tagging and tracking and greater

use of exclusion zones; Remote Alcohol Monitoring tagging;

kiosks; bilateral EM also involving victims of crime.

RF tag (currently used)

GPS tag(not currently

available in Scotland)

Key Research Findings: Current Uses

Current uses of EM in Scotland are simple and straightforward:

Mostly standardised regimes: e.g., 7:00pm – 7:00am, 7 days week.

Examples of flexibility and creativity are currently not widespread.

Private sector EM service monitoring mostly ‘stand alone’ orders

= limited integration and multi-agency collaborative work to date.

Currently no supervision; no work, study or treatment requirements.

Consensus about need to integrate EM with options for individualised

supervision (statutory) and/or support (third sector, peer supports).

Being responsive to issues of diversity and vulnerability matters

to Scottish practitioners and policymakers in the tailoring of EM.

Policy: Only women EM field officers can tag/touch women.

Current Uses of EM in Scotland

86%

14%

Restriction of Liberty Order Gender Split (%)

Male Female

89%

11%

Home Detention Curfew Gender Split (%)

Male Female

Source: G4S (2016)

Variability in the Use of EM Court Orders

In 2015, some sheriffs and courts imposed Restriction of

Liberty Orders (RLOs) extensively (n = no. of orders),

whereas others barely made use of it:

Courts which used RLOs a lot: Glasgow (314), Kilmarnock (196),

Dundee (189), Hamilton (154), Dunfermline (147), Livingston (110).

Courts which rarely used RLOs: Arbroath (1), Jedburgh (4), Stirling (6),

Falkirk (6), Greenock (9), Inverness (17), Paisley (18), Aberdeen (19).

In 2015, the rate of Restriction of Liberty Orders imposed by sheriffs in

Glasgow was 256% higher than that of their Edinburgh counterparts,

with 314 RLOs imposed in Glasgow compared to 88 RLOs in Edinburgh.

Some court areas had a marked rise in the use of electronically

monitored orders, for example, in Kilmarnock 60 RLOs were imposed in

2014, and 196 RLOs in 2015, which signals a 226% increase in one year.

Source: G4S (2015, 2016)

9286 88 84

8980 77

8579 79 80 84

512 8 12

917 19

1015 17 17

15

3 2 4 4 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Completed Revoked Expired

In 2015, 8 out of 10 (stand alone) EM orders were completed.

Restriction of Liberty Order completion in 2015.

Source: G4S (2016)

Costs of radio frequency EM

compared to custody in Scotland

The average unit cost for electronic monitoring in

2013-2014 was £743 (€1,043) (which is a significant

reduction from £1,940 (€2,725) in 2012-2012).

In 2013, the average cost per EM order per day in

Scotland was estimated at £10.17 (€14.29).

In 2013-2014, the average cost per prisoner place was

£37,059 (€52,058). Per diem costs for custody are

difficult to calculate.

Source: Scottish Government (2015, 2013). Currency conversion: August 2015.

53.3

35.6

55.6

32.1

49.9

43.3

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Trends in Reconviction Rates (%) (1 year follow-up period) by Index Disposal in Scotland, 2002-03 to 2012-13

Restriction of Liberty Order (EM) Community Payback Order Discharged from custody

Reconvic

tion r

ate

(%)

Sourc

e: a

dapte

d fro

m S

cottish

Govern

ment (2

015: p

g30)

(RLOs started nationally in 2002) (CPOs started nationally in 2011)

Practitioner perspectives on women and electronic monitoring:

Calls for more use of electronic monitoring with womeninstead of custody, with emphasis on care giving parents:

“I think if we were to extend it into areas such as alternativesto remand, I could see a real benefit of that. I think remand’ssuch a punitive, well I was going to say a sentence, it’s not asentence, but it’s a punitive experience for a lot of people,especially women offenders and a very negative experience,especially given that they may be single mums and whathappens to the kids? I think there’s a better way to work withwomen offenders and rather than having the experience insomewhere like Cornton Vale, if you put them on bail withappropriate support around the person… and you have thecurfew element which means they get the stability of staying inin the evenings, rather than running around with perhaps theirfriends or going out to the pubs.” (Interview 11, G4S).

Practitioner perspectives on women and electronic monitoring:

Concerns about radio frequency EM, curfews, isolation:

“For some client groups, service user groups it’s not entirelyappropriate, for example women I think, well not all womenbut some women, I think given the high degrees of self-harm insome women having them restricted to a place for long periodsof time potentially increases the risk of self-harm and for menas well obviously… We have a women’s service in [place inScotland]… and I was talking to [name removed] the other day,the manager and she was like “no to electronic monitoring forwomen”, and for some women it just, I mean it would increasetheir risk of self-harm most definitely… Some of these womenare traumatised and damaged you know, experiencing acutetrauma, and more therapeutic interventions are what’srequired to be honest.” (Interview 10, Criminal Justice Social Worker).

What might inhibit flexibility and creativity in tailoring uses of electronic monitoring? “It’s not dissimilar to any organisation, but the fear of being blamedfor something is incredibly powerful in [the prison service] becauseif you sign a piece of paper to say this person should get somethingthat allows him access to the community and something goes wrong,then there is a fear that people will say “well that’s going to comeback to me, I’m going to be in trouble and my job is at risk if thisperson does something wrong or commits another offence”… If therisk assessment, if all the information is brought to the attention ofthe person who makes that decision at the time and the decision issound - then fine. But getting that across to someone who hasperhaps worked in an environment where they feel that there is ablame culture then it’s really hard to get across, you know, “you’ll beOK, don't worry you’ve made that decision on a sound basis”, but it’sstill a big factor.” (Interview 15, Scottish Prison Service).

“We tend not to take risks, we tend to do what the Criminal JusticeSocial Worker recommends.” (Interview 26, Scottish Prison Service).

“Sometimes it is too risk-averse. There is no leeway or discretion”(Interview 30, Representative organisation (third sector)).

Considerations to reflect on:

If pre-trial EM is introduced, it may be ‘stand-alone’ on the premises

that individuals are not convicted, and EM is otherwise used as a

punishment. EM is not the only way of responding to women’s needs.

Not enough is known about women’s experiences of tagging, curfews

(but see Holdsworth, 2014; Durdoy, 2015). More research is needed.

‘Embodied carcerality’: DIY wearable punishment and the spectacle

of the shackle; the body, home and community become surveilled

carceral zones; restricted liberty (RF) vs. restricted privacy (GPS).

Relevant research recommendations:

One day on pre-trial EM should be deducted from any sentence.

Introduce and encourage wider use of mechanisms which motivate

and reward monitored people for their compliance.

Dr Hannah GrahamScottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research (SCCJR)

at the University of Stirling, Scotland.

Email h.m.graham@stir.ac.uk

Twitter: @DrHannahGraham

Contact