Press Release - The Electronic Monitoring of Adult
Offenders
1 February 2006
According to the National Audit Office, electronic monitoring of
adult offenders provides value for money and a cost effective
alternative to custody for low risk offenders. Three months of an
electronically monitored curfew are nearly five times cheaper than
three months in custody. On average, it costs £1,300 to monitor an
offender who has been released from prison on Home Detention Curfew
for 90 days compared to £6,500 for the same period in custody. In
addition, the use of Home Detention Curfew has reduced pressure on
the prison population. NAO testing of the technology used for
electronic monitoring showed that it is robust and reliable,
detecting absences during curfew periods plus attempts to cut off
the tag or tamper with the equipment.
Today’s report to Parliament by the head of the NAO, Sir John
Bourn, highlights the number of agencies involved in electronic
monitoring, and difficulties they sometimes have communicating with
each other and the private contractors who provide the equipment
and who actually monitor offenders. The Probation Service, the
courts and prisons assess whether an offender is suitable for an
electronically monitored curfew and the contractors fit the
equipment and monitor the offender. If the offender breaches his or
her curfew, courts, prisons, police and the Home Office can be
involved in returning the offender to either prison or court. For
electronic monitoring to be most effective, co-ordination across
the criminal justice system needs to be improved. This will reduce
the risk of delays in fitting tags or reporting breaches of curfew
and will also make the assessment of offenders more efficient.
The cost of electronic monitoring has fallen considerably since
new contracts began in April 2005. The National Offender Management
Service could make further savings of up to £9 million a year if it
streamlined its assessment process. At present, delays mean that
only 59 per cent of the prisoners assessed as suitable for Home
Detention Curfew are released as soon as they are eligible. Delays
occur because prison governors are waiting for reports from
probation or other prisons or for the offender's criminal
record.
The impact of the curfew is undermined if the equipment is not
installed on time, or if breaches are not promptly dealt with. Of
the 290 cases examined, 90 per cent of curfewees were fitted with a
tag within 24 hours of the start of their curfew. Delays were
caused by the offender themselves, by late or inaccurate
information being sent by prisons and courts, and problems setting
up the equipment or getting a telephone line installed.
62 cases of these cases related to the first two months of the
new contracts (April and May 2005). The NAO found that only 85 per
cent of offenders in these cases were tagged on time, although this
performance has since improved. Of the 78 cases examined where Home
Detention Curfew had been breached, 35 per cent were not reported
to the Home Office by the contractors within 24 hours. The NAO also
examined a small sample of 35 cases where Curfew Orders had been
breached and found that the contractors had reported only 31 per
cent to the courts on time. Such delays can be damaging as the
offender may not be electronically monitored during this period
(if, for example, he or she has cut the tag off) which increases
the risk of further breaches or re-offending. Long delays between a
breach and an offender either being returned to court or to prison
may also create the impression that offenders can breach with
impunity, reducing public confidence in the criminal justice
system.
Most of the offenders interviewed for the report believed that
being on an electronically monitored curfew had been positive,
allowing then to remain with their families and to seek employment,
and preventing them slipping back into a criminal routine. Our data
suggests that curfewees are less likely to re-offend than offenders
in custody or on other community penalties, although further
research is required to establish this link.
Sir John Bourn said today:
"Electronic monitoring represents value for money,
providing a cost-effective alternative to custody for offenders who
do not pose a risk to the public. However, to ensure that a curfew
is effective, it is essential that the contractors and criminal
justice agencies work together to ensure that offenders are always
tagged promptly and that any breaches of their curfew are dealt
with quickly.”
Notes for Editors:
- The National Offender Management Service (NOMS), part of the
Home Office, was established in June 2004 to bring together the
Prison Service and the National Probation Service. The Service will
introduce end-to-end offender management with the aim of reducing
re-offending.
- Contracts for electronic monitoring are let by the Electronic
Monitoring Team within NOMS. They were re-tendered in 2004, and new
contracts with Securicor Justice Services and Serco Home Affairs
began on 1 April 2005. Securicor Justice Services covers the North
East and North West; East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside; and
the South East and South West. Serco Home Affairs covers London,
Eastern England, Wales and the West Midlands. Electronic monitoring
in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and it
is not used in Northern Ireland.
- Curfewees are fitted with an electronic tag around their ankle,
which sends a regular signal to a receiver unit installed in their
home. The receiving unit is connected to a telephone line and
informs the monitoring agencies if the curfewee is not there during
curfew hours, or if he or she tampers with either the tag or the
receiving unit.
- Electronic monitoring was piloted for adult defendants on bail
from 1989 to 1990, for adult offenders sentenced to a curfew order
from 1995 to 1999, and for adult and juvenile defendants on bail,
juvenile offenders sentenced to a curfew order by a court, and fine
defaulters and persistent petty offenders, from 1998 to 2000. It
was rolled out to the whole of England and Wales in 1999 for the
two categories of adult offenders who are the subject of this
report.
- In relation to these offenders, electronic monitoring is used
in two ways: to monitor compliance with Home Detention Curfew (HDC)
and Curfew Orders. Home Detention Curfew is granted to offenders
serving primarily between three months and under four years in
prison, if the governor is satisfied that they are not a risk to
the public. Sex offenders and dangerous violent offenders are not
eligible. Curfews usually run for 12 hours overnight. It aims to
provide structure to the lives of offenders, aiding the transition
from prison to life in the community, allowing offenders to work
and remain with their families whilst serving their sentence, and
also reducing the pressure on the prison population. Curfew Orders
are a sentence of the court, which are used for offenders aged 16
or over, and last between 2 and 12 hours a day. Electronically
monitored curfews are also currently used for young offenders,
adult and juvenile defendants on bail and small numbers of asylum
seekers.
- Press notices and reports are available from the date of
publication on the National Audit Office website at www.nao.org.uk.
Hard copies can be obtained from The Stationery Office on 0845
7023474
- The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is the
head of the National Audit Office which employs some 800 staff. He
and the National Audit Office are totally independent of
Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments
and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has
statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy,
efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other
bodies have used their resources.
Press Notice 8/06
All enquiries to Barry Lester, NAO Press Office:
Tel: 020 7798 7937
Mobile: 07748 181 692