Electronic Monitoring The Scottish Experience Norman Brown Communications Director

Electronic Monitoring in Scotland Early Origins  Pilots in courts 1998 – 2002  three courts used during pilots  evaluation by Scottish Executive and consultation with agencies  National roll out 2002  Restriction of Liberty Orders available to all 49 Sheriff Courts  Order to be imposed after full social work report on suitability  Client to consent to order in court  Alternative to custody stated in legislation  Service delivered by private contractor  End-to-end provision of both equipment and service

Structure of Service  Stand alone Monitoring covering whole country including islands  Consistent service delivered regardless of location  Dual-skilled Monitoring Officers covering central belt responsible for Field & Monitoring Centre duties  Field Officers covering remainder of Scotland including the Islands

Early Challenges  Resistance from agencies to Electronic Monitoring  the use of technology in working with offenders  judiciary unclear about its place within the sentencing tariff  the role of the private sector in offender supervision  reluctance to form partnerships and share information  questions regarding our motivation, ethos and values  feeling at that time that RLO’s should not be rehabilitative viewing EM as a mechanistic process

Building links and developing the service  Senior managers with a criminal justice background  building trust.  breaking down barriers  proving our values  promoting the service as ‘people before technology’  Links established with Association of Directors of Social Work  introduction of pre-sentence information sharing.  improved communication  better awareness of risk and need  helped to change agencies views of the contractor  Commitment to raising awareness with partner agencies  1000 presentations about the service between 2002 – 2004  Promotion of partnership working  a key and consistent message  changes in legislation helped partnerships

Servic e Evolution  Legislative changes:  Probation, Parole and DTTO (2004)  improved communication and partnerships  Intensive Support and Monitoring Services (2005)  opened the debate about monitoring for young people  Home Detention Curfew (2006)  controlling estate numbers with no support after release  Community Payback Orders (2010)  no condition for EM except after breach  decrease in numbers and the potential for partnership work YearRLO Numbers

Where are we now?  RLO live caseload April 2013: 360 (13% drop from 2006)  Legislative changes did increase numbers (over 700 now monitored)  However the majority of EM cases are stand alone  Partnership working suffered  No processes for pre-sentence risk/need information sharing  Contractor on the outside looking in  Awareness or confidence in service has fallen  The potential flexibility of EM in stand alone cases seems to have been forgotten

The way forward  Promote the importance of assessments  Highlight the flexibility of monitoring  length of orders  incentives for positive response  managing restrictions around socially inclusive commitments  Demonstrate the balance that can be struck between electronic monitoring and other interventions  Promote proportionality in terms of the use of monitoring  Use electronic monitoring as part of supervision with interventions designed to bring about rehabilitation and to support desistance.  Identify legislation which affords this approach to be used  Be innovative around the application of electronic monitoring – consider voluntary pilots

Change the thinking  Listen to feedback from monitored persons – they help us appreciate outcomes and the impact of restrictions.  Assess the potential for curfews to:  alter lifestyles  change the addiction cycle  allow for disengagement with peers  impact upon families  Promote within the justice community  Be more innovative with orders (times/days/locations)  Commission evidence based research to fully understand and legitimise the impact of orders and outcomes

The role of the service provider  We cannot be on the outside looking in  We must embrace the values and practices evidenced by partner agencies within criminal and youth justice  We must contribute to the debate of why people offend and issues of rehabilitation and desistance. This will come from leaders who integrate this into all aspects of the monitoring contract  We have a duty of care to monitored persons but it also extends to the wider justice community  We must focus on service delivery and bring innovative ideas to assist the monitored person in successfully completing their order or ensure a rigorously monitored licence which contributes to public safety.

Innovation – Adding value  Re introduction of pre sentence information sharing  exchange of information regarding risk and best practice  helps improve the quality of assessments  Texting service for young people and vulnerable adults  Communicates at the right level within technology parameters of comfort  increases compliance and reduces breaches  Referrals to Intensive support in local areas for year olds  if indicators suggest need and risk have to be addressed  Mentoring and support for those on HDC  offer support after release to improve compliance  Raise awareness of GPS  In line with plans for nationwide consultation and possible pilots.

Summary The future of EM in Scotland  If the use of technology does grow it doesn’t have to mean more control  It depends upon the uses to which such technologies are put  Legislation which encourages partnerships will help determine its use  As will the contractor evidencing the ethos and values of the sector and commitment to joint working  Will future procurement evaluate the track record and commitment of organisations to demonstrate these values?

Contact details