« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER TWO Policy and literature review
Context
2.1 This section of the report explains the origins and development of the ISMS programme in Scotland.
Policy and legislation in Scotland
2.2 Electronic monitoring of offenders aged 17 and over has been possible in Scotland since 1995 under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The nationwide roll-out of electronic monitoring took place in 2002, with the opening of a new state-of-the-art monitoring centre in East Kilbride as the network base for Reliance Monitoring Services, the company contracted to provide a Scotland-wide electronic monitoring service for offenders on Restriction of Liberty Orders ( RLOs). The roll-out made RLOs available as a community disposal to courts across Scotland, following their piloting in Hamilton, Peterhead and Aberdeen, and provide for the use of electronic monitoring as a means of monitoring an offender's compliance with a court order. 4
2.3 In Putting our communities first, A Strategy for tackling Antisocial Behaviour (2003), the Scottish Executive set out its proposal to introduce electronic monitoring in Scotland for young people dealt with in the Children's Hearings System. The document, intended as a platform for consultation, explained that electronic monitoring was likely to be appropriate for only a small number of children and young people, and that it will only be used to tackle 'serious issues'. The document outlined three specific circumstances when electronic monitoring may be appropriate to consider.
- As an alternative to placing some young people in secure accommodation, where a residential or community-based placement together with the control provided by monitoring may be more effective in tackling their behaviour.
- As part of the process of re-integrating a young person back into the community following a period in secure or residential accommodation.
- For breaching an Antisocial Behaviour Order ( ASBO), since persistent involvement in such activities is likely to damage the interests and long-term welfare of the young person and suggest that they are in danger of having to be placed in secure accommodation at a later stage.
2.4 The extension of electronic monitoring to children and young people was provided for by Section 135 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which amended Section 70 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The amendment gave Children's Hearings in Scotland the power to impose a 'movement restriction condition' ( MRC).
2.5 The criteria for ISMS was narrowed during the parliamentary stages of the Bill from that suggested in the original consultation. Before imposing such a restriction, a Children's Hearing must be satisfied that Section 70(10) conditions of the Children's Scotland Act 1995 5 are met (and that it is necessary to exercise the power concerned). The conditions are:
- that the child, having previously absconded, is likely to abscond and, if s/he absconds, it is likely that his physical, mental or moral welfare will be at risk; and
- that the child is likely to injure himself/herself or some other person.
2.6 A movement restriction condition is defined as:
- restricting the child's movement in such way as may be specified in the supervision requirement; and
- requiring the child to comply with such arrangements for monitoring compliance with the restriction mentioned in paragraph (a) above as may be so specified.
2.7 The 'arrangements' for monitoring compliance with the restriction can be regulated by Scottish Ministers and are provided for in the Intensive Support and Monitoring (Scotland) Regulations 2005, which came into force on 1 April 2005 (and were later updated in 2006 and 2008). The regulations specify that the arrangements will be electronic, with a transmitter device attached to the child. The restriction can concern the child's presence at or absence from the accommodation at which they are required to reside or any address or location that they are required not to enter.
2.8 The regulations further specify that they would be applied in the local government areas of the City of Edinburgh, Dundee City, East Dunbartonshire, Glasgow City, Highland, Moray and West Dunbartonshire (the phase 1 local authorities). This was to ensure that electronic monitoring would only take place where appropriate intensive support would be available. It has been the intention of Scottish Ministers that intensive support would be an essential component of any electronic monitoring programme.
2.9 A number of other specifications are contained in the regulations. These relate principally to the movement restriction care plan that is intended to accompany the MRC, requirements for supervision of the child, and the conditions that are to form part of the restriction.
Guidance for phase 1 Local Authorities
2.10 The specifications arising from the regulations, along with other specifications, e.g. for monitoring and evaluation, were made available to the phase 1 LAs by the Scottish Executive in guidance material entitled Guidance for Implementation of Intensive Support and Monitoring Services in the Hearings System.
2.11 An ISMS consists of:
A six week assessment period, after which:
- if a movement restriction condition is not suitable for the young person, a different type of intervention should be designed to support them, paid for from other LA funds; or
- if a movement restriction condition was appropriate, they would receive the ISMS package for up to six months from the ISMS funding.
2.12 They would then receive a period of intensive support after the MRC was ended, for broadly the same time as the MRC had been in place, i.e. if the MRC was for three months, they would receive a three month transition out. This would also come from ISMS funding.
2.13 Cases where intensive support is provided without the electronic monitoring element are known as intensive support service cases.
2.14 The guidance specifies that data that the phase 1 LAs are required to collect: monitoring data, which is primarily output data, and evaluative data, which mainly concerns results and outcomes.
Risk assessment tools
2.15 The guidelines specify that ASSET or Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory ( YLS/ CMI) risk assessment tools must be used in all assessments of a young person being considered for ISMS. This is picked up in the evaluative data, where one of the data fields is the percentage reduction in 'at risk' scores in ASSET and through the duration of the ISMS programme.
2.16 YLS/ CMI was developed in Canada. It is a combined and integrated risk/needs assessment instrument for use with general populations of young offenders. Research studies in Canada have shown it to be a reliable predictor of a range of outcomes and in a small scale study undertaken in Kerelaw Secure Unit in Scotland, the YLS/ CMI was found to be a reliable predictor of recidivism for young males and females as well as a predictor of the risk of future violent conduct by male youths (Marshall, Egan, English and Jones, 2006).
2.17 ASSET is a structured framework for assessing young people involved in the criminal justice system. The tool was developed for use by multi-disciplinary members of Youth Justice Teams in England and Wales with offenders aged between 10 and 17 years to help inform the decisions made by Youth Courts (Curtis, 2001, Penman, 2005). A Scottish version of the ASSET tool, which was adapted slightly to reflect the tool's use for young people within the Children's Hearings System, was used in pilot areas. The tool corresponds to the different legal stages and can therefore produce assessments at the pre-trial and bail states. Risk factors include age at first conviction; number of previous convictions; previous custodial sentences; living arrangements; family and personal relationships; statutory education; employment, training and further education; substance use; attitudes to offending; motivation to change; positive factors (see Baker, Jones, Merrington and Roberts, 2005). The accuracy of ASSET assessments were investigated by Baker et al (2002) using 24-month follow-up data from a sample of 2,233 young people with offending behaviours. Risk assessments were found to predict recidivism with this group with an accuracy of 69.4% overall. Accuracy was found to be maintained when predicting the frequency and seriousness of offences, and was also maintained in relation to less frequent populations such as female offenders, ethnic minorities, and younger offenders. A Scottish version of the ASSET tool, which was adapted slightly to reflect the tool's use for young people within the Children's Hearings System, was used in pilot areas.
2.18 We draw on ASSET and YLS/ CMI results for the national evaluation of ISMS and to consider scores and changes in scores as appropriate, particularly in the case studies.
Changing policy environment
2.19 There have been no changes to the basic provisions in the legislation, regulations and policy related to ISMS since coming into force. There has been an increase in secure accommodation places, which may have an impact on ISMS usage (this is discussed later in the report).
2.20 In June 2004, the Scottish Parliament passed the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004. The legislation included a number of strategies to tackle anti-social behaviour in addition to the provisions for electronic monitoring: police powers to disperse groups of more than two people in designated trouble spots; parenting orders; fixed penalty notices for offences such as littering, vandalism, drunken behaviour or consuming alcohol in a public place; and greater powers for councils to deal with private landlords who ignore anti-social tenants. It is important to acknowledge the simultaneous effect these might have on anti-social behaviour generally in Scotland.
2.21 More recently, following the Colyn Evans Enquiry (Fife Council, 2005), the Scottish Executive has produced a range of measures and proposals that are relevant to the risk management of young people who present with a risk of violent or sexual offending. The Youth Justice Improvement Programme (Scottish Executive, 2006a) stresses the need to ensure that high risk offenders' needs and risks are properly assessed in order to ensure that interventions (which should reflect 'what works' to a sufficiently high standard), such as ISMS, are used effectively. Similarly, the draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill (Scottish Executive, 2006b) proposes that where agencies are concerned about the sexual or violent behaviour of a young person, they should produce plans with other agencies to meet needs and reduce their risk of re-offending. This includes the use of risk assessment tools such as YLS/ CMI, ASSET and other tools specifically relevant to sexual or violent offending, where appropriate. Once criminogenic needs have been identified, agencies should provide good quality interventions to address offending behaviour and contingencies, as part of a risk management plan 6. A range of 'best practice" recommendations for risk assessment and risk management produced by the Government have very recently been presented in the form of a self-assessment and quality assurance process ( Getting it Right for Children and Young People who Present a Risk of Serious Harm, Scottish Government 2008). It should be noted however that this evaluation pre-dates this document.
Evaluative work
2.22 While there is an abundance of literature on electronic monitoring generally, there appears to be little available on the electronic monitoring of children (and less still on the use of electronic monitoring in conjunction with intensive support). Works consulted are listed in Appendix 3 and we attempted to focus on those studies that could be considered as comparators.
2.23 The only other electronic monitoring programme we have uncovered is in England. (International programmes differ too much to be of use as a comparator). Results from evaluative work in England are described in the following sub-sections. We have also looked at evaluation results related to the pilot Restriction of Liberty Orders ( RLOs) in Scotland since they involve young people. It should be noted that this other work considers offenders and not, as with ISMS, offenders and other young people at risk.
Electronic monitoring in England
2.24 The Criminal Justice Act 1991 saw curfew orders with electronic monitoring become available as a sentence. This was amended in 1994 and was used on a trial basis in 1995. According to the National Probation Service, offenders aged 16 years and over could be subjected to curfew order with electronic monitoring from December 1999 in England and Wales. This could be for a period up to six months for up to 12 hours a day. Section 43 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 amended the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and, in February 2001, offenders from 10 to 15 years old could be placed on curfew orders for up to three months and up to 12 hours a day (Home Office 2005).
Electronic monitoring trial 1995-97
2.25 Electronic monitoring was used on a trial basis in March 1995 in Norfolk, Manchester and Reading, and take-up was slow. The trial was extended to Greater Manchester and Berkshire. The first three months of the trials were assessed by the Home Office. 83 offenders were tagged by June 1996, aged from 16 to 77 years old. The curfew orders were mainly for offences such as theft, burglary and driving while disqualified. The results for the first year showed that the equipment was reliable and sentencers were satisfied with the fast detention of people who violated orders and the following enforcement action.
2.26 375 offenders were tagged in the second year of the study, from July 1996 to June 1997. Custodial sentences had been seriously considered for nearly two-thirds of those placed on curfew orders. Just 2% of those on the orders were 16 to 17 year olds. The profile of offences in year two were similar to those in year one of the study.
2.27 The curfew orders were successfully completed in 75% of cases in the first year and 82% in the second year (up to the time of the report in October 1997). The completion rate was particularly high in Norfolk, where 93% of offenders completed their orders successfully (Mortimer and May 1997).
Electronic monitoring trial 1998-2000
2.28 The impact of the curfew orders given to 10 to 15 year olds was assessed for two pilot areas - Greater Manchester and Norfolk. 155 of these orders were made between March 1998 and February 2000 and the report shows that the take-up was low. It was suggested through interviews that the curfew was only suitable for a small number of children and young people with particular characteristics or problems. Most of the orders were for 14 to 15 year-olds and only ten of the cases were girls. Two orders were for more than ten offences, but the majority were for one or two offences, mostly for theft and handling offences, followed by burglary and violence. Most young offenders were under curfew for 10 to 12 hours a day, nearly all overnight. No curfews were made during school hours. Offenders were visited by two officers to monitor the curfews.
2.29 The research included interviews with 25 offenders and 28 families, and there was evidence to show that some of the offenders saw the tag as a 'trophy'. Others were unaffected by the tag, but this seemed to be dependent on the individual. In four of 13 cases that were receiving education, the electronic monitor caused problems for participation in sports and physical education lessons. For some others, the monitors caused injury, became loose or fell off. In two cases, there was a clear positive effect on education and behaviour. In six cases, it was observed that the families were brought closer due to the young person being at home more. It was also seen as a benefit by five families, who said that they knew where their children were. However, three families said they could not go out as they would have to leave the offender at home alone, and in one case the offender was unable to see some family members who lived at another address due to the curfew (Elliot et al 2000).
Tagging as condition of bail or remand
2.30 From June 2002, tagging was available for 12 to 16 year-olds as a condition of bail throughout England and Wales. According to the Juvenile Offenders Unit, tagging of 17 year-olds on bail was available from July 2002. It was operational initially (from April 2002) in ten areas: Avon and Somerset, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, West Midlands, Nottinghamshire, Thames Valley, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and Metropolitan London including the City of London. Shortly afterwards, it also became available in Northumbria. Tagging was seen as an alternative to custody (Juvenile Offenders Unit 2002).
2.31 A report from the Home Office (Cassidy et al, 2005) analysed electronic monitoring of juveniles on bail or remand in local authority accommodation. The study reviewed information from Youth Justice Board statistics, data from information systems of Youth Offending Teams, data from the electronic monitoring contractors, interviews with Youth Offending Teams' staff and juveniles on tagged bail and a literature review of relevant studies. Data was gathered from 28 Youth Offending Team areas (out of a possible 50). In these localities, a total of 315 people had been tagged from April 2002 and December 2003. The report highlighted that the majority (88%) of those tagged were male and two thirds of those tagged were 16 to 17 years of age. In these YOT areas, 31% of those tagged were involved in the Intensive Supervision and Support Programme ( ISSP). Tagging was seen as an alternative to custody, but it was argued that many of the offenders would have probably been given conditional bail if they had not been tagged.
2.32 As part of Cassidy et al (2005), qualitative research was undertaken with 15 young people involved in the tagging programme. The young people involved believed that it reduced their re-offending rates, one interviewee commenting "that it keeps you out of trouble".
2.33 Other comments centred on the restrictive nature of tagging: limiting which activities young people could participate in (e.g. football and other sports) and when they could spend time with family members that they did not live with. There were mixed views on the reaction of others to the tag. Although some of the interviewees did not raise it as an issue, other young people highlighted that they felt stigmatised. One respondent indicated that they would prefer a custodial sentence if the time was shorter.
2.34 In addition to qualitative interviews with young people, the researchers interviewed Youth Offending Team staff. The report indicated that staff felt that young people's lives could be stabilised by the orders.
Evaluation of the National Roll-out of Curfew Orders
2.35 The Evaluation of the National Roll-out of Curfew Orders by the Home Office (2002) discusses an evaluation of the use of the orders for the first 13 months of operation, from 1 st December 1999 to 31 st December 2000. It focused on five sample areas of Greater Manchester, Inner London, Kent, West Glamorgan and Merseyside. Take-up was lower than expected, but curfews were seen to be particularly suitable for young offenders as they often offended at night. Those tagged were aged between 16 and 72. They were under curfew for between two and 12 hours a day for up to six months for offences such as burglary and violence.
2.36 Interviews were undertaken with probation officers and 20 offenders from the four regions. All offenders that were interviewed were positive about the support they were receiving and few had any problems with the monitoring equipment, and those that did were resolved promptly. Most also thought they had enough support from family and friends, and some officers were also encouraging. However, many were unaware of the number and type of violations to the curfew that would result in breach action, and had no knowledge about changes in curfew restrictions. Most disliked wearing the tag and saw it as a stigma, but said that family relationships had benefited due to the stability produced by the curfew. For some, the curfew caused friction at home. 83% completed their curfew orders, often because of fear of custody, but two offenders who breached their orders thought it would have been easier to do a custodial sentence (Walter 2002).
Electronic monitoring and intensive support in other contexts.
Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme
2.37 In 2001, the Youth Justice Board introduced the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme ( ISSP) following research that suggested 3% of young offenders were responsible for 25% of all youth crime. This Programme is targeted at prolific young offenders (aged 10 to 17 years-old) and young people who commit serious crimes who are considered would benefit from early and intensive intervention. The ISSP entails the use of a monitoring system in the form of an electronic tag or telephone voice verification technology (where a 'voice print' of the young person is checked over the telephone in order to confirm that they are at home) and by ISSP staff visiting the young person to ensure compliance with the order. The minimum requirement of the ISSP conditions is for two surveillance checks each day, but this can be increased to 24-hour monitoring. The programme also emphasises structuring the participant's time while addressing criminogenic risk factors through a minimum of 25 hours contact time over a period of three months. After the three-month period of intensive support, this reduces to one hour per day for a further three months, without the surveillance element ( YJB, 2004). The core elements of the intervention are education (particularly basic literacy and numeracy), addressing thinking skills deficits, tackling substance misuse issues and reparation to victims and/or the community. ISSP also includes interventions to address specific individual needs such as mental health issues and accommodation problems.
2.38 The Youth Justice Board's evaluation (2005) of the effectiveness of the ISSP reported a reduction in recidivism of 39%, however, similar reductions were observed in the control group that did not receive the ISSP. Within the two-year follow-up period, 91% of those in the ISSP group were also found to have been reconvicted on one or more occasions. The evaluation also found evidence that any impact ISSP had on different sub-samples of offender became less evident over the longer follow-up period, where significant results in the first year were no longer significant in the second year. Some of the more positive findings were found to be related to interventions following the withdrawal of ISSP: the use of Restorative Justice case conferences and increased participation on constructive leisure activities were found to significantly reduce recidivism levels. A 'net-widening effect' was indicated by the finding that there were individuals subject to ISSP conditions who might otherwise have been placed on other forms of less intensive community disposals. Lastly, the study also reported that issues such as substance abuse, mental health issues and accommodation problems were not being addressed effectively.
2.39 Following on from this 6-month programme, a 12-month ISSP was piloted in 11 ISSP schemes between 1 st October 2004 and 30 th September 2005. The Youth Justice Board set the following criteria for the 12-month ISSP (Youth Justice Board 2007).
- The 12-month ISSP was available for young offenders who were appearing in court, charged with or convicted of an offence who had previously been charged, warned or convicted of offences committed on four or more separate dates within the last 12 months and received at least one community or custodial penalty.
- In addition, young people could also qualify for ISSP if they were at risk of custody because the current charge or sentence related to an offence that was sufficiently serious that an adult could be sentenced to 14 years or more.
2.40 Over half the sample of people that were the subject of the Youth Justice Board's evaluation (2007) entered the 12-month programme via the 'serious only' route. Fewer than 20% entered through the 'persistence only' route. This differs notably from the 6-month sample, where the majority of cases entered via the 'persistence only' route. However, although the problems presented by the 12-month sample were in some cases very serious, overall, the number of problems, and how they related to the offending behaviour of the young person, were both less numerous and less serious than those in the 6-month sample, and, overall, the group presented with fewer risks associated with reconviction.
2.41 The young people on the 12-month ISSP had higher levels of non-compliance but a lower breach rate overall than the 6-month sample. Staff reported that the young people in the 12-month sample were more motivated to undertake the programme than their 6-month counterparts, but many of them lost momentum due to the extended length of the programme. The completion rate of the 12-month programme was, however, lower than the 6-month programme overall, with rates of 32% and 42% respectively. In the 12-month programme, the 'serious only' offenders were most likely to complete the programme, but their completion rate was only 42%. The relatively small group of young people who completed the programme demonstrated a reduction in their risks associated with re-offending. However, among the group who did not complete the programme, in the majority of cases they were assessed as having higher risks on exiting the programme. The Youth Justice Board evaluation (2007) concludes that, given the low completion rates, if long-term intensive programmes are to work, they should be targeted at those individuals who need them most, i.e. the serious and persistent offenders.
Electronic Monitoring trial with adult offenders based in three English cities
2.42 Similar levels of recidivism were reported in a research study published by the Home Office and conducted by Sugg, Moore and Howard (2001). This study details the evaluation of an Electronic Monitoring trial with adult offenders based in three English cities. Following a two-year follow-up, they found that the recidivism level was 73%, which again was comparable to the control group that had received other community disposals (curfews and community service). The study also identified that the level of compliance with the order was high, with 80% of offenders completing successfully.
Meta-analysis of electronic monitoring studies
2.43 In the largest reviews of electronic monitoring to date, Renzema and Mayo-Wilson (2005) conducted a search of all of the available studies (from 1986 to 2002) on the subject and identified 351 research papers. The authors reviewed these articles and discussed the historical development of various forms of 'tagging' and the lack of good quality evaluation studies. Renzema and Mayo-Wilson then selected those studies that satisfied their criteria for inclusion (such as having assessed recidivism levels, having moderate to high risk offenders randomly assigned to electronic monitoring groups or a control group). Due to their requirements of rigorous methodologies, the resulting sample consisted of three studies that were then examined using the meta-analytical approach. The findings of this review were not positive and the authors are of the view that the use of electronic monitoring as means of reducing crime is not supported by the existing data. The authors concluded by stating that:
"After 20 years, it is clear that EM has been almost desperately applied without adequate vision, planning, programme integration, staff training, and concurrent research. It has punished, perhaps more humanely and cheaply than otherwise possible, and it has been an element in the avoidance of prison crowding and prison construction, but it is not free and it is not without unintended effects."
2.44 One of the studies that was included in this meta-analysis was a Canadian study by Bonta, Wallace-Capretta and Rooney (2000). In this study, which has similarities to the ISMS package, members of the experimental group were electronically monitored for an average 71.4 days and were required to attend a cognitive behavioural therapy programme, which has good levels of integrity, for nine hours each week. The control group consisted of offenders released on probation without electronic monitoring and without the condition of revocation of their release for failing to attend the therapeutic programme. The authors reported that 53% of the unmonitored probationers completed the therapeutic programme, compared with 87% in the electronic monitoring and court ordered attendance group. This finding of increased compliance through 'tagging' appears to be reflected in the English study discussed earlier by Sugg et al (2001). Bonta et al (2000) also found that the combination of electronic monitoring with court ordered attendance on the programme was associated with significantly lower recidivism for the high risk offenders (32% recidivism compared with 51%). Consistent with 'what works' research generally, the same programme resulted in higher levels of recidivism for the low-risk offenders in the experimental group in comparison to the control group (32% recidivism versus 15% recidivism in the no-treatment group). This study highlights the need for interventions to be matched to those with greater levels of risk and that programmes with good levels of integrity, targeting criminogenic needs, can have positive outcomes in reducing recidivism.
2.45 In North America, the use of Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole ( ISP) as a disposal has perceptions of being 'tough' and having a deterrent effect on further offending due to increased levels of monitoring. The use of electronic monitoring and frequent drug testing of probation clients in combination with regular unannounced home visits are common elements to ISP. This enhanced monitoring, however, is not also matched with commensurate levels of intervention to address risk and needs. The meta-analysis of ISP by, Gendreau et al (2000) found that only 18% of those on probation or parole had even a minimal amount of therapeutic intervention. This study also found that reductions in recidivism levels were found in only those offenders who were engaged in some form of treatment. The deterrent value of 'tough' community-based disposals was investigated further in a study by Petersilia and Turner (1993) who found no evidence that increased surveillance in the community deterred offenders from committing further crimes. Interestingly, this study found that offenders on ISP had relatively the same number of subsequent arrests, but the additional levels of supervision resulted in the increased probability that a 'technical' violation of conditions would be detected, resulting in an increased use of incarceration in this sample when compared to a similar group of offenders who were not as intensively monitored.
Wraparound Milwaukee
2.46 In relation to the provision of intensive support services, the Wraparound Milwaukee service has a number of similarities to the packages in place across Scotland (Kamradt, 2000). Wraparound Milwaukee is a multi-agency collaboration involving child welfare service (including a 24-hour crisis response team), education services, mental health services and the juvenile justice system that aims to provide intensive packages to families.
2.47 A recent evaluation (Wraparound Milwaukee Annual Report, 2002) reported that young people who were involved in Wraparound for a period of a year or more performed better in school, within their family homes and in the community after the provision of the service. At the community level, the Wraparound programme was found to have had a positive impact with recidivism rates reducing, and continuing to reduce after a follow-up period of three years from programme completion. One aspect of this reduction in offending was that, in 2002, the average number of young people that were placed in 'restrictive' residential treatment placements fell from 80 at the start of the year to 42 at the end of the year. Finally, Wraparound appears to offer a cost effective alternative to conventional interventions: the average monthly cost for Wraparound was reported to be $4,350 in comparison to over $7,300 for residential placements and over $6,000 for juvenile correctional placements.
Intensive Probation Unit, Inverclyde
2.48 Similarly, encouraging findings on the use of intensive interventions, without electronic monitoring, within Scotland are reported by Jamieson (2000) in relation to the Intensive Probation Unit ( IPU) delivered by NCH in Inverclyde. The IPU is described as a community-based alternative to custody, aimed at 16 to 21 year-olds who are at a high risk of receiving a custodial sentence based on their seriousness and history of offending. The intervention was delivered through modular groupwork following the recommendations of effective practice. The interventions were aimed at addressing criminogenic needs such as violence and substance use. After a follow-up period, of around 18 months on average, it was found that there was a 24% reduction in convictions in the IPU group compared with the group that received custody. On the basis of these findings, it appears that the provision of intensive support with a group of high risk offenders was successful in reducing recidivism in comparison to a similar group who were given custodial terms.
Scotland Restriction of Liberty Orders
2.49 A pilot scheme for the Restriction of Liberty Orders ( RLOs) with electronic monitoring was introduced in three Sheriffs Courts (Aberdeen, Hamilton and Peterhead), starting in August 1998 and lasting for 14 months. The RLOs covered restrictions on persons from or to a place for up to 12 months. RLOs are dispensed through the adult justice system, although they may be given to young people under 16 years-old.
2.50 152 Orders were made on 142 people, with more than two-thirds of these for 12 hours a day. Some offenders did not receive Orders because they were considered to be unsuitable because of factors like family tensions, unsettled accommodation, or chaotic lifestyles (the latter frequently associated with drug use). A demographic analysis of those subject to an Order indicated that more than half (54%) were aged 16 to 20 years-old and a further 26% were aged 21 to 25 years-old. Of the 142 offenders, only 9 (6%) were female, and the majority of these were under 25 years-old. Of the 142 offenders subject to an Order, 63% had previously served a custodial sentence, 12% had previously been remanded in custody, while only 9% had no previous convictions.
2.51 Orders were imposed for a variety of reasons: from offences related to housebreaking (83% of orders in Aberdeen and 38% of orders in Hamilton), assault, breach of the peace or road traffic offences. The Orders varied in duration, with 32% of orders for three months and 26% for six months.
2.52 An evaluation (Lobley and Smith, 2000) of the scheme included qualitative interviews with Social Work Department staff, Sheriffs, court officials, offenders and their families. Sheriffs, court officials and social workers had mixed views on the types of offenders/offences that the Orders should be applied to, but the Orders were seen as being mainly used as an alternative for custody and most appropriate for those who would otherwise have been given a custodial or other community sentence.
2.53 Of the 35 offenders and 19 parents interviewed, many saw the RLO was a positive scheme, as they thought that if the scheme had not been in place the alternative would have been serving a custodial sentence. However, some felt they were not well informed about the equipment and others thought the length of orders imposed was excessive. Some families thought that the levels of responsibility that they were expected to have in ensuring the offender met the terms of the order was excessive. A small number of offenders said that the Orders would change their behaviour for the long-term, but others believed that it would have no impact and that more offending was possible.
2.54 The programme's success was measured by the number of Orders successfully completed. Completion of an Order was difficult to measure. The evaluation seemed to suggest that an Order was completed if it ran its full term. Measuring this was quite difficult, with some Orders being interrupted by or expiring during time in custody or other actions that the researchers believed were beyond the control of the offenders, e.g. eviction from home.
2.55 The success of the scheme is set in the context that many of the offenders still had dealings with the police during the term of the Order. Of the 103 Orders imposed from September 1998 to October 1999 that were completed, many only did so with interruptions: 35 had interruptions where monitoring did not take place (e.g. time in custody) and 43 were only completed after an action for breach of the Order had been initiated in the relevant court and a further 19 offenders received official warnings. Some 40 Orders failed (i.e. were breached or did not run their full term).
Scotland Electronic Monitoring on Bail
2.56 In April 2005, the piloting of electronic monitoring, without intensive support services, as a condition of bail was introduced across four Scottish courts through The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act. Findings of the first 16 months of this two- year pilot are reported in a study commissioned by the Scottish Executive (2007).
2.57 It was found that 94% of applicants for electronic monitoring on bail ( EM bail Orders) were men who were on average 26 years-old. From the sample of 63 people who completed EM bail Orders, 52 were restrictions to an address (mostly for 12 hours overnight) and the Orders ranged from 5 days to 217 days (62 on average) in duration. It was also found that breach of bail proceedings were brought against 31 people and their electronic monitoring allowed for immediate detection of infringements. From the sample of 63 people on EM bail, 44 were found to have failed to comply with their Order on at least one occasion (failures included voluntary non-compliance, such as wilful damage to the monitoring equipment, and involuntary non-compliance, such as hospitalisation). It was also found that, of those who failed to comply, 36% did so within the first 10 days of their Order.
2.58 The use of EM bail was found to cost on average £4,123 compared to £5,096 for custodial remand. Due to the process of 'backdating' custodial terms to include the period spent remanded in custody, but not the period during which a person is released on EM bail conditions, it was found that EM bail was the more expensive disposal of the two (on average, £4,123 as opposed to £2,548 for custodial remand). The report concludes that, in legal and judicial terms, that the aims of the pilot are not significantly impacting upon the remand population and that EM bail does not improve public safety any more than standard bail.
Hamilton Sheriff Youth Court Pilot
2.59 In June 2003, a pilot Youth Court was developed in Hamilton Sheriff Court that was to target persistent offenders aged between 16 and 17 years-old. Where background information on activities of those aged 15 years-old warranted it, these young people could also be considered by the Court. These young offenders had to be resident in North or South Lanarkshire and had to have offended on three separate occasions in the past six months. The aim of the scheme was to try to reduce the numbers and seriousness of offences by these young people. A research team from the University of Stirling has been undertaking a two-year assessment of the pilot scheme, with an interim report (McIvor et al 2004) providing analysis of the operation of the scheme in its first six months.
2.60 At this point of the evaluation, interviews with Sheriffs indicated that they welcomed the electronically monitored curfews as a bail condition as an alternative to a custodial sentence. Sheriffs also commented that there was little evidence that the pilot Youth Court led to young people appearing in the Sheriff Court who would not otherwise have done so.
2.61 The evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court from 2003 to 2005 (Scottish Executive 2005b) found that Sheriffs made infrequent use of electronically monitored bail. Over the evaluation period, it was found that 6% of young people referred to the Youth Court were subject to electronic monitoring on bail at some stage. Just over half the people (13 people on 18 separate occasions) were regarded as having failed to complete their period of electronic monitoring on bail because of a significant breach. A further two young people were recorded as having breached their curfew. The evaluation found that that the most common reason recorded for non-completion and breaches was the withdrawal of consent for the tagging by the premises holder (9 occasions).
2.62 Over the evaluation period of 2003 to 2005, data was also collected on the use of Restriction of Liberty Order ( RLO) disposals within the Youth Court. Overall, 47 young people (14%) had a RLO with electronic monitoring at some point. The vast majority of those subject to this disposal were male (46) and were under 18 years-old at their first appearance in court. The most common lengths of RLOs imposed were 3, 4 and 6 months (with one made for 9 months).
2.63 Interviews were conducted with some of the young people who had been subject to electronic monitoring on bail or as part of their sentence. It was reported that some of the interviewees who had been electronically monitored found the "temptation to breach the curfew - by meeting up with friends and drinking alcohol - too strong" and it was also found that others were "tempted to leave the house (especially to meet up with friends)". The use of electronic monitoring as a means of avoiding a custodial disposal served as an incentive for many to adhere to their Orders. It was reported that some were "relatively positive" about being electronically monitored and indicated that it "helped them stay out of trouble by keeping them off the streets at night".
2.64 The young people interviewed were reported as not having perceived the Youth Court as a 'soft option' and regarded it as having more 'teeth' than the Children's Hearings System. In particular, their awareness of the Court's power to give out a custodial sentence if they failed to comply with the conditions of a community-based disposal was regarded as important to this perception
2.65 Sheriffs and social workers interviewed were reported to regard electronic monitoring on bail as a useful alternative to a custodial remand. The study found social workers, however, did not to consider it to be appropriate for young people "with chaotic living conditions who would have difficulty adhering to the terms of the monitoring arrangements". The Sheriffs interviewed regarded lengthy monitoring periods as "unrealistic" and the study reported that one Sheriff suggested that electronic monitoring could provide an unnecessary stigma for some young people.
2.66 Overall, the evaluation indicated that the Hamilton Youth Court pilot worked well, with: clarity among the participating agencies as regards their respective roles; establishment of effective protocols for multi-agency working; rolling-up of charges under one complaint, which encourages plea-bargaining; a reduction in the number of trials and adjournments; provision of personnel assigned and dedicated to the Youth Court; and provision of a wide range of community programmes for young offenders. The more recent evaluation of both Hamilton's and Airdrie's Youth Courts (Scottish Executive, 2006) indicates, notwithstanding limitations in assessment, that they have been successful in meeting the objectives set for them (defined by the Youth Court Feasibility Group). In particular, the Youth Court's fast track procedures, additional resources and reduction in number of trials were viewed positively and reported to be a, "model to be aspired to in all summary court business". The evaluation however, raised the question whether or not a dedicated Youth Court is required. The authors argued that consideration should be given to the questions of whether the Youth Court should be more explicitly youth-focused, and for which young people the Youth Court is intended for in order to avoid "net-widening".
Summary of key findings
- ISMS was introduced by the Antisocial Behaviour, etc. Scotland Act 2004 and the Intensive Support and Monitoring (Scotland) Regulations 2005, and came into force in April 2005.
- ISMS is currently at a phase 1 stage and has been rolled out in seven local authorities.
- There is little to compare with ISMS in the literature because it is a unique intervention.
- However, there is some research evidence that suggests that elements of the package do work in terms of tackling offending behaviour, especially the intensive support element.
- The evidence on the effectiveness of tagging/electronic monitoring is more mixed.
« Previous | Contents | Next »