UK: NAPO calls for end to tagging
01 March 2005
Research by the probation workers union NAPO has shown that electronic tagging is "extraordinarily expensive, does not effect crime and that aspects of the scheme are ineffective." Tagging was first introduced on a trial basis in July 1995, after being piloted as a condition of bail for unconvicted defendants. The curfew order, backed by electronic tagging, was introduced nationally for convicted adults in December 1999 and was extended for 10-15 year olds in February 2001. By 2003 nearly 15,000 curfew orders a year were issued by the courts against convicted offenders, who were fitted with electronic tags that are monitored by a private security company. The Home Detention Curfew Scheme, a form of early release of prisoners, was introduced with the provision of electronic tagging in 1999 and by the end of 2004 over 100,000 prisoners had been released under the scheme.
The NAPO research reveals that the government is paying the private sector £1,700 per order although "the outlay by the companies can be no more than £600 per order, and that for cases where there is a call out for a violation." The report estimates that Home Office curfew orders and the Home Detention Curfew Schemes have cost more than £220 million over four years, double the cost of supervising individuals by the Probation Service. Case studies reveal that curfew violations are not followed up by the companies - in one instance an offender violated the order 34 times before being taken back to court.
The Home Office, which recently signed a multi-million pound deal with two private security companies to double the number of tagging orders by 2008, acknowledged to NAPO that there is no evidence to show that it has any impact on crime. Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of NAPO, said: "Electronic monitoring is now a multi-million pound business set for a major expansion after the election, yet the figures clearly show that the profit is huge and hardly value for money. It is also extraordinary that the violations are not monitored or routinely followed up. There is an overwhelming case for the withdrawal of the curfew order."
NAPO "Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders: Time for a Review" (NAPO) 24.4.05; http://www.napo.org.uk/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=
default&uid=default&ID=111&view_records=1&ww=1