How's Tagging Going?

Electronic monitoring in practice: The police response to electronically monitored bail conditions and the use of electronic monitoring on community sentences and post-release licences

Foreword
Electronic monitoring is playing an increasingly prominent role across the criminal justice system. Over recent years, technological advances, legislative reform and changing operational pressures have all contributed to a substantial expansion in its use. In the year to June 2026, the total number of individuals subject to electronic monitoring grew by over 2,300, to 27,847. Electronic monitoring is now expected to support a wide range of objectives, including public protection, victim safety, rehabilitation, and compliance. Against a backdrop of significant prison overcrowding, electronic monitoring is increasingly being relied upon as an alternative to custody. The introduction of the Sentencing Act 2026 is expected to accelerate this trend further, increasing both the number of people subject to monitoring and the demands placed on those responsible for delivering and responding to it.

This report brings together the findings from two strands of inspection fieldwork: the police response to breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions, and the use of electronic monitoring on community sentences and post-release licences. While they focus on different parts of the criminal justice system, both strands consider whether the governance, systems, processes and partnership arrangements supporting electronic monitoring are sufficiently mature and resilient to keep pace with its growing use.

Our inspection of the police response to breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions found dedicated officers and staff working hard to respond to a substantial and increasing demand. Yet national guidance was limited, and systems and processes in different fieldwork forces varied considerably. In the cases we examined, alleged breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions did not consistently lead to structured consideration of risk to victims, witnesses or the wider public. Poor record-keeping, information-gathering and analysis made it difficult for forces to understand either the demand generated by electronic monitoring or the effectiveness of their response.

For probation, electronic monitoring has expanded the range of tools available to support public protection and risk management. Regional electronic monitoring teams have improved oversight, strengthened governance and brought greater expertise to the management of increasingly complex monitoring arrangements. However, expansion has brought complexity. Across the Probation Service, practitioners are required to navigate a growing range of monitoring technologies, operating models and communication channels. While many recognise the potential value of electronic monitoring, it is not always fully integrated into supervision or rehabilitative work. We found examples of monitoring data being underused and practitioners receiving large volumes of information without always having the confidence or capacity to make best use of it. Many of the challenges identified in our 2022 inspection of electronic monitoring remain evident today.

A particular concern is that, despite significant investment in data systems and management information, achieving a reliable picture of electronic monitoring activity still requires substantial manual effort. On 30 June 2026, there were 5,043 individuals who should have been subject to electronic monitoring but were not being monitored.

Understanding who is subject to EM, who remains unassigned with the necessary equipment, and the reasons for this, often relies on the reconciliation of multiple datasets and validation exercises. As electronic monitoring continues to expand, the need for a single, trusted and accessible source of information becomes increasingly important for management of the caseload and public confidence.

Most concerningly, both inspection strands identified risks arising from fragmented information-sharing arrangements. Whether between probation and the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS), police and courts, or across different information systems, the absence of clear, timely and reliable information frequently undermined confidence in monitoring arrangements.

Our probation inspection findings also raise important questions about fairness and equality. While national policy recognises that electronic monitoring should be applied equitably, we are yet to see mature arrangements for understanding disproportionality across protected characteristics. As the use of electronic monitoring grows, it will become increasingly important for criminal justice agencies to understand not only who is being monitored, but whether its use and outcomes differ for particular groups.

At its best, electronic monitoring offers opportunities to strengthen public protection, improve victim safety and support more effective supervision and monitoring in the community. These tools have the potential to be guard-rails, steering people away from the wrong choices. However, technology alone cannot deliver these outcomes. Success depends on the quality of the supporting systems, partnerships, governance and professional practice that sit around it.

As electronic monitoring assumes a more prominent role within the criminal justice system, the focus must shift from expanding its use to ensuring it is delivered consistently, effectively and in ways that achieve the intended benefits for victims, communities and those subject to monitoring. This report identifies examples of encouraging practice, but the 30 recommendations it makes also draw attention to the scale of progress required across the system. It highlights areas where much more improvement is required if electronic monitoring is to become the credible, effective and integrated tool that policymakers, practitioners and the public expect it to be.

Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Michelle Skeer OBE QPM
His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Probation service leadership, policy and strategy
Since the 2022 HM Inspectorate of Probation thematic inspection, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has invested significantly in the governance and oversight of EM within the Probation Service. Regional EM teams are now established in all probation regions and provide better scrutiny of cases that have not been assigned relevant EM equipment, improved oversight of violations and more support for practitioners in navigating an increasingly complex EM landscape. National leadership has also strengthened through the introduction of a new operating framework and management information products. Together, these developments have improved oversight of installation performance, enforcement activity and individuals who are not being electronically monitored as planned, with senior leaders demonstrating a stronger understanding of operational performance than was evident in our previous inspection. The availability of management information has improved considerably. However, as with policing, a recurring concern was the absence of a single, trusted source of information.

Significant manual effort remains necessary to reconcile multiple datasets and establish key operational facts, including who is currently being monitored, who is not being monitored, and why monitoring has not yet started.

The policy framework underpinning EM is comprehensive. The Electronic Monitoring Operational Framework establishes clear principles about proportionality, purpose, credibility, integration and fairness. However, many frontline practitioners were unfamiliar with some of these principles and there was little evidence that they routinely informed day-to-day decision-making.

Arrangements for understanding outcomes were less developed than those for understanding activity. In the Probation Service, leaders could generally describe performance on installations, violations, enforcement activity, monitoring volumes and breach notifications but were less able to demonstrate whether EM was contributing to reductions in reoffending, improved public protection outcomes, enhanced victim safety or better rehabilitation. We also found limited ability to understand disproportionality. While some analysis had been undertaken for specific programmes, comprehensive assurance regarding the use or impact of EM across the full range of protected characteristics was lacking.

Pre-sentence and pre-release work
Information-sharing arrangements to support decisions about EM have improved since our previous inspection. Practitioners now routinely seek police information before recommending electronically monitored curfews, which helps them to identify domestic abuse and other safeguarding concerns that may affect the suitability of a proposed address. However, the quality and completeness of information provided by police forces varied considerably. In some cases, limited information, restricted timescales for disclosure or the absence of key details reduced practitioners’ ability to make fully informed decisions and, at times, created a false sense of assurance about the suitability of curfew arrangements.

The quality of pre-sentence advice to courts was mixed. Practitioners were generally able to identify a clear purpose for EM and recommendations were usually proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. However, reports did not consistently demonstrate how EM would contribute to rehabilitation, reduce offending or work alongside other proposed requirements. Assessment of an individual’s personal circumstances, diversity needs and capacity to comply with monitoring arrangements was often insufficient. Courts imposed the recommended EM requirement in most cases, although we found examples where EM was imposed despite practitioners identifying outstanding safeguarding concerns or assessing it as unsuitable.

Sentencers were particularly positive about alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements, describing them as a credible intervention that provided objective evidence of compliance. Beyond alcohol monitoring, however, stakeholders reported that courts continue to associate EM primarily with curfews and are often less familiar with the wider range of technologies available. While practitioners and sentencers recognised the potential value of GPS monitoring and exclusion zones, confidence in their use was variable, particularly in relation to eligibility criteria, operational requirements and practical application.

Pre-release planning was inconsistent and often gave insufficient attention to the role EM was intended to play in managing risk, protecting victims and supporting rehabilitation. While practitioners had generally considered information on safeguarding and domestic abuse, there was less evidence that they had analysed the suitability, impact and purpose of EM, or explained monitoring requirements effectively to individuals before release. Information-sharing between prisons, probation and monitoring providers was inconsistent, contributing to delays, confusion and difficulties with implementation.

The strongest practice involved early planning, effective multi-agency communication and clear discussions with individuals about the purpose and expectations of EM. However, these examples were not widespread. Too often, planning focused on the practical arrangements for imposing EM rather than how monitoring would contribute to wider sentence objectives, public protection and successful resettlement. As a result, the potential for EM to make a meaningful contribution to rehabilitation, desistance and risk management was not consistently realised.

Electronic monitoring in probation service delivery
The quality of probation practice in relation to EM was mixed and showed limited improvement since our 2022 inspection. Practitioners generally identified relevant risks, needs and personal circumstances, but too often failed to analyse how EM would contribute to reducing reoffending, managing risk, protecting victims or supporting desistance. EM was frequently treated as a stand-alone requirement rather than an integrated part of sentence management, with insufficient consideration given to motivation, ability, readiness to comply, diversity needs and personal circumstances.

Weaknesses identified in initial assessments were often carried through into planning and delivery. Too often, plans did not consistently explain how EM would support rehabilitation, public protection or wider sentence objectives. Contingency planning was particularly weak, and opportunities to involve individuals, family members and partner agencies in supporting successful compliance were frequently missed.

The delivery of EM was also hindered by operational challenges. Delays in fitting monitoring equipment remained common, communication with providers was inconsistent, and practitioners frequently reported difficulties accessing, interpreting and using monitoring information. GPS trail monitoring and exclusion zones were widely regarded as valuable public protection tools, yet both were underused. Often, practitioners were more focused on getting tags fitted than using the information they provided.

Information-sharing and multi-agency working during sentence delivery were inconsistent. Opportunities to use EM to support safeguarding, victim protection and risk management were often missed, while management oversight was effective in fewer than one-third of the inspected cases. The sharing of information about electronic monitoring requirements with victims was inconsistent, limiting assurance that victims were being kept appropriately informed. Regions had introduced specialist EM teams, and some were piloting auto-enforcement models that improved oversight and timeliness. However, these approaches raised questions about practitioners’ ownership of EM and the extent to which EM was integrated within wider case management activity.

Reviewing activity was a significant weakness. Formal review of the effectiveness and impact of EM was often absent, with limited consideration of whether monitoring had achieved its intended purpose, contributed to behavioural change or remained necessary and proportionate. Preparation for the end of monitoring was particularly poor, which reduced the opportunities to sustain progress or adapt risk management arrangements once EM had ended.

Overall, we found that EM was too often delivered as an administrative requirement focused on compliance rather than as an active intervention capable of supporting rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and strengthening public protection.