Introduction:

The Government has announced a significant expansion in the use of electronic monitoring, in addition to procedural reforms to probation supervision, as part of the implementation of the Sentencing Act. See our blog on the announcements, here

This blog provides further analysis on the announcements, with a particular focus on the implications for the voluntary sector and for people with lived experience of the criminal justice system.

Electronic monitoring:

Not enough on its own:

Whilst electronic monitoring can support risk management, it doesn’t address the underlying drivers of offending. Many people leaving prison are dealing with complex challenges including unstable housing, mental health needs, substance use, trauma, and financial insecurity. Without support to address those issues, monitoring alone is unlikely to support long-term desistance.

There are also practical questions around enforcement capacity. Electronic monitoring can only support risk management if breaches are identified and responded to quickly and consistently. Without sufficient operational capacity, though we note the commitment to hire an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers in 26/27, there is a risk that monitoring provides a false sense of assurance.

The importance of stable housing:

On housing, the well-documented issue of people leaving prison being released into homelessness, persists. The focus must therefore be on ensuring access to safe and sustainable accommodation, beyond temporary provision such as CAS-3.

A key practical tension within the proposals is the reliance of electronic monitoring, particularly curfew-based tagging, on individuals having access to a stable and suitable address.

For many people leaving prison, this is not the reality. High levels of homelessness and housing instability mean that some individuals may be:

• Unable to meet the requirements for tagging
• Placed in unsuitable accommodation that does not support compliance
• Excluded from early release or alternative supervision arrangements altogether

This raises important questions about equity and access. There is a risk that those without stable housing who are often already among the most disadvantaged are further excluded from opportunities intended to support resettlement.

In addition, temporary or emergency accommodation may not be appropriate for curfew conditions, particularly where:

• There is a lack of privacy
• Shared or unsafe environments are present
• Individuals have limited control over the space

Without addressing the structural shortage of stable accommodation, there is a risk that electronic monitoring requirements unintentionally reinforce existing inequalities and limit the effectiveness of the policy.

‘Net widening’

There is also a potential risk of ‘net widening.’ If electronic monitoring becomes the presumption for many early releases, individuals who might previously have been released with fewer restrictions may instead be subject to more intensive licence conditions. That can increase the likelihood of technical breaches and recall to custody, which could ultimately work against the wider policy aim of reducing pressure on the prison estate.

The risk of creating barriers to support:

A related issue is the practical impact of licence conditions on engagement with support services. Curfews, location restrictions and monitoring requirements can sometimes make it harder for people to attend appointments, participate in training or employment, or engage with voluntary sector provision. It will be important that monitoring arrangements do not inadvertently create barriers to the support that helps people successfully resettle. 

Women:

For women, the question of shame and stigma linked to a visible tag needs to be considered - societal attitudes to women who are perceived as ‘deviant’ are different from attitudes to men and research into gendered experiences of shame and its impact on mental health should be considered. We would therefore strongly recommend that any reduction in probation supervision (which we cover in the probation reforms section) is accompanied by sustained, gender-responsive support delivered by specialist voluntary sector organisations.

Lived experience perspective:

Perspectives from people with lived experience are not uniform. However, engagement with victims and survivors consistently highlights that safety is shaped by more than monitoring. Many emphasise the importance of timely and consistent responses to breaches, clear communication from agencies, and access to specialist support services. Monitoring technologies may contribute to safety in some cases, but they are most effective when used alongside these wider forms of support

Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on License (DAPL) scheme:

In relation to the proposed expansion of the Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence (DAPL) scheme, the focus on victim safety is clearly important. However, organisations working in this space consistently highlight that monitoring alone does not change behaviour. Effective responses to domestic abuse require sustained investment in behaviour change programmes and trauma-informed interventions alongside monitoring.

Proximity monitoring:

The proposals around proximity monitoring between victims and perpetrators also raise some questions around design and implementation. While the intention to enhance victim safety is understandable, there are potential ethical and operational issues, including how victims experience these systems and how alerts would be managed in practice. It would be important for organisations supporting survivors to be closely involved in the design and evaluation of any pilot.

Acquisitive crime pilot:

The expansion of GPS monitoring for acquisitive crime raises questions around proportionality and data governance. Using movement data to compare individuals’ locations with unsolved crimes may have investigative value, but it will be important to ensure there are clear safeguards around how that data is used and interpreted.

Probation reforms:

Rebalancing supervision towards those deemed as the highest risk:

Overall, there is strong policy logic behind the reforms, particularly given the pressures on the probation service. In particular, the intention to prioritise face-to-face supervision for higher-risk individuals while using electronic monitoring and data tools to manage risk elsewhere is understandable in the current context. 

However, many people in the lower risk groups still have significant unmet support needs. This could mean that voluntary sector organisations become an even more significant source of support, which raises questions about whether the sector has the resources needed to meet that demand. 

Specific impact on women

Reducing routine supervision for low-risk individuals while increasing contact for higher-risk people could have a disproportionate impact on women and reflects a gender-blind approach that does not account for women’s specific needs.

This reflects a wider issue within the proposals, where access to support and less intensive supervision appears to be shaped by assumptions of stability and lower need. In practice, many women assessed as ‘low risk’ of harm to others still experience high levels of need, including domestic abuse, trauma, poor mental health, substance use, and caring responsibilities. These needs are often not fully captured within risk-based assessment frameworks.

As with the challenges identified in relation to housing and electronic monitoring, there is a risk that those with the most complex and unstable circumstances are least able to benefit from the proposed changes. Women without stable support networks, or whose needs are less visible within formal risk assessments, may be disproportionately affected.

Reducing supervision for those assessed as ‘low risk’ may therefore result in fewer opportunities to build trusted relationships, identify need, and connect women to appropriate support. In practice, this can lead to unmet need, disengagement, and an increased likelihood of crisis or reoffending over time.

We have already seen women being disadvantaged through Probation Reset changes, where reduced contact has limited access to relational support and specialist services. There is an urgent need to ensure that women are not further disadvantaged as additional reductions in supervision are introduced.

We would urge that any reduction in probation supervision is replaced by sustained, specialist support provided by the voluntary sector. However, there is a risk that these reforms, as with wider changes across the system, shift responsibility for managing lower-risk individuals away from probation and onto voluntary organisations without a corresponding shift in resources or accountability. This could create gaps in provision and increase pressure on already stretched services.

Women benefit from relational, trauma-informed, and gender-responsive support models that prioritise trust and consistency. These approaches enable needs and risks to be properly understood and addressed over time, and can reduce demand on other areas of public spending such as health and social care.

More fundamentally, these reforms highlight a common limitation across the proposals: a reliance on risk-based thresholds to determine access to support. As seen in both electronic monitoring and housing-related requirements, this risks excluding those whose lives are most unstable or whose needs are least visible.

A system that equates ‘low risk’ with ‘low need’ does not reflect women’s experiences. In practice, this could mean that women receive less supervision and less support at the point they need it most, increasing the likelihood of unmet need, worsening outcomes, and higher long-term costs to public services.

Utilising statistical predictor tools:

The introduction of statistical risk prediction tools and expanded tiering is understandable as an attempt to prioritise limited resources. Expanded tiering refers to the increased use of structured risk categories to determine the level and intensity of supervision, with those assessed as lower risk receiving reduced oversight and contact.

However, there is increasing evidence that algorithmic risk tools can replicate biases present in criminal justice datasets. This raises concerns that decisions about supervision including placement within lower tiers, may reinforce existing inequalities, particularly for individuals whose needs are less visible within risk-based assessments.

As with other elements of the proposals, this highlights a broader limitation of relying heavily on risk as the primary mechanism for allocating support. A system that determines access to supervision and services based on risk alone may overlook significant need, resulting in some individuals receiving less support despite experiencing complex and intersecting challenges.

The commitment that practitioner judgement will be able to override statistical tools is welcome and will be an important safeguard. However, transparency around how these tools are developed, validated, and used in practice will be critical to maintaining trust and ensuring accountability.

Conclusion:

From a Clinks perspective, electronic monitoring and data-led approaches have a role to play in supporting risk management within a pressured probation system. However, these measures should be understood as complements – to not substitutes for – the relational, rehabilitative support that is central to reducing reoffending and supporting desistance.

There is a clear risk that expanding monitoring without parallel investment in support services could lead to increased breach and recall rates, greater pressure on the prison estate, and higher demand on an already stretched voluntary sector.

Similarly, reducing supervision for those assessed as lower risk must not create gaps in support. Many individuals in this group continue to have significant unmet needs, meaning voluntary sector organisations will play an increasingly important role. This should be recognised through sustainable investment and meaningful involvement in the design and delivery of reforms.

Lived experience perspectives also highlight that technology alone does not create safety. Victims consistently emphasise the importance of timely enforcement, clear communication, and access to specialist support services. Without these, monitoring risks providing reassurance in principle, but not in practice.

Ultimately, the success of these proposals will depend not on the expansion of technology, but on whether they are implemented as part of a whole-system approach that prioritises rehabilitation, addresses inequality, and is informed by the voices of those with lived experience.