What contributes to effective electronic tagging and monitoring, including GPS and radio frequency trackers, and sobriety tags, in protecting the public from harm? Are there specific groups of individuals for whom electronic tagging and monitoring is more effective?

Background

We want to build confidence and trust in a system that upholds public protection and creates the conditions for individual rehabilitation. We want to better support the probation service in using evidence-based decision-making.

Next steps

We can be contacted at the following email address: evidence_partnerships@justice.gov.uk.

Source

This question was published as part of the set of ARIs in this document:

Areas of research interest

Related UKRI funded projects


  • 'Tracking People':controversies and challenges

    The network will foster debate and collaboration between academics, policy makers, designers and practitioners about the ethical, legal, social and technical issues arising from the current and future use of non-removabl...

    Funded by: AHRC

    Lead research organisation: University of Leeds

    Why might this be relevant?

    The project partially answers the question as it explores the use of tracking devices in various settings, including offenders, which is relevant to electronic tagging and monitoring. The authors have the necessary expertise to competently answer the question.

Similar ARIs from other organisations