Electronic monitoring is not being used consistently to protect victims, manage risks or help reduce reoffending, according to inspectors who found significant weaknesses in the system as its use continues to expand.
A new briefing from HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services examined the use of electronic monitoring (EM) on court bail, community sentences and post-release licences.
Inspectors reviewed 180 cases involving people subject to electronic monitoring across six probation delivery units. They found that only 55% of GPS and radio-frequency tags and 60% of alcohol monitoring tags were fitted promptly. Around one in five people waited more than two weeks for GPS or radio-frequency monitoring, while almost one in 10 had not been assigned equipment up to five months after the requirement was imposed.
Even when monitoring was in place, its information was often not being used effectively. Only 34% of case reviews were informed by monitoring data, while just 24% considered its impact on factors linked to offending.
Inspectors also found that sufficient attention was given to protecting actual or potential victims in only 45% of relevant cases. Information-sharing and coordination between agencies were effective in around half of cases.
The report warns that electronic monitoring can create a false sense of security if it is treated as a way of managing risk without active oversight and professional judgement.
The problems extend to electronically monitored bail. Police forces are facing growing numbers of notifications about alleged breaches, but inspectors found inaccurate information, poor record-keeping and inconsistent approaches to enforcement.
Neither of the two forces examined had effective systems for recording EM bail breach notifications, making it difficult to understand the scale of demand or assess associated risks. Inspectors also found limited evidence that required risk assessments were being carried out consistently.
In some cases, victims were not told about alleged breaches or the outcome of subsequent bail hearings, despite the potential importance of this information to their safety.
The findings come as electronic monitoring becomes increasingly important within the criminal justice system, partly because it is being used more widely as an alternative to custody. On 30 June 2026, 27,847 people had electronic monitoring orders with equipment assigned, compared with 25,533 a year earlier.
The inspectors say the system needs better data, simpler processes and stronger links between monitoring, risk management and rehabilitation.
They also want more evidence about whether electronic monitoring is actually improving public protection and reducing reoffending. The full inspection report is due to be published on 26 October 2026.
[…] Electronic monitoring system failing to protect victims […]