Report EM 2005 - E - CEP, the European Organisation for Probation

ELECTRONIC MONITORING
REPORT
ON 4TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE
Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands
19–21 May 2005

Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Opening the conference 2
3. Introductory sessions
3.1 Electronic monitoring in Europe 3
3.2 Electronic monitoring in the USA 4
3.3 Research 5
4. Technological developments
4.1 A view from the industry 6
4.2 Offender tracking in England and Wales 9
5. Workshops
5.1 Electronic monitoring of juveniles 13
5.2 Offender perspectives on electronic monitoring 14
5.3 Electronic monitoring in an immigration context 15
5.4 Ethical issues and quality standards 16
5.5 Analysing net-widening in the context of electronic monitoring 17
5.6 Electronic monitoring and social supervision 17
6. The future of electronic monitoring 18
7. Closing the conference 21
8. List of participants 23

1. INTRODUCTION
The fourth European Electronic Monitoring Conference took place at the Hotel
Zuiderduin, Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands, from 19 to 21 May 2005. It was much
larger than the three earlier events: over 130 people attended, from over 20 countries.
The conference did not have a particular theme. Instead it presented current and future
developments in electronic monitoring from several perspectives including technology
and research. Its main value, however, was probably in bringing delegates together and
allowing them plenty of time to share information, news and good practice.
The conference would not have been possible without the generous support of the
following companies:
Elmo-Tech Ltd
Group 4 Securicor
On Guard Plus Ltd
ProTech Monitoring, Inc
Serco Home Affairs (Premier Monitoring).
As well as giving a presentation to the conference, each company had some space in an
exhibition room in which to show delegates their services and equipment and discuss
these in more detail.
The conference was organised by a Preparatory Group consisting of Jaap Betist (the
Netherlands), Daniela Jessen (Germany), Dominik Lehner (Switzerland), Mike Nellis
(England) and James Toon (England).
Administrative support before and during the conference was provided by Fieke den
Hollander on behalf of CEP.
The organisers are grateful for the constructive comments received after the event.
These will generate improvements in a number of areas at the next electronic monitoring
conference.
1

2. OPENING THE CONFERENCE
2.1 Introductory remarks
John Scott, President of CEP
John Scott welcomed the conference participants to Holland. The scale and scope of the
event demonstrated the dynamic interest of policy makers, operational managers and
practitioners in the development of electronic monitoring and its impact upon criminal
justice systems across Europe. He commented that this fourth conference was the
largest mounted by CEP and he hoped that the addition of French translation to the
event would extend the breadth of discussion and understanding of the issues. He
challenged participants to find ways to use the technology to improve public protection
and increase public confidence in managing offenders in the community – not just as a
sentence or intervention in its own right but alongside other forms of supervision. He
urged participants to use the conference as an opportunity to exchange ideas and to
ensure that the event continued to be at the forefront of thinking on the European
experience of electronic monitoring. He thanked the Preparatory Group for their hard
work and acknowledged the vital support of the sponsors. In closing, he hoped the
content would be both enjoyable and useful, and reminded participants that their
contributions would make the workshops come alive and enhance the final report, which
would be widely disseminated.
2.2 Formal opening of the conference
Dato Steenhuis, Prosecutor General in the Netherlands
Dato Steenhuis welcomed participants to the fourth CEP/Electronic Monitoring
conference. He placed it in the context of “changing probation in a changing Europe” and
made a general plea for “penal realism”. Probation everywhere was already changing
and must change more, to take account not only of the needs and interests of the
offender but also the needs and interests of the victim. Probation must play its part in
protecting the public. Electronic monitoring (EM) was clearly one tool that could be used
to do this. Much was claimed for it. Too little was known about the best way to use it, or
what exactly it was capable of doing. There was as yet too little policy on electronic
monitoring – it was a technology which had not yet been fitted into our evolving systems
of community supervision. Only when we knew more about it would we be able to devise
policies about its best use. That was why conferences of this kind, which explored what
electronic monitoring could and might do, were important.
2

3. INTRODUCTORY SESSIONS
3.1 Electronic Monitoring in Europe: a summary and assessment of recent
developments in the legal framework and implementation of electronic
monitoring
Hans-Jörg Albrecht, Professor of Criminology, Max Planck Institute, Freiburg
Drawing on survey data which had been given to him a month or so before the
conference, Professor Albrecht presented a broadly positive view of the development of
EM in Europe. He saw it as positive in two senses. First the small-scale uses to which EM
was being put seemed to be useful; it was being integrated into existing systems of
criminal sanctions without substantially changing them. Secondly, and more promisingly
still, it did not appear to have had the detrimental effects on rehabilitative practices that
some critics and commentators had feared it would have a decade ago – although some
EM programmes placed more emphasis than others on surveillance and the
intensification of punishment. In his view, the controversies that prevailed in the mid-
1990s had died and discussion now centred on more pragmatic issues. Professor
Albrecht did acknowledge, however, that the expansion of EM was still bound up with the
growth of risk management, new forms of offender-exclusion and the general
commercialisation of criminal justice, and accepted that there was still potential for
controversy in respect of these matters. But EM was not seen as an intrinsic problem in
Europe (despite continuing reservations about it in the German Probation Service) – it
was no longer a question of “should we do EM”, but “how should we do EM” The
embeddedness of EM in European criminal justice systems was attested to by its
recognition in the European Union’s Green Paper on the Approximation, Mutual
Recognition, and Enforcement of Criminal sanctions (April 2004) and by the Council of
Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (2004). It would probably be in
fora like these that future legal and ethical controversies about EM would be explored.
Professor Albrecht’s paper explored EM under a number of headings. A review of the
legal framework showed that EM was variously being introduced as an alternative to pretrial
detention, as a community sanction (or contribution to one) and as a form of
supervised release from prison. It was used almost exclusively for adult offenders –
England and Wales was the only jurisdiction (at the time of the conference) to be using
EM with juveniles. A range of judicial and executive personnel were involved in decisions
as to who received EM and in what circumstances. In the main an offender’s consent was
required. The private sector was not a major player in the day-to-day operation of EM,
except in England and Wales, where private security organisations administered the
schemes. Professor Albrecht compared the development of EM in Europe with
developments in Florida in the USA, noting the increasing use of GPS tracking, which had
been taken up in a pilot scheme in three areas in England and Wales, and was under
consideration in a number of other mainland European countries.
All European countries had undertaken some evaluative research on their EM
programmes but a number of key questions remained,, eg on the impact of EM on
recidivism, on its cost-effectiveness and on the prevalence of net-widening (a
3

complicated concept to analyse and measure). There seemed to be a consensus that
where EM had been used to facilitate release from prison, costs were coming down;
where it was used as a community sanction the cost-implications were less clear. There
was some evidence that EM did reduce the use of imprisonment, but this was not
evidence that net-widening never occurred.
Among his general conclusions, Professor Albrecht argued that the diversity apparent in
the use of EM across Europe reflected the diversity of European criminal justice systems
in general. He anticipated that while change of some sort would be constant in these
systems, sometimes in the direction of harmonisation, this diversity, reflecting historical
traditions and country-specific problems, would continue for the foreseeable future. EM
would be used to address particular issues in particular jurisdictions. Countries would
nonetheless be prepared to learn from each other’s experience of EM, as with other
penalties and sanctions.
3.2 Electronic Monitoring in the USA
Peggy Conway, consultant to the EM industry, and editor of the Journal of Offender
Monitoring
Peggy Conway gave a necessarily brief account of the development of EM in the USA,
pointing out that because of the largely federated nature of American criminal justice –
its variation across 50 different states – it was impossible to generalise about any
development in criminal justice. EM was no exception. In addition, no one agency in the
US had responsibility for maintaining an overview of how EM had developed, and what
the trends and directions were. Far less systematic evaluative research had been done
on EM in the US than seemed to have been done in Europe. Much had indeed been
written on EM in the US, but there was far less integration of researchers and policymakers
there than here.
In Ms Conway’s estimation, the first wave of EM’s development had been dominated by
pre-trial schemes. Latterly, there had been an emphasis on “re-entry schemes” – release
from prison schemes linked to parole. This wave of development was largely due to fiscal
considerations affecting many states. The mass use of imprisonment was deemed to be
too expensive. Policy-makers were looking for ways to pare down the cost of
imprisonment and early release programmes were seen as one way of doing this – as
well as making the release process seem tougher – without conceding to the public that
prison was being overused. It was mostly in the re-entry market that GPS satellite
tracking had taken off. Compared to what she had picked up about Europe, there was no
official talk in the USA of needing to reduce prison populations, and no attempt to
conceive of EM as an alternative to prison.
The pattern of EM’s development in the USA had been significantly affected by vendors –
some aggressive marketing had undoubtedly occurred. The end result had not, however,
made a great deal of difference to American penal practice, which had been dominated
by imprisonment. The American Probation and Parole Association had also promoted EM
and did have some ownership of it as a probation tool. Its website was a useful source of
4

information about EM. There were also local and regional EM Associations in the USA
which promoted its development. These seemed to be little-known in Europe. Possibly
this did not matter. The development of EM now seemed to have its own momentum in
Europe, and was appraised more systematically by researchers. It was already easier to
get an overview of what was happening in Europe in respect of EM than it was in the
USA. In terms of systems and strategies, Europe did not seem to be “copying” the USA,
although technological innovations used there first might eventually appear over here.
3.3 Evaluative Research on EM
Professor Marc Renzema, Kutztown University, Pennsylvania
Professor Marc Renzema was undertaking a worldwide meta-evaluation of EM research
for the Campbell Consortium, in order to identify what, if any, definitive claims could be
made for it as a criminal justice tool, and to identify where further research was needed.
He lamented the state of research on EM in the USA, arguing that although the practice
of EM had been underway or over 20 years, very little adequate research (using control
groups) had been undertaken. Only a tiny handful were methodologically sound, at least
by the exacting standards of the Campbell Consortium (which were perhaps more
exacting than the standards routinely used by policy-makers). Most existing studies of
EM were of RF tagging, rather than voice verification or GPS tracking (though
publications about the latter were increasing, often focussed on sex offenders). There
were insights to be gained, but no incontrovertible claims could be made about its
impact on recidivism or on prison use. Its expansion had been vendor-driven in
significant respects, and governed more by folklore and anecdotes than hard evidence.
There was as yet no basis for saying that it had been used with the right kind of
offenders, in the right way – we might not yet have got the best out of EM, while at the
same time, for want of evaluations, we might be perpetuating serious mistakes.
Juveniles seemed to be harder to supervise using EM – their violation rates were
routinely higher than adults. One of the prevailing anecdotes concerned the length of
time it was feasible to tag an offender for. There were claims circulating that 4 months
was about the maximum feasible period, before offenders find the constraint unbearable,
or become indifferent to it. Professor Renzema said there was no real evidence for this –
in short we still did not know about optimum times. On the basis of those aspects of the
research enterprise he had seen in Europe, he felt the approach was more “intelligent”.
He was intrigued that the Swedish research had found EM effective (reduced reoffending)
with low risk-offenders, because this contradicted a finding from one of the
more reputable pieces of North American research (which had reinforced conventional
wisdom), that it worked better with higher-risk offenders.
5

4. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
4.1 A view from the industry
The five companies sponsoring the conference each gave a presentation about
themselves and the way they saw electronic monitoring developing. These presentations
are summarised below.
4.1.1 Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc
Steve Chapin, Chief Executive Officer and President
Steve Chapin spoke about the GPS tracking technology offered by Pro Tech. Privately
owned, and based in Florida with 55 employees, Pro Tech had tracked over 50,000
offenders with GPS since 1998. It was currently tracking about 5,500 offenders in total in
most of the states of the USA.
He showed pictures of the equipment used in monitoring offenders and described its
main features. The portable tracking device, docking station and transmitter provided RF
curfew monitoring, active GPS tracking and passive GPS tracking as required.
He explained how offenders were enrolled on to the tracking system. One of its
innovative features was the way in which it correlated the movements of tracked
offenders with crime scene data. Positive matches were reported to law enforcement
agencies overnight and had proved instrumental in solving a number of crimes.
In Florida, the largest user of GPS tracking, about 1,400 offenders were being tracked.
He drew attention to some of the positive outcomes of tracking as measured in a study
published in 2004 by the state Department of Corrections.
Looking ahead, he foresaw the use of GPS tracking in the USA increasing significantly
and possibly doubling within the next two years. Recent very serious crimes by sex
offenders had prompted new, tougher sex offender legislation in several states, together
with more money to expand GPS programmes. Federal sex offender legislation seemed
inevitable.
Some issues needed further thought: for example, who should supervise the life-time
tracking of sex offenders who had completed their sentences And how could the media
be brought to understand the technology However, there was no doubt that GPS
tracking had arrived and would be increasingly important in the supervision of offenders.
4.1.2 Group 4 Securicor
Paul Moonan, Director – Electronic Monitoring
Paul Moonan told the conference about Group 4 Securicor. The company had a
£3.8 billion turnover, employing 340,000 people in over 100 countries worldwide. It had
been providing electronic monitoring since 1995 and was the second largest provider of
electronic monitoring in the world with operations in the USA, the United Kingdom,
6

Israel, the Isle of Man and the States of Jersey. It was managing a daily caseload of over
17,000 people in total.
He saw the strengths of Group 4 Securicor as its excellent service delivery; its
partnership approach; and its focus on continuous improvement.
He said that Group 4 Securicor had a track record of harnessing the latest technology to
deliver excellence: Renew; electronic document management; hand-held technology;
and Web Patrol.
He commented on the ability of Group 4 Securicor to make things happen. It had
mobilised three contract areas in England during April 2005, with 3,000 subjects and 300
staff; federal contracts across all the states of the USA; and GPS tracking pilots in the
United Kingdom.
He saw Group 4 Securicor’s customers as wanting an outsourcing model and the latest
technology; a competitive price; consistently excellent service; and innovation, continual
investment and partnership.
In the company’s experience of electronic monitoring, compliance was high (averaging
88%). According to a recent UK research study, “Fewer young people breached after
being tagged”. Compliance was affected by the positive behaviour of staff. Electronic
monitoring could also reduce opportunities to offend: “Tagging helped…by giving young
people an excuse to stay out of trouble”. It could also add value to other rehabilitation
programmes.
Looking ahead, he thought that by continually innovating and providing an excellent
service, the suppliers of electronic monitoring would contribute to a safer society both
now and in the future.
4.1.3 On Guard Plus Ltd (OGPL)
Mark Griffiths, General Manager
Mark Griffiths said that OGPL, owned by Strategic Technologies LLC, provided technology
for offender supervision programmes worldwide, using traditional RF (radio frequency)
monitoring, biometric verification and tracking.
He briefly described the features of OGPL’s RF monitoring and biometric verification
systems. The latter allowed recognition based on the voice only, voice and finger, or face
and finger.
He spent most of the presentation on the BluTag tracking device. This, the only onepiece
tracking device available, had been developed by OGPL for use in the UK. It
offered GPRS communication, a link to any mapping system, and multiple location
technologies including GPS and enhanced cell positioning. He displayed some diagrams
showing what the BluTag offered over and above existing tracking systems. He also used
7

some mapping screenshots to show the track left by the BluTag during a walking and
driving test.
He added that its features and benefits included its physical capacity (small, light, with a
long battery life and short recharge period); being able to operate in active, hybrid and
passive modes; accurate location data based on multiple positioning technologies; and
remote programming of inclusion and exclusion zones.
He said the BluTag had been successfully tested in the UK and the USA, and was in
production in the USA for an order for about 700 devices.
Looking ahead, he saw new positioning technologies becoming available (for example
using TV signals), more sensitive GPS nodules and improved battery performance. But it
would be difficult to reduce the size of the BluTag even further.
More generally, he warned of the dangers of significantly increased caseloads; and he
thought that issues of data access and data security would be important. He ended with
a plea for greater transparency in procurement competitions and more efficient bid
processes.
4.1.4 Serco
Andy Homer, Director – Serco Home Affairs (Premier Monitoring)
Andy Homer explained that Serco was the parent company of both Premier Monitoring
Services (a service provider) and Premier Geografix Ltd (an equipment supplier).
He said that Premier Monitoring Services was contracted to provide electronic monitoring
in two regions of England and Wales. The company monitored defendants on bail curfew;
offenders subject to curfew or exclusion requirements imposed by a court; prisoners
released on licence; terrorist suspects curfewed under a Control Order; and asylum
seekers on a pilot electronic monitoring scheme.
Monitoring methods included RF monitoring of curfews; voice verification of attendance
at a specified place; and satellite tracking to monitor compliance with exclusion
requirements. All these operated from a dedicated monitoring centre.
Turning to Premier Geografix Ltd, he said this was the largest European manufacturer of
electronic curfew monitoring equipment. It held contracts in the United Kingdom, North
America, Australia and Italy. He emphasised the company’s ability to adapt its electronic
monitoring equipment to meet a customer’s specific requirement. He displayed pictures
of the different kinds of equipment that it manufactured.
He said that Serco’s experience of electronic monitoring so far was positive. It provided
the courts with a robust and effective community penalty; it could add structure to
chaotic lifestyles; it could enhance other community requirements; and it enabled the
effective management of those subject to immigration conditions.
8

Looking ahead, he thought that future success would depend on credible and robust
equipment; rigorous enforcement; good communications; and sound assessments and
selection.
4.1.5 Elmo-Tech Ltd
Doron Yassur, Chief Executive Officer
Doron Yassur told the conference that Elmo-Tech’s mission was to “Enable our partners,
government agencies and monitoring service providers, to set up, manage and run
secure, efficient, reliable and economic monitoring programs”. Security, accuracy,
flexibility and efficiency were the fundamentals of offender monitoring.
He said that Elmo-Tech, which was based in Tel Aviv, had over the past 10 years worked
in partnership with government agencies and services providers in Europe, the USA, the
Pacific Rim, and Latin America.
This was a time of global development in electronic monitoring, with more countries
using it, new applications evolving, new legislation being passed, and more sophisticated
services available. Elmo-Tech’s role was to offer an integrated platform in which the
different applications and programmes could be brought together.
He then described Elmo-Tech’s activities in the two years leading up to the conference. It
had introduced integrated monitoring platforms in the USA, Spain, Belgium, New
Zealand and Australia; provided the equipment for tracking programmes in the USA and
the UK; implemented voice verification systems in the USA, the UK, Spain and New
Zealand; implemented inmate tracking systems in the USA and Sweden; renewed
existing monitoring programmes in France, Portugal, Belgium, New Zealand and
Australia; and introduced new programmes in Mexico and Israel.
Finally he invited delegates to see demonstrations of Elmo-Tech’s equipment and benefit
from its representatives’ technical insight.
4.2 Offender tracking in England and Wales
James Toon and Steve Birkett, from the Electronic Monitoring Team of the Home Office
in London, gave presentations on the use of tracking technology and on the tracking
pilot projects that began in England in 2004.
4.2.1 The use of tracking technology
James Toon, Head of Electronic Monitoring
James Toon acknowledged that most of the delegates would not have direct experience
of offender tracking programmes. He made some general points first. Tracking was the
remote surveillance of a person’s location as he or she moved from place to place. It
used locational technology more often associated with tracking ships and vehicles. It was
more sophisticated than standard RF monitoring – but the expectations were higher too.
9

He then explained how the technology worked. Tracking used objects such as satellites
or radio masts which transmitted signals containing time and location data. The offender
carried a personal tracking device which received satellite or other signals and calculated
its own location. The tracking device transmitted location data to a control centre either
in real time (active tracking), or retrospectively (passive tracking) or some combination
of the two (hybrid tracking).
He said that in active tracking, the tracking device contained GSM or GPRS technology
allowing the immediate transmission of location data. This enabled a quick response to
violations, but with higher telecommunications costs and possibly additional staff costs
depending on the procedures used.
In passive tracking, the location data was not transmitted in real time but was stored
and transmitted retrospectively when the tracking device was attached to a telephone
line. This was cheaper to operate, but the location data was generally not available to
supervisors until the next day.
And in hybrid tracking, the tracking device was capable of behaving in active mode, but
as long as the offender was compliant the device behaved in passive mode and
transmitted data retrospectively. If the offender violated the tracking conditions, for
example by entering a prohibited area, the tracking device would transmit the violation
in real time and would switch to active mode until the violation was cleared.
Whatever the mode of transmission, the end product was a detailed map showing the
offender’s movements while tracked.
Turning to the uses of tracking, he said that its most obvious application was to monitor
compliance with specific requirements, for example to observe a curfew, stay out of an
exclusion zone, or attend specified programmes or other activities. The supervisor could
fill the offender’s schedule with requirements and monitor them all using tracking.
Tracking could in theory be used to watch an offender’s movements all the time, as they
happen. But if it was necessary to know where people were 24 hours a day, surely they
should be in prison anyway. And to have one person watching a screen all day would be
extremely staff-intensive.
Alternatively, location data could be useful to suppliers in managing offender
programmes. The data could be useful to the police in confirming offender involvement
in other crimes – or eliminating them from the investigation. And the sense of being
watched might potentially deter offenders from further crimes.
He then discussed some of the issues arising from tracking. First, the tracking device.
This clearly had to stay with the offender for the duration of the tracking. This could be
achieved with either a one-piece or a two-piece device. Each solution had its advantages
and disadvantages.
10

Second, the battery. The tracking device was battery-powered and needed recharging
overnight. Two questions arose: how long does it take to recharge And how long does
the battery last before it needs recharging
Third, the limitations of GPS. In ideal conditions it could be very accurate. But it did not
work underground or indoors; even outdoors the signal could be patchy; and sometimes
the signal was inaccurate (GPS drift). All of this reduced confidence in GPS and made
agencies less likely to use it.
Fourth, the cost. In England and Wales, tracking was still much more expensive than
standard RF monitoring. This ruled out national implementation in the near future, or its
use on a large scale anywhere. So although tracking could do everything that RF
monitoring could do and more, it was not going to replace RF monitoring where it was
used at present.
And fifth, public expectations. Tracking was capable of so much – but it did not have the
incapacitative effect of prison. There would be a disaster in the making if a child sex
offender slipped the leash and abducted a child. Tracking worked best as a means of
supporting other interventions. Public and private expectations of tracking had to be
managed.
In conclusion, he told the audience that in 2004 the previous Home Secretary, David
Blunkett, had described tracking as “the future of electronic monitoring”. The Home
Secretary might have been right, but there was still a gap between what the technology
could deliver and what its users wanted it to do; and between what it cost and what
could be afforded. For the present, all that could be done was to try it out on a small
scale and see how well it worked.
4.2.2 Tracking pilots in England 2004/05
Steve Birkett, Satellite Tracking Project Manager
Steve Birkett took the conference through the detail of the current pilots of satellite
tracking in England. These were taking place in three areas: Greater Manchester,
Hampshire and the West Midlands.
The preparation for the pilot had followed the normal lines, with a business case, an
approach for funding, discussions with the proposed pilot areas and the service
providers, testing the equipment, and obtaining approval to proceed from Home Office
Ministers.
The project team also prepared documentation for the pilots, including a Statement of
Requirements; a note on service processes; guidance to practitioners; guidance to the
courts; a leaflet for offenders; and a leaflet for victims and parents or carers.
He then gave some statistics. As at mid-May 2005, a total of 153 offenders had been
placed on tracking in the pilots. Of these, 35 cases had successfully completed, 64 cases
had been terminated, and 54 were still being tracked, including 4 sex offenders.
11

Current issues and problems included the low numbers on the pilots; equipment not yet
performing to the required standard; the GPS signal sometimes being lost or inaccurate;
inadequate coverage of exclusion zones; the reluctance of criminal justice agencies to
use active tracking with offenders with known victims; and an inefficient process for
exchanging information between contractors and practitioners.
All this would be picked up in the evaluation of the pilots that was currently being
undertaken by a team of researchers from Birmingham University. The aim of the
research was to assess how the pilots were implemented and how well the equipment
performed; to examine the views of offenders, victims and practitioners on tracking; to
assess the effect of tracking on offenders; and to consider its costs and effectiveness. An
interim, unpublished report had been produced in April 2005. The final report was due by
December 2005 [this has now changed to March 2006].
Looking ahead, he foresaw some improvements to the technology including the
introduction of Assisted GPS and GPRS communication; all tracking devices being able to
hold location fixes; and more comprehensive coverage of exclusion zones. It was also
proposed to expand the scope of the pilots, and the types of tracking used, within all
three pilot areas. The pilots would be extended to run at least until December 2005 [this
has now changed to June 2006].
Expanding the pilots in this way would have a number of benefits. It would increase the
rate of take-up and ensure that the target of 40 tracked offenders in each pilot area at
any one time was reached; it would boost the number of sex offenders on the pilots; it
would allow exclusion monitoring to be tested in all three pilot areas; it would enable the
improved technology to be brought in as quickly as possible; and it would strengthen the
evaluation.
In relation to costs, he said that the average daily cost of passive tracking was now £40
(€60), reduced from £68 (€100) in September 2004. The average cost of hybrid or
exclusion monitoring was higher and was currently being discussed with the service
providers. However, the estimated costs of the expanded pilots were expected to fall just
within the 2005/06 budget for tracking of £2.5m (€3.7m).
The lessons learned from the pilots to date were that the technology was still developing
and there were useful enhancements in prospect; the technology had the potential to
track offenders with known victims in real time, but needed to be more reliable; and the
successful operation of the pilots needed the close co-operation of all relevant agencies.
In the plenary discussion following the presentations, it was noted that there was a
tension between the demand for location data for investigation purposes, and the need
to protect individual rights. This tension was a common theme. In some countries, for
example Switzerland, the courts were readier to protect personal data from third parties.
In the USA, in contrast, tracking information was shared widely and this was expected.
Data could also be disseminated by administrative means, bypassing statutory schemes.
12

More generally, there was a question about who should have access to the data. In some
cases, the police would be justified in seeing it.
As to how long location data should be kept, it was noted that the research benefits
would be maximised if data were kept for a number of years.
5. THE WORKSHOPS
The conference offered a choice of six workshops, as shown below. The first four were
conducted in English, the last two in French.
1. Electronic monitoring of juveniles
2. Offender perspectives on electronic monitoring
3. Electronic monitoring in an immigration context
4. Ethical issues and quality standards
5. Analysing net-widening in the context of electronic monitoring
6. Electronic monitoring and social supervision.
The programme included two workshop sessions, each of 90 minutes. A plenary session
the following day allowed workshop leaders to summarise the discussions in their
workshop for the conference as a whole.
5.1 Electronic monitoring of juveniles
Mary Wyman
Mary Wyman told participants about the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance
Programme for juvenile offenders, and the use of tracking technology with juveniles in
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Research by Oxford University showed that the
electronic monitoring of juveniles worked better with a human element (for example
supervision) than it did on its own.
Participants discussed the length of curfews for juveniles. The maximum in England and
Wales was three months, and this was considered to be possibly too short. In the
context of longer curfews, participants were attracted to the practice in Holland of
starting with very intensive curfews and gradually allowing more free time as a reward
for compliance.
Participants were interested in the caseloads, the unit costs of electronic monitoring, and
the ethics of monitoring young people. It was recognised that politicians needed to be
seen to be doing something about juvenile crime.
There were no real areas of disagreement in the workshop, but there was some
discussion about the reliability of monitoring equipment, and about whether staff in
Youth Offending Teams would get on with electronic monitoring staff.
13

The views of participants were informed to some extent by empirical research in their
countries in organisations, but rather more by anecdotal evidence and opinion.
It was suggested that the next conference might include representatives of the police,
whose involvement in electronic monitoring was increasing.
5.2 Offender perspectives on electronic monitoring
Mike Nellis
Mike Nellis explained why it was important to seek offender perspectives on electronic
monitoring – they had a right to be heard, it made it easier to understand the actual
personal impact of a penalty on an offender (and family), and it helped us to compare
the effectiveness of one penalty with another. Offender perspective studies had their
limitations, but had developed criteria for understanding the severity of punishment
(Gresham Sykes, 1958) and had compared the pains of imprisonment with the pains of
electronic monitoring (B Payne and R Gainey, 1998). Proper offender perspective studies
could help answer questions like “Can electronic monitoring be rehabilitative”, “Is
consent to a community penalty necessary” and “What ways of ensuring compliance
help bring about desistance from crime” He summarised the offender perspectives on
the satellite-tracking pilots in England and Wales (for which he was part of the
evaluation team).
In the discussion, participants asked whether electronic monitoring increased domestic
tensions and concluded that it did, in some small ways, but there had been some very
difficult individual cases. Were offenders prepared enough for being on electronic
monitoring Did they view it as shaming or stigmatising (and should it have this effect)
There was very little research on this. Would GPS tracking be seen as a soft option in
10 years’ time
Most participants who contributed to the discussion referred to research results, for
example in Sweden where offenders had to be persuaded to go on the post-release
electronic monitoring scheme because it was so onerous. Also, it was noted that some
electronic monitoring companies collected offender views at the end of the monitoring;
Reliance, who were operating in Scotland, fed these back to sentencers.
Among the key points that participants took away from the workshop were the sense
that electronic monitoring was not a complete solution that replaced the need for
personal human services; and that ways should be found to inform sentencers more fully
about offenders’ experiences of electronic monitoring.
It was suggested that the next conference should place the discussion of electronic
monitoring in the context of changes in – and the strengths of – probation.
14

5.3 Electronic monitoring in an immigration context
Sue Harling / Judith Craig
The workshop began by setting the scene for the application of electronic monitoring in
an immigration context within the overall Immigration Service objective of "Tipping the
Balance". This aimed to bring about a situation where the number of failed asylum
seekers and other immigration offenders who were removed exceeded the number of
new applications for asylum by December 2005. Within this, electronic monitoring
contributed to the contact management strategy, which was aimed at keeping in touch
with subjects throughout the application process. Case studies were then used to
demonstrate how electronic monitoring doubled the number of options available to the
Immigration Service, and how criteria were used to assess the risk of absconding in
order to select the appropriate intervention.
Voice recognition was perceived as a benefit to the subject, as it was more convenient
for the subject to call the contractor's monitoring centre weekly from home than travel
to an immigration reporting centre. The Immigration Service favoured a mixed regime of
voice and physical reporting in order to maintain the face to face contact that was
necessary to progress a case. Tagging and tracking were seen as more intrusive and
their application had to be proportionate to the risk of absconding. This risk had to be
reassessed when the subject's circumstances changed. It was likely that the risk and
associated intervention might escalate through the application process, for example
voice recognition at the outset, tagging once the subject's appeal rights were exhausted
and detention once the barrier to removal had been resolved.
As far as other jurisdictions were concerned, colleagues from the USA had similar
programmes but all participants were aware of increasing pressure on their immigration
systems which it was either inappropriate or impractical to address through detention
alone.
Participants noted the differences in the way electronic monitoring was applied to
maintain contact, rather than for rehabilitative or punitive purposes:
• Monitoring periods were shorter and less frequent (typically two hours, twice a
week).
• The duration of the "order" was unknown at the outset and might be in excess of six
months, as the Immigration Service was dealing with cases with barriers to removal
such as documentation issues. The only way the subject could complete an order
was through being granted status or being removed.
• Currently, the consent of the subject was sought as an indicator of the likelihood of
compliance.
• In relation to enforcement, the contractor's involvement stopped at informing the
Immigration Service of the circumstances of an apparent breach. This information
was used to inform the decision whether an operational visit was viable.
15

5.4 Ethical issues and quality standards
Dominik Lehner
Participants agreed that there was a pressing need for ethical guidelines. They thought
we should not accept all technological developments, just because producers offered
them. We had a responsibility towards society and towards the offender that obliged us
to question which ethical demands lie within every one of our steps. Establishing ethical
guidelines should not be left to public opinion, which was merely one indicator among
many. Serious ethical concerns needed to be dealt with by professionals. Ethical rules
were highly susceptible to the march of time and had to be renewed regularly. For
example, the public exposure of an offender was considered a good rule in the medieval
period but had been banished today.
Participants also agreed that the Council of Europe could be a good professional body to
create ethical rules which can be used as quality or minimal standards. The
recommendation on existing community sanctions and measures worked well. But they
were not sufficient. They were built up like core values. Even the language used showed
that they were produced in a time where the victim’s point of view was not yet taken
seriously.
Most of the participants who contributed were practitioners of one kind or another who
spoke about their own experiences, concerns and thoughts. There seemed to be no
empirical research on the subject of ethical issues and quality standards in electronic
monitoring.
It seemed very doubtful whether all policy makers and electronic monitoring users were
aware of the necessity of ethical rules when applying new methods. Ethical demands
should be discussed much more, and at an earlier stage. It was almost impossible to
raise major ethical questions once a scheme became operational.
Participants thought the whole subject should be taken forward at the next conference
and given a higher profile. In previous years, ethical issues were one of the main
subjects at the conference. With tracking and the huge amount of data it produced, and
with other technical developments, ethical guidelines seemed to be becoming important
once more. The issue was not considered theoretical: it had a significant impact on good
practice.
In the plenary discussion following the workshop, it was noted that the discussion of
standards at the 2001 conference did not get very far. Perhaps it was now time to revisit
the issue (much had happened since then). The Council of Europe standards on
community sanctions could be a good place to start. Also the probation conference in
Turkey in September 2005 would be considering the idea of updating the European
probation rules. It might be possible to include something on electronic monitoring.
16

5.5 Analysing net-widening in the context of electronic monitoring
Markus Mayer
Participants noted that net-widening was an important issue and was discussed by
probation services in all countries. But it was also difficult to identify net-widening, and
to compare the problem in different legal systems. Nevertheless, it was commonly
agreed that net-widening was more likely in front-door than in back-door programmes.
Some participants commented that judges were sometimes tempted to use electronic
monitoring in a net-widening way. Judges obviously also anticipated the consequences of
their judgment and sometimes gave higher sentences in order to prevent the use of
electronic monitoring.
The phenomenon of net-widening was also discussed in the wider context of general
changes in social control. Participants stated that while the quantity of crime had not
changed very much in recent years, the response to criminal offences had changed
considerably.
There were some slight differences in the points of view expressed in the workshop, but
these were related to differences in legal systems or in the implementation of electronic
monitoring in different countries.
As there was little or no empirical research on net-widening in the countries represented
in the workshop (Switzerland, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Germany), the
views of participants relied mostly on personal experience.
The most important outcome for the participants was an awareness of the different ways
of implementing electronic monitoring and the difficulties concerning net-widening that
related to each kind of implementation.
It was agreed that it was important for practitioners to continue discussing the
differences in the use of electronic monitoring. Such discussions would continue to throw
up important questions which could in the end produce a more conscious and reflective
use of electronic monitoring.
5.6 Electronic monitoring and social supervision
Elisabeth Gabella / Annie Kensey
Participants looked at the French electronic monitoring system from the point of view of
the social worker. They were strongly of the view that electronic monitoring should
always be combined with social supervision as provided by a social worker. However,
more research was needed on the effectiveness of combining electronic monitoring and
social supervision in this way.
Participants noted the decision to retain electronic monitoring as a function of the state
in France.
17

More generally, participants noted that electronic monitoring programmes differed from
one country to another. For example, the decision-making body was the judge in France
and the probation service in Switzerland and Belgium. It would be useful to compare and
contrast different approaches in different countries.
6. THE FUTURE OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING
James Toon, Head of the Electronic Monitoring Team in the Home Office, London
James Toon explained that in England and Wales EM was now available for some
offenders at almost every stage of the criminal justice process. He said that continued
steady growth of RF monitoring was expected over the next few years: existing uses
would be expanded and new uses developed. He foresaw the spread of EM to lower-risk
offenders, so long as costs could be kept down. This might include offenders convicted of
benefit fraud. Furthermore, all three types of EM (RF, GPS tracking and voice
verification) were already being piloted in immigration cases (asylum seekers); RF and
voice verification were being used in a limited number of control orders, on terrorist
suspects who had previously been subject to detention without trial in prison. The
immigration scheme was certain to expand. GPS tracking would only replace RF
monitoring if it came to match it in terms of reliability and cost, and this was still a long
way off.
In terms of the future more generally, EM would consolidate and expand in western
Europe, and would also develop in Eastern Europe, particularly in countries struggling to
manage large prison populations. Poland had already begun to establish an EM scheme.
There needed to be much more extensive and efficient pooling of knowledge about best
practice in EM. He made a preliminary case for setting up an official or semi-official
European website that coordinated information on EM. Who might do this CEP itself, or
another organisation This raised the question whether there was a need for a separate
European Electronic Monitoring Association – and how that would be set up – which
among other things would establish and maintain this website.
Mike Nellis, a criminologist from the University of Birmingham, England
Mike Nellis outlined a general framework in which the future development of EM could
usefully be debated by a variety of stakeholders. He argued that its use should be
subordinated to concerns about best practice in penal reform and probation more
generally. Because it offered a level of real-time control which probation itself could not
achieve it undoubtedly had a part to play, probably a bigger part than it had now.
Nonetheless, its limitations as well as its strengths should be recognised – its value
should not be overestimated. It was not incapacitative in the way that prison was,
because it left an offender free to make choices and act out desires whether he was
wearing a tag or not. In this respect EM was more like other community penalties than it
was like prison – though it could strengthen such penalties in a rather unique way. EM
18

was more likely to have a strong future, and to be used constructively, if it was
associated with rounded, humanised images of offenders, seeing them as people capable
of changing for the better. It was less likely to prosper if it was associated with
demonised images of offenders, people so intractably bad that to the public only
imprisonment would seem like an adequate or deserved punishment. EM alone was not
likely to change an offender’s behaviour, so where changed behaviour was wanted,
policy-makers should look to rehabilitative programmes (backed up, as appropriate, by
EM). Where EM-curfews were used purely as a punishment – say, as an alternative
sentence to a fine – there should be no serious expectation of behavioural change: the
intention was just to deprive the offender of free time and compel him to stay indoors for
a certain period. The involvement of the private sector in EM provision was likely to
continue in some shape or form – some forms might be better and more desirable than
others – and by 2020 EM would probably be remembered as the precursor of a
technological revolution in criminal justice, one of many technocorrections then in use.
Ralf Bas, Head of Electronic Monitoring in Belgium
Ralf Bas described in some detail the development of the Belgian EM scheme and
promoted it as a desirable future for EM in general. The current caseload of 350 (set
against a prison population of 9500) could easily be doubled but resources were
unfortunately not available for this. A clear effort had been made to keep the role of the
private sector to a minimum – the scheme was run by the prison service and staffed by
social workers, while ElmoTech supplied the equipment and technical back-up. EM was
pitched at the caring end of the criminal justice spectrum, and was associated with
strategies for reintegrating offenders into society.
He raised some questions about the future of the CEP/EM conference itself, questioning
the sponsorship of the vendor organisations, and arguing that it would be better if public
sector/prison/probation professionals were able to debate the issues without the
presence of the organisations selling the technology.
Elisabeth Gabella, a magistrate involved in the implementation of EM by the French
Ministry of Justice
Elisabeth Gabella summarised the development of EM in France, pointing out that it had
begun in 2000, with four pilot schemes, which had then been extended to the whole of
the country. Research had influenced this process, though it had not been the only factor
in EM’s expansion. In 2003, the government had run a scheme to convince the public
and sentencers of its value. In 2004 a bail scheme and a post-release scheme had been
started, and GPS satellite tracking had been talked about, although this variant of EM
had led to lots of protest. The official view in France was that EM should and could be
used to reduce the use of imprisonment, and that it was a technology to support
offender supervision, not an end in itself. She considered it to have a bright future there.
19

Peggy Conway, Editor of the Journal of Offender Monitoring
Peggy Conway said that the term “electronic monitoring” nowadays referred to an ever
widening variety of technologies. She identified some new and still small-scale
technological developments in the USA, which might one day have implications for
Europe. Ignition interlock systems, for use with drink drivers, might be one of the more
innocuous ones. The technology for drive-by EM (using hand held devices pointed at
offenders’ homes, which then pick up a signal – or not – from the tag) was not new, but
recently there had been some instances of probation officers using it to monitor whether
offenders were drinking in bars. A somewhat different technology – placing special
monitoring devices in bars and pawn shops (where stolen goods sometimes get taken)
which then registered when a tagged offender entered that shop – served a similar
purpose, and blurred the distinction between house arrest and tracking. The fitting of
such monitoring devices to ATMs (automated cash dispensers) had also been considered
as a means of location monitoring outside the home. The merits of these permutations of
EM should perhaps be considered. Rather more alarmingly, some EM vendors had
suggested that young people be given alarm tags which sounded off if a tagged sex
offender went near them. Ms Conway was not commending these developments en
masse, but they gave some indication of what might be coming to Europe at some point
in the future. She implied that EM in the USA was perhaps too vendor-led, and echoed
Professor Renzema’s demands that the process of expansion should be slowed down and
researched properly before new steps were taken. She was impressed that the
development of EM in Europe took research more seriously.
Ms. Ravinder Rai, a probation officer working on one of the satellite tracking pilots in
England
For Ravinder Rai, the most important question about the use of EM was the purpose it
served in relation to each particular supervised offender. How did EM help – if it helped
at all – to further the aims of supervision Was the particular type of control that EM
offered actually needed Would it be counterproductive Experience had taught her that
it a was valuable tool in a significant number of cases, but that it should not be used in a
blanket fashion. She decried a tendency to think of EM as an end in itself, and to expect
too much of it. She had learned from this conference about the nature of other European
schemes and saw definite advantages to the Belgian model, not least because of the
more arms-length relationship it had with the private sector. In England, she anticipated
a significant expansion in the use of EM in the future.
20

7. CLOSING THE CONFERENCE
7.1 Summing up the Conference
Bob Lilly, Northern Kentucky University
Professor Bob Lilly of Northern Kentucky University, and a long established commentator
on EM, was asked to sum up the conference. He did so by combining personal
observations of this event and recollection of the three preceding CEP/EM conferences,
which he had also attended. He made the following points.
There was now much less controversy about EM as a phenomenon in criminal justice. It
seemed to be more accepted by people who had once been sceptical about it. There
seemed, in particular, to have been a positive endorsement of it in Europe in the last two
years. The changed mood in Europe may have been reflected in a lack of edginess in the
conference itself – no really taxing questions had been asked of any of the presenters.
On the other hand, Professor Lilly acknowledged that the number of participants in this
conference was larger than in previous years, and that that might have hindered public
discussion in plenaries and panel sessions, if not necessarily among small clusters of
people who met informally throughout the event
A persistent underlying tension in the general character of CEP/EM events was brought
into the open this year. Was the event primarily about promoting new technology, or
about enhancing the future of probation Where did – and should – the emphasis lie
The vendors always ensured that the capabilities of evolving EM technology were
constantly put before us, but sometimes the probation context was overlooked. At this
conference a number of social work themes – the importance of embedding EM in
probation and supervision programmes, and the need for offenders views on EM to be
heard – had been reasserted, but by no means aired in full. How, in future, might the
two sets of issues be integrated Professor Lilly wondered whether the absence of Dick
Whitfield (co-founder of the CEP/EM conferences, and a key participant at all the
preceding ones) had meant that this year there was no one person at the conference
who could identify the issues that really needed to be focussed on.
More attention was paid to GPS satellite tracking at this event than on previous
occasions, doubtless reflecting developments in the USA in the past two years, the
technology exhibited here by the vendors, the establishment of a pilot scheme in three
areas in England, and the interest being shown in mainland European countries. The
place of this in relation to RF monitoring needed much thought. Professor Lilly echoed
others in anticipating that further technological developments would occur under the
rubric of electronic monitoring.
None of the previous CEP/EM events had addressed the broader context of the
surveillance society in which EM was developing. This conference was no exception.
Professor Lilly felt that the proliferation of EM in a variety of forms, coupled with the
expansion of databases covering many aspects of citizens’ lives (and the inadequacy of
21

ules governing access to such databases), and the significance of all this for democracy,
was something that CEP should note.
7.2 Formal Closing of the Conference
Leo Tigges, Secretary General of CEP
Leo Tigges closed the conference by affirming the continuing commitment of CEP to
exploring the ways in which EM could make a positive contribution to the supervision of
offenders. He said that its expansion clearly reflected a deepening and understandable
interest among policy-makers in ways of effectively controlling offenders in the
community, but worried that if it was over-hyped it would turn out to be an illusion of
control. Nonetheless, EM had already been accepted in Europe as a fact of life, and the
number of countries using it was expanding. Sometimes there was a sense in which the
technology seemed overwhelming and all-important, and, looking at what was
happening in America, there were legitimate fears of extreme EM eclipsing probation
considerations. He felt it was vital that EM was always seen in the context of probation,
and he was clear that it raised important ethical issues. Hence CEP’s continuing interest
in the subject, and its willingness to host a fifth EM conference in two years time, also at
Egmond, on 10–12 May 2007.
He thanked the planning group (for organising the event), the vendors (for sponsoring
it), the speakers and the translators, and the hotel staff for looking after us.
*******
22

FINAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
4 th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONIC MONITORING
EGMOND AAN ZEE (NL)
19 th – 21 st May 2005
AUSTRIA
Ministry of Justice Mr. Karl DREXLER Senior Public Prosecutor
Neustiftgasse2
karl.drexler@mbj.gv.at
A - 1070 VIENNA
Tel.: +43.1.521.52.2211
BELGIUM
Commission Royale des Patronages M. Jean DETIENNE President
4a, Rue de la Bonte, boite 12 jean.detienne@skynet.be
B - 1000 BRUXELLES
Tel.: + 32.2.537.73.17
Ministry of Justice National Centre of Mr. Peter PLETINCX
Director
Electronic Monitoring
peter.pletincx@just.fgov.be
Rue Berkendael 66
B - 1000 BRUSSELS Mr. Ralf BAS Governing Director
Tel.: +32.2.340.3700
ralf.bas@just.fgov.be
Alert Services NV – Partner of Securitas
Sint-Lendriksborre 3
B 1120 NEDER-OVER-HEEMBEEK
Tel.: +32.2.263.2339
CANADA
Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp
14-975 Midway Boulevard
Mississauga ONTARIO
L5T 2C6
Tel.: +1.905.670.2288
Mr. Eugène GILLAERTS
Eugene.gillaerts@b-alert.be
Mr. Felix COMEAU
mailbox@acs-corp.com
Ms. Danielle WILSON
mailbox@acs-corp.com
Project Manager
Manufacturer of Breath
Alcohol Testing
Instruments for Remote
Monitoring
DENMARK
Justitsministeriet Dept. Prisons and
Probation
Ms. Annette ESDORF
ae@kriminalforsorgen.dk
Deputy Director General
Strandgade 100
DK - 1401 COPENHAGEN K Mrs. Lisbet HEINE BANG Chief Probation Officer
Tel.: +45.32.68.4110
lisbet.bang@kriminalforsorgen.dk
Mr. Lars VINTHER
lars.vinther@kriminalforsorgen.dk
Mr. Per WIEDEKAMM
per.wiedekamm@kriminalforsorgen.dk
Ms. Jette LUND-ABELSEN
jette.lund@kriminalforsorgen.dk
IT Manager
Project Manager
Head of Section
23

Ramboll Informatik A-S
Teknikerbyen 1
DK / 2830 VIRUM
Te.l. 45.4598.54.20
Mr. Richard MÜLLER
rcm@ramboll/informatik.dk
Senior Consultant
FINLAND
Criminal Sanctions Agency Mr. Jouko PIETILA Senior Inspector
P.O. Box 319
jouko.pietila@om.fi
FI - 00181 HELSINKI
Tel.: +358.10.36.88456
Probation Service Mr. Heimo KANGASPUNTA Senior Officer
Albertinkatu 25 P.O. Box 319
heimo.kangaspunta.om.fi
Fi - 00181 HELSINKI
Tel.: +358.1036.88.507 M Henrik LINDERBORG Special Expert
henrik.linderborg@om.fi
FRANCE
M. Michel KAPTUR
8, impasse Mousset
75012 PARIS
Direction regionale des Services
Penitentiaires de Rennes
18 bis, rue de Chatillon
F - BP 3105 RENNES cedex
Tel.: +33.2.99.26.8937
M. Michel KAPTUR
mkaptur@avidia.fr
M. Annick VUILLEMIN
annnick.vuillemin@justice.fr
Réalisateur/Producer
chef du departement
insertion et probation
Maison d'Arret d'Agen M. Johanny BERTHET surveillant
BP 327
johanny.berthet@justice.fr
F - 47008 AGEN Cedex
Tel.: +33.5.53.77.4397
Maison d'Arret d'Ajacccio M. Jean-Noel ANDREI 1er Surveillant
9, boulevard Masseria, BP 260 jean-noel.andrei@justice.fr
F - 20180 AJACCIO cedex
Tel.: +33.4.95.23.7800
Ministere de la Justice Direction de
l'administration penitentiaire
Mme. Elisabeth GABELLA
elisabeth.gabella@justice.gouv.fr
Magistrate, chef du pole
PSE
13, place Vendome
F - 75042 PARIS CEDEX 01 Mme. Annie KENSEY Demographe
Tel.: +33.1.49.96.2134
annie.kensey@justice.gouv.fr
Service penitentiaire d'insertion et de
probation de la Marne Antenne de
Chalons-en-Champagne
1c, avenue du Géneral Sarrail
F - 51036 CHALONS-en-CHAMPAGNE
Tel.: +33.3.26.22.3222
Service Penitentiaire d'insertion du Val
d'Oise Immeuble le Beloise
2, bld. de l'Oise
F - 95015 CERGY PONTOISE cedex
Tel.: +33.1.30.75.3740
Mme. Sophie PEYRET
sophie.peyret@justice.gouv.fr
Mme. Nathalie FAUVE
nathalie.fauve@justice.fr
M. Michel PERETTI
michel.peretti@justice.fr
Attachee pole PSE
assistante sociale
Directeur
24

Service penitentiaire d'insertion et de
probation Antenne locale d'Aix en Provence
1, rue Fabrot, Carre Pro BP 82
F - 13001 AIX en PROVENCE
Tel.: +33.4.42.91.5320
Mme Nicole FAURE
nicole.faure@justice.fr
Conseillere d'insertion et
de probation
GERMANY
Herrn Jochen AMTHOR
Zeil 29-31 Herrn Jochen AMTHOR Sollicitor and Notary
D - 60313 FRANKFURT a. MAIN
ra.amthor@t-online.de
Tel.: +49.69.91.39.6640
Hessisches Ministerium der Justiz Frau Rita AMTHOR Probation Officer EM
Gerichtsstrasse 4
ritamamthor@aol.de
D - 60313 FRANKFURT a. MAIN
Tel.: +49.69.1367.6173
Hessisches Zentrale für Datenverarbeitung
Mackenzellerstrasse 3
D- 36088 HUENFELD
Tel.: +49.6652.1872117
Ms. Uschi WERNER
u.werner@hzd.hessen.de
Technische
Projektleiterin
Max Planck Institut Herrn Hans-Jörg ALBRECHT Director
Gunterstalstrasse 73
D - 79100 FREIBURG Herrn Markus MAYER Scientist
Tel.: +00.49.761.7081.201
m.mayer@iuscrim.mpg.de
Strategic Innovations Centre of Bavarian
State Police
Maillingerstrasse 15
D- 80636 MUNICH
Tel.: +49.89.1212.2031
IRELAND
Probation and Welfare Service Smithfield
Chambers
Smithfield
DUBLIN 7
Tel.: +353.1817.3600
Mr. Franz WUNSCHIK
bavariancop@yahoo.de
Mr. Brian DACK
info@pws.gov.ie
Mr. Vivian GEIRAN
info@pws.gov.ie
Project Manager
Assistant Principal
Probation and Welfare
Officer
Assistant Principal
Probation and Welfare
Officer
ISRAEL
Elmo Tech Ltd Mr. Doron YASSUR Chief Executive Officer
2 Habarzel St P.O. Box 13236
61132 TEL AVIV Ms. Tamara MILLER
tamara@elmotech.com
Mr. Carsten BERGMAN
Mr. Tali GARIBY
Mr. Sigal ISSACOF
Mr. Raphael KAIRY
Ms. Tami MAZEL SHAHAR
Mr. Leo MILSTEIN
Marketing
Communication
Manager
Regional Sales Manager
Product Manager
Account Manager
Account Manager
Marketing &
Salesmanager
Regional Sales Manager
25

LATVIA
Ministry of Justice National Probation Service
Dzirnavu Str. 91/3
LV - 1011 RIGA
Tel.: +371.7357741
LUXEMBOURG
Parquet General Service Central d'Assistance
Sociale
Galerie Kons, 24-26 Place de la Gare
L - 1616 LUXEMBOURG
Tel.: +352.47.58.21.648
Ministere de la Justice
13, rue Erasme
L - 1468 LUXEMBOURG
Tel.: + 352.478.4537
THE NETHERLANDS
Mr. Ruud BOELENS
Dreesstraat 5
9801 KX ZUIDHORN
Tel.: + 31.594.507208
ADT Security Services b.v.
Postbus 285
2900 AG CAPELLE aan den IJSSEL
+31.10.2584848
Ministry of Justice DJI,
Sectordirectie TBS
Schedeldoekshaven 131
2500 GC DEN HAAG
Tel.: +31.70.88.94.07
M. PAPSUJEVICS
Mw. Liene ZEIBOTE
liene.zeibote@vpdp.gov.lv
Mr. Daniel BIANCALANA
daniel.biancalana@ja.etat.lu
M Luc REDING
luc.reding@mj.etat.lu
Mr. Ruud BOELENS
r.k.boelens@hccnet.nl
Mr. John van den BREMER
jjbremer@tycoint.com
Mr. Paul VERBRUGGEN
pverbruggen@tycoint.com
Mr. Roel BOOGAARD
R.Boogaard@dji.minjus.nl
Deputy Head
Criminologue
Attaché de gouvernement
Account Manager
Manager Technical Support
Project manager EM
Ministry of Justice DJI Mr. Frank SCHULPEN Project Manager EM
Postbus 30132
f.schulpen@home.nl
2500 GC DEN HAAG
Tel.: +31.70.370.2822
Ministry of Justice Directie Sanctie- en Mr. Hans SCHOENMAKERS
Preventiebeleid EM Management Team j.m.schoenmakers@minjus.nl
Postbus 20301
2500 EH DEN HAAG Ms. Marjan WIJN
m.j.wijn@minjus.nl
Parket-Generaal Mr. Dato STEENHUIS Prosecutor General
Postbus 20305
A.Subotic@sgrarr.drp.minjus.nl
2500 EH DEN HAAG
Tel.: +31.70.3399844
Reclassering Nederland Mr. Fokko de BOER Coordinator EM
Zoutbranderij 1
f.boer@srn.minjus.nl
8933 AJ LEEUWARDEN
Tel.: +31.50.31.88.188
26

Reclassering Nederland Mr. Arturo BOTTO Unit Manager
Grote Marktstraat 24
a.botto@srn.minjus.nl
2591 XB DEN HAAG
Tel.: +31.70.3119400
Reclassering Nederland Mr. Frans GRIËT staff member
Postbus 25208
f.griet@srn.minjus.nl
3001 HE ROTTERDAM
Tel.: +31.10.2210515
Reclassering Nederland Mr. Jaap BETIST Coordinator EM
Postbus 25208
j.betist@srn.minjus.nl
3001 HE ROTTERDAM
Reclassering Nederland
Postbus 8215
3503 RE UTRECHT
Tel.: +31.30.232.4980
Stichting Verslavingszorg GGZ Nederland
(SVG)
Postbus 830
3800 AV AMERSFOORT
Tel.: +31.33.460.8916
NEW ZEALAND
Department of Corrections Community
Probation Services
PO Box 1206
WELLINGTON
Tel.: +64.4.460.3241
Mr. Sjef van GENNIP
J.van.Gennip@srn.minjus.nl
Ms. Suzanne JOSKIN
Ms. Annette TEEUWEN
a.teeuwen@srn.minjus.nl
Mr. Willem van der BRUGGE
wvdbrugge@ggznederland.nl
Ms. Cilla KEA
cilla.kea@corrections.govt.nz
Director General
Student/researcher
Head of Communication
Division
Senior Advisor Probation &
Addiction
Project Manager EM Pilot
Department of Corrections Mayfair House Ms. Tracy MELLOR
44052 The Terrace Private bag 1206 tracy.mellor@corrections.govt.nz
WELLINGTON
Tel.: +64.4.499.5620
NORTHERN IRELAND
Norther Ireland Office Massay House
Stoney Road
Mr. Adrian ARBUTHNOT
adrian.arbuthnot@nio.x.gsi.gov.uk
Head of Criminal Justice
Policy Division
BELFAST
BT4 3XS Ms. Anne O'CONNELL Criminal Justice Policy
Tel.: +44.2890.52.7503
anne.oconnell@nio.x.gsi.gov.uk
Probation Board for Northern Ireland Training
Department
306 Antrim Road
BELFAST
BT15 5AB
Tel.: +44.28.90.75.6815
Ms. Rosemary BAILIE
muriel.mcmullin@pbni.org.uk
Mr. Paul DORAN
Paul.doran@pbni.org.uk
Probation Manager
27

NORWAY
Correctional Service of Norway
Kriminalomsorgens utdanningssenter KRUS
Postboks 6138 Etterstad
N - 0602 OSLO
Tel.: +47.23.06.7100
Mr. Harald FØSKER
krus@krus.no
Mr. Gerhard PLOEG
krus@krus.no
General Manager
Consultant
POLAND
CMA Sp. Z o.o. Mr. Adam WOJCINOWICZ President CMA
ul. Pulawska 359
adam.wojcinowicz@cma.com.pl
PL - 02 - 801 WARSZAWA
Tel.: +48.22.54.60888
Mr. Adam BULACINSKI
adam.bulacinski@cma.com.pl
Research & Development
Manager
Ministry of Justice Mr. Andrzej GRZELAK Secretary of State
AL. Ujazoowskie 11
grzelak@ms.gov.pl
PL - 00950 WARSAW
Tel.: +48.22.52.12.205 Mr. Dariusz SIELICKI Judge
sielicki@ms.gov.pl
University of Wroclaw Mr. Zygfryd SIWIK Professor of Law
VL. Uniwersyticra 19/22
zsiwik@prawo.uni.wroc.pl
PL - SO 145 WROLAW
Tel.: +48.601.55.3719
Foundation ‘Ius et Lex’
Walenczncy 34
PL 03-916 WARSAW
Te. : +41.22.616.2553
Mr. Pawel MOCZYDLOWSKI
pawel@drugs.com.pl
Expert ‘Ius et Lex’ Foundation
PORTUGAL
S.V.E.P. Mr. J. GOMES da COSTA General Director
Rua da Garagem 1 Apartado 527
jcosta@en.efacec.pt
P - 2790 - 078 CARNAXIDE
Tel.: +351.21.41.6.3618
Instituto de Reinsercao Social Ms. Maria ALBINO Presidente
Av. Almirante Reis, 101, 7o
clara.albino@irsocial.mj.pt
P - 1150-013 LISBOA
Tel.: +351.213.117.6230
Mr. Nuno CAIADO
nuno.caiado@irsocial.mj.pt
Director Electronic Monitoring
Program
SCOTLAND
Criminal Justice Social Work Development
Centre for Scotland, University of Edinburgh
31 Buccleuch P1
EDINBURGH
EH8 9LJ
Tel.: +44.131.6511464
Reliance Monitoring Service Prism House
Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise
Technology Park
EAST KILBRIDE
G75 0QF
Tel.: +41.135.559.8617
Mr. Jose Ricardo NUNES
jose.nunes@irsocial.mj.pt
Mr. Bill WHYTE
B.Whyte@ed.ac.uk
Mr. Norman BROWN
norman.brown@reliance-stms.co.uk
Mr. David DENNY
david.denny@reliance-stms.co.uk
Vice-President
Director
Business Development
Manager
Research & Marketing
Manager
28

Scottish Executive Ms. Susan WILTSHIRE Home Detention Curfew
St. Andrew's House Regent Road
susan.wiltshire@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
EDINBURGH EH1 3DG
Tel.: +44.131.244.4569
Ms. Sharon GRANT
sharon.grant@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Head Electronic Monitoring
Branch
SPAIN
Direccion General de instituciones
Penitenciarias
Alcala, 38-40
E - 28014 MADRID
Tel.: +34.91.3354951/32
Generalitat de Catalunya
Carrer d'Arago 332
E - 08009 BARCELONA
Tel.: 34.93.556.6656
Ms. Jackie KNOX
jackie.knox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Mr. Jose Ignacio BECERRIL POLO
jignacio.becerril@dgip.mir.es
Mme.. Mercedes GALLIZO
LLAMAS
dgip@dgip.mir.es
Mr. MARHEDO
M. Jaume MARTIN BARBERAN
wmartinj@gencat.net
Mr. Marc CERON
mceron@gencat.net
EM Contract Manager
Director de programas
Directora General de
Instituciones Penitenciarias
Responsable des Relacions
Internacionals
Sous directeur EM
SWEDEN
National Council for Crime Prevention Ms. Annika PALLVIK FRANSSON Jurist/Legal Advisor
PO Box 1386
annika.pallvikfransson@bra.se
S - 11193 STOCKHOLM
Tel.: +46.8.401.87.62 Ms. Inka WENNERBERG Researcher
inka.wennerberg@bra.se
SWITZERLAND
Bewährungshilfe und alternativer Strafvollzug
Laupenstrasse 2
Ms. Marianne ISENSCHMID
marianne.isenschmid@pom.be.ch
CH - 3001 BERN
Tel.: + 41.31.633.5500 Ms. Renate MERGENTHALER Officer
renate.mergenthaler@pom.be.ch
Head of Probation Service
Ms. Monika SEILER
monika.seiler@pom.be.ch
Officer
Fondation Vaudoise de Probation Peines en Mme. Delphine CHAILLET
Conseillere de Probation
milieu ouvert
delphine.chaillet@fvp.vd.ch
Chemin du Calvaire 9, CP 6215
CH - 1002 LAUSANNE M. Boris DUPUIS Conseiller de Probation
Tel.: +41.21.321.4800
boris.dupuis@fvp.vd.ch
Freiheitsentzug und Soziale Dienste
Justizdepartement
Rheinsprung 16
CH - 4001 BASEL
Tel.: +41.61.267.8102
Mr. François GRIVAT
francois.grivat@fvp.vd.ch
Mr. Dominik LEHNER
dominik.lehner@bs.ch
Responsable du secteur
Leiter Abteilung
29

Justiz-, Polizei- und Militärdirection Kanton
Basel-Landschaft
Allee 9
CH - 4410 LIESTAL
Tel.: +41.61.925.5805
Ms. Brigitte STOECKLI
brigitte.stoeckli@jpm.bl.ch
Probation Officer
Justizdepartement Basel-Landschaft
Allee 9
CH - 4410 LIESTAL
Tel.: +41.61.925.5808
Mr. Gerhard MANN
gerhard.mann@jpm.bl.ch
Leiter Bewilligungen,
Freiheitsentzug
Justizdepartement Basel-Stadt
Vollzugszentrum EM
Klosterfiechtenweg 22
CH - 4052 BASEL
"Tel.: +41.61.365.7546
Securiton AG
Alpenstrasse 20
CH - 3052 ZOLLIKOFEN
Tel.: + 41.31.910.1122
M. Daniel Markus BEYELER
daniel.beijeler@bs.ch
Mr. Jürgen HAESLER
juerg.haesler@securiton.ch
Officer
Director of Integrated
System Department
Service du patronage du canton de Fribourg M. Philippe PILLONEL Chef de Service
Route des Arsenaux 9
Patronage@fr.ch
CH - 1700 FRIBOURG
Tel.: +41.26.305.1430
U.S.A.
BI Incorporated
6400 Lookout Road
BOULDER CO 80301
Tel.: +.1.303.218.1003
Civic Research Institute Inc. Journal of
Offender Monitoring
PO Box 585
KINGSTON
NJ 08528
Tel.: +.1.561.733.4329
Eastern Kentucky University The Justice and
Safety Center
245 Stratton Building
521 Lancaster Eve. RICHMOND
40475 Kentucky
Tel.: +.1.859.622.6445
Kutztown University Dept. CRJ
P.O. Box 730
KUTZTOWN
PA 19530 0730
Tel.: +1.610.683.4235
Mr. George DeHUFF
george.dehuff@bi.com
Mr. John THURSTON
john.thurston@bi.com
Ms. Peggy CONWAY
peggycon@aol.com
Mr. Tod DEPP
tod.depp@eku.edu
Mr. Marc RENZEMA
renzema@kutztown.edu
President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO)
Vice-President Reentry
Services
Editor
Technology Assistant
Professor of Criminal
Justice
30

Northern Kentucky University Regents
Professor Sociology / Criminology
Nunn Hall
HIGHLAND HEIGHTS
KY 41099-6103
Tel.: +1.859.572.5253
Mr. Bob LILLY
lilly@nku.edu
Professor of Criminology
ProTech Monitoring Inc.
M. Richard NIMER
2549 Success Drive rnimer@ptm.com
FL - 33556-3401 ODESSA
Tel.: +1.850.422.3511
UNITED KINGDOM
Home Office Electronic Monitoring Team,
Horseferry House Room 327
Dean Rylestreet
LONDON
SW1P 2AW
Tel.: +00.44.20.7217.8097
Greater Manchester Probation Area
6th Floor Oakland House
Talbot Road
MANCHESTER
M16 0PQ
Tel.: +44.161.872.4802/2720
Mr. Steven BIRKETT
steve.birkett1@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Ms. Carolyn SMITH
carolyn.smith@manchester.probation.
gsx.gov.uk
Project Manager Satellite
Tracking Pilots
Project Manager Satellite
Tracking
Guidance Control Systems Mr. Keith PHILLIPS Commerial Manager
4 Dominus Way Meridian Business Park keith@gcsltd.co.uk
LEICESTER
LE19 1RP Mr. John POTTER Director
Tel.: +44.116.229.2600
John.Potter@gcsltd.co.uk
Home Office 4th Floor Green Park House
29 Wellesley Road
CROYDON - Surrey
DR0 2AJ
Tel.: +00.44.20.8760.2137
Home Office, Room 319, Horseferry House
Dean Ryle Street
LONDON
SW1P 2AW
Tel.: +44.20.7217.8388
Ms. Sue HARLING
sue.harling@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Ms. Judith CRAIG
judith.craig@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Mr. James TOON
james.toon@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Assistant Director IND
Major Projects Team
Head of Electronic
Monitoring
Nat. Probation Service England - West
Midlands
27 High Street
West Bromwich
Probation Officer
Mr. Ravinder RAI
ravinder.rai@westmidlands.probation.gxs.gov.uk
B70 6PJ Ms. Rajinder KAUR Probation Officer
Tel.: +41.121.525.5225
rajinder.kaur@westmidlands.probation.gsx.gov.uk
31

National Probation Service for England and
Wales, Horseferry House
Dean Ryle Street
LONDON
SW1P 2AW
Tel.: +44.20.7217.8978
Mr. Barry SNELGROVE
barry.snelgrove@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Policy Advisor
On Guard Plus Suite 1A, Windsor Court Mr. Mark GRIFFITHS General Manager
Christopher Street
mark@ogpl.co.uk
Salford MANCHESTER
M5 4PT Paul Mallard Development Engineer
Tel.: +44.161.848.8225
paul@mallard.plus.com
Premier Geografix Ltd. Berkshire Court
Western Road
RG12 1RE
BRACKNELL
Tel.: +44.1603.78.8940
Mr. Graham COTTREL
grahamc@geografix.co.uk
Mr. Greg MILNE
gmilne@geografix.co.uk
Andy HOMER
ahomer@premier-serco.com
Pascal OLIN
Pascal.olin@serco.com
Tish KIJVIRIYA-EVANS
ahomer@premier-serco.com
. Contract Director
Marketing Assistant
Premier Geografix Ltd
Assistant Director
Operational Support
Contract Manager
Serco Jura Leman
Service Delivery Officer
Premier Monitoring
Services
Group4Securicor Plc
Sutton Park House
Mr. Peter NEDEN
Peter.neden@uk.securicor.com
Business Development
Director
15 Carshalton Road
SUTTON David Taylor Smith MD G4S Justice Services
SM1 4LD Mel Scott Project manager
Tel.: +44.208.722.3252 Jason McKinlay Director of Business
Development
Claire Sims
Interagency Director
Jane Walsh
Interagency Manager
Julian McGovern
Chief Technology Officer
Fiona Walters
CEO Securicor EMs Inc.
University of Birmingham Department of
Sociology
32 Pritchatts Road
Edgbaston BIRMINGHAM
B15 2TT
Tel.: +44.121.414.6609
University of Cambridge Institute of
Criminology
Sidgwick Avenue
CAMBRIDGE
CB3 9DT
Tel.: +1.703.623.6824
Mr. Mike NELLIS
r.m.nellis@bham.ac.uk
M. Jonathan WROBLEWSKI
jonathan.wroblewski@usdoj.gov
Senior Lecturer
Atlantic Fellow GPS Pilot
32

University of Leeds School of Law Dr. Anthea HUCKLESBY Senior Lecturer
20 Lyddon Terrace a.l.hucklesby@leeds.ac.uk
LEEDS
LS2 9JT
Tel.: +44.113.3434.013
University of Leeds School of Law Mr. Daniel SWAIN Research Officer
20 Lyddon Terrace d.t.swain@leeds.ac.uk
LEEDS
LS2 2JT
Tel.: +44.113.343.7574
University of Reading School of Law, Foxhill
House
Whiteknights Road Earley
READING
RG6 7BA
Tel.: +44.118.926.22.23
Wessex Youth Offending Team 2nd Floor
Ashville House
260/262 Havant Road
Drayton PORTSMOUTH
P06 1PA
Tel.: +44.23.92.28.3912
Ms. Françoise RICHARDSON
richardsons@botanical.net
M. Jeff BALLARD
jeffballard@clara.co.uk
Tutor/researcher
Area Manager and
Satellilte Tracking
Manager
Youth Justice Board Ms. Mary WYMAN Head of ISSP
11 Carteret Street mary.wyman@yjb.gsi.gov.uk
GB - LONDON
SW1H 9DL
Tel.: +44.7271.3226
C.E.P.
International Secretariat Mr. John SCOTT President CEP
P.O. Box 8215
JohnRM.Scott18@homeoffice.gsi.gov.
uk
3503 RE UTRECHT
The Netherlands
Tel.: +31.30.2324900
Ms. Fieke den HOLLANDER
cep@srn.minjus.nl
Executive Officer CEP
Mr. Leo TIGGES
l.tigges@srn.minjus.nl
Secretary General CEP
33