|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Title:||Creativity and Effectiveness in the Use of Electronic Monitoring: A Case Study of Five European Jurisdictions|
|Citation:||Hucklesby A, Beyens K, Boone M, Dunkel F, McIvor G & Graham H (2016) Creativity and Effectiveness in the Use of Electronic Monitoring: A Case Study of Five European Jurisdictions, Journal of Offender Monitoring, 27 (2), pp. 5-14. http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/article_abstract.php?pid=13&aid=7783&iid=1194.|
Creativity and Effectiveness in the Use of Electronic Monitoring as an Alternative to Imprisonment in EU Member States
|Abstract:||Electronic Monitoring has been used in a number of EU member states since the turn of the 21st century. There has been much mutual learning, faciliated by governments and probation services themselves, the CEP (the European Probation Organisation) and the tech companies who supply the monitoring equipment (and who in Britain run EM services under central government contract). New countries continue to take up EM, as their penal problems become more pressing and as the use of digital technologies become ever more normal in government, commerce and everyday life. While official rhetoric surrounding the use of EM in Europe is ostensibly similar, it has nonethless been embedded in very different legal and policy frameworks in different countries. Anthea Hucklesby, Professor of Criminology at the University of Leeds, was already a major British researcher on electronic monitoring before she and four senior European colleagues applied sucessfully for an "Action Grant" to the European Commission's Directorate of General Justice to undertake the first major comparative study of EM in the European Union. Four member states, each with mature and established EM schemes, took part: Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Britain, the latter comprising the two separate jurisdictions of England and Wales, and Scotland, who began using EM in very similar ways but increasingly envisage its future it very differently. Each of the lead researchers recruited staff to undertake the work over an eighteen month period. An Advisory Board comprising experts drawn from academia, the judiciary, the civil service and the private sector was appointed to comment of progress and assist with opening doors in the countries being researched. The project was subdivided into four complementary work streams, sequenced in a logical order, with each building on the knowledge acquired in its predecessor. The first documented the legal and policy contexts in which EM operated in the five jurisdictions. The second mapped the ways in which EM is implemented, explored the varying conceptions of effectiveness that prevailed in relation to it and traced the influence of policy transfer between countries. It gathered as much statistical data on patterns of use and outcomes as was possible in each country. The third utilized the comparative knowledge and findings to draw out similarities and differences between the jurisdictions and drew preliminary conclusions about better and worse forms of implementation. The fourth work stream focused on developing a dissemination strategy through the use of documentary material (reports, briefing papers and articles), conferences and workshops. Six briefing papers were produced at the end of the project, one on each of the jurisdictions and one which compared and summarized the findings. The latter is reproduced with permission in this issue of the journal. Separate dissemination conferences took place in each of the jurisdictions, except Scotland (in London, Berlin, Brussels and Utrecht) conveying the results to policy and practitioner audiences. Comparative overviews were further presented at an academic conference in Paris and at the 10th CEP Electronic Monitoring conference in Riga, Latvia, in April 2016.|
|Rights:||The publisher has not responded to our queries therefore this work cannot be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Comparative Briefing Paper as Journal of Offender Monitoring article June 2016.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||9.63 MB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.