Failure to fit tags left 5,000 offenders unmonitored in England and Wales, report finds

Electronic monitoring means using a device, usually worn by an offender, to provide information to a monitoring system. An electronic tag is intended to show whether the person is where they should be or is complying with specified restrictions. It gives probation and other authorities another way to supervise people in the community.

The tag must be fitted correctly, remain charged, and send a reliable signal. If it stops transmitting, the monitoring system may not know whether the wearer has breached a condition. The report found that almost 1,600 people wore tags that sent no signal for more than two weeks because of technical faults or charging problems.

Electronic monitoring is therefore only one part of supervision, not a complete replacement for probation work. The government plans a major expansion of tagging, but the report warned that this could increase workloads for already understaffed probation teams and raise questions about whether monitoring promises can be delivered.

Between January and April, more than 5,000 people who had electronic tagging orders were not tagged. That represented 15% of everyone with an electronic tagging order during that period. They were supposed to be monitored, but the monitoring arrangement was not put in place.

The report also identified a separate failure. Almost 1,600 people were wearing tags that did not send a signal to the monitoring system for more than two weeks. The causes included technical faults and devices that were not charged. A tag that is fitted but silent cannot provide dependable monitoring.

Together, the figures show both a capacity problem and a reliability problem. Some offenders were never tagged, while others had equipment that stopped communicating. The report described electronic tagging as performing poorly and failing to meet demand, creating concerns about public protection and the government’s planned expansion of monitoring.

The main problem was a lack of probation staff. The Institute for Government said supervision was being rationed because teams did not have enough workers, leaving some court-imposed sentences only partly implemented. Probation staff also described chaotic changes, worries about safety, and concerns about protecting the public.

Electronic monitoring added a separate technical weakness. Between January and April, more than 5,000 people who should have had tags were not fitted with them. Almost 1,600 people had tags that sent no signal for more than two weeks because devices developed faults or were not charged.

The result was incomplete supervision. Some people had no tag at all, while others wore equipment that could not reliably report their status. The report found that tagging was failing to meet demand, and warned that expanding it could further increase the workload of already short-staffed probation practitioners.

Probation is the part of the justice system that supervises offenders in the community. Staff manage risks, check compliance with sentence requirements, and can connect people with help intended to reduce reoffending. The report describes probation as responsible for managing people after release and during community-based parts of sentences.

Prison is different because the person serves time inside a custodial facility. Probation takes place outside prison, where the offender may live at home but must follow conditions. These can include monitoring arrangements or participation in programmes. The article gives the example of referrals to substance misuse programmes, although waiting lists sometimes outlasted the sentence.

The distinction matters because a sentence can include prison, supervised time in the community, and an unsupervised period. The report said staff shortages were weakening the supervision part. It warned that sentences were becoming less connected to the time people actually spent in custody or under active probation oversight.

When licence conditions are not actively supervised, authorities may miss breaches or fail to act quickly. That can increase risks to victims and the wider public, especially when people released from prison are supposed to follow strict requirements. The report said victims were being promised protections that the system might not be able to deliver.

Offenders can also be harmed by weak supervision. The report described people being referred to substance misuse programmes but reaching the end of their sentences before they reached the front of waiting lists. Without timely support or enforcement, the sentence may do little to reduce reoffending or address the problems linked to offending.

The wider effect is a loss of clarity and trust. The report warned that licence periods without active supervision make sentences harder for victims and the public to understand. It also said administrative recalls had increased sharply, showing that weak community management can contribute to further disruption and pressure on prisons.

A court imposes a sentence, but the person may spend different parts of it in different settings. Prison is the custodial stage. Release can then occur before the full sentence ends, with the person serving time in the community on licence and subject to conditions. Probation is meant to supervise that period.

The article gives a six-year sentence as an example. Under the situation described, someone might spend two years in prison, two years on probation, and two years subject to conditions that nobody actively monitors or enforces. The report said that arrangement no longer meaningfully represents a six-year sentence.

If a person breaches licence conditions, they may be recalled to prison, even when the issue is not a new offence. The report said administrative recalls had skyrocketed. The 2026 Sentencing Act is expected to reduce release points for many sentences, leaving many offenders on licence for a final third without active supervision unless the system is strengthened.

Electronic tags are only one tool available to probation services. The article describes active probation supervision, where staff manage offenders in the community and enforce licence conditions. It also mentions referrals to substance misuse programmes, which are intended to address problems linked to offending and reduce reoffending.

Other measures include community punishment and, when licence conditions are breached, administrative recall to prison. The report also urged the government to reintroduce home detention as a way to manage the prison population. These approaches rely on staff, clear rules, and timely decisions rather than on a tag alone.

The report’s wider recommendation was to increase probation staffing steadily. It called for a sentencing model that clearly separates time in prison from time supervised in the community, with no licence periods without supervision. Using several measures together could make sentences more understandable and improve public protection, but the article warns that current teams are already overstretched.