Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

This report describes results from an evaluation of the first 13 months of the roll-out of curfew orders, 1 December 1999 to 31 December 2000. The research aimed to establish whether the experience of the pilots was replicated nationally and to assess the effectiveness of the order. In addition to providing information on use of curfew orders, the characteristics of those tagged and curfew order outcomes, it includes the views of criminal justice practitioners, electronic monitoring staff and curfewees themselves.

Title: Evaluation of the national roll-out of curfew orders
Author: Isabel Walters
Series: Home Office Online Report 15/02
Number of pages: 48
Date published: November 2002

The experiences of five sample areas, Greater Manchester, an original pilot site, Inner London, Kent, Merseyside, and West Glamorgan are compared. Analyses of the "market share" of curfew orders, in terms of the sentences curfew orders are replacing, and their relative costs, are also presented.

Use of curfew orders

4600 curfew orders were made over the period of the evaluation, an average of 383 per month. Take-up was somewhat lower than original predictions of 8,000 per year at roll-out (Mortimer and May, 1997). Just over 1% of all community sentences given in 1999 were curfew orders. Pre-sentence report (PSR) proposals for curfew orders were similarly low, comprising 4% of all proposals in Greater Manchester and less than 1% in each of the four other sample areas. Outside Greater Manchester, an original pilot area, curfew orders were also rarely considered and assessed for in PSRs.

Interviews with criminal justice practitioners attributed low take-up of curfew orders to lack of knowledge about and confidence in the penalty, and the fact that tagging had yet to become part of the established sentencing repertoire. However, all felt it would remain a rarely used sentence because they saw few cases where a curfew was relevant, sufficiently serious and practicable. A more detailed examination of these interviews can be found in Home Office Research Finding 140, March 2001 PDF 56Kb.

Who was tagged?

Ninety per cent of offenders tagged were male. The average age of curfewees was 25.5, with curfew orders used for somewhat younger offenders than in the first two years of the pilots. Criminal justice practitioners felt curfew orders were suitable for a wide range of individuals, but particularly younger offenders because they often offended at night or with peer groups. Practitioners were reluctant to propose curfews for those with mental or physical health problems or where there were domestic violence or child protection issues.

The three most common offence types attracting a curfew order were theft and handling (23%), driving whilst disqualified (15%) and burglary (10%). Common assault, other violent offences and public order offences also featured heavily. However, some differences emerged between the areas, with one-third of curfew orders in Greater Manchester given at the breach of another community sentence.

Pre-sentence report proposals for curfew orders tended to be for similar offenders and offences as those on whom and for which orders were actually made. Criminal justice practitioners favoured the use of curfews to disrupt "pattern" offending that occurs at particular times and places; as an alternative to custody; and where other community penalties were inappropriate, unavailable or breached. As in the pilots, findings locate curfew orders as a top end community penalty and alternative to custody, although some criminal justice practitioners noted the flexibility of the sentence in terms of use and tariff.

Curfewees had found the tag a genuinely punitive sentence.

Types of order made

Use of curfew orders by the Crown Court (13% of all orders) and Youth Courts (16%) was higher than in the pilots. The average length of all orders made was 98 days, similar to the pilots (99 days). Nearly half of orders fell between two and four months in length. The majority of curfews were overnight, for eight to twelve hours, and seven days a week. There was a query whether curfew timings were always most effectively targeted by courts.

Curfew orders were imposed jointly with another community sentence in 26 per cent of cases, less often than in the pilots (32%), the other penalty usually a probation order (71% of cases) or a community service order (20%). In Greater Manchester, curfew orders were less likely to be proposed, and then given, as a joint sentence than in the four other sample areas. Most criminal justice practitioners doubted the value of a fully stand-alone curfew order, although some noted this could punish while offering a measure of public protection. The majority believed curfew orders were most constructive used alongside another community penalty, to provide support on the tag, assist the work of other interventions and develop the positive consequences of being curfewed.

Curfew orders in practice

Curfew orders typically required late night installations, which had caused problems for both electronic monitoring staff and offenders and their families. Curfewees were often poorly informed about their sentence prior to installation. In many areas agencies felt partnership working on curfew orders could be improved, especially around home visits, risk assessments and breach cases. They also thought it should be easier for offenders to change curfew hours and address.

All offenders interviewed were positive about the monitoring officers, describing them as respectful, friendly and helpful. Few had experienced problems with the monitoring equipment, but there were complaints about sharing a telephone line. Most disliked wearing a tag and some had found it a stigma.

Offenders' families were generally keen on tagging because it kept the curfewee out of prison and at home. Relationships had often benefited from the stability brought to offenders' lifestyles and increased time spent at home, although the enforced presence of the curfewee could also cause friction.

Outcomes of orders

Overall completion rates for curfew orders following roll-out were about 83 per cent, better than for community service orders (71%) and similar to probation orders (81%). Fifty-seven per cent of first breach cases resulted in revocation: fewer than one in ten orders were breached more than once. About two-thirds of breaches were for absence violations. For offenders, curfew compliance was often underpinned by fear of custody. Of offenders whose curfew orders were returned to court for breach action, a quarter were allowed to continue on the curfew with an additional fine and in one-third of cases, there was no further action.

Offenders whose curfew orders were revoked were most often re-sentenced to custody (45%) or to a further curfew order (23%). Magistrates liked the fact that curfew violations were unambiguous, but probation, YOT and monitoring officers were concerned about inconsistent approaches to curfew order breach cases by different courts.

As in the pilots, longer curfew orders were more likely to be revoked. Both younger offenders and female offenders had lower completion rates for curfew orders. Revocation also varied by offence type, with lowest completions for theft and handling (79%). Those sentenced at the Crown Court had surprisingly high rates of success, with 93 per cent completed. This reflects findings from the pilots and may represent a fear of custody if breached.

Implications

Use of curfew orders in the 13 months after roll-out has broadly reflected the experience of the pilots, although local variations again underpin the national picture. Curfew order completion rates remain high and there is evidence from the research that tagging can be a positive as well as punitive experience for offenders. Criminal justice practitioners viewed the sentence as a penalty with considerable potential.

Evidence suggests curfew orders can be used successfully in diverse ways, to disrupt pattern offending; bring stability to the lives of chaotic offenders; act as a deterrent; protect the public; reduce offending-related behaviour; and support other interventions. Stand-alone curfew orders can help to support the work of other community penalties given to an offender.

Although take-up of curfew orders in the year following roll-out was lower than predicted, usage has continued to grow with an average of 435 orders being made per month during 2001. Furthermore, in the first six months of 2002, 3648 orders have already been made (an average of 608 per month). There is no apparent explanation for this rapid increase in use by the courts and the rise is not confined to particular geographical areas.

A planned reconviction study of offenders tagged in the 13 months after roll-out may help to clarify the impact of tagging on offending behaviour. The current timetable for this work is for publication in early 2004. This study will complement the growing body of knowledge on the various uses of electronic monitoring.

Download Evaluation of the national roll-out of curfew orders PDF 238Kb