Ashna Devaprasad, Cordis Bright 

Introduction

In Chapter Eight, Gauke and colleagues frame the use of technology in community justice as a key part of the puzzle in solving the current ‘crisis in prison capacity’ in England and Wales (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:4). They argue that short-term fixes such as emergency releases may temporarily ease pressure on prisons but don’t offer a sustainable solution. Instead, they contend that emerging technologies, including ‘advanced AI’ (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:18), could help reduce strain on the system when used effectively by probation officers. But for this to work, the justice system needs what the Review describes as a ‘well-functioning and well-funded Probation Service’ (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:10); one capable of leveraging technology to improve how offenders are managed in the community.

The Review’s recommendations in this chapter fall broadly into two categories: short-term opportunities to improve current operations within probation, and longer-term opportunities for system transformation. Any use of technology, current or future, must, it argues, be rooted in behavioural science and designed with three core principles in mind: prioritisation,[1] public protection,[2] and personalisation.[3]

A Mixed Bag?

The chapter uses technology as a broad umbrella term, but most of the discussion actually revolves around electronic monitoring. On the one hand, Gauke and colleagues call for its ‘responsible expansion’ (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:127), but in the same breath, they concede that the evidence base for tagging is far from compelling and often context dependent. Russell Webster, a former probation officer and independent consultant, worries that a sizeable, if unspecified, chunk of the Government’s promised £700 million for probation (over five years) will likely be spent on tagging, “for which incidentally, there is no evidence base for any positive impact” (Webster, 2025). If the [government’s] goal is to track people, he notes, an alternative is using phone-based technology that already exists, is cheaper, more reliable and does not stigmatise the people required to use it (Webster, 2025).

The Review rightly questions whether frontline staff are sufficiently trained or supported to use this electronic monitoring to achieve better rehabilitation (aimed at prisoner welfare) rather than just compliance. But it stops short of probing deeper questions about the system’s readiness. In other words, it fails to ask whether the probation service actually has the necessary capacity and the capability to integrate technology into its rehabilitative operations (Knight and Van De Steene, 2017).

Take the issue of staffing, for example. The Review recommends that any expansion of electronic monitoring must involve a concurrent investment in people, specifically, probation staff who can work directly with offenders to manage the risks associated with tagging. Yet, it glosses over the challenge of securing leadership buy-in. How can system leaders be persuaded to invest in technology reforms that, at least in the short term, still rely heavily on human oversight to function safely? Just as important is considering discomfort and low confidence among staff, many of whom may understandably be hesitant to adopt new tools or approaches in their daily work. How plans for technology adoption are pitched, timed, and embedded into existing workflows may ultimately determine whether they succeed or stall.

These kinds of tensions surface repeatedly throughout the chapter. For example, Gauke and colleagues encourage criminal justice agencies to ‘get the basics right’ (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:123). At the same time, they clarify their focus is on looking ‘beyond the basics’ (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:123) to embrace transformative innovation in offender management. All of this in a system still mired in ‘paper-based’ processes, where staff in Approved Premises lack webcams for remote meetings, and where ‘outdated’, ‘clunky’ IT systems are still holding things together (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025:123). Scattered in between are case studies, mostly from the UK, the US and a handful of other countries, meant to showcase what’s possible when smart technology is applied to probation work. These span everything from facial recognition to monitor more people and AI assistants to lighten officers’ administrative burdens, to a proposed ‘one-stop-shop’ platform that consolidates key information about each offender. These examples, however, resemble isolated success stories, seemingly cherry-picked and presented without a clear methodology.[4] Perhaps the most glaring problem with these suggestions is their undue focus on what emerging technologies can do, without clarifying how, why, by whom, and for whom they would be used in practice (Morris and Graham, 2019).

What’s more, the Review boldly proposes creating real-time feedback loops for decision-makers using technologies within a system that has historically struggled with multi-agency collaboration and information sharing (Bald and Skerman, 2024;  Waring et al., 2022; Van De Steene, 2021; Gough, 2010; Williams, 2009). Beyond the buzzwords, however, the evidence supporting the workability of these recommendations is shaky at best. Tools like SherlockAI are being used as a digital coach for some prison leavers, but the Review admits the benefits haven’t yet been properly evaluated. Without first establishing a robust feedback infrastructure, and carefully thinking through cost, local acceptability and sustainability (Knight and Van De Steene, 2017), scaling even the most promising pilots risks feeling fragmented, short-lived, or premature.

(Not) Designing for Complexity

At times, it feels as though Gauke and colleagues are pushing for innovation for innovation’s sake. The Review often conflates the introduction of new or more technology with automatic organisational innovation (Knight and Van De Steene, 2017), without fully articulating the scale and proportionality of their ambitions (see also Criminal Justice Alliance, 2025). Nowhere is this more evident than in its stance on technological reform.

In its current form, Chapter Eight’s vision for radical change misses the forest for the trees. The success of this vision hinges on the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) getting many things right: rolling out appropriate solutions, meeting security, safety, privacy and data protection standards, training the right staff, and iteratively evaluating both the benefits and barriers to wider adoption of different technologies using ‘clear, quantifiable metrics’ (Ministry of Justice, 2025a). The challenge? Much of this work is only just beginning. The MoJ’s AI action plan for justice and Innovation Den, for example, were launched as recently as May and July 2025 (Justice AI Unit, no date; techUK, 2025). Meanwhile, the recent Spending Review provides little detail on how the government plans to incentivise tech developers and entrepreneurs to innovate in a system as chronically underfunded and stretched for resources as probation (HM Treasury, 2025).

For the probation service to innovate ‘well and at pace’ (Ministry of Justice and The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, 2025) in how it manages offenders in the community, small-scale digital projects must first be given the ‘time and space to develop’ even if early outcomes aren’t immediately favourable to the system (Knight and Van De Steene, 2017). In order for that to happen, policymakers must first situate their recommendations on technology in the messy, human realities of public service delivery (Public Digital, no date). This includes thinking carefully about how to promote technology use within a system of top-down control and centrally managed performance targets, which, by its very nature, resists transformation (Tidmarsh, 2024; Tidmarsh, 2020).

REFERENCES:

1. Bald, C. and Skerman, K. (2024) ‘It’s time social work and probation reconnect in England and Wales’ British Association of Social Workers (BASW) [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://basw.co.uk/about-social-work/psw-magazine/articles/its-time-social-work-and-probation-reconnect-england-and#:~:text=It’s%20time%20social%20work%20and%20probation%20reconnect%20in%20England%20and%20Wales,-With%20the%20Probation&text=The%20Probation%20Service%20in%20England,local%20rather%20than%20centralised%20delivery.
2. Criminal Justice Alliance. (2025) CJA response to the Independent Sentencing Review final report. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/blog/cja-response-to-the-independent-sentencing-review-final-report/.
3. Gough, D. (2010) ‘Multi-agency working in corrections: cooperation and competition in probation practice.’ In Pycroft, A. and Gough, D. (eds.) Multi-agency working in criminal justice: control and care in contemporary correctional practice. 1st ed., Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp. 21–33.
4. HM Treasury. (2025) Spending Review 2025. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-2025-document/spending-review-2025-html.
5. Justice AI Unit. (no date) AI Action Plan for Justice: A roadmap for safe and effective AI adoption in justice. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://ai.justice.gov.uk/action-plan.
6. Knight, V. and Van De Steene, S. (2017) ‘The capacity and capability of digital innovation in prisons: Towards smart prisons.’ Advancing Corrections, 4(8), pp.88–101.
7. Ministry of Justice and The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP. (2025) AI to stop prison violence before it happens. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-to-stop-prison-violence-before-it-happens.
8. Ministry of Justice. (2025a) AI action plan for justice. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-action-plan-for-justice/ai-action-plan-for-justice.
9. Ministry of Justice. (2025b) Independent Sentencing Review final report. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-sentencing-review-final-report.
10. Morris, J. and Graham, H. (2019) ‘Using technology and digitally enabled approaches to support desistance.’ In Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F.S. and Trotter, C. (eds.)The Routledge companion to rehabilitative work in criminal justice. 1st ed., London: Routledge, 179–192.
11. digital. (no date) Local AI, done right. [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://public.digital/data-bites-series/local-ai-done-right.
12. (2025) Ministry of Justice Innovation Den 2025 – Expression of Interest [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://www.techuk.org/resource/ministry-of-justice-innovation-den-2025-expression-of-interest.html.
13. Tidmarsh, M. (2020) ‘The probation service in England and Wales: A decade of radical change or more of the same?’ European Journal of Probation, 12(2), pp.129–146.
14. Tidmarsh, M. (2024) ‘Legacies of change: probation staff experiences of the unification of services in England and Wales.’ The British Journal of Criminology, 64(2), pp.468–486.
15. Van De Steene, S. (2021) ‘Artificial Intelligence in Offender Management – Could machines be more successful?.’ techUK [Online] [Accessed on 7th October 2025] https://www.techuk.org/resource/artificial-intelligence-in-offender-management-could-machines-be-more-successful.html.
16. Waring, S., Taylor, E., Giles, S., Almond, L. and Gidman, V. (2022) ‘“Dare to share”: improving information sharing and risk assessment in multiteam systems managing offender probation.’ Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 869673.
17. Webster, R. (2025). Email to Russell Webster, 8th October.
18. Williams, I. (2009) ‘Offender health and social care: a review of the evidence on inter‐agency collaboration.’ Health & Social Care in the Community, 17(6), pp.573–580.

[1] This involves using technology to increase efficiency. For example, automating some tasks so that probation officers can free up time and focus on the aspects of their job that only they, as trained professionals, can do. These are tasks that require human interaction and expertise, where they can add real value in managing offenders.

[2] This involves using technology, including AI tools and facial recognition technologies (FRT) to gather and analyse real-world data on offenders. This data can be used to monitor risk levels, detect warning signs, adjust levels of supervision, escalate support interventions, or return individuals to custody if needed. All these measures are intended to help protect victims and the wider public.

[3] This involves managing, supervising, and rehabilitating offenders in ways that match their individual risk levels and needs. This could involve using mobile-based rehabilitation apps or sensor technologies, but while factoring in an offender’s unique context and circumstances to determine appropriateness.

[4] There is also limited detail on the extent to which these models or approaches are transferable to the probation context in England and Wales, what safeguards accompanied their implementation, any practical constraints encountered, how they performed beyond the pilot stage, and their overall evaluability.