The United Kingdom's rapidly increasing prison population and its escalating costs have encouraged policymakers to consider the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration. Since the original pilot test in 1989, advances in technology have reduced concerns about unreliability; however, in Britain electronic monitoring still seems to be a technology in search of a rationale. The Association of Chief Officers of Probation has stated that "a clearly understood purpose for electronic monitoring is currently lacking." The effective electronic monitoring scheme in Sweden is based on sound research and evaluation and has included the probation service from the outset. In Sweden, monitored offenders are employed or involved in training or education schemes. There are also additional conditions that may include compulsory drug and alcohol treatment and random urine tests. In the United States, equipment has now been developed that, it is claimed, enables the tracking of individual offenders. This allows, for example, sex offenders to be excluded from certain areas, such as children's playgrounds and schools. In Canada, the Federal Government conducted a joint evaluation of the electronic monitoring programs in British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan. Although the evaluation has shown a 94-percent completion of monitoring without a violation, the minor offenders involved have typically been relatively successful in completing their sentences even prior to electronic monitoring. Proponents of electronic monitoring argue that it can produce substantial cost savings and limit the use of incarceration to more serious and violent offenders. Critics suggest it is overly intrusive and an abuse of an individual's rights. 14 references