OVERVIEW 20

August 2010

NEW GOVERNMENT, AND NEW PENAL POLICY

Britain's incoming Coalition government, elected in May 2010, was swift to announce the re-alignment of policy on sentencing. The new Minister of Justice, Kenneth Clarke, a former Conservative Home Secretary and a lawyer by training, outstandingly the most experienced member of Prime Minister David Cameron's cabinet, declared his intention to adjust the sentencing framework for the courts in favour of much wider use of community penalties as opposed to custody, and to give new emphasis to rehabilitation, or so-called 'restorative measures'. The new framework was to be in place by October 2010.

This fresh governmental stance follows an election campaign in which both main parties seemed to compete on being 'tough on crime', implying an endorsement of the policy identified with the previous leader of the Conservatives in opposition, Michael Howard, who as Home Secretary under John Major in the mid-1990s championed the adage 'Prison works'.

The Coalition's Liberal-Democrat junior partners may have influenced the shift. A less lofty motive, in a period of economic stringency, may be to save part of the vast cost of building ever more prisons and locking people up. Yet the fact that in the 17 years between 2010 and when Clarke was Home Secretary the population of convicted prisoner had risen from 45,000 to 87,000, may have shaped the Justice Minister's thoughts.

In any case, for the new measures not to result in widespread non-compliance and disillusionment on all sides, the electronic tag in some form is bound be called into play.

England, Wales and Scotland are currently well structured for an expanded use of the curfew tag, already widely in use for prisoners released early (under the Home Detention Curfew - HDC - provision introduced in the mid-1990s), and as a form of monitored constraint on those serving community orders in the regular field of Criminal Justice and young offenders undergoing intensive supervision . The curfew tag is now an established tool in Britain's penological armoury. Its reputation has been damaged over the previous decade by the previous government's more or less brazen use of it to ease pressure on prison spaces, and more recently by the often indulgent handling of tagees who violate the terms of their curfew. The OTA has consistently stressed the importance of strict compliance by offenders, not least to preserve the public's confidence in the value of the tag as a genuine constraint. Meanwhile, recent concern on the part of the last government to appear 'tough on crime' has resulted in a reduction, by 20 per cent, of the use of HDC compared with 1999.

BRING ON THE TRACKING TAG

A serious cause for regret in this new situation is that by far the most appropriate electronic technology available today to support rehabilitation and the monitoring of adherence to court orders and community penalties is not in place. This is the Tracking Tag, operated by means of Global Positioning System (GPS). The OTA energetically supports its full introduction.

On the initiative of the far-sighted (if blind) Labour government Home Secretary David Blunkett, Tracking Tag pilot schemes were operated from September 2004 to June 2006. The pilots covered a variety of offending types across three areas of England: Greater Manchester, Hampshire, and the West Midlands. A total of 336 were satellite-tagged, of which 20 per cent were young offenders. Thereafter the then newly conjured Ministry of Justice had the pilots assessed under Stephen Shute, Professor of Criminal Justice at Birmingham University. Shute's report found that
* Magistrates and district judges deemed tracking as a helpful sentencing option.
* Most offender managers [which includes Probation staff] were positive about the benefits of satellite tracking
* Approximately half (46%) of tagged offenders considered GPS tacking helped them to 'stay out of trouble', although 58% of those piloted were recalled or had their community penalty rescinded for breaking their regimes.

By the time of the publication of Shute's report (2007), a new General Election was in view, and successive Labour Home Secretaries and the incumbent at the newly created Ministry of Justice, Jack Straw, himself a former Home Secretary, were unwilling to expose the government to a possible 'Dukakis effect' [after Michael Dukakis, ex-Governor of Massachusetts and Democrat candidate in the 1988 US presidential elections] of the electoral damage wrought by releasing from custody an offender who then commits a grevious crime - especially through a penological novelty still unfamiliar in Britain. A BBC Panorama programme in July 2007, highlighting offences committed by those tagged on home curfews, predictably undermined public trust in electronic constraints, which the then Opposition sought to exploit.

US EXPERIENCE OF THE TRACKING TAG

Meanwhile, however, formidable evidence from the US has been accumulating, which from 1997 has been pioneering the Tracking Tag for monitoring offenders in the community The evidence is pointing to rapid replacement of curfew tagging by the tracking tag, and a concomitant increase of the use of the GPS tag as an alternative to custody.

Federal statistics on most penalties in criminal justice are not available in the US. This is because jurisdiction on penalties is devolved to state or even to county level. The actuality is that curfew tagging has long been established in every state in the US, but that already the tracking tag is today in use in the majority of the states. Wherever that is so, the GPS tag is seen to be supplanting the RF (Radio Frequency) curfew tag. In Florida, which has remained at the forefront in EM (electronic monitoring) technology, the number of tagees on the GPS tracking tag in August 2010 was over 3000 compared with under 300 on the RF curfew tag. Today, an estimated 40,000 offenders in the US who would otherwise be in prison are conducting relatively untrammelled lives under perpetual 24/7 surveillance by the GPS tracking tag. The largest GPS contract is in US is in California, for sex offenders, where 4000 are on the tag.

Current technology can, when required, record the tagee's precise location point every minute and log the information every 10 minutes via wireless communication. Any violation of the tagee's regime can therefore more or less instantly detected and be acted upon by the monitoring operator or law enforcers if they are on hand round the clock (as is often the case). The tagee's log data is moreover available to assist in the investigation of crime and as evidence in criminal prosecutions. One should be aware, of course, that the regime of the wearer of a tracking tag may require him or her to remain at given periods at a given location under the tag's curfew. The curfew function of the tracking tag is almost invariably in play.

EVALUATING THE TRACKING TAG

The value of the tracking tag has been extensively if randomly assessed in the US. Meanwhile it was separately evaluated in the Shute report on the British pilot projects. Shute recorded the tracking tag as
* Enabling of offender managers effectively to monitor exclusion zones
* Providing to offender managers of information on the activities and whereabouts of offenders in respect of possible recidivism
* Serving as a reminder [a perpetual tap on the shoulder] to offenders that they are responsible for their actions, as a 'psychological reinforcement' when tempted to re-offend; hence a deterrence from re-offending
* Protecting victims (and a concomitant re-assurance both for them and for the wider public)
* providing intelligence to police in the investigation of crimes and the elimination of suspects.

US research adds to or amplifies these findings, and is similarly commonsensical. For example, the offender can preserve family life, if appropriate; visit the doctor; collect offspring from school; play his or her part in society; and pursue a lawful profession. He or she is freed of the contamination of the prison community. A GPS regime can be readily combined with a programme of rehabilitation.

There is significant further US experience of the most effective ways of limiting violations by the tagee of his or her regime (and consequent requirement for revocation) by strict and prompt response to any backsliding and by the tagee being beholden to a specific judge or magistrate. This factor is identified in a report on the Total Sentencing Alternative Program in New Orleans, Louisiana, dated 2008, which is the first jurisdiction to establish a specialized Electronic Monitoring court. In this context, the closing of many local courts in England and Wales under a new (2010) directive from Britain's Ministry of Justice could be a backward step.

As a sample of the US experience of the Tracking Tag we may cite a recent statistic from Charlotteville, North Carolina. This demonstrates a compliance rate of 90 per cent of GPS sentences/regimes, and a rate of conviction for fresh offences during the following year of less than 4 per cent, which is encouragingly low.

From the logistical aspect, a satellite tag's curfew area can be expanded or contracted to fit the case; a GPS regime can be adapted to fit the requirements of the tagee's conduct of life. It reduces or can eliminate the requirement of probation officers to visit offenders' homes. It provides two-way communication between the monitoring authority and the tagee. It is, of course, a vastly less expensive way of punishing or restraining an offender that is prison, not only by a factor of four or five in the cost of surveillance and management of a tagee as against someone in custody, but in the cost of building and maintaining a prison.

HOW THE TRACKING TAG OPERATES

The larger and heavier component of the tagee's kit is the GPS unit. The size of this varies from that of a small cigar box (6x3.25x2.5 ins.) to that of a pc mouse, both weighing about 12 ounces, which locates the precise whereabouts of the tagee every few seconds by fixing on signals received from satellites 12,000 miles out in space.

Twenty-four satellites available to public access, permanently orbiting the planet, whose primary function is to serve the requirements of the US Department of Defense. European satellites are now available for the same borrowed function.

A minimum of 3 satellites at any moment is of course required to pinpoint the position of a tagee's GPS position on a flat plane, and place the tag-wearer's whereabouts on an electronic map. The addition of a fourth satellite signal allows for the elevation to be calculated - the floor level, for instance, in a high-rise block - measurable by the time taken by the radio signals to reach the wearer's unit.

As a rule, signals from a cluster of satellites will be engaged, with one satellite taking over the function of another as each orbits out of range.

The smaller component is the PID (Personal Identity Device), strapped to the tagee's ankle, to which the GPS unit (unless already integrated with the PID - see below) may transmit and which in turn communicates with the regional monitoring centre by cellular radio, the terrestrial matrix used by mobile telephones. Technically, the GPS unit may log the continuous information it is receiving, download on demand at the end of any day, or instantly pass on its information via the tagee's PID for transmission there and then to the monitoring centre for the centre's own storage or, if required, continuous scrutiny.

The GPS unit's sustained electronic vigilance is, however, demanding on electrical power. Its battery therefore requires daily re-charging. This is done via a charging unit plugged into a normal power socket in the tagee's home.

The hitherto familiar type of GPS unit is worn by the tagee separately from the PID, usually on the belt, while the PID is permanently strapped to the tagees ankle and cannot be removed or tampered with without alerting the monitoring authority to the violation. It is the tagee's responsibility to 'wear' or carry his/her GPS unit constantly, except when recharging its battery or bathing, when he or she is to remain within a few feet of it. If the tagee becomes separated from the GPS unit, the tagees PID automatically alerts the . monitoring authority to this violation, and appropriate action such as arrest will follow. Lately available is a device combining the GPS unit and the PID in a single unit strapped permanently in all circumstances (i.e. sleeping, bathing etc) to the ankle, and itself as small as a pc mouse. The battery of the combined unit is, similarly, to b re-charged daily from a regular wall socket for a period of at least half-an-hour, while the wearer, having plugged himself or herself in, sits alongside while still wearing the tag.

Tagees are thus to be held to a strict regime of compliance with the basic requirements. These are
a) regular re-charging of the GPS unit battery
b) permanent wearing of the twin or combined device
c) a pattern of movement compliant with the requirement of the court.

THE CURRENT CAPABILITY OF THE TRACKING TAG: PENAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH

GPS signals do not penetrate underground. Where comprehensive surveillance is required, as it usually is, tagees can be forbidden to travel underground. Moreover, certain formations of dense high-rise buildings can weaken or eliminate GPS signals. In such a situation, however, the PID will continue sending its signal by the cellular radio network to the regional monitoring centre. Given that the point where the GPS signal has been impeded by high-rise buildings is determinable, the approximate location of the GPS tagee can thereafter be indicated by the PID cellular radio signal - the vertical locating, as it were, being superseded by the horizontal. A tagee in a high rise building may be required, on receipt of a beep signal, to place himself in a situation where a GPS signal can be received, for the verification of his whereabouts. In any case, of course, a tagee's signals will be picked up again as soon as he or she leaves the GPS-occluded area or building. Heavy cloud can weaken a satellite signal but not eliminate it.

Under so-called passive tracking, the usual practice in the US has been for the movements of the tagees to be reviewed retrospectively at the end of the day while the GPS unit is being re-charged and a land-line telephone can be used (to save the power of the portable PID) to transmit that day's record. At the same time, where necessary, the tagee may receive telephoned guidance from the monitoring authority or superviser. The GPS unit can, however, be polled at any time of the day or night by the monitoring authority to warn an offender against violation, for example, or instruct him or her to contact the monitoring centre.

Under 'hybrid' tracking, any breach of locational conditions by the tagee will instantly alert the monitoring authority to the breach, resulting in either the transmission of a warning signal to the tagee or, if necessary, arrest.

Setting a so-called 'hot zone' which a tagee is forbidden to enter can be programmed by the monitoring operator in minutes. Such 'hot zones' can cover areas surrounding sites deemed by a court to be potentially conducive to criminal behaviour by the offender under surveyance, such as Tube stations or crowded emporia for those with convictions for pickpocketing, public houses and the like for those convicted for drunken behaviour, playground or schools in the case of paedophiles, the residences of children deemed in danger of abduction by an aggrieved parent, the premises of former sexual partners in fear of molestation, and so on.

We may note in passing that the Tracking Tag was mooted by ourselves to the Home Office in London 1981, as an outline feasibility study, at that date on a mobile telephone basis, which had then become technologically available. No governmental action followed. The OTA floated the proposal at a national press conference in early 1983. These moves helped to pave the way for the piloting of the curfew tag in 1989. The tracking tag as such was first introduced in Florida in 1997.

THE SPREAD OF THE CURFEW TAG

Meanwhile, Meanwhile, the Curfew Tag has become a significant adjunct in the handling of offenders in North America, in Britain, the major European states, Australia and South Africa. The most recent European country to adopt it is Poland. It is used both as an alternative to prison and as a means of monitoring compliance with home curfew orders often handed down by the courts.

The English and Welsh judiciary were mostly fairly slow to awake to the potential and significance of the tagging option in support of community penalties or rehabilitation regimes. Since around 2003 awareness on the part of judges and magistrates has markedly increased.

HOME DETENTION CURFEW

Throughout the past decade the Curfew Tag has been used on approximately 4 per cent of those in England and Wales who would otherwise be in jail. In round figures, more than 3000 convicted offenders are serving the last part of their sentences out of jail on electronically tagged night-time curfew at an agreed home site, on release under the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme. HDC allows for low-risk offenders, sentenced to prison for three months or longer, to be selected by a panel of assessors, usually chaired by the offender's prison governor, for such early release on a home curfew of not less than 9 hours in the 24 and not more than 12.

A typical HDC will cover 12 hours daily, running from 7pm to 7am. Such early release under HDC is calculated on a fairly flexible pro rata basis against the length of the original sentence, with a maximum of 18 weeks on the tag available to appropriate offenders sentenced to four years or longer, to a minimum of 2 weeks available to those sentenced to three months. Since the Criminal Justice Act of 2008, any period served on the tag, whether on HDC or as a condition of bail, counts against any sentence awarded.

Since the mid-1990s, at least until the prospective revised sentencing 'framework' heralded by the new Justice Minister in 2010, courts have tended to impose longer sentences. In some categories of custodiable offending, crime has shown slight falls, although informed claims have been voiced that crimes in England and Wales are very significantly unreported and remain statistically unrecognized.

HDC curfew tagging has worked effectively in three respects:
* in easing the severe pressure on prison spaces and diminishing the often highly unsatisfactory recourse to the use of police cells for prisoners on remand;
* in financial a saving; and
* rehabilitatively, by achieving a high level of compliance with the curfew regime, and the personal discipline that implies.

The large majority of HDC 'parolees' - more than 80 per cent - complete their curfewed sentences without significant violation. Those who fail to do so are returned to prison and do not get a second chance. The last, rehabilitative, aspect is of course the most significant, in that the word implies a self-willed curtailment of criminal behaviour. An offender on HDC is indeed able to re-offend during daylight hours. That said, his or her daily conduct is under varying degrees of personal supervision, either by the assigned probation officer or the monitoring agent concerned, or both. An offender with a record of drug dealing, for instance, warrants close scrutiny.

The HDC offender's opportunity to commit crime undetected during the day is small and the detection rate of any crime committed is likely to be high. The rate of conviction for crimes committed by offenders under HDC remains around 3 per cent. It is reasonable to suppose that such a figure is close to the reality of crimes actually committed, and that undetected crime is minuscule This percentage should be seen against the commonly accepted estimate among probation workers of 'over half' of ex-prisoners re-offending within the first few weeks of (untagged) release from jail. (The re-conviction rate of released prisoners in England and Wales is approximately 60 per cent within 2 years of release.)

Meanwhile there is little firm evidence that longer sentences act as a deterrent. That repeated offenders grow old in prison and tire of law-breaking and its consequences is another matter. Nor, however, is there evidence that use of electronic monitoring across a wide range of offenders would not be more effective than prison: effective in curtailing recidivism in both the shorter and the longer term, at a far lower cost in money, alienation and human dereliction. Indications are perceptible (if not yet convincing) that experience of life on the tag in some areas of criminal propensity does reduce re-offending, when set against the record of similar offenders released from jail.

Reservations concerning HDC come from two directions: those who see the option as being 'soft on crime' (i.e. insufficiently punitive, especially in the popular perception); and those working within the system who regard sentences foreshortened to a matter of weeks as being too brief for any prison-based programmes designed to engender behavioural change to be effectively fulfilled.

CURFEW ORGANISATION

For tagging purposes, England and Wales is divided into four Criminal Justice Areas: West Midlands and Wales, covering Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, West Mercia; London and Eastern, covering Beds, Herts, Cambridgeshire, and all of East Anglia; North East and North West, including Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire, Durham, Cleveland, Cheshire, Cumbria and Northumbria; East Midlands, covering Yorkshire, Humberside, Leicester, Notts and Derbyshire. Each of these regions is monitored by established and experienced security companies from a single centre. The monitoring companies' contracts come up for renewal in 2012.

As to national organisation, the Justice Ministry has established its Electronic Monitoring Team in Westminster, as a wing of the National Probation Directorate. Scotland entered the field of electronic monitoring (referred to locally as 'restriction of liberty' orders) rather later than England and Wales. Scottish Parliamentary legislation allowed for the introduction of an equivalent of an HDC (early release) system from early 2006. Northern Ireland has yet to take up the tagging option.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TAGGING

Over 70 per cent of the approximately 10,000 or more offenders 'on the tag' in England and Wales currently are serving their electronic monitoring orders not in the context of early release from prison (HDC) but as a sentence standing alone or as an adjunct to a community service order or as a condition of Parole. Of the adults tagged in this so-called 'Criminal Justice' category (as distinct from HDC), the largest single group (some 40 per cent) are being tagged on home curfew for failure to pay fines. (Courts have a right to waive a fine but, in practice, tag sentences are not served in lieu: the fine is still payable.) Approximately 20 per cent of adults serving (non-HDC) tag sentences are doing so as an alternative to custody, and a slightly larger percentage as an adjunct to a community service order handed down by the courts.

A small proportion of curfew tagging orders are issued as a bail condition - currently more than 100 adults and some 600 'juveniles' (under-18s). The 1997 Crime (Sentences) Act allows for curfew tag sentences on offenders in the 10-15 age group for a maximum of 3 months: several hundred such offenders are under daily curfews of between 2 to 12 hours. Voice verification, by landline phone from the curfewee's home, has gained acceptability by courts in England and Wales as a dependable means of confirmation of the presence of an offender in his or her home, in fulfilment of a curfew order. Voice verification may now be counted foolproof. In so far as it is simultaneously possible to verify both the offender as speaker and the location of his or her telephone - whether by landline from a known location or by GPS - a role for this technology in penal or correctional affairs will expand, Many offenders, most of them bailees, have been monitored by voice verification alone since the technology was introduced in 2001.

In England and Wales, a maximum 'criminal justice' tagging sentence is 6 months, in Scotland a year. Maximum daily 'criminal justice' tag penalties (as distinct from HDC conditions) are for 10 hours, minimum 2 hours. There is no restriction, however, on the hours for which a bailee may be tagged daily.

In the field of Youth Justice, there are currently 8 different curfew programmes involving tag monitoring in use in England and Wales for the handling and so-called treatment of (currently some 650) offenders under 18. These are managed by the Ministry of Justice's Youth Justice Board, under Intensive Surveillance and Supervision programmes (ISS). The Crime (Sentences) Act of 1997 permits the use of the curfew tag for offenders as young as 10, in order to verify their presence at home at certain periods. The sound intention is to establish a discipline of calm and regularity. In practice so far, the youngest tagged have been in their early teens, and the bulk of them in their middle and late teens. All will have offended repeatedly.

In this respect, it could well be that the tag restraint is administered too late. American experience is that, on young offenders, the tag induces behavioural change most successfully on those of the (sometimes very) young who have not been contaminated by the effect of custody and where there is a passably stable home.

Most of the (British) ISS tagees will have had seriously disrupted backgrounds or mental health problems, or both. All are supported by sustained supervisory attention, often on a one-to-one basis. Under the ISS programmes, the tag is being used to monitor compliance with curfew orders designed to break persistent offending habits. The curfew periods therefore often fall in the daytime. The purpose is to save as many offenders as possible from being locked up in the Secure Centres for the under I5s and the Young Offender Institutions for the 15- to 20-year-olds, both of which have the malign consequences of 'institutionalizing' the youngsters, quite possibly for evermore.

Analysis of the effectiveness of ISS programmes for young offenders following the introduction of electronic monitoring, published in September 2004 indicated the frequency of re-offence that next year to have fallen on average by 43 per cent, compared with the year prior to the introduction of the tag. Meanwhile, a comparable series of programmes is making widespread use of similarly targetted tag regimes for adult offenders.

THE US AND WORLDWIDE

In the US - a country where some 5 million offenders at any time are under one or another form of supervision within the community - the electronic tag is an established contributor to the correctional system and has been in use as a penal restraint in all States since the early 1990s. As we have seen the Tracking Tag is now fast superseding the Curfew Tag, and in an expanded role. The current caseload of electronically monitored offenders is today estimated at over 150,000. Tag sentences are most frequently handed down to sex offenders, drunk drivers, and those convicted of domestic violence. Curfew tagging has been successfully applied across the spectrum: as an adjunct to bail, in lieu of a jail sentence, for early parole equivalent to the British HDC, and also as a means of monitoring curfews imposed alongside community penalties. Tag sentences range widely - from a couple of weeks to many months, and in some cases years where the original offence has been serious.

Elsewhere, Sweden led continental Europe in the use of the Curfew Tag, with the tag option credited with reducing the prison population by more than 20 per cent. It is widely applied to drunken drivers who would previously have gone to prison. The average age of Sweden's tagees is over 30, which makes for an unusually high level of compliance. Curfew tagging programmes are in operation in various provinces of Canada and states of Australia, and also in New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Argentina, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Israel, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and most recently Poland. Various other Governments or national departments of Justice are assessing the tagging option.

PROSPECTS AND PRINCIPLES

Since its formation in 1982, the OTA has fulfilled its task of keeping politicians, the judiciary, the forces of law and order, the media, and appropriate public figures alert to the potential of electronic monitoring as a means of dealing with criminals and reducing crime in a civilized society. We have provided guidance on what is technologically feasible and available, and politically manageable. We have familiarized the public to the role of the tag.

Anything achieved so far has been by participation in radio and television programmes, articles and letters to the press, briefing media correspondents, attending seminars, and enlightening politicians, civil servants, and members of the judiciary, and by running our website overviews (offenderstag.co.uk). We are motivated by no more than a desire for penal advance on the premise of human redeemability. In terms of punishment, it should be remembered that the tag can be made punitively restrictive ... yet, in contrast to the prison cell, it can preserve the offender's chance to restore his/her role in life and self-respect which are so commonly lost in prison, and allow the offender to hang on to what there may be in the way of a home and family life, generally recognised as crucial to rehabilitation.

Over three decades we have witnessed a heartening shift in the manner in which others concerned with crime, punishment and human rights have responded to the ideas and proposals which originated from us and, of course, continue to be propagated by us. We have seen hostility overtaken by goodwill by leading voices in many fields - probation, the police, other penal reform organisations, civil libertarian groups, and political parties. We saw the American Civil Liberties Union coming out in public support for the introduction of GPS tracking of offenders. We have seen the Economic and Social Research Council of Birmingham University conducting, under Dr (now Professor) Mike Nellis, a series of balanced seminars involving leading figures from a wide range of disciplines and skills - criminological, sociological, technical, judicial- on the realities and shorter and longer term prospects of electronic monitoring.

The future role for the tag is assured; what deserves sustained consideration is its best and fullest use so as to diminish crime and diminish recourse to the penitentiary.

The Home Secretary of the day, David Blunkett, member of a Party whose Front Bench spokesmen were energetically deriding tagging in the 1980s, in 2004 was welcoming the launch of the Home Office pilots for the GPS Tracking Tag as a 'prison without bars'. These three words portend a shift in penological thinking as significant, it may be claimed, as the shift nearly two centuries ago into building the penitentiaries which largely superseded the gallows, lash, stocks and dungeon. We look to the day when, as a principle of justice, we confine prison as punishment to those of the guilty who have no wish or intention to live lawfully or are manifestly incapable of doing so.

AUGUST 2010

THE OFFENDER'S TAG ASSOCIATION WOULD APPRECIATE BEING CREDITED WITH ANY QUOTATION OR OTHER USE OF THIS OVERVIEW