Straffegjennomføring med elektronisk kontroll: Evalueringsrapport 1; Hvem gjennomfører straff med elektronisk kontroll?
MetadataVis full innførsel
- KRUS - Publikasjoner 
OriginalversjonRokkan, T. (2012). Straffegjennomføring med elektronisk kontroll. KRUS: Oslo
The Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy (KRUS), on commission from The Norwegian Correctional Service Directorate (KSF), has evaluated the pilot project of electronic monitoring (EM) in Norway. Implementing sentences with electronic monitoring in Norway The aim of the pilot project was to try out a form of implementing sentences that gave flexibility and prevented waiting lists for the serving of sentences. This was supposed to lead to increased quality in the serving of sentences and to lead to lower recidivism. Increased flexibility in the serving of sentences points to both the correctional service's need of renewal and adaptation in relation to local partners in the public services. At the same time, increased flexibility will provide increased opportunities for accommodating an individual in his or her serving of a sentence. Already in the 1980s there was increasing attention being paid to the need for increased differentiation in the implementation of sentences (Hammerlin, 2008). In 1988, the Panel of Prison Law Work3 suggested in a public exposition (NOU 1988:37) that one should establish the implementation of sentences outside the penal institution as an independent form of implementation in which convicts live outside the penal institution but under the supervision of the correctional service. A central element in the implementation of sentences was to be the implementation plan that was to be worked out for the period to be served (Whitepaper no. 27 (1997– 1998), ch. 4). As the aim of the electronic monitoring project was presented, it contained several references that contributed to the realization of it: a. The aim of preventing waiting lists points directly to the current situation before the project was started. On the 28th of April 2006, there were 2,737 convicts waiting in line to serve their prison sentences. In addition, there was almost the same amount of people waiting to be imprisoned for not paying fines. The new government had as one of its main aims to wind up the waiting line for serving sentences by 2009 (The Soria Moria declaration 2005–2009). Here, the implementation of sentences by means of electronic monitoring was one of several measures to increase the capacity in that period. b. Serving sentences by means of electronic monitoring is to increase the quality of the serving of the sentence. Quality must be understood as an essential characteristic of this form of serving a sentence, when compared to serving it in prison. Quality may both be experienced individually with regards to the individual's expectations, and as a measure according to a standard. To be offered an alternative to serving in prison might in itself be a quality, and partaking in the planning of one's serving period and carrying out the plan will also increase the possibility of experiencing that one's expectations of the punishment is met. Seen in a broader perspective, expectations of retribution are things that also belong to the public in general and other concerned parties. The contradiction between the need for a predictable penal reaction and the aim that a punishment should not be more straining than necessary is resolved through accommodating and tailoring the serving of a sentence according to the individual's needs and situation.4 3 Norwegian: Fengselslovutvalget. 4 Fundamental viewpoints on the content of the deprivation of liberty are discussed in NOU 1988:37, ch. 3. 11 c. The last partial aim is lower recidivism as an effect of electronic monitoring being a form of serving a sentence. Several studies show that it is difficult to document measurable changes in the rate of recidivism in general, but certain groups do seem to have lower recidivism. An evaluation of convicts serving part of their sentences with electronic monitoring in Sweden (a back door EM scheme) shows positive findings compared with those who finish sentences of the same length in prison. The study included 260 back door servers who were compared with a control group. It was especially people who were older and had previous convictions who had a lower recidivism than one should expect after the implementation of electronic monitoring (Marklund & Holmberg, 2009). Young convicts in Denmark have had lower recidivism than expected following the implementation of electronic monitoring. A recent effect study shows a lower recidivism for young adults under the age of 25 who served their sentences with electronic monitoring, compared with those serving in prison (Jørgensen, 2011). Previous studies have concluded that it is not electronic monitoring in itself that influences the rate of recidivism, but the selection of convicts that are granted EM. The very same studies have however pointed out that differences in the rate of recidivism depend on the content of the serving period with EM (Bonta, Wallace- Capretta & Rooney, 2000). The goal of the test period was to establish a capacity that equalled 130 places in prison. At the start of the project, each of the six pilot units was given 20 sets of fetters (electronically tagged). From 2010, the number of fetters was expanded to 30 in Oslo and Rogaland, in order to avoid a queue in the implementation. At the most, 100 convicts have been tagged at the same time during the project period.5 On average, 70.2 convicts were tagged at the same time during the project period. This evaluation is in itself a result of a focus on quality and user satisfaction. In the letter from the Norwegian Correctional Service Directorate (KSF, 15.5.2008) to the Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy commissioning the evaluation, it was stated that the evaluation would be a central part of the quality assurance of the implementation of sentences by means of electronic monitoring in the test period, in that the evaluation could contribute to support good practice and that the results of the evaluation would be used to correct the project's direction if necessary. At the same time, the evaluation would be an important contribution to the assessment of whether to run and expand the EM scheme further after the test period is completed. The commissioning letter also stated that the process of evaluation should have two main perspectives: a. The user's perspective is to focus on the aspect of content, and especially on the convict's and his or her next of kin's experiences of this form of serving a sentence. b. The organizational perspective is to focus on establishing, running and governing the pilot units or a selection of these. The purpose is to assure quality in establishing the arrangement through identifying experiences and practices in the pilot units. Due to other tasks, the work on this report was postponed for a year. Consequently this report will influence the furthering of the project to a lesser degree than it would have otherwise. But an advantage is that the report contains data from the whole project period, as well as access to numbers concerning recidivism 3 years after the release of convicts who served their sentences in 2008. Previous partial reports on the organizational perspective have to a greater degree influenced the development of the project and the opinion of others regarding the project. There are, however, other criteria of success linked to the establishment of a new project and the implementation of a new form of implementing sentences. 5 98 convicts were tagged at the same time according to the report for Friday of week 16 in 2010. 81 were on a front door scheme and 17 were on a back door scheme. 12 As a project, serving a sentence by means of electronic monitoring represents a totally new way of working in the correctional service: new structures, new systems and new ways of collaboration between units in the correctional service and between the correctional service and collaborative partners. It is also regarded as a success that many in the target group have applied to serve their sentences with a fetter, and that almost all who have been tagged have completed the sentence with EM. This is a first indication that almost everyone perceives this form of serving as positive, and that almost all who start their sentence in this manner are able to complete it with electronic monitoring. One of the aims of the project was to increase the quality of the implementation of sentences. This aim may be seen in relation to the group who serve their sentences with EM in particular, or as encompassing the implementation of sentences in general. This report interprets the aim of increased quality as concerning all who serve sentences. This evaluation has therefore looked into what is happening in prisons and with other forms of serving sentences following the implementation of EM. In this report's final chapter, findings from prison and from EM are compared. A future study of recidivism should thus also include those in the target group who serve their sentence in prison and should look at the indirect consequences of EM on other forms of implementing a sentence in society. The next evaluation report on the pilot project of implementing sentences by means of electronic monitoring will concern the content. The report will be published in the autumn of 2012. Evaluation of the pilot project with EM in the period 2008-2010 The evaluation consists of two main reports taking the perspective of the user on the implementation of sentences by means of electronic monitoring. This first report concerns the development and the make-up of the target group, who applied and who were granted and not granted electronic monitoring. The other report will investigate the content of the measures that the participants received. The evaluating work has followed the project throughout the test period and has produced five partial reports that have been a part of the development of the project. The reports have focused on organization, resources, competence, technology and recommendations respectively. These reports have not been published, but may be provided on request. Abstracts of the partial reports are attached this report. The pilot project has incorporated six test counties, one in each of the regions of the correctional service. The pilot units have been placed at the probation offices in the test counties. The probation office of Vestfold has been responsible for the night shift for all the units, the other units being closed at night. The Correctional Services IT Centre has been responsible for providing technical solutions, running the technical operation and for the shared EM control centre which runs continuously. The project started up in 2008 and the project period was to last for two years from the start date. Officially the project started on the 1st of September 2008. The pilot units started on different dates: • Vestfold EM (Southern region): 1st of September 2008 • Oslo EM (Eastern region): 22nd of September 2008 • Hedmark EM (Northeastern region) 6th of October 2008 • Rogaland EM (Southwestern region) 20th of October 2008 • Troms EM (Northern region) 3rd of November 2008 • Sogn og Fjordane EM (Western region) 17th of November 2008 13 The project period was prolonged to the 31st of December 2012 for practical reasons. From the 1st of January 2011, the project period was furthered as a project in a more permanent form. Funds for the project were provided through the regions and not as direct project funds. Expansions to new counties in regions that had pilot units were planned and carried out: Hordaland in the Western region and Agder in the Southwestern region. In addition, the county of Akershus (in the Northeastern region) has established a collaboration with Oslo EM (in the Eastern region) for the purpose of establishing EM in Akershus. From the 1st of January 2012, the decision-making authority regarding EM was moved from the regions to the probation offices. 1,679 people served their sentences with electronic monitoring during the pilot project, a period that lasted for two years from when it started up in 2008. 1,520 of these were on an EM front door scheme, meaning that the whole time the sentence was served with a fetter. 159 were on an EM back door scheme, in which the final part of a sentence is served mainly in prison. This report addresses employees working in prisons who can motivate and recommend serving with EM to inmates, decision-makers at a regional level and at the single probation office which is in the position to grant applications for EM as well as convicts/inmates who are in the position to apply for EM. It also addresses convicts' next of kin and/or cohabitants and other parties that might be affected. The report is divided into three main parts. The first part describes the framework, aims and prerequisites for the pilot project: what is serving of a sentence with EM seen from the user's perspective? Part two reviews characteristics of the users who served with EM. The last part of the report presents findings from three user surveys involving both convicts serving with EM and in prison. This evaluation report This reports is an evaluation of the pilot project of implementing sentences by means of electronic control (EM) from when it started up in 2008 until 2010. The target group include almost 4,000 convicted people who were to serve their sentences in prison for less than four months. 80 per cent of them applied for (3,098 applications) and almost 1,700 convicts served their sentences with EM in this period. 79 were transferred to prison before the serving of the sentence with EM was completed. Implementation of sentences by means of electronic monitoring is really two projects: The ones serving their whole sentence with EM – 'front door servers' – often have a short sentence, approximately 30 days, and are convicted for driving while intoxicated, speeding or for economic crimes (fraud, embezzlement, etc.). Most of them are men (12 per cent women), in the mid-life, 30-50 years of age; there are also a few youngsters. Two out of five live together with a spouse or cohabitant and children. Fewer than 1 out of 10 state that they have had contact with public services during their time of serving. Factors that motivated application for EM were to avoid absence from work and to not lose contact with family. 2 out of 10 had previous convictions. 1 out of 10 have been convicted anew 3 years after they completed serving a sentence with EM. The other group that serve sentences with EM is the group of so-called 'back door servers'. This group comprises 159 of the 1,679 that served with EM during the test period. 10 of the 159 were transferred back to prison before completing the sentence with EM. A back door server usually comes from a low security prison (open prison). 1 of 5 back door servers are sentenced to less than 4 months imprisonment and could thus have served their whole sentence as front door servers. 40 per cent of back door servers are convicted for violence, 14 which may be the reason why many of them have not applied or have not been granted EM front door. 25 per cent of those with short sentences are convicted for economic crimes (fraud, embezzlement, etc.) and 15 per cent are convicted for road traffic offences (driving while intoxicated, or speeding). The medium-to-long-term sentences, from 4 to 6 months, are often convictions for economic crimes, drugrelated crimes or crimes of violence (35, 24 and 20 per cent, respectively). Convicts with long sentences comprise 25 per cent of all back door servers. The prevalent form of crime in this group is also economic crime and drug-related crime (35 and 37 per cent respectively). The back door servers are male (12 per cent female) and a bit older than the front door servers. The picture shows that it is the ones with short sentences, both amongst back door and front door servers, who apply for serving with EM. The applicants are relatively resourceful people who more often have a job and a family than the ones who do not apply. Almost all of them experience that they have been sufficiently attended to in the EM scheme with regards to information, availability, discreetness and conversation. Many have to change or adapt their everyday lives in order to fit into an EM scheme. The fixed entrance and exit times are the greatest challenge. Others experience the obligatory attendance at the probation office as a strain, a cause for this being a long or inconvenient way to get there. Many experience EM as demanding, but less demanding than for instance prison. It seems that those things that are experienced as demanding are the practical consequences of the EM scheme. When asked about the pros and cons of EM, positive statements often concern emotions, whilst negative statements most often concern very practical and concrete matters. Comparing the user surveys from EM and prison, we get two different pictures of serving an unconditional sentence. Inmates serving time in three open prisons (low security prisons) have participated in a survey like the ones serving with EM. The inmates are a bit older, the average age being 37. 2 out of 5 are married or have a cohabitant. Only 1 out of 4 lives together with children. Most of them were convicted for driving while intoxicated, speeding, violence and crimes in the 'other' category. Some also had previous convictions. Almost twice as many in prison than in the EM scheme were in contact with public services during the sentence, especially contact with the social security service (9.5 per cent) and the social welfare service (8.8 per cent), and/or in treatment in the mental health service or for alcohol or drug problems. More people serving in prison have attended courses or school and use the library and healthcare service in prison than people serving with EM. In the EM group, more have had contact with their designated contact person than the people serving in prison have had with their contact officer. Convicts serving sentences in prison were less satisfied than convicts serving with EM with the co-operation with the staff during the time of their serving and how they experienced being seen by the employees in prison/EM. More of those serving with EM have had a future plan or individual plan for the serving time and the time that follows immediately after the sentence is done. It is therefore no surprise that twice as many serving with EM are happy that the serving of the sentence has changed their situation. The large majority of both convicts serving in prison and with EM still believe in a life without crime in the coming five years. Chapter 2 reviews the status quo at the termination of the project period, both with regards to the front door and the back door schemes. The purpose of EM was also that it would contribute to reducing the waiting list for serving sentences and to prevent new queues. 2009 saw a reduction in short, unconditional sentences, especially for road traffic offences (a 6 per cent reduction). This caused a larger decrease in this offence category than the number that served their sentences for such offences in the EM scheme. This also made it harder to recruit enough convicts in several of the test counties. 15 One has not managed to establish as many implementations of sentences with EM as planned. It was not really possible with the kind of organization the project had: each EM unit had the same capacity and number of fetters at their disposal. Only two of the units ran on maximum capacity, Oslo and Rogaland. Relative to the size of the target group, it is the county of Sogn og Fjordane that has had the largest number of applicants, 71 applications from the 72 letters of information that were sent out. The low number of convicts throughout the year reveals another challenge for the EM scheme: the arrangement depends on a certain number of convicts in the scheme if it is to achieve the kind flexibility that is desired. The flexibility of being able to tag a new offender for a cost that is comparable to prison is not achieved before the number of convicts in the EM scheme surmounts 20–25. Herein lies a dilemma with regards to the model and target group that has been chosen for EM in Norway. A preliminary measuring of recidivism amongst the 99 convicts that served sentences with EM in 2008 has been conducted. The measuring was carried out on the 3rd of November 2011, and showed that 6 of them had been transferred to prison before completing their sentence in the EM scheme. The average length of sentences of imprisonment was 30 days; 4 of the convicts that completed serving with EM in 2009 did that as a part of a longer sentence served in prison (back door servers). o The average age was 36, the youngest being 17 and the eldest being 72 years of age. 13 of the convicted people were women. o 26 of the 99 convicts had also been convicted previously in the last 10 years, 9 of them for drug-related crimes, 6 for driving while intoxicated. o 10 of the 99 convicts have been subjected to new convictions registered in the correctional service's professional system at the time of measuring. Of these, 4 had been convicted in 2009, 5 in 2010 and 1 in 2011. 3 of the convictions were for economic crimes (fraud or embezzlement), two for drug-related crimes and two for driving while intoxicated. We also conducted a measuring of 401 convicts in total for the first half of 2009: this showed a rate of recidivism (new unconditional sentences) of 9 per cent at the time the measuring was conducted. This result supports the findings from the measuring in 2008. We plan to conduct a new measuring of all who served sentences with EM in the second half of 2012, in order to ensure that more than 2 years have passed since all the convicts in the selection served with EM.