An evaluation of the enhanced antirecidivism measures of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service

In order to enhance the anti-recidivism work of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, a number of legislative amendments were implemented on 1 July 2020 concerning clients with conditional release. In particular, the new legislation expands the decision-making mandate of the probation service, which now makes many of the decisions previously made by parole boards. The probation service has also been given additional tools for recidivism prevention, stricter requirements for individual assessments and new rules regarding client supervision. The following year, on 1 May 2021, corresponding amendments were introduced concerning clients sentenced to probation under the supervision of the probation service.

On 1 May 2021, the legislation concerning prisons and the conditional release of clients was also amended. With the new legislation, Prison and Probation Service has been given greater latitude to suspend clients’ conditional release. These changes have lowered the requirements for suspending conditional release and also allowed for inclusion of adherence to the Prison and Probation Service’s assigned measures in the assessments. In the past, conditional release was only considered in instances where a client had seriously violated prison rules and regulations.

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) has been commissioned by the Government to evaluate the Prison and Probation Service’s implementation and application of the new legislation and to analyse whether the changes have had any impact on client recidivism. In summary, the evaluation by the National Crime Agency shows that the changes have not had any noticeable impact on recidivism. On the other hand, several elements of the new legislation appear positive from the perspective of staff and in the light of the intentions of the legislation. In practice, however, the change for client groups has been less than what was estimated in the legislative history of the legislation. Moreover, application of the changes is uneven across client groups and institutions. This raises fundamental questions regarding equal treatment and rule of law.

Circumstances affecting implementation

The initial work of implementation was carried out in the context of two different programmes: one for new legislation in probation and one for new legislation in prisons. Much of this work took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. This affected, among other things, the possibility of meeting in the organisation, and the work had to be carried out mainly digitally. At the same time, there was also a relatively large increase in the number of clients and a high turnover of Prison and Probation Service staff. This meant that both the probation service and prisons faced numerous other challenges during the period, not least security issues. The Prison and Probation Service has also had to take into account other new legislation.

Many interviewees also felt that the preparation time between the passage of the new legislation and its entry into force was insufficient. As a consequence, the necessary changes to the Prison and Probation Service’s digital system support for work with clients on conditional release was not ready for use when the legislation entered into force. This meant that the probation service had to manually register decisions for several months.

More change support for the probation service than for prisons

In view of the new legislation, managers of both programmes considered change management to be important. In the probation service, efforts focused on the expanded decision-making mandate, where staff must be able to make several types of decisions and manage the dual roles of providing support as well as oversight. In prisons, the changes mainly concerned the fact that the Prison and Probation Service’s assigned measures are no longer regarded as voluntary, since clients risk suspension of their conditional release if they refuse to participate or fail to participate in, e.g., studies.

The process of implementing the changes appears to work better in the probation programme than in the prison programme. For example, the probation programme developed methodological support for change management at the local level, used regional implementation facilitators to link national with local efforts, and introduced the ‘decision support’ role and formalised decision-making meetings to support staff in decision-making. No similar support measures were implemented within the context of the prison programme. The programme used the same regional implementation facilitators as the probation programme, but because their main expertise was in the probation service they had limited opportunities to work with prisons.

Not aware whether necessary training was received

Both programmes carried out various types of awareness-raising interventions for all levels of the Prison and Probation Service, especially various forms of voluntary digital training and information activities for staff. However, neither of the programme managers were aware whether all those who needed training had received it.

Responses to the evaluation questionnaire by senior probation officers with at least four years of experience in the Prison and Probation Service show that only four out of ten senior probation officers have taken part in any training relating to the new legislation. Most have acquired their main knowledge via oral and written information and revised manuals.

Furthermore, some of the prison wardens interviewed reported difficulties in reaching out to all prison staff regarding the new rules for suspended conditional release. The various professional groups that work in close proximity with clients at the prisons are numerous, and documentation shortcomings have long been a problem. The new legislation also places greater demands on reliable documentation, as clients’ participation in the Prison and Probation Service’s assigned measures must now be included as part of the assessment for suspended conditional release. For example, the client’s enforcement plan (VSP) must clearly state the measures taken to motivate the client to participate in or complete a programme or studies. The prison programme held webinars, which included discussion of topics such as how much motivational work must be carried out before the prison can refer a case to the department for suspended conditional release, but interviews indicated that participation in these webinars was not particularly high.

Objectives not followed up

The overall objectives of the probation programmes implementation work are “uniform and quality-assured processing, legally secure decision-making processes for clients, clearer and more predictable content of activities for clients and credible supervision upon conditional release with a balance between support and oversight”. The prison programme developed similar, but even more ambitious objectives.

With the exception of one objective (to increase the number of clients completing treatment programmes in prison), it is difficult to follow up such objectives – especially without any defined performance measures. It is therefore not surprising that the Prison and Probation Service has not carried out any systematic follow-up of whether the objectives are being met or how it is applying the new legislation. As the Prison and Probation Service has not specified any performance measures for what can be considered a good result, Brå’s starting point in this evaluation has primarily been the aims and expectations set out in the preparatory work for the new legislation.

Application of the legislation to clients in probation

Brå’s evaluation of the application of the new legislation by the probation service concerns decisions on client supervision, special orders, misconduct and electronic monitoring in combination with an order restricting movement. With the exception of electronic monitoring – which is a new tool in the probation service’s anti-recidivism prevention work – decisions in these areas have previously been taken by the parole boards. The decision-making mandate has been transferred to the Prison and Probation Service mainly because the Prison and Probation Service is deemed to have the best knowledge of clients, but the change is also expected to facilitate a speedy and flexible decision-making process.

More clients on conditional release receive supervision

Persons on conditional release shall be placed under supervision if necessary, in order to reduce the risk of recidivism or otherwise facilitate their reintegration into society. Under the new legislation, supervision – regardless of the length of the sentence – no longer ends automatically after one year. Instead, the probation service may decide to supervise the client throughout the entire probationary period, i.e. the remaining part of the sentence.

As the decisions of the probation service are based on a more individualised assessment than before, the legislative history predicted that more clients on conditional release would be placed under supervision. The evaluation shows this to be indeed the case. Currently, around 90 per cent of parolees are placed under supervision, compared to around 60 per cent in 2019.

However, the supervision periods for those on conditional release have not increased, which can be partly explained by the fact that the changes have so far mainly affected clients with longer sentences. Many of those on conditional release with long sentences remain in the probation service, while the data to which Brå has access only concern completed supervisions.

Longer supervision periods for those on probation

For those sentenced to probation, supervision is always part of the sentence. Previously, the probationary period ended as a rule after one year, but, with the amended legislation, clients are now placed under supervision for the entire probationary period of three years. However, if the client accepts help and support and otherwise behaves, the probation service retains the possibility of terminating supervision before the client’s probationary period ends.

The evaluation shows that supervision periods for those on probation have increased since the new legislation came into force. In the legislative history of the amendments, it is estimated that no more than ten per cent of clients on probation require supervision for more than one year. Yet the results show that many more clients require supervision for more than one year. By 2024, such clients will constitute at least 25 per cent of the population. However, clients are still most likely to receive around one year of supervision.

Increased number of orders, but more needed

Special orders are used for support and oversight of clients under probation supervision, and include, for example, participation in anti-recidivism programmes, supervised housing and substance abuse treatment. Under the new legislation, the probation service can issue a special order, amend existing orders, add new orders or take other measures such as a warning. The legislative history of the amendments states that the probation service should use special orders to a greater extent than previously, and that supervision should be associated with at least one order. The aim is to provide clarity and structure for the client during the supervision period.

The total number of orders issued to client groups has increased continuously over time, an increase that became particularly clear when the Prison and Probation Service assumed the decision-making mandate from the parole boards. Between 2021 and 2024, the increase is mainly attributable to orders concerning persons sentenced to probation, while for persons on conditional release there has been virtually no change. In 2021, for example, around 2,000 orders were issued to clients on probation and around 4,000 orders to clients on conditional release. The corresponding numbers in 2024 were around 3,600 and 4,600 respectively.

At the same time, the number of clients in probation has risen sharply. During this period, the number of conditional releases increased from around 5,500 to around 7,000. The number of commenced probation sentences has also increased slightly, from around 6,300 to around 6,700. Prison and Probation Service data do not permit adjusting the number of orders in relation to the number of clients, but a review of the figures clearly shows that the proportion of orders per client has decreased during the period. Even considering the intentions of the legislative history, the number of orders issued appears low in relation to the number of clients.

The evaluation also shows regional differences in the application of special orders. The Mitt and Öst regions of the Prison and Probation Service appear to be generally more inclined to issue special orders than other regions. This also applies to the new regulation on alcohol and drug testing, which authorises the probation service to carry out alcohol and drug tests absent any care and treatment order for the probationary client.

The evaluation shows that the regulation is used relatively often for both client groups. At the same time, the number of special orders issued regarding participation in anti-recidivism or addiction-related programme activities has decreased for those on conditional release, but increased for those on probation.

Infrequent use of electronic monitoring

Under the new legislation, the probation service has the possibility to monitor clients’ compliance with a special order by means of electronic monitoring, known as ankle bracelets. This possibility is new. Electronic monitoring orders are mainly used in combination with special orders on restricted movement (location or residence), which are used to reduce the client’s exposure to risk situations in specific locations or areas.

In the legislative history of the amendments, it was estimated that approximately 300 clients per year would require electronic monitoring in combination with an order restricting movement. The evaluation shows that fewer clients have received electronic monitoring in combination with an order restricting movement. This is mainly due to the fact that, in the initial years, the Prison and Probation Service lacked the technical capacity to use electronic monitoring with GPS transmitters. Today, the technical conditions are met and equipment is available in all probation offices. However, the evaluation’s survey of senior probation officers shows that electronic monitoring is very resource-intensive, not least because of the high number of false alarms.

Not before 2024 can the probation service be seen to start applying electronic monitoring to a greater extent. In that year, 170 clients received an electronic monitoring order, which corresponds to 56 per cent of the clients who were issued an order on restricted movement. There are also significant regional differences. For example, since the legislation came into force, 67 per cent of clients with an order on restricted movement have been subject to an electronic monitoring order in the Mitt Region, while the corresponding proportion in the Stockholm Region is 19 per cent. Overall, this shows that application of the legislation is not in line with the Prison and Probation Service’s presumption in favour of electronic monitoring, which entails that clients who are subject to a special order on restricted movement in normal cases should be subject to electronic monitoring.

Application of the legislation to clients in prisons

The new legislation on suspension of conditional release means that the Prison and Probation Service has been given greater latitude to suspend a client’s conditional release in the event of misconduct in prison. The changes are expected to lead to more cases of suspended conditional release being examined, and it is expected that clients will have greater incentives to participate in the assigned measures in order to avoid the risk that their conditional release is suspended.

No major changes regarding suspended conditional release

The evaluation shows that the number of cases in which suspended conditional released was examined has increased since the legislation came into force, but at the same time the prison population has also increased. The proportion of cases examined that resulted in suspended conditional release increased in the first years of the new legislation, but has since returned to the same level as before the amendment. In 2024, 72 per cent (677 out of 944 cases) of cases examined resulted in suspension of conditional release, which is the same proportion as in 2018 (360 out of 503 cases).

Looking instead at the proportion of completed prison sentences with suspended conditional release, it appears that the proportion of clients receiving a suspension increased somewhat since the legislation came into force – from 7 per cent in 2021 to 8 per cent in 2024. At the same time, the share increased slightly even in the years before the new legislation came into force, indicating that this increase is not directly related to the amended legislation. The average number of days by which conditional release is suspended has been around 30, both prior to and following the new legislation.

Failure to participate in assigned measures rarely leads to suspension

Almost all cases considered for suspended conditional release in 2024 can be related to a serious violation by the client of applicable prison rules and regulations, for which a warning was issued. Only four per cent of all cases examined involve the client’s non-participation in or mismanagement of an assigned measure.

In order for the Prison and Probation Service to be able to examine a case concerning mismanagement of an assigned measure, it must be documented in the enforcement plan (VSP) that the prison has carried out motivational measures. Brå’s review of cases involving suspended conditional release shows that this type of information is often missing. According to interviews, quality deficiencies related to documentation may be partly due to Prison and Probation Service staff turnover and partly to the numerous different staff groups that are responsible for documentation. This, in turn, can lead to insufficient knowledge regarding these processes as well as uncertainty about what must be documented, and even how quickly the different professional groups adopt new documentation requirements. It is also clear that the prisons carry out motivational work differently. Insufficient documentation can have consequences for the client, as it must be possible to follow the client’s progress, development or misbehaviour over time. If the prison has not documented such information accurately, assessment of a case may be impacted. Furthermore, if documentation is completely missing, it is reasonable to assume that the prison will not even submit the case for examination of suspended conditional release, which is problematic with regard to equal treatment.

Participation in treatment programmes increased during the period

One aim of the amendments has been to increase the incentives for clients to participate in anti-recidivism measures, especially among clients with a high or medium risk of offending. Brå has therefore studied participation in treatment programmes among completed prison sentences within the group. The results show that participation has increased slightly over time. In 2018, 23 per cent participated in at least one treatment programme, and the corresponding share for 2024 was 29 per cent. Over the same period, the share of those who completed at least one programme also increased, from 19 to 24 per cent. The proportion completing at least one programme increases with increasing sentence length. Interviews reveal that one relatively common reason why clients do not complete at least one programme relates to organisational obstacles, such as a lack of premises and problems associated with prison transfers.

Recidivism

Brå’s assignment includes analysing whether the new legislation has had any impact on recidivism. The analysis of recidivism includes offenders on conditional release and on probation. For clients on conditional release with supervision, the results indicate no change since the introduction of the new legislation – neither in terms of being suspected or prosecuted for new offences. However, following the introduction of the new legislation, clients sentenced to probation tend to be suspected less often of new offences. Yet the trend for new prosecutions remains unchanged. It is nevertheless not certain whether the new legislation indeed caused the decline in suspected offences among those on probation, especially since the same pattern can be observed among client groups not covered by the new legislation.