Intentions and Reality: Monitoring Government Decisions

By paying taxes, we entrust the authorities—from local to central—to use them for the benefit of the community and society. However, what is actually happening?
The basic principles for monitoring the efficient use of budgetary funds are defined at the legislative level. The Budget Code enshrines the principles of efficient use of budgetary funds (Article 7), and Article 19 requires an assessment of the efficiency of budgetary expenditure.
However, experience shows that when regional (local) budget programmes are formed, the principles of efficiency are either ignored or interpreted quite loosely.
It is for this reason that we undertook an analysis of local budget programmes in Kirovohrad. Using the example of the ‘Programme for the Social Adaptation of Persons Released from Places of Imprisonment and Social Support for Citizens Serving Sentences in Places of Imprisonment for 2008’ (hereinafter referred to as the Programme), we attempted to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds.
The very fact that this Programme was adopted is a rather positive development. This is because representatives of Kirovohrad’s local self-government bodies have finally turned their attention to those people who annually join the ranks of the city's territorial community members. Theoretically, any society should be interested in the social adaptation of persons released from places of imprisonment, as this is the best way to prevent the recurrence of crime.
It is impossible to evaluate the efficiency of any given programme without researching the needs of the target audience.
According to the study, the most pressing issues for representatives of the target audience are:
• lack of funds in personal accounts, even for those individuals who work while in places of imprisonment;
• lack of a real possibility to replace lost documents;
• lack of opportunity to find official employment;
• lack of a roof over one’s head;
• the need for qualified medical assistance.

In Kirovohrad, there is no network for the support and reintegration of persons released from places of imprisonment and homeless citizens. Representatives of this population category lack proper information on where they can receive the services they need or who can help them emerge from a crisis situation.
In the city of Kirovohrad and the Kirovohrad region, there are no social institutions for the temporary residence of homeless citizens, nor are there any facilities for the rehabilitation and social adaptation of persons released from places of imprisonment.
While young people under 35 may hope for a place in a crisis centre or a social dormitory, everyone older falls out of the sight of social services.
Approximately 40% of persons currently in places of imprisonment require the replacement of various documents and do not have vocational skills.
Having lost social ties during years of imprisonment, possessing a ‘bouquet’ of illnesses, and often having no roof over their heads, it is practically impossible for them to begin a ‘normal’ life independently and without outside help.
It was specifically to provide such assistance that the ‘Programme for the Social Adaptation of Persons Released from Places of Imprisonment and Social Support for Citizens Serving Sentences in Places of Imprisonment’ was adopted.
The Programme was approved by Decision No. 419 of 14 February 2008, at the Ninth Session of the Fifth Convocation. The decision contains three clauses, the last of which assigns control over the implementation of this decision to the Standing Committee of the Kirovohrad City Council on Education, Science, Culture, Physical Culture and Sports, and Youth Policy, headed by V. V. Fundovny.
The implementation of oversight should be recognised as a positive decision. However, it is difficult to understand how a committee that, based on its name, has nothing in common with most of the tasks the programme involves, is expected to oversee it. Mr Fundovny was entirely unaware that such a Programme existed in the city or that the committee he chairs was assigned the function of overseeing its implementation.
It should be acknowledged that the document does not provide for the possibility of public oversight at all.
The experts who analysed the Programme had many objections regarding the text of the programme itself. For example, they drew attention to the fact that even in the title of the programme, the concepts of ‘persons’ and ‘citizens’ are used.
The concept of a ‘citizen’ is purely legal, defining a person who has an affiliation with a particular state on a legal basis. It is understood that a legally capable citizen has rights and freedoms defined by the state's legal framework.
The Law of Ukraine ‘On the Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons’ defines the legal status and enshrines the fundamental rights, freedoms, and duties of foreigners and stateless persons who are temporarily residing in Ukraine. This law notes that in terms of their legal status, citizens of Ukraine differ from foreign citizens and stateless persons located on the territory of the country. Based on the wording ‘social support for citizens serving sentences’, which is stated in the document, the implementation of the city programme is aimed only at citizens, excluding persons who do not have citizenship. Such an approach is discriminatory.
It is also unclear why, while serving a sentence, a prisoner falls under the legal definition of a ‘citizen’, but after release becomes a ‘person’.
Since there is no clear interpretation of the concept of a ‘person’, it is difficult to understand what the programme developers meant by dividing the programme's target group into ‘citizens’ and ‘persons’.
Does this not mean that the city is ready to support all those released, but among prisoners, only citizens of Ukraine?
Furthermore, the document states that social support is aimed at ‘citizens serving sentences’; based on such wording, the target group of the programme does not include persons who are under investigation. These are individuals against whom no court decision has been made regarding the recognition of guilt and the sentencing of a penalty. Thus, minors held in pre-trial detention centres are not the target group of the programme, as most of them are at the stage of pre-trial investigation or court proceedings, and therefore they are not yet serving any sentence.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Programme does not have a clearly defined target group—the beneficiaries.

The Programme contains a detailed analysis of the state of material and technical support for Educational Institution No. 38 of Kirovohrad Correctional Colony No. 6, as well as the conditions for the detention of minor convicts in the Kirovohrad pre-trial detention centre. A fairly broad description of the work performed in previous years to provide a material and technical base for the school and improve the conditions of detention for minors is presented. Several problem areas are also identified. Among these are: the absence of a full-fledged educational process in Educational Institution No. 38, the impossibility of improving the conditions for the detention of minor prisoners, and the low effectiveness of measures for assistance and social adaptation.
In general, the content of the programme does not correspond to its title. It would have been more appropriate to call this programme the ‘Programme for Meeting the Educational Needs of Persons in Places of Imprisonment and Creating Proper Detention Conditions’.
The Programme speaks more about the problems of material support for Educational Institution No. 38 of Kirovohrad Correctional Colony No. 6 and the conditions for the detention of minor convicts in the Kirovohrad pre-trial detention centre than about describing the general needs of the target audience.
The text of the section is more reminiscent of a description of the problems of a specific educational institution than a strategic direction of activity, which should be the goal of the Programme.
Therefore, there is some doubt that by solving the problems of an educational institution, one can influence the crime rate. In fact, the Programme does not aim to create favourable social, organisational, and economic conditions for the social adaptation of those released from places of imprisonment and to solve the urgent problems that stand in the way of the effectiveness of this process.
Due to the absence of any justification, it is unclear why the educational component was chosen to solve the problem of adapting persons released from places of imprisonment and providing social support for citizens serving sentences in places of imprisonment.
In the opinion of the experts, it would have been more appropriate to consider several alternative strategies for solving the problems of the specified categories of citizens and to choose the one that would meet the ‘cost/effectiveness’ criterion.

Therefore, it is unclear what specific problems regarding the provision of social adaptation and social support the Programme is aimed at resolving.

The document states that ‘the measures currently being implemented are still ineffective and do not provide proper assistance with social adaptation’, but it does not specify which particular problems hinder the effective social adaptation of those released from places of imprisonment. Moreover, it is not written where this information was taken from, or who conducted such an analysis of the socialisation process in the city of Kirovohrad. The Programme notes that to ensure the provision of necessary assistance to previously convicted persons in resolving social problems and employment, a need arose to develop additional measures to strengthen the fight against recidivism, provide guarantees to the convicted regarding their adaptation, and create a system of resocialisation. Such conclusions are a positive point, but it is not defined in the programme whether these additional measures and guarantees have been developed, whether they are a component of the programme, or whether this is simply a general conclusion. Also, among the needs, the necessity of creating a ‘system of resocialisation’, the implementation of which could significantly improve the socialisation of those released, is mentioned. It is clear that such an approach to ensuring adaptation is progressive and complex, but no procedures for this system are presented in the document. The programme lists the main tasks regarding the implementation of priorities for providing for Educational Institution No. 38 of KVK No. 6 and the conditions for the detention of minors in the Kirovohrad pre-trial detention centre, but it is not indicated who is responsible for coordinating the system of resocialisation and social adaptation.
In accordance with Article 6 of the Criminal-Executive Code of Ukraine, one of the main means of correction and resocialisation of convicts is public influence. The Programme contains a single reference to public influence—the provision of humanitarian aid (p. 4). According to the wording ‘improving conditions of detention to an acceptable level, the administration may conduct [this] at the expense of profit from educational-production workshops, humanitarian aid from public organisations...’, it is unclear whether such aid is provided by non-governmental organisations or if this is merely a statement of the possibilities available to the administration. Furthermore, the document does not name a single civil society institution that is involved in the implementation of the programme or that influences resocialisation and social adaptation. In addition, it should be added that public influence cannot be limited only to the provision of humanitarian aid.
Within the framework of the implementation of the programme, all work on the social support of the Programme's beneficiaries is assigned to the Kirovohrad City Centre for Social Services for Family, Children, and Youth. However, according to the law, this Centre cares for persons under the age of 35. That is, everyone over the age of 35 has no legal basis to receive social or psychological assistance.
The Programme also declares the promotion of assisting persons released from places of imprisonment in obtaining passports and other documents necessary for employment, resolving social problems, assigning pensions, etc.
But no structure, body, or department that would take care of solving this problem is mentioned. Therefore, this remains just a declaration.
One of the tasks of the programme is to ‘ensure the provision of free medical-preventive and sanitary assistance in the health care institutions of the city of Kirovohrad to persons released from places of imprisonment who are ill with tuberculosis, its complications, and concomitant diseases’.
The implementation of this task can be considered a positive component of the programme, which may influence the improvement of the integration of convicts.
The document defines the circle of persons who can receive the specified medical assistance. But it is impossible to clearly define which categories of those released fall into this circle. Because the concept of ‘concomitant diseases’ requires interpretation and the definition of a list of diseases, the presence of which gives the right to the assistance mentioned in the programme. On the other hand, according to Clause 3 of Article 49 of the Constitution of Ukraine, assistance in state and municipal institutions is provided free of charge. If the list of free services offered by health care institutions corresponds to the list of free services approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, without including additional ones, the mention of this task in the programme is redundant. The phrasing ‘medical-preventive and sanitary’ does not provide a clear definition of medical services. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what kind of free assistance the programme provides.
On the other hand, if the programme provides for the introduction of additional free services for persons released from places of imprisonment, it would be appropriate to specify them in the document.
The Programme lacks a description of any indicators by which it would be possible to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of its implementation.

Recommendations.
1. Before forming the ‘Programme for the Social Adaptation of Persons Released from Places of Imprisonment and Social Support for Citizens Serving Sentences in Places of Imprisonment’ for 2010, conduct a study of the needs of the target audience and, based on the results of the research, define the priority areas of the programme.
2. Clearly define the beneficiaries of the Programme.
3. Consider several alternative strategies for solving the problems of the specified categories of citizens.
4. In the ‘Goal of the Programme’ subsection, briefly define a specific strategic goal of the programme. For example: ‘To facilitate the resocialisation of persons who are in places of imprisonment.’
5. In the ‘Tasks of the Programme’ subsection, define tactical steps for achieving the goal of the programme.
6. In the ‘Results’ section, clearly define indicators by which it would be possible to determine the level of influence of the implementation of the programme on its target audience.
7. Considering the rates of spread of HIV infection, it is necessary to provide for norms aimed at the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Prevention of the Disease of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and Social Protection of the Population’.
8. Involve public organisations in working with the target audience of the programme.
9. Allocate funds for the creation of a Social Reintegration Centre.
10. Create a service within the framework of the Centre's organisation that would take care of the problems of restoring documents for convicts.
11. Introduce a ‘voucher system’ for payment for provided social services.