How the Law on the Social Adaptation of Released Persons Works
Instead of a preface
All citizens of Ukraine, citizens of foreign states, and stateless persons residing in the territory of Ukraine possess a multitude of rights and freedoms, which are enshrined in various regulatory legal acts, starting with the Constitution of Ukraine (Articles 21–64). Persons who have served sentences in penal institutions are no exception to this rule. On the contrary, the legislation of Ukraine grants this group of persons additional guarantees for the realisation of their rights, and, above all, the right to the prompt receipt of assistance from executive authorities during the six months following their release from penal institutions (i.e., during the period of adaptation to freedom) – namely: assistance in creating proper living conditions, obtaining an education, acquiring documents (if they were lost), as well as medical, social, and other types of assistance.
These are the so-called ‘social patronage measures’, the list of which is enshrined in a special regulatory act – the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ (hereinafter – the Law). Article 10 of the Law states that ‘the rights of released persons, enshrined in this Law, are realised in full and cannot be restricted...’.
However, in practice, the majority of the rights of persons who have served sentences in penal institutions, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and other Laws of Ukraine, are not observed, and social patronage measures are not carried out. The reasons for this state of affairs are, firstly, the low level of awareness among released persons regarding the services that should be provided to them by state bodies and institutions, as well as a lack of belief that they are still ‘needed’ by the state; secondly, the low level of motivation among state bodies to fulfil the duties entrusted to them regarding the implementation of social patronage measures for persons released from penal institutions; and thirdly, the lack of effective control by the public and the media over the performance of duties by state bodies regarding the implementation of social policy towards released persons.
As a consequence of the ineffective social policy regarding persons who have served sentences in penal institutions, there is a high level of recidivism and the return of released persons to places of deprivation of liberty. According to statistical data from the State Department for the Execution of Sentences, as of 01.07.2010, in the closed penal institutions of the AR Crimea, out of 2,010 incarcerated persons, 1,391 had been convicted repeatedly1.
This is precisely why, for Crimea, it is vital to conduct public monitoring of the implementation by executive authorities of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’.
Methodology for conducting public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’2
Monitoring is a planned, systematic, expert study of a selected area of public activity, conducted according to a specific scheme with the aim of achieving changes.
In essence, monitoring is the planned collection of data regarding a specific problem or activity, as well as the processing, analysis, and communication of the results of the analysis and recommendations to all interested parties.
Therefore, the goal of monitoring is always to achieve changes in the sphere that is being monitored.
The goal of the public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ is to increase the effectiveness of state support and the standard of administrative and social service provision by executive authorities of the city of Simferopol to persons released from penal institutions and residing (registered) in the city of Simferopol.
Since monitoring is a method of research, it is important to develop a plan for its conduct, to define indicators (metrics) by which the object of monitoring will be assessed, as well as to determine the sources from which information about the given object will be obtained.
Monitoring the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ provides for the following sources for data collection:
Analysis of legal documents. First and foremost, this is the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ dated 10.06.2003; the ‘Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty or restriction of liberty for a definite term’, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) Decree No. 1385-r dated 30.10.2008; and the ‘Action Plan for the Implementation of the Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty or restriction of liberty for a definite term until 2015’, approved by the CMU Decree No. 740-r dated 01.06.2009.
Analysis of official documents of the authority – action plans, executive orders, reports, announcements, etc.
Analysis of responses to information requests.
Analysis of written documents – statistical data.
Observation – the Internet, websites of executive authorities, information in the media, etc.
Surveys via formal and semi-formal interviews with consumers of social services of executive authorities, as well as employees of authorities authorised to provide such social services.
Public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ in the city of Simferopol was conducted from 01 December 2010 to 01 March 2011.
Within the framework of conducting the public monitoring:
- 15 information requests were sent to the state structures specified in Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’;
- 11 semi-formal interviews were conducted with representatives of the authorities upon whom Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ imposes the duty to conduct social patronage measures for persons who have served sentences in penal institutions;
- 30 persons who had served a sentence of deprivation of liberty and are residing (registered) in the city of Simferopol were surveyed (via a questionnaire method);
- 1 focus group was conducted, involving specialists from state institutions, bodies, and services authorised to provide social assistance to persons released from penal institutions, as well as representatives of the Management of the State Department for the Execution of Sentences and non-governmental organisations.
Also, with the aim of publicising the activity regarding the public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’, a press conference was held on 16 December 2010 with the participation of representatives of local print media, and on 14 April 2011, the results of the public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ in the city of Simferopol were presented at a final press conference.
Analysis of regulatory documents
The primary special regulatory legal acts containing provisions that regulate the provision of social assistance to persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty for a definite term are:
The Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ dated 10.06.2003 (hereinafter - the Law).
The ‘Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty or restriction of liberty for a definite term’, approved by the CMU Decree No. 1385-r dated 30.10.2008.
The ‘Action Plan for the Implementation of the Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty or restriction of liberty for a definite term until 2015’, approved by the CMU Decree No. 740-r dated 01.06.2009.
These regulatory legal acts contain instructions regarding the powers of state and non-state structures, which are tasked with the duty to carry out social patronage measures in relation to persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty.
In accordance with the Law, social patronage is understood as a complex of measures of state support and assistance to released persons, which is carried out with the aim of assisting these persons in finding employment, professional reorientation and retraining, creating proper living conditions, and preventing the influence of criminogenic factors on them (Article 1 of the Law).
The effect of said Law extends to citizens of Ukraine, foreigners, and stateless persons who permanently reside in the territory of Ukraine and have applied to supervisory commissions or to other bodies, institutions, and organisations authorised to implement social patronage measures within six months after their release from institutions of execution of sentences.
Below, in Table 1, the powers of the main bodies, institutions, and organisations authorised to carry out social patronage measures in relation to persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty or restriction of liberty for a definite term are presented, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned regulatory acts.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 3 of the Law, social patronage measures are carried out by the following entities:
- local executive authorities;
- local government bodies;
- centres for social adaptation;
- services for minors (now – the service for children – Ed. note);
- centres of social services for family, children, and youth;
- supervisory commissions;
- bodies of social protection of the population;
- healthcare bodies;
- internal affairs bodies;
- employment centres;
- boarding schools (homes);
- crisis centres;
- psychological assistance services;
- shelters (including those for minors);
- social patronage institutions;
- homes for nightly or temporary stay for released persons;
- public organisations;
- other authorised bodies, organisations, and institutions.
According to Part 2 of Article 3 of the Law, said bodies, organisations, and institutions, in the event of an application from released persons, are obliged to immediately begin carrying out social patronage measures in relation to them.
In October 2008, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine issued Decree No. 1385-r ‘On the Adoption of the Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty for a definite term’, in which it points out that ‘the existing system of social adaptation of released persons is not capable of satisfying the interests of society’. Among the main reasons for this state of affairs, the following are cited:
- the absence of a clear mechanism and a coordinated mechanism for the coordination of actions between central and local executive authorities and local government bodies;
- the lack of timeliness in providing necessary assistance to released persons;
- insufficient funding;
- the stigmatisation and discrimination of released persons;
- insufficient awareness among convicted persons regarding their rights and duties, as well as among the public regarding the problems of convicted persons and their participation in facilitating the reintegration of such persons into society;
- the lack of specialists in social work and social workers who can work at a proper level within the social protection system for released persons;
- the imperfection of legislation.
It can be stated with certainty that the problems existing in 2008 in the system of social adaptation for persons who have served sentences in penal institutions remain relevant in 2011. It is precisely the removal of these problems and the implementation of the Concept that the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty for a definite term until 2015, approved by the CMU Decree No. 740-r dated 01.06.2009, is aimed at. This action plan establishes specific authorities, institutions, and organisations responsible for the implementation of certain provisions of the Concept, including in the part concerning the improvement of the regulatory-legal and methodological base, the resocialisation of convicted persons, social support and social patronage, and crime prevention.
Table 1. Powers of the main bodies, organisations, and institutions regarding the provision of assistance in the social adaptation of persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty for a definite term.
Name of the body/institution/ organisation | Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ | Action Plan for the Implementation of the Concept for the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty or restriction of liberty for a definite term until 2015 |
Local executive authorities | A place for temporary residence in special dormitories or centres of social adaptation is provided (Article 3). | - |
Local government bodies | - | - |
Centres of social services for family, children, and youth | Citizens aged 15 to 28 receive informational, legal, labour-related, psychological-pedagogical, medical, and other forms of social assistance (Part 3 of Article 6). | - |
Bodies of social protection of the population | They petition for referral to special boarding homes for senior citizens (men aged 60 and women aged 55 and older, as well as persons who have no more than one and a half years left until reaching the general retirement age), and persons with disabilities of the first and second groups, upon their application and on the basis of a report from the medical unit of the institution of execution of sentences, in the event that these persons require external care and medical service and do not have able-bodied children or relatives who are legally obliged and willing to care for them (Part 1 of Article 6). | Optimise the network of centres for the social adaptation of released persons, special dormitories, special boarding homes, units at boarding institutions, and centres of social services for family, children, and youth, taking into account the financial capabilities of local budgets and regional needs (item 11). Provide social services to released persons with drug dependency who have completed a course of treatment, as well as to released persons who have found themselves in difficult life circumstances, with the aim of preventing their use of narcotic substances (item 17). |
| Bodies of healthcare | They ensure the provision of medical assistance at the place of residence or place of registration. In the absence of a place of residence or registration, the provision of medical assistance is carried out upon the referral of bodies, institutions, or organisations that carry out social patronage (Article 5). | They ensure medical service for released persons suffering from tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other socially dangerous diseases in healthcare institutions, in particular upon the referral of centres of social adaptation and other institutions providing social services to released persons (item 13). They ensure the treatment of released persons for alcohol and drug dependency upon the referral of centres of social adaptation and other institutions providing social services to released persons, as well as upon the request of these persons (item 16). |
| Internal affairs bodies | - | They conduct raids with the aim of identifying released persons who are in a state of alcohol, drug, or other intoxication and are disturbing public order (item 18). They ensure the timely issuance of documents certifying identity and citizenship to persons being released from places of deprivation of liberty (item 20). |
Employment centres | - | - |
Supervisory commissions | - | - |
Public organisations | On a voluntary basis or on the basis of a social order provided by local executive authorities or local government bodies, they may take part in providing social assistance to released persons (Article 7). |
Analysis of official responses from authorities to information requests within the framework of conducting public monitoring.
In the course of conducting the public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’, it was planned to send information requests to 6 executive authorities of the city of Simferopol, namely:
the Executive Committee of the Simferopol City Council of People’s Deputies;
the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea;
the Directorate for Family, Youth, and Sports of the Simferopol City Council;
the Simferopol Directorate of Healthcare;
the Simferopol Directorate of Labour and Social Protection of the Population;
the Simferopol City Employment Centre.
However, since the responses provided by some executive authorities of the city of Simferopol did not address the essence of the questions asked, and at times were simply formal, a necessity arose to send additional requests. In total, during the monitoring, 15 information requests were sent.
Below is an analysis of the responses of the authorities of the city of Simferopol to requests regarding the procedure for their implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’.
Directorate of Healthcare of the Simferopol City Council of the AR Crimea.
To the first request sent to the Directorate of Healthcare, response No. 1870/06-09 dated 20.12.2010 was provided, according to which ‘conducting social patronage measures is not within the competence of healthcare institutions’. To the question regarding the number of released persons who applied to medical and preventive treatment facilities of the city of Simferopol in 2010, the following information was provided: ‘Decree of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine No. 302 dated 27.12.99 “On the Approval of Accounting Statistical Medical Forms” does not provide for the record-keeping of persons released from places of deprivation of liberty who have applied to medical and preventive treatment facilities and required medical assistance in both outpatient and inpatient conditions’. There were no cases of referring persons released from places of deprivation of liberty to medical and preventive treatment facilities of the city of Simferopol by bodies, institutions, and organisations that carry out social patronage.
Executive Committee of the Simferopol City Council of the AR Crimea.
According to the response of the Executive Committee of the Simferopol City Council of the AR Crimea No. 134444/24/01-39 dated 24.12.2010, since November 2007, the communal institution ‘House of Night Stay’ (now ‘Centre for Record-keeping and Social Protection of Homeless Citizens’) has been operating in the city of Simferopol.
The goal of this institution’s activity is to reduce the number of persons sleeping on the street by organising their overnight stay, as well as by providing other types of services, namely: social-living, psychological, assistance in restoring lost documents, assistance in finding employment, informational, etc.
According to the provided response, in 2010, 101 people from among the persons released from places of deprivation of liberty applied to the Centre, where they were provided with assistance within the limits of the institution’s competence. It is also reported that in the current year, one-time material assistance in the amount of 1,200 UAH was provided from city budget funds to six citizens of this category.
Simferopol City Employment Centre.
According to response No. 05-4229 dated 16.12.2010, the Simferopol Employment Centre received 86 notifications from the beginning of 2010 regarding the category of persons released from places of deprivation of liberty and intending to reside in the city of Simferopol (of whom 22 were women).
According to data from the Simferopol Employment Centre, 32 people were on the register during 2010, of whom 25 had been registered since the beginning of the year. At the same time, during the specified period, only 7 people were employed. The same number of people, upon the referral of the employment centre, trained in courses (specialisations: tailor, electrician, cook, computer operator, tile layer, car repair mechanic). At the end of 2010, 5 people from among the released were on the register at the employment centre.
Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea. In the information request sent to the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea, the following questions were contained regarding what social patronage measures are carried out by the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea; whether the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea provides services for the social adaptation of released persons (if yes, which ones); how many persons released from places of deprivation of liberty applied for social assistance to the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea during 2010; how many applications for the restoration (issuance) of passports of citizens of Ukraine on the basis of a certificate of release were received by the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea, etc.
To this information request, response No. 49/266 dated 12.01.2011 was provided, which, by virtue of its conciseness, can be quoted in full.
‘In response to your ref. No. 113/02 dated 07.12.2010, I inform you that police officers constantly conduct measures with persons released from places of deprivation of liberty to explain the current legislation of Ukraine regarding the inadmissibility of offences and crimes to the latter.
Also, persons requiring employment support are placed on the register at the employment centre. Upon application to the State Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Registration of Individuals, citizens of Ukraine released from places of deprivation of liberty are issued or have their passport of a citizen of Ukraine updated. Those persons who are citizens of another country receive a refusal in obtaining a passport of a citizen of Ukraine.’
It is obvious that such a response is not a response to the essence of the questions asked, and in form and content is a formal bureaucratic brush-off.
Such a situation compelled a second appeal to the Chief of the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea; a copy of this information request was sent to the Chief of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea.
The response No. 49/723 dated 27.01.2011 contained slightly more information. According to data from the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea, in 2010, regarding issues related to registration at the place of residence, 59 people applied for social assistance to the Central, Kyiv, and Zaliznychnyi district departments of the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea. These persons were documented with passports of citizens of Ukraine (although there is no indication that these are persons who were released from places of deprivation of liberty). Furthermore, according to the provided response, the passport of a citizen of Ukraine is issued within 3 days (!).
In 2010, 141 raids were conducted with the aim of identifying and documenting persons released from places of deprivation of liberty who disturb public order, abuse alcoholic beverages, and narcotic substances. In the course of the conducted measures, administrative materials were drawn up against 12 people for various administrative offences.
In the event that a person released from places of deprivation of liberty lost the right to registration during the time of serving the sentence (the apartment was sold, de-registered by court decision), said citizen is documented with a passport without a registration stamp, or is referred to a social centre for homeless citizens in Simferopol. In 2010, 7 people were referred to this centre.
Thus, judging by the official responses of the state bodies of Simferopol, the Law on the Social Adaptation of Released Persons is working. However, within the framework of public monitoring of the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’, the head of the organisation sent two appeals in accordance with Article 7 of the Law to the Simferopol City Mayor and the Head of the Simferopol District Administration. The appeals concerned the procedure for providing a public organisation with a social order for the provision of social assistance to released persons, as the Law provides for such a possibility. Official responses were received to the appeals.
According to response No. 1444/24/01-39 dated 01.03.2011 from the Deputy City Mayor for the activities of the executive bodies of the Council – Chairperson of the Supervisory Commission, no such social order had been executed by any of the public organisations in 2009–2010. Thus, local government bodies of the city of Simferopol do not have experience in providing a social order to public organisations engaged in providing assistance to persons who have served a sentence.
Additional proof that the norm of the Law regarding the paid involvement of public organisations in the provision of social assistance to released persons is not working is the fact that, as of today, there is no procedure for receiving such a social order from local government bodies.
According to the response (No. 761/04-20 dated 24.02.2011) of the Head of the Simferopol District State Administration, in 2008–2010, the processing of social orders was not conducted, due to the fact that anti-crisis measures were being implemented during this period, and all funds of the district budget were directed towards solving the socio-economic problems of the district. It is also reported that in the 2011 budget, funds for the involvement of public organisations for the provision of a social order for the rendering of social assistance to persons released from places of deprivation of liberty were not provided. And without the appropriate funding, the district state administration does not have the right to carry out social orders.
And although the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ provides for the participation of public organisations in the social adaptation of released persons, nevertheless, at the local level, there is neither an approved mechanism for a public organisation to receive such a social order, nor funds for the execution of such an order.
Surveying of persons who have served a sentence in institutions of execution of sentences
Respondents were offered a questionnaire consisting of three blocks: ‘Awareness of social patronage measures’, ‘Provision of social services’, and ‘Recommendations’.
30 persons who had been released from institutions of execution of sentences during the period 2010 – early 2011 and were residing (registered) in the city of Simferopol took part in the survey.
Of the 30 surveyed persons, 80% of respondents were men, 20% were women under the age of 25 (5.6%), aged 25 to 40 (66.7%), and 27.7% were older than 40. All of them had served a sentence of deprivation of liberty ranging from 4 months to 15 years. For 26.7% of respondents, this was their first conviction, for the same number of those surveyed (i.e., 26.7%) – their second, and for 46.6% (14 respondents) – their third or more conviction.
Of the persons participating in the survey, 73.3% had secondary education, 23.3% had specialised secondary education, and 3.4% had higher education. And practically all of those surveyed (96.6%) had a family to which they planned to return after their release from places of deprivation of liberty.
Block 1. Awareness of social patronage measures.
To the question of whether those being surveyed were aware that the Law ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ is in effect in Ukraine, 73.3% of respondents answered ‘Yes, I am aware’, 23.3% – that they were not aware, and 3.4% found it difficult to answer this question.
To the question of whether employees of the institution of execution of sentences explained the rights and opportunities of persons after their release from places of deprivation of liberty, 66.7% of those surveyed answered ‘Yes’, and 33.3% – ‘No’. However, to the question ‘Did they inform you which specific state/non-state organisations and institutions you need to apply to for assistance’, 56.6% of those surveyed answered ‘Yes’, another 39.9% – ‘No’, and 3.5% found it difficult to answer.
To the question of whether those surveyed know which organisations they should apply to for assistance, 50% answered that they know, 46.6% – that they do not know, and 3.4% found it difficult to answer this question. We asked them to name these organisations. Among them, such organisations were named as: CSSFM (Centre of Social Services for Family and Youth), the Employment Centre, ‘Aybolit’, ‘Global Assistance’, and the ‘Russian Unity’ bloc.
Among the answers to question No. 1.6 of the questionnaire regarding what difficulties those surveyed had to encounter after release, the most frequently encountered answers were: inability to find a job (56.6%), deterioration of health (46.6%), absence of a passport (39.9%), and absence of housing (16.7%). Among other problems, material difficulties were cited (16.7%), including the absence of funds for treatment.
Block 2. Provision of social services.
To questionnaire question No. 2.1 ‘Did you apply after your release from places of deprivation of liberty to state or non-state institutions and organisations in the city of Simferopol for assistance’, 39.9% answered ‘Yes’ and 60.1% – ‘No’. To the question of why they did not apply, respondents gave such answers: ‘I don’t even have an idea of where I could be provided with assistance’, ‘there is no sense in it’, ‘no desire’, etc.
Those who did apply named the following state and non-state institutions and organisations: CSSFM, the Simferopol Executive Committee, healthcare institutions, public and religious organisations, as well as employment centres for the population.
To the question of what types of assistance they expected to receive, respondents indicated the following: material assistance, assistance in processing documents, legal assistance, medical assistance (TB treatment), assistance in establishing a disability, spiritual help, etc. The majority of the surveyed respondents received the assistance they expected, but, mainly, not from state structures, but from public and religious organisations.
Block 3. Recommendations.
Respondents were asked whether they consider that the state provides sufficient assistance to persons who have left places of deprivation of liberty. The majority of respondents (60.1%) believe it is insufficient, another 39.9% found it difficult to answer this question.
In the comments to their answers, respondents noted:
‘If a person has the desire and aspiration to improve their life, then the state should meet them halfway: housing, work, documents, etc.’;
‘We feel like footballs being kicked from one institution to another; this is a lived experience’;
‘No, because none of my acquaintances who have served a sentence in places of deprivation of liberty received assistance from the state in what they truly needed: housing, documents, medical assistance.’
To the question of which organisations/institutions, in the opinion of those surveyed, would offer a better chance of receiving social assistance, respondents were practically unanimous in the opinion that these were religious and public organisations (56.6% and 39.9% respectively).
Respondents believe that the state can and should help those released from institutions of execution of sentences with the following: temporary housing, employment, medical examination, and assistance in treatment, or, as several surveyed noted, ‘at least not to hinder them from reintegrating into society.’
Results of the survey of officials/employees of bodies, institutions, and organisations upon which the duty to carry out social patronage measures is imposed in accordance with Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’
Within the framework of the public monitoring, it was planned to conduct at least one semi-formal interview with employees and officials of those bodies and institutions whose activity was subjected to monitoring in the part concerning the implementation of social policy regarding persons who have left places of deprivation of liberty. Additionally, employees of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences in the AR Crimea (penal inspection) were interviewed. At the same time, employees of the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea and the Directorate of Healthcare of the Simferopol City Council did not participate in the interviews.
Block 1. Awareness of social patronage measures.
According to the obtained data, all surveyed employees of state institutions are familiar with the main provisions of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ (hereinafter – the Law), as well as with their powers in connection with the implementation of this Law. However, in the opinion of the majority of those surveyed, they carry out their powers not on the basis of the Law, but on the basis of their functional duties, because the provisions of the Law do not disclose the main functions of the majority of state institutions involved in the provision of social services to persons who have served a sentence.
To the question, ‘How do you consider, does this Law work in practice’, the opinions of those surveyed were divided.
Of the 10 surveyed, only four believe that the Law works.
‘It works, of course. All services are interconnected, cooperate, and try to help this category of citizens... We provide services in accordance with legislation.’
‘It works as much as our state gives it the opportunity to. First and foremost, there should be a desire from the released person.’
Three other surveyed employees of state structures believe that the Law practically or completely does not work. The reasons for this, in the opinion of those surveyed, are:
- ‘the absence of a material-financial base for its full implementation’;
- ‘due to the non-allocation of a social dormitory by executive authorities in the region, and the absence of targeted funding from the local budget.’
Of the ten surveyed, three believe that the Law works partially, in connection with the ‘lack of coordination of the joint actions of state and public organisations’, because of numerous formalities and the indifference of officials, and also because of the problem of underfunding.
Without exception, all surveyed employees of state structures believe that measures for the social adaptation of persons who have left places of deprivation of liberty are necessary.
Among the problems with which, in the opinion of those surveyed, convicted persons encounter after release, the following were named:
the absence of housing;
the absence of documents necessary for receiving all types of assistance, and problems with processing documents;
the absence of free medical assistance;
the presence of socially dangerous diseases (tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, etc.);
employment problems (‘The problem is one – it is difficult for an employer to accept such a client for work. This is a barrier that an employer has to cross. It is difficult’);
establishing social connections;
the absence of rehabilitation centres;
psychological barriers;
bureaucratic red tape;
ignorance of their rights and duties.
Block 2. Provision of social services.
Below, in Table 2, the answers of the surveyed employees of state bodies and institutions are presented regarding questions concerning the assistance they provide within the framework of their powers in accordance with the Law. As already indicated, it was not possible to interview representatives of the Simferopol Directorate of Healthcare and the Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea. Since employees of the Directorate of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences do not participate in the provision of social assistance to convicted persons, the table lacks the answers of the employees of this structure.
To the question of what assistance persons who have served a sentence need most of all, the majority of respondents answered that this is assistance in processing documents, employment, and material assistance. The majority of those surveyed believe that these types of assistance can be provided by state institutions.
Among non-state (public) organisations providing assistance to persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty, respondents named: the ‘Aybolit’ Public Organisation, the ‘Global Assistance’ Charitable Organisation, the ‘PLWH Network’, the ‘Evangelical Mercy’ Christian Mission, and the N. Potapayeva Charitable Foundation.
Block 3. Recommendations
The third block of the interview was dedicated to recommendations regarding amendments to the current Law on the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty.
To the question ‘How do you consider, does state policy regarding the social adaptation of persons who have served a sentence need a review and change’, respondents were unanimous – state policy regarding former prisoners needs changing.
‘It needs it. First and foremost, the attitude of society towards the convicted needs to be changed. Until public opinion about former prisoners as people “with a mark” changes, it will be difficult to keep them from committing crimes in the future.’
‘The mechanisms provided for by the Law are not working at the current moment. Assistance is provided to far from all who need it.’
‘It is necessary to improve coordination and the cooperation of subjects of social work.’
In the opinion of respondents, the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ needs changes.
‘The Law does not name the state body responsible for the implementation of functions regarding the social adaptation of released persons. And if there are no responsible parties – it means there are no guilty parties either.’
‘There is absolutely no specificity in the Law – the powers of the majority of services upon which duties are imposed according to this Law are not indicated. This specificity needs to be introduced.’
‘The Law definitely needs changing. But changing only the norms of the law without the competent implementation of these changes is impossible. In those organisations that provide social assistance, competent, concerned employees should work, who will be interested in the result – i.e., in helping specific people.’
At the end of the interview, we asked the respondents to give recommendations to released persons regarding their receiving social assistance. Below is the list of these recommendations.
Apply in a timely manner in written form. Keep copies of documents with signatures for oneself, for the possibility of challenging the decisions or inaction of officials.
In cases of violations on the part of civil servants – apply without delay to the controlling bodies (the prosecutor’s office).
Apply to supervisory commissions and centres for receiving, in the first instance, legal assistance.
Be persistent, proactive, and responsible for one’s own life. Achieve goals and do not give up!
Table 2. Provision of social services.
Name of institution/ body/organisation | Do persons who have served a sentence in places of deprivation of liberty apply to you for social assistance? | What assistance did they expect to receive? | What assistance was received? | Do you consider that this assistance was sufficient? |
Department for Social Policy of the Simferopol Council | Yes, due to the necessity of receiving material assistance, restoring documents, employment, etc. | Assistance in restoring documents, in registration and residence, employment, provision of material assistance; psychological, medical, informational assistance. | In 2010, 111 persons released from places of deprivation of liberty who applied to the communal institution ‘Centre for Record-keeping and Social Protection of Homeless Citizens’ received assistance. Psychological, informational, and humanitarian assistance was provided. For five applicants, documents were restored, and 18 were provided with material assistance from city budget funds. | |
Simferopol Employment Centre | Those who have left places of deprivation of liberty apply to the employment centre and there is statistics. The most important thing is the desire of the client themselves. Because they are compelled to apply to us at the employment centre, but due to the lack of desire, very many are de-registered for failure to appear on the day of the assignment of the status of unemployed. | First and foremost, they apply in order to register and report on their registration. And then we offer them services. Our assistance is facilitation in employment, training. The employment service does not employ; we facilitate employment. And the technology of client service is designed so that each client activates their own efforts for searching for suitable work. Independently and actively joins the process of searching for work and changes their fate. | Referral to seminars where they are taught to search for work, appearance, how to present themselves, show their advantages, interest the employer, study the labour market. | Yes. Because we put forth maximum effort for the provision of these or other services. If we had higher powers and if we were occupied specifically with this category, greater assistance would be provided. Since for this category of citizens, the search for work is complicated by the absence of housing, etc. But within the framework of our powers, we do everything. |
CSSFM (Centre of Social Services for Family, Children, and Youth) | Yes, because information is provided about the activity of the CSSFM in penal colonies. | Facilitation in employment, in receiving material assistance, in processing and receiving missing documents certifying identity, in social adaptation to life after release, etc. | To each citizen released from places of deprivation of liberty, specialists of the centre provide social services: psychological support, conversations on the prevention of recidivist behaviour, on the prevention of HIV infection and safe behaviour. Facilitation is provided in processing a passport, registration, and further employment, training through the city employment centre. Petitions for receiving material assistance are compiled for the Directorate of Social Policy of the City Council. | In the majority of cases, yes |
Analysis of the conduct of the focus group ‘Social policy regarding those released from places of deprivation of liberty: theory and practice’.
Representatives of state and non-state institutions of the city of Simferopol who provide social services to persons who have left places of deprivation of liberty were invited to participate in the focus group. 17 experts – representatives of state institutions and public organisations – were present at the event:
The Directorate of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences in the AR Crimea, incl. the Penal Inspection,
The sector of citizenship, immigration, and registration of individuals of the Zaliznychnyi District Department of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the AR Crimea,
The Crimean Republican Centre of Social Services for Family, Children, and Youth,
The Centre of Social Services for Family, Children, and Youth of the Zaliznychnyi District Council of the city of Simferopol,
The Department for Social Policy of the Simferopol City Council,
The Simferopol City Supervisory Commission,
The City Polyclinic of the Crimean Republican Institution ‘Anti-tuberculosis Dispensary No. 1’,
The Crimean branch of the All-Ukrainian Charitable Organisation ‘All-Ukrainian Network of PLWH’,
The ‘Global Assistance’ Charitable Organisation,
The ‘Aybolit’ Public Organisation.
The goal of conducting the focus group was a deeper study of questions regarding the provision of social services to persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty within the framework of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’, as well as the development of recommendations for improving the standard of provision of social and administrative services by executive authorities of the city of Simferopol.
In the course of the work of the focus group, the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’ was examined in detail. All participants had the opportunity to share their experience of work regarding the implementation of this Law, to tell about specific difficulties and problems that arise in working with the convicted.
Here are several main problems which, in the opinion of the experts, negatively influence the fulfilment of the legislation of Ukraine in the sphere of the social adaptation of persons who have served sentences in places of deprivation of liberty:
- the absence of clearly written-out mechanisms for the implementation of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’;
- the life position of persons released from places of deprivation of liberty (refusal to sign an agreement with the CSSFM, unwillingness to come to an appointment, for example, at the Employment Centre, to wait in a queue, etc.);
- the human factor (i.e., the personal characteristics of those state officials upon whom the duties for the implementation of the Law on Social Adaptation are imposed);
- the insufficient professional level and shortage of staff working with convicted persons (both in places of deprivation of liberty and in institutions upon which the duty to carry out social patronage measures falls);
- the absence of funding for medical assistance and social housing;
- poor awareness among the convicted regarding those social services that they can receive, and about where and how they can do this.
Based on the data obtained from the experts in the course of conducting the focus group, it is impossible to make an unambiguous conclusion regarding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’. In other words, there are provisions of the Law that are fulfilled, but in practice, a multitude of obstacles arise during the provision of quality social services to persons released from places of deprivation of liberty.
Besides the problems and difficulties arising with the quality execution of the Law, recommendations for improving the implementation of social policy regarding released persons were developed by the participants of the focus group:
It is necessary to introduce amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Social Adaptation of Persons who have served a sentence of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a definite term’, namely – to clearly write out the powers of all state and non-state subjects upon whom the duty to conduct social patronage measures in relation to persons who have served a sentence of deprivation of liberty for a definite term is imposed (the distribution and delimitation of duties and powers between services).
It is necessary to establish a coordinating body tasked with regulating and coordinating the efforts of various agencies and institutions in the process of social adaptation for persons released from penal institutions.
It is necessary to establish a single municipal supervisory commission, without fragmenting it into district supervisory commissions.
It is necessary to stipulate in the job descriptions of penal institution staff the procedure for them to inform individuals preparing for release about the agencies, services, and organisations that provide social assistance to those who have served custodial sentences.
Introduce disciplinary liability for officials of law enforcement agencies, the court, and penal institutions for the loss of a convict’s passport.
Prohibit penal institutions from accepting individuals without a passport.
Define the authority of pre-trial detention centres to include the rule: “do not accept a convict without a passport”.
Introduce concessions (or full exemption from payment) for individuals released from penal institutions regarding state fees for the issuance of a passport of a citizen of Ukraine, the obtaining of registration certificates, etc.
Involve non-governmental organisations in working with convicts and persons released from penal institutions through the receipt of social contracts from local executive authorities or local self-government bodies.
It is necessary to develop and publish an information booklet—a “guidebook”—for persons being released from penal institutions, containing comprehensive information about all state and non-state agencies, institutions, and organisations engaged in providing social services for the social adaptation of those who have served custodial sentences.
The development of these recommendations became the final part of the focus group’s work. Upon the project’s conclusion, it is planned that all these recommendations will be submitted to the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Legislative Support for Law Enforcement Activity.
Conclusions and recommendations
Public monitoring of the activities of authorities in the sphere of implementing social policy regarding persons who have served custodial sentences (within the framework of the Law of Ukraine “On the Social Adaptation of Persons Who Have Served Sentences of Restriction of Liberty or Imprisonment for a Specific Term”) is an effective tool for the external public assessment of the executive bodies of the city of Simferopol;
An analysis of current legislation in the sphere of social adaptation for persons who have served custodial sentences indicates that the law identifies a specific circle of subjects whose duties include conducting social adaptation measures for released persons, while not specifying the powers and functional responsibilities of the majority of these subjects.
An analysis of official responses to information requests shows that the majority of state structures, which are tasked by law with performing social patronage measures for persons who have served sentences, implement these powers within the scope of their existing job descriptions.
The provision of Article 7 of the Law, which stipulates the possibility of awarding a non-governmental organisation a social contract for the provision of social assistance to released persons, does not function in practice. Within the framework of public monitoring of the Law’s implementation, two appeals were sent in accordance with Article 7 of the Law to the Mayor of Simferopol and the Head of the Simferopol District Administration. According to the responses, no non-governmental organisation received such a contract in the period 2008–2010. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for receiving a social contract. Given that the 2011 budget did not provide funds for the provision of social contracts, the district administration is not authorised to implement them.
A survey of 30 individuals who have served custodial sentences showed that the majority of those questioned (73.3%) were aware of the existence of the Law of Ukraine “On the Social Adaptation of Persons Who Have Served Sentences of Restriction of Liberty or Imprisonment for a Specific Term”. Half of those questioned also indicated that they knew which organisations to contact for social assistance. At the same time, when asked whether they had actually approached these organisations, more than 60% stated that they had not. Judging by the responses, in the majority of cases, released persons seek assistance not from state bodies, but from religious and non-governmental organisations.
The 10 interviews conducted with officials—workers/employees of state institutions in the city of Simferopol who are tasked with fulfilling the Law of Ukraine “On the Social Adaptation of Persons Who Have Served Sentences of Restriction of Liberty or Imprisonment for a Specific Term”—showed that the staff of these institutions, for the most part, believe that the Law works poorly or not at all (6 out of 10 respondents). The respondents see the primary reasons for this state of affairs as inadequate funding for the implementation of the Law, as well as a lack of coordination between state and non-governmental organisations.
During the focus group, which involved 17 experts—representatives of state institutions and non-governmental organisations—the main problems and obstacles to the operation of the Law on Social Adaptation were discussed. Among these problems were: the imperfection of the mechanism for implementing the Law, the personal attitude of those seeking social assistance, insufficient professional levels and a shortage of staff working with former convicts, the lack of funding for the implementation of the Law’s provisions, and others.
The expert report was compiled by expert E. V. Lunyova.
Specialists who participated in the public monitoring:
Filipyeva Elena Anatolyevna — project manager, head of the NGO “Aibolit”;
Lunyova Elena Valentinovna — expert, lawyer;
Rogozhkina Veronika Alexandrovna — psychologist;
Verigina Maria Nikolaevna — project manager.
2 Materials for the “Public Monitoring” training participants, prepared by the Creative Centre TCK in 2010, were used in the preparation of this section.
The publication of this brochure was made possible through the support of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) and the Creative Centre TCK. The content of this brochure is the sole responsibility of the non-governmental organisation “Aibolit” and does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) or the Creative Centre TCK.