Kriminalomsorgens høgskole og utdanningssenter (KRUS)
Not a member yet
297 research outputs found
Sort by
5 delrapporter om elektronisk kontroll
No full text1. Organisasjon
Rapporten undersøkte forskjellen mellom fylkene som innførte EK, med hverandre og i forhold til fylker som ikke var med på prøveprosjektet. Rapporten så på hvilke lovbrudd som domfelte gjennomførte straff for og hvordan disse fordelte seg i forhold til kjønn og alder. Rapporten så også på forskjeller i måten prosjektet var organisert på i prøvefylkene, forhold mellom prøveprosjektet og friomsorgen for øvrig, samarbeid med fengsler og samhandlingen med regionene.2. Ressurser
Rapporten så på forskjeller lovbrudd, søknader og behandling av søknader i de seks prøvefylkene. I rapporten ble det også forsøkt laget et estimat for kostnader i gjennomføring av straffegjennomføring med elektronisk kontroll i de ulike fylkene. Estimatet viste store forskjeller i kostnad per gjennomført døgn med EK avhengig av antall domfelte. Grensekostnaden er imidlertid lav som gjør det hensiktsmessig å øke antall deltagere i prosjektet.3. Kompetanse
Rapporten om kompetanse undersøkte hvordan tilsatte fikk brukt sin utdannelse og tidligere erfaring i sitt arbeid i EK. Undersøkelsen diskuterer om hva som er behov for kompetanse i EK og ser på hvilke arbeids-oppgaver som EK-tilsatte gjør i arbeidsdagen. Arbeidshverdagen i EK er preget av mye planlegging og logistikk og har et praktisk fokus. Tilsatte med fengselsfaglig utdanning er mer fornøyd med hvordan de får brukt sin kompetanse i EK.4. Teknologi
Rapporten om teknologi diskuterer teknologier og muligheter i straffegjennomføring med elektronisk kontroll. Rapporten ser også på i hvilken grad teknologien er tatt i bruk og hvordan teknologiene brukes i samhandling mellom EK-konsulent og domfelte. Bruk av teknologi i EK handler om kontroll, men er også med å strukturere hverdagen til domfelte gjennom aktivitetsskjema. Rapporten peker på behov for å se nærmere på hvordan teknologi kan brukes for å oppnå målsetningene i prøveprosjektet.5. Anbefalinger
Denne siste rapporten er en sammenfatning av forutgående rapporter og en oppsummering av status for prosjektperioden. For denne oppsummeringen er det konstruert en ny oversikt over over domfelte med hel- og delgjennomføring i prøveperioden, domfelte som har gjennomført ubetinget fengselsstraff i perioden og domfelte som har gjennomført straff i samfunn. For noen sammenligninger er det brukt den faktiske prøveperioden, fra pilotenes oppstartdato og videre over to år. For andre sammenligninger har det vært mest hensiktsmessig å bruke hele kalenderår, i hovedsak hele 2009 og 2010 for å sammenligne med andre straffereaksjoner og gjennomføringsformer. Rapporten gir også anbefalinger i forhold til utvidelse av prosjektet og for videre utvikling av tilbudet om straffegjennomføring med elektronisk kontroll. Til sist i denne rapporten presenteres også tilbakefallsdata for 2008 og første halvdel 2009
Del 1: manual
Get PDFDenne håndboken er en del av prosjektet Kvalitet i varetektsarbeidet, som er gjennomført i
samarbeid mellom Oslo fengsel, Kriminalomsorgens utdanningssenter og kriminalomsorgen
Region øst. Initiativet kom fra Oslo fengsel, og utgangspunktet var blant annet den kritikk
som Europarådets torturovervåkningskomité hadde reist mot norsk varetektspraksis. Det var
behov for en mer systematisk tilnærming til varetektsområdet.
Håndboken er utviklet til bruk i undervisningen på KRUS, den setter standard for praktisk
tilrettelegging av varetektsarbeidet i fengslene og den er et verktøy for ledere som ønsker å
implementere prinsippene. Materialet i boken gir i tillegg et godt
helhetsbilde av feltet gjennom en rekke artikler, der også internasjonale forhold belyses. Den
kan brukes som kilde for alle som søker informasjon om norsk varetektspraksis
Nordisk statistikk for kriminalomsorgen i Danmark, Finland, Island, Norge og Sverige 2002-2006
Get PDFStørst mulig sammenlignbarhet er et ideal som har vært etterstrebet i arbeidet med denne og tidligere publikasjoner, men idealet kan aldri oppnås 100 % fordi landene har litt ulik lovgivning og praksis. Samtidig er de nordiske landene såpass like at det er forsvarlig å foreta sammenligninger på en del områder. Forskjeller i resultater mellom landene må likevel tolkes med forsiktighet, og i den forbindelse er det viktig å lese definisjonene og notene til tabellene
Foredrag og innlegg på forvaringskonferanse, KRUS 12.6.2007
Get PDFThis publication is a result of a conference about preventive detention that took
place at The Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy June 12, 2007. The
purpose of the conference was to gather the different services that are involved in
the criminal proceedings of preventive detention – the police, the prosecuting
authority, the courts, the experts on forensic psychiatry, the lawyers, the
correctional services and those who are convicted to preventive detention – in
order to create a dialogue. Research over the years the law of preventive detention
has existed, has revealed a need for such a dialogue. Nearly 150 persons from
different services participated at the conference, which shows that there is a great
interest in the subject.
The title “Preventive detention – experiences and challenges” reflects that the
papers presented at the conference and which are published in this report, focus on
the past as well as the future. The report presents the experiences and challenges
of preventive detention from different stands: the political, the forensic psychiatry,
the courts, the prisons, the probation service, the prosecuting authority, the
lawyers and the convicted.
The new law on preventive detention took effect on January 1, 2002. The purpose
of the law is to protect the public from offenders that are considered to be
dangerous. In principle, there is no upper time limit to a preventive detention
sentence. However, when the court convicts a person to preventive detention it
has to set a time frame, which cannot exceed 21 years. The court can prolong the
sentence, if it considers the convicted person to be still too dangerous to release
Rapporten gir et samlet statistisk bilde av vold og trusler mot tilsatte i friomsorgen for årene 2004, 2005 og 2006
No full textViolence and threats against staff at the probation service has never been the main focus in the
Correctional Service in Norway. Nevertheless, many employees report that they have had
experiences that have been unpleasant or hard to handle. In several offices, this has lead to
different kinds of actions; physical and statical measures like alarm systems and closed doors,
organisational measures like meeting points and communication lines, and dynamic measures
like communication and cooperation solving the tasks.
The probation offices solve these tasks in different ways. One of our hypotheses in the study
was to identify a “traditional” versus “modern” organisation culture. We did not succeed in
that. The relatively small number of reported incidences did not give us any clear direction or
strategy that seemed better in coping with violence and threats against staff.
Included in this study are the findings from a broad survey about Safety and Security in the
Probation Service (SIFO) as a part of a larger program for Safety and Security in the
Corretional Service (SIK). This survey also documents the differences in culture, methods and
practical solutions in the daily work. Some offices more often include prison, the social
municipality and other service providers in their work. This corresponds to the type of
offenders that uses the office, their crime, type of sentence and so on.
For the period from 2003 to 2007 the total number of reported incidences was 39. In seven
incidences these were psychical or social violence. In the SIFO survey three quarters
responded that their colleges had been threatened. Only one quarter had been threatened
themselves.
The most difficult violence situations are those that not make a scare. This is incidences that
are not seen or recognised by co-workers and leaders. The symbolic violence (verbal ore nonverbal
symbolic violence) is the dominating of the violence types. In a parallel study
(Hammerlin & Rokkan 2008 b) we see that the symbolic, psychical and social violence also
are those that are causing most anxiety for the employee involved. The studies also show
how a small group of offenders was responsible for a large number of incidences. They also
show that some officers were exposed for a larger numbers of situations than others.
This combination of factors is calling for the awareness of violence and threats towards staff
in the probation services, especially because of the relatively low number of reported cases. It
is easy to privatise the situations, especially those that do not make scares. The important
challenge in this is to create cultures that include every employee and makes the individual
incidents a collective responsibility
En intervjuundersøkelse
No full textThis study takes an explorative and qualitative approach. In a Norwegian context
there exists little systemised knowledge regarding violence and threats among
inmates. An appropriate approach was
therefore to interview inmates and let them provide an insight into their
experiences and perceptions of why and how threats occur. Through the report the
informants have painted a complex picture of what the threats entail, and which
underlying causes they feel are most important.
The events are largely linked to the prison conditions the informants live under,
where different burdens of prison life are highlighted as important explanations.
These include living in close quarters with other inmates, numerous lockups and
pent-up frustrations, or situations where the informants feel overlooked or treated
in a manner they feel is demeaning. These are described as frustrating aspects of
an everyday prison life that is otherwise characterised by routines, rules and very
little opportunity to influence one’s surroundings, something that leads to
increased levels of conflict between the inmates as well as an increased risk of
threats and violence. Power structures within the prison population are also
emphasised as important parts of the cause for threats and violence. The
informants describe a culture between inmates where it is important to make your
mark and stand out, and they provide examples of situations where they feel it is
of particular importance to position oneself in order to ensure one’s own position
or to avoid being subjected to violence or demeaning treatment.
Some stigmatised groups are singled out as being particularly at risk for threats
and violence: snitches, sexual offenders or inmates that in different ways
differentiate themselves from the others. The reason why these groups are more at
risk than others seem to be connected to several factors, but as a whole it can be
seen as a result of an inmate culture where certain groups being stigmatised
constitute a lower threshold for subjecting them to bullying, threats and violence.
Other causes for conflict, threats and violence are less obvious, but still of great
importance for the informants they apply to. These include language problems,
ethnicity or the informants’ perception of what constitutes good behaviour and
mutual respect. Drugs, gang-related problems and gambling were also relevant
causes, but for different reasons they made up a smaller part of the material than
anticipated
Rapporten gir et samlet statistisk bilde av volden mot tilsatte for årene 2004, 2005 og 2006
Get PDFThis study focuses on violence and threats towards staff in the Norwegian correctional service
in 2006, compared with the previous years, 2005 and 2004 (Hammerlin & Strand 2004 and
Hammerlin & Strand 2005). This three-year-time window allows us to uncover differences,
similarities, variations and patterns that is difficult to identify in a more limited design. Our
planned five years follow up report in 2009 will give further data to build on.
In this report, it is the employees who are the victims of violence and threats. The offender
serves time in prison or at the probation service. Our data collection combines statistics and
descriptions from our self-reporting form with findings from the internal reporting systems in
some selected prisons. The findings from this comparison are published in another report on
hidden statistics about violence and threats towards staff in the correctional service
(Hammerlin & Rokkan, in press).
The self reporting form asks for both incidents and actions. Each incident often consists of
several different actions; verbal and non-verbal actions, physical or material actions, social or
psychical actions. The average number of actions in each incident for 2006 was 1,80, which
represents a small decrease from 2005. An interesting focus is the various combinations of
different actions that occur at the same time or takes place in a serial form.
The report consists of three parts; first a methodological and historical part describing the
ongoing work with violence and threats towards staff in the prison and probation service.
Secondly, the report presents the findings of the self-reporting forms in comparison with those
from 2004 and 2005, before analysing and discussing the implications.
When comparing the three years, we find the patterns of the different types of action to be
similar, but the amount of psychical and social violence is growing. There is also an increase
in the amount of material violence. On the other hand, we find that the focus on social and
psychical violence is often reduced to an individual matter among staff and management