Evaluation of the effectiveness of the penal service by its personnel

The work of any employee is to be effective. Whatever they do—whether in business or working in a state institution—they must perform their tasks correctly, that is, effectiveness is expected of them. From this, accordingly, depends the effective activity of the entire system as a whole. This fully applies to the State Penal Service (hereinafter – SPS), which is an integral part of the state.
The problems of the effectiveness of the execution of criminal penalties and the organisation of the activities of the penal system have been the subject of a sufficient number of publications by such scholars as G. Z. Anashkin, M. O. Beliaiev, L. V. Bahrii-Shakhmatov, S. M. Dementiev, A. Kh. Stepaniuk, and others; however, a unified approach to this problem has not been developed.
In accordance with the Regulations on the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Punishments (hereinafter – the Department), its main tasks are:
- implementation of a unified state policy in the field of the execution of criminal penalties;
- development of recommendations regarding the organisation of the detention of persons taken into custody, ensuring the execution of court sentences, and the application of legal means of correction and re-education of convicted persons;
- exercising control over the execution of court sentences for certain types of additional penalties;
- ensuring compulsory treatment of convicted persons suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction;
- ensuring compliance with legislative requirements in bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments, prevention of crimes and disciplinary offences by and against persons sentenced to imprisonment, their termination, detection, and investigation of crimes committed in bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments, conducting inquiries in cases of such crimes, and carrying out operational-investigative activities;
- management of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments, organisation of industrial and economic activities by providing employment to convicted persons, ensuring their vocational training and general education;
- legal and social protection of rank-and-file and commanding staff, penal system employees, and members of their families;
- improvement of human resources work and professional training. Therefore, the basis for the effective functioning of the penal system's bodies and institutions is ensuring the effective execution of the tasks defined in the Regulations.
Performance evaluation is the very tool that allows one to determine the extent to which management aligns with the level of achievement of set goals, in particular, ensuring compliance with legislative requirements in bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments, prevention of crimes, disciplinary offences by persons sentenced to imprisonment, and so on. However, for this, a management system must be created that will allow for the monitoring of management decisions being made. Such a system can be a system of key performance indicators.
By the definition of the Department, in order to establish the degree of goal achievement and the fulfilment of the tasks of law enforcement activity entrusted to the SPS of Ukraine, criteria for internal evaluation of the effectiveness of its activities have been developed, which allow for assessing work in each area of the activities of the bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments and pre-trial detention centres.
The criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of activities are defined, as stated in the same White Paper, as a system of units substantiated and tested by the practical activities of the SPS of Ukraine that characterise its work from the perspective of fulfilling the goals and tasks set before it. The indicators of the effectiveness of activities are defined as a system of generalising quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the actual activity of the SPS of Ukraine regarding the performance of its functions.
In particular, the list of criteria includes a mass of data regarding the analysis of:
- the dynamics of persons held in institutions for the execution of punishments and pre-trial detention centres, and overcrowding in such institutions;
- the situation regarding the prevention of crimes and offences by convicted persons and persons taken into custody;
- the state of social and educational work with convicted persons;
- the state of vocational and general education of convicted persons;
- the organisation of industrial and economic activities and the engagement of convicted persons in labour;
- the state of nutrition, clothing, communal and household provision, and health care;
- personnel work.
For the purpose of conducting an external evaluation of the activities of the SPS of Ukraine (also as claimed by the Department), work has been organised to analyse materials from mass media, human rights organisations, and other representatives of non-governmental and state institutions, which is based on the ratio of the results of the SPS’s activities expected by society and the state to its actual activities.
Based on the results of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SPS of Ukraine and the analysis of real and potential threats to its sustainable activity, the main factors negatively affecting the work of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments and pre-trial detention centres were identified, in particular:
- inadequate financing of expenditures for ensuring the activities of the SPS of Ukraine and low social and legal protection of its personnel, which creates conditions for the spread of corruption and bribery; a decrease in the level of provision with special equipment and engineering-technical security means; a deterioration of the health care system and social protection of convicted persons, and as a consequence, a dangerous deterioration in the health status of the population in the state;
- insufficient professional level of personnel and the lack of scientific support for the process of reforming the SPS of Ukraine due to the absence of a higher departmental educational institution;
- the unsatisfactory state of the main production assets of the industry, which creates conditions for the uncompetitiveness of produced goods and an unsatisfactory financial and economic situation.
Taking into account such conclusions of the governing body of the SPS of Ukraine, and in order to establish the real influence of the criteria for evaluation developed under modern conditions on improving the effectiveness of the SPS, the sector for studying problems of penal legislation of the Institute for the Study of Crime Problems of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine conducted a survey of 300 employees of the mentioned service in the Kharkiv region. At the same time, the main goal of the survey was to determine the attitude of SPS personnel to the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of institutions for the execution of punishments that are developed and currently used by the Department.
Of the total number of personnel involved in the survey, 19.6% were employees of social and educational units; 3%—psychological; 9.6%—operational; 11.6%—regime; 9.6%—industrial; 4.7%—human resources; 5.3%—medical; 6.6%—communal services; 30%—employees of the penal inspection.
By age, the respondents were distributed as follows: 18%—from 18 to 25 years; 40%—from 25 to 35; 37%—from 35 to 40; 5%—from 45 to 55. At the same time, their length of service (work) in the SPS was: up to 1 year—9.6%; from 1 to 3 years—18.6%; from 3 to 7 years—19.3%; from 7 to 10 years—24%; from 10 to 15 years—19.8%; from 15 to 20 years—8.7%. Thus, the survey covered quite experienced employees who possess sufficient life experience.
The study showed that the overwhelming majority of respondents have a positive attitude towards conducting regular evaluations of the effectiveness of their work. In particular, 70% of those surveyed recognise its expediency (30% of respondents hold the opposite opinion). At the same time, 80% of those questioned indicated that the evaluation of the activities of the units in which they work is conducted regularly (20% gave a negative answer). Regarding the question of how the presence of regular evaluation of the effectiveness of unit activities influences the state of work, 71% of those surveyed noted that it does so positively; 26% believe it is negative; 1%—ineffectively; 2%—could not answer.
Along with this, 12.3% of employees admit that the conducted evaluation has no consequences; 43.3% point to the deprivation of their bonus; 82.6%—to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions; 82.6%—to the conducting of additional classes; 5%—did not answer the question; and only 31.3% noted the provision of assistance in further work.
Quite surprising in such circumstances was the fact that 40% of respondents could not indicate exactly which criteria their activities are currently evaluated by. Thus, given such a state of affairs, it is possible to conclude that a significant number of SPS personnel are unaware of the real purpose and procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of SPS units.
Among those who did try to answer the question, the most common responses regarding the existing criteria were the following: crime prevention, their detection; service discipline; production indicators (quality, quantity); presence of staff shortages; organisation, ability to follow orders; response speed; number of cases of applying parole, transfer to a colony (sector) of a different security level (type), replacement of the unserved part of the sentence with a milder punishment; number of materials prepared for consideration at the institution’s commission on issues of applying parole, transfer to a colony (sector) of a different security level (type), replacement of the unserved part of the sentence with a milder punishment; number of cases of seizure of prohibited items; state of special, firearms, and physical training of personnel; performance of functional duties; volume of medical assistance provided to convicted persons; quality of nutrition for convicted persons; state of discipline among convicted persons.
The responses of the respondents regarding individual areas of activity of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments differ somewhat from the official opinion of the Department. Thus, by the definition of the personnel, the financial and economic state of SPS units should be determined by the following criteria: a) absence (presence) of salary arrears—94.6%; b) state of settlement with convicted persons and the correspondence of the wages of convicted persons to the average wage level of citizens at liberty—6% each respectively; c) non-profitability (profitability) of the enterprise’s work and the profitability of the turnover of funds invested in industrial activity—5% each respectively; d) balance coverage coefficient (solvency) of payments for sold products in monetary form—3%; e) did not answer—2.3%. Such results could be considered positive if they did not somewhat distort the purpose of the creation and activity of enterprises of institutions for the execution of punishments, which, according to current legislation, are state-owned enterprises that carry out non-profit economic activities without the goal of making a profit, for the purpose of ensuring vocational training of convicted persons and engaging them in labour.
None of the persons who took part in the survey consider it expedient to introduce as criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the activity of SPS units the balance of products in warehouses; total accounts receivable; the amount of money transferred by consumers for sold products to the current accounts of institutions for the execution of punishments as a percentage of the volume of sales; the ratio of the volume of sales to the average monthly volume of production in current prices.
Regarding the employment of convicted persons, the vast majority of employees (95.6%) indicated that the effectiveness of activity in this area should be determined by the compliance of workplace equipment with the requirements of international standards and norms of current legislation; 94%—the number of created workplaces for convicted persons.
Despite the fact that one of the main goals of the process of providing convicted persons with work is to create conditions for their subsequent adaptation in the conditions of a free society, only 8% believe that the effectiveness of activity in the area of employment of such persons should be assessed based on the compliance of production profiles with the general needs of the labour market at liberty; 3%—taking into account the number of convicted persons covered by professional-production training; 8.6%—based on the number of convicted persons who are provided with work; 5.6% believe the determining indicator is the level of the average wage of convicted persons per man-day calculated for all convicted persons who should work; 1.6%—actual fulfilment of the task on income from the employment of convicted persons as a percentage of the planned one; 6.3%—the level of industrial accidents calculated per 1000 working convicted persons.
In the opinion of the personnel, only one indicator existing at present has no significance for determining the effectiveness of the activity of institutions for the execution of punishments in the area of providing convicted persons with work—this is the number of convicted persons who are involved in piecework and do not meet the production norm, as a percentage of the total number of working persons.
Instead, the overwhelming majority of SPS employees (86.6%) agree that the compliance of living conditions of convicted persons with international standards and national legislation is one of the determining criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the unit’s activity. At the same time, 44% of respondents consider it expedient to take into account the ratio of the number of convicted persons accommodated in a block manner to the total number of convicted persons in the institution, and the same percentage—the compliance of existing living spaces with established norms.
However, only 13% recognise as a criterion the compliance of the equipment of sleeping and auxiliary rooms, heating, lighting, water supply, access to fresh air, ventilation, and sewage with international norms and standards; 10.3%—the technical state of buildings in the residential zone, the organisation of work regarding their planned preventive maintenance; 12.6%—the state of provision of convicted persons with clothing and bedding; 2.6%—the level of organisation of nutrition for convicted persons, the completeness of meeting daily food provision norms; 7%—compliance of established nutrition norms with those generally accepted at liberty; 9.6%—the organisation of trade services for convicted persons; 4%—availability of necessary laundry equipment; 3%—practice of access to laundry equipment; 9%—the state of equipment in rooms for long-term and short-term visits (at the same time, not a single employee recognised the number of persons who did not have the opportunity to use a visit due to the lack of free places in the rooms as a criterion); 5%—number of complaints from convicted persons and their relatives regarding the state of communal and household services.
It is these latest results of the survey that raise certain doubts about whether the personnel are truly aware of the requirements presented for living premises, living conditions, and communal-household provision of convicted persons according to the above-mentioned normative-legal documents.

As already noted, one of the main tasks of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments is ensuring the safety of society through the proper organisation of security, supervision, and safety of convicted persons. In connection with this, the results of the survey of personnel in terms of possible criteria for evaluating activity in this area turned out to be quite interesting, as they confirmed the orientation of employees of institutions for the execution of punishments towards performing functions not characteristic of them (in particular, operational-investigative activity), a punitive orientation of activity instead of a preventive orientation, and not entirely correct understanding of the tasks of the mentioned units, including a certain desire to avoid responsibility for their own actions. The proposed criteria according to the received responses were distributed as follows:
- total number of crimes per 1000 average headcount of persons held in the institution (crime rate)—18.6%;
- number of murders—0%;
- number of intentional grievous bodily injuries—0%;
- number of criminal cases initiated under Art. 391 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine—4%;
- number of escapes from custody and evasions from serving a sentence in the form of imprisonment or restraint of liberty—8.3%;
- number of crimes detected by internal affairs bodies based on information from institutions for the execution of punishments per one employee of an operational unit—29.3%;
- number of prevented crimes—3%;
- number of cases of violation of legality in terms of holding convicted persons, and the drawing up and maintenance of accounting documents—0%;
- number of cases of untimely release of convicted persons—2.3%;
- number of cases of untimely consideration of materials on convicted persons at meetings of the institution’s commission—11.6%;
- number of prevented cases of bringing in prohibited items—8%;
- number of cases of violation of localisation—7.3%;
- number of cases of violation of intra-shop regime—3%;
- number of measures taken to exclude uncontrolled exit of convicted persons from a local sector or shop—3%;
- number of cases of violation of the rules of accounting, storage, and use of weapons—23.3%;
- compliance of the institution’s equipment with established norms—5%;
- number of injuries caused to convicted persons that occurred as a result of unlawful actions—0%;
- number of complaints from convicted persons and their relatives about the actions of employees—0%;
- number of complaints from convicted persons and their relatives about the actions of employees that were confirmed—0%.
The state of medical provision is proposed to be evaluated based on the total number of deaths in the institution (75.3%); the number of medical personnel with the necessary qualifications and work experience (85.6%); the provision of medical-preventive institutions with modern equipment, instruments, inventory, and medicines (96.6%); the number of convicted persons who sought medical assistance (6.6%); the number of convicted persons who were provided with medical assistance (3%). At the same time, in the opinion of the personnel, the number of complaints regarding medical service from convicted persons and their relatives, including those that were confirmed, has no significance.
In social-educational work, the main indicators, in the opinion of the respondents, are the compliance of the material-technical base and working conditions of the social-psychological service with established international standards and current legislation (78.3%); provision of convicted persons with necessary documents (36.6%); number of cases of committing repeat crimes after release from serving a sentence (21.6%); number of violations of regime requirements in colonies (19.6%); number of cases of placing convicted persons in disciplinary isolators and closed-type premises (16.6%); number of measures conducted jointly with public organisations (11.6%); number of educational events (6%); number of convicted persons who found employment after release (5.6%); number of prevented suicides (4%); number of suicides in the institution (3%).
The issue of submitted and substantiated complaints, again, in the opinion of the personnel, is not determining.
Quite determining, in our opinion, is that only 0.33% of respondents consider the number of religious events an indicator of effectiveness, despite the fact that the Department highly values such cooperation and its influence on convicted persons.
On the question of which criteria should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of activity in the area of personnel provision of the SPS, the answers were distributed as follows: number of unfilled rank-and-file and commanding staff positions in the penal system as a percentage of their staffing numbers—64.5%; number of committed offences and extraordinary events among personnel calculated per 1000 persons of actual rank-and-file and commanding staff—3%; number of prohibited relationships allowed by the personnel of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments, per 1000 of its actual numbers—3%; number of criminal cases initiated against personnel of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments per 1000 of its actual numbers—3%; length of service of personnel—50.6%; availability of a personnel reserve—0.33%; availability of sports complexes and material-technical base for conducting training and exercises—3%; availability and proper equipment of a service training classroom—5%; regularity of conducting classes—0.33%; relevance of class topics to the urgent needs of employees—7.3%; number of mentors for young employees—0.33%; number of cases of violation of discipline among personnel—3%; number of violations of discipline and legality among personnel—8%; number of punished employees—8%; number of rewarded employees—4.6%; number of cases of permitting corrupt acts—3.6%.
None of the respondents identified the number of persons who, during the reporting period, improved their training level in various educational institutions; the number of measures conducted within the framework of educational work with personnel; the number of measures conducted for the purpose of preventing violations of legality and discipline as an evaluation criterion.
Social guarantees for the personnel of the State Penal Service of Ukraine are defined in the fifth chapter of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the State Penal Service of Ukraine’, in particular:
- the state ensures social protection of the personnel of the State Penal Service of Ukraine in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, this Law, and other laws of Ukraine;
- the conditions of monetary and material provision of rank-and-file and commanding staff and the remuneration of penal service employees are determined by legislation and must ensure proper material conditions for staffing the State Penal Service of Ukraine with highly qualified personnel, differentiate taking into account the nature and conditions of service or work, stimulate the achievement of high results in service and professional activity, and compensate the personnel for physical and intellectual efforts;
- pension provision for rank-and-file and commanding staff of the penal service is carried out in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On pension provision of military personnel, persons of commanding and rank-and-file staff of internal affairs bodies and some other persons’. Upon dismissal from service, rank-and-file and commanding staff of the penal service enjoy legal and social guarantees in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On the status of veterans of military service, veterans of internal affairs bodies and some other persons and their social protection’;
- rank-and-file and commanding staff of the penal service are granted a preferential calculation of years of service for pension assignment—one month of service for forty days; for persons serving in militarised formations and institutions for the execution of punishments intended for the detention of persons sentenced to life imprisonment—one month of service for one and a half months, and in institutions for the execution of punishments intended for the detention and treatment of infectious and mentally ill convicted persons—one month of service for two months according to the list of positions and the procedure approved by the central executive body for issues of execution of punishments;
- the provisions of Articles 22 and 23 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Militia’ apply to the rank-and-file and commanding staff of the penal service, as well as the procedure and conditions of service and monetary provision provided for employees of internal affairs bodies. The conditions of remuneration provided for employees of internal affairs bodies who do not have special ranks apply to penal service employees;
- pension provision and social protection of penal service employees are carried out in accordance with legislation on generally compulsory state pension insurance, civil service, and social protection;
- the personnel of the State Penal Service of Ukraine are guaranteed free medical provision, which is carried out in health care institutions of the State Penal Service of Ukraine.
In accordance with current legislation, rank-and-file and commanding staff have the right to the following benefits:
- a discount on payment for housing, communal services, electricity, and fuel in cities;
- free use of housing and purchase of fuel, electricity, and liquefied gas in rural areas;
- payment of travel in transport to the place of vacation and back;
- free use of all types of urban public passenger transport (except taxis), railway and water transport of suburban communication, and buses on suburban routes when performing service duties;
- preferential sanatorium-resort treatment and purchase of vouchers.
At the same time, the implementation of the mentioned benefits is suspended every year in accordance with the laws of Ukraine on the State Budget, which establish that benefits, compensations, and guarantees to which rank-and-file and commanding staff of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments are entitled according to the laws of Ukraine, are provided in the event that the monetary incomes of these employees are less than the amount of the subsistence minimum established for able-bodied persons. At the same time, expenses for free or preferential material and household provision are carried out at the expense and within the limits of appropriations for the maintenance of these budgetary institutions. At the same time, expenditures for providing the mentioned benefits, compensations, and guarantees were not provided for in the state budget for the Department.
Thus, the benefits provided by legislation to rank-and-file and commanding staff of the penal service in 2004–2008 were not provided by the state.
SPS personnel today are essentially deprived of both normal working conditions that comply with labour legislation; they do not have decent wages or any effective social-legal guarantees from the state.
Perhaps for these very reasons, 100% of respondents determined that the effectiveness of the activity of institutions for the execution of punishments in terms of social protection of personnel should be evaluated based on the provision of employees with housing; 58.6%—mention the number of cases of violation of labour legislation regarding personnel; 48%—compliance of working conditions and regime with the requirements of international standards and current national legislation; 23%—availability of a club (assembly hall) and canteen; 23%—availability of a medical and sanatorium-resort service system for personnel; 2.3%—number of utility rooms in administrative buildings.
Thus, the conducted survey showed that the real state of affairs with the procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of SPS activity requires further improvement. Existing evaluation criteria are not scientifically substantiated and have not been communicated to the personnel of the mentioned service, which essentially makes their proper practical application impossible; they are not fully based on existing practice and, in the overwhelming majority, actually have no great significance for the further improvement of the activity of institutions for the execution of punishments.
Summing up, we once again note that the procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of SPS activity, especially in modern conditions of reform, represents a quite complex problem, the solution of which is not a one-day task. At the same time, it does not meet with objection that the task of improving the activity of bodies and institutions for the execution of punishments in particular, and the SPS in general, requires the development of such indicators that would allow for providing an objective evaluation and optimally determining the directions for further work. As it seems, it is precisely with the development of criteria for evaluating effectiveness that any reform should begin, which has not yet been done in a comprehensive manner.

I. S. Yakovets, PhD in Law, Senior Researcher at the Sector for Studying Problems of Penal Legislation,
Institute for the Study of Crime Problems,
Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv