• No results found

7.1 The population of EM

In subsection 3.3 the target group of EM has been described. In this section the diversity of the population on EM will be looked at in more detail. First, a number of statistics will be provided in this section. Second, the selection of participants will be discussed.

On 15 March 2014, of the 367 monitored persons, 93% were male and 7% were female. The percentage of women is only slightly higher than in prison where 5.7 percent of the population was female in 2014 (DJI 2015, p. 35). This shows that EM is not seen by the authorities as a specific instrument to keep women out of prison.

As can be seen in the chart below, the majority of participants is between 18 and 35 years old (62%), which is comparable to the prison population. Juveniles below the age of 18 represent a small proportion of the total population of monitored persons, namely 2%.

Figure 7.2 Age of participants (%), 15 March 2014 (N=367)

Source: Reclassering Nederland, 2015 (unpublished data)

71% of the people monitored on 15 March 2014 was born in the Netherlands. This is much more compared to the prison population of which not even half was born in the Netherlands (DJI 2015, p. 37). This confirms the idea that sentencing modalities that are implemented outside prison are still used in a selective way (Boone, 2012). People born in Morocco, the Netherlands Antilles and Suriname each represent 4% of the population. The other large minority group in the Netherlands, people from Turkey, represent 2% of the population. In the whole of 2013, in total, 51 other nationalities were represented in the population. From the other EU countries, participants from Germany and former Yugoslavia form the largest groups.

From outside of the EU, participants from Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan were the largest groups in 2013.






2,5 1,4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

12-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

77 Figure 7.3 Country of birth of participants (%), 15 March 2014 (N=367)

Source: Reclassering Nederland, 2015 (unpublished data)

With regard to the employment status of the population the following can be stated: 29% of the population is employed prior to being electronically monitored, 22% is looking for a job or works on an irregular basis and the other 39% is unemployed or is unfit for work due to illness or disability.

Figure 7.4 Last employment status (%), 15 March 2014 (N=367)

Source: Reclassering Nederland, 2015 (unpublished data)

In general, the respondents indicate that EM is possible for almost every type of offender (see also subsection 3.3). The probation service tries to come up with tailor-made solutions in every individual case. For example, in case of juveniles mostly the 1-piece GPS equipment is used, because juveniles tend to forget to charge and/or bring with them the GPS receiver of the 2-piece equipment. The same is the case for people with intellectual disabilities. Because in every case a feasibility study is conducted and a social enquiry report is written, potential challenges






4% 11%

Netherlands Morocco

Netherlands Antilles Suriname

Turkey Other EU Other Non-EU






Looking for work / intermittent work Unemployed / not available for work Unknown

78 and solutions are already identified before EM is applied. In case the advisor would like to deviate from the protocols, for example with regard to curfew times, he explains and substantiates his point of view in the report. Although no categories of offenders are formally excluded from qualifying for EM, one respondent indicates that the selection criteria for the penitentiary programmes are quite strict. Prisoners have to do well in prison, on different domains such as participating in work and sports, in order to qualify for a penitentiary programme. As a consequence, some prisoners with intellectual disabilities are unable to meet the criteria and therefore they are not eligible for a PP (PS 1 –PFA manager).

7.2 Selection of cases

In October 2013, the web portal Digital Desk Electronic Monitoring was launched. Through this website a probation officer, prosecutor or judge can request an EM partial advice. In 2014, a total of 2.061 requests have been made. As can be seen in Figure 7.5 the different providers of probation supervision together did 89% of the requests through the Digital Desk (i.e. Dutch Probation Service, Addiction Probation Service and the Salvation Army Probation Service).

The remaining 11% were done by the Public Prosecution Service and the Child Protection Board. In 2014, only one request was done by the judiciary. This seems to be partially caused by the fact that for investigating judges there is too little time to order a partial advice (see subsection 1.3.1) and sentencing judges, even if they are the first to think about EM, often leave the request to the prosecution or probation service.

Figure 7.5 Number of requests Digital Desk per organisation, 2014 (N=2.021)

Source: Reclassering Nederland, 2015 (unpublished data)

Most requests involve a penitentiary programme (52%), which is in accordance with the finding that the majority of supervisions started with EM concern penitentiary programmes (see section 3). Less often requests concern a suspension of pre-trial detention (21%), a conditional prison sentence (19%) or a conditional release from prison (5%).

The number of requests made through the Digital Desk must be interpreted with some caution. Because the Desk was launched in the autumn of 2013, not all the requests were made







Probation Service Judiciary

Addiction Probation Salvation Army Probation Child Protection Board Prosecution Service

79 right away through this Desk. In the first months of 2014, some requests might have been made through the old system, which causes a bias in the numbers presented here. Based on the registration of installations by the provider, the actual number of installations in 2014 was approximately 1355 (because of the transition of installation tasks from Tyco to TSS no reliable data are available on the last 3 months; for these months the average of the first 9 months was taken). This would mean that 66 percent of the requests for an EM advice in 2014 eventually led to an installation. However, for several reasons it is problematic to calculate an accurate

‘follow-up rate’ for requests at the Digital Desk. Some of the installations in 2014 are done based upon requests done in 2013, requests done in 2014 may have lead to an actual installation only in 2015, and some installations are not preceded by a request.

Figure 7.6 Number of requests Digital Desk per modality, 2014 (N=2.061)

Source: Reclassering Nederland, 2015 (unpublished data)