Key facts
The execution of sentences and measures is implemented as a joint task in Switzerland. The cantons are responsible for the planning, construction and operation of correctional facilities, while the federal government helps to finance them with construction contributions amounting to 35% of the eligible construction costs. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) is responsible for awarding these subsidies.
The Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) conducted an audit to determine whether the FOJ awards construction contributions in compliance with the law and in an economical manner, ensuring that the subsidised institutions meet the requirements regarding the execution of sentences and measures. It concluded that the FOJ interprets the applicable specifications too broadly and that there is a lack of evidence concerning subsidy impact.
7404
detention places
90
detention facilities
94,5
detention facilities
37
million francs in construction contributions p.a
Main conclusions
-
Specifications are complied with
The specifications and requirements for awarding subsidies are known to all parties involved and are complied with.
-
Subsidised cell size exceeds the European minimum requirement
The relevant documents do not contain the justification for Switzerland’s minimum area of 12m2 for single cells in new builds and the associated objectives.
-
No specific impact measurement
There is a lack of measurable objectives and reporting. Furthermore, there is no monitoring to check for misuse of subsidies. Repayments in the event of misuse are based on voluntary disclosure by the institutions and are rather rare.
-
Compensation via lump sums is possible only to a limited extent
Changes in execution methods and technical developments are not covered by outdated lump sums.
-
Overly broad interpretation of the specifications
Current subsidy practice does not always fulfil the objective of the subsidy. For example, the FOJ also supports repairs or energy measures that do not directly improve conditions for sentence execution.
-
Charging for own work far exceeds the actual costs
Inmates also provide construction and maintenance services against payment. However, costs up to five times higher than the remuneration paid to inmates are charged. The assessment guidelines are inconsistent with the Subsidies Act in this case.