5. Alternatives to detention Release to case worker support Based on the experience in reception centres for asylum seekers, in the late ’90s Sweden introduced caseworkers with the task of informing detainees of their rights and ensuring these were upheld and their well-being catered for. Based on an individual assessment, the case worker recommends placement options to the authorities and advises them on the need to detain and when to apply alternatives. The approach consists in involving the individual throughout the process and preparing him/her for all possible immigration outcomes. If refused asylum or the right to stay, the person is supported to make his/ her own departure arrangements with dignity. In late 2008, the Belgian authorities introduced an innovative form of alternative, whereby families with children were no longer placed in detention facilities, but in open housing and provided with a coach. The role of the coach is to prepare the family for the return. This pilot project draws from the successful experience in Australia, where immigrants were released in community care (see Textbox 2). Absconding rates have remained relatively low at about 20%.264 The difference with other forms of alternatives consists in the integrated approach which includes individualised counselling. Differently, from the Swedish and Australian experiences, the Belgian pilot focuses primarily on promoting return rather than exploring all possible immigration outcomes, although recently the role of the coacher has been expanded.265 Electronic monitoring Electronic monitoring or tagging is primarily applied in the context of criminal law. Its use as a surrogate for immigration detention is limited. Electronic monitoring is probably the most intrusive among the various forms of alternatives to detention, as it substantially interferes with a person’s right to privacy, restricts freedom of movement and can deprive people of dignity. It can also lead to discrimination, as persons wearing an electronic device can be associated with criminals.266 Electronic monitoring as an alternative to immigration detention has been primarily used in North America. In the US, ankle bracelets fitted with a global positioning device were frequently used in the past. For the first 30 days after release 264 See a short version of the report at http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/ bestanden/2009-12-02-AN-ALTERNATIVE-TO-DETENTION-OF-FAMILIESWITH-CHILDREN.pdf (in English) and the full report at: http://www. vluchtelingenwerk.be/bestanden/publicaties/2009-12-02-Nota-evaluatieterugkeerwoningen.pdf (in Dutch). 265 See Royal Decree 22 Avril 2010 - Arrêté royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 14 mai 2009 fixant le régime et les règles de fonctionnement applicables aux lieux d’hébergement au sens de l’Article 74/8, § 2, de la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers. 266 See the statement by an asylum seekers interviewed by UNHCR in the US, US initiative offers asylum-seekers an alternative to detention, 25 November 2009 available at http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/se arch?page=search&docid=4b0d643a6&query=baltimore . immigrants had to wear the bracelets and were subject to intensive supervision, including frequent face-to-face meetings, telephone calls, unannounced home visits and curfews. A recent revision of the system has reduced the use of electronic monitoring.267 In the European Union, there is limited use of electronic monitoring for immigration purposes. Only three EU Member States provide for the use of electronic devices as an alternative for pre-removal detention, Denmark, Portugal and the UK. In Denmark, the authorities are obliged to resort to electronic tagging in cases of repeated disrespect of the duty to reside at a particular place.268 Given the interference with the right to privacy, the use of electronic monitoring must be accompanied by the necessary safeguards. In Denmark, the tagging can only last for one month and the foreigner can request a judicial review of this measure. Table 1 provides an overview of the type of alternatives existing in European Member States. In the countries that are not listed in Table 1, the FRA did not find any evidence in legislation or policy about the possibility to make use of alternatives; this, however, does not exclude alternatives may be applied on a pilot basis or in exceptional circumstances. Statistics on the use of alternatives could only be collected from a limited number of countries. In France, according to a survey carried out in May 2007, alternatives to detention were used in 7.2% of the cases.269 In Austria, alternatives are used more frequently, particularly for families and children.270 In 2008, alternatives were used for approximately 25% of those potentially subject to 267 In the autumn of 2009, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a contract for a new program, called Intensive Supervision Appearance Program II or “ISAP II”, which has replaced previous programs on alternatives to detention. ISAP II maintains the case management and community referral components of the previous program but does not include as onerous reporting and supervision requirements in that it does not require the use of ankle bracelets until a participant has a final order of removal and removal is actually reasonably foreseeable. Also, contrary to the first ISAP program, in ISAP II supervision becomes more intensive in later phases once removal is ordered. For a brief overview on alternatives to detention in the US, see the webpage of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement at: http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/ alternativestodetention.htm (dated 23 October 2009). For a detailed description of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) II, see the tender documents ‘Statement of work, Part I’ and ‘Statement of work, Part II’ available online at the US Federal Business Opportunities Website : https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab= core&tabid=54bf2246732a754a20787d9e4d031acf . 268 See Danish Aliens Act at 34a.1. 269 The figure is 7.2% for May 2007, according to a survey of the French Ministry of Justice; see Ministry of Justice (2008), Le contentieux judiciaire des étrangers, Enquête statistique sur les décisions prononcées du 1er au 31 mai 2007 par les juges des libertés et de la détention et les cours d’appel statuant sur des demandes de prolongation du maintien en rétention ou en zone d’attente, January 2008, p. 33. 270 See Austria, Ministry of Interior (Fremdenwesen), Expert discussion with the Minster of the Interior Maria Fekter on 10 June 2009, p. 114, available in German online at: http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI/aus_dem_inneren/ files/Fremdenwesen.pdf. 51