Deficiencies in governance and monitoring of immigration detention

Individuals who do not have the right to stay in Sweden may be taken into custody and placed in detention. It is an intrusive measure that the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Migration Agency can use when other alternatives are deemed to be ineffective.

The Swedish National Audit Office’s audit shows that neither the Swedish Police Authority nor the Swedish Migration Agency has established adequate conditions for effective and legally certain detention decisions. Although the number of immigration detention places is limited, the agencies do not work strategically on prioritising in which cases detention is to be used. As a result, people are sometimes released from detention to make room for more urgent cases.

In addition, the government agencies do not systematically follow up on their detention decisions, and their effect, making it even more difficult to prioritise optimal use of the limited and costly detention places. There is thus a risk of unjustifiably high costs for the central government and unnecessary personal suffering.

“Neither the Swedish Police Authority nor the Swedish Migration Agency work in a way to ensure that detention is used effectively to serve its purpose,” says Auditor General Christina Gellerbrant Hagberg.

Cooperation between the agencies is also deficient. For example, the Swedish Police Authority does not effectively assist the Swedish Migration Agency when it needs to transport an individual to a detention facility. This may result in the individual absconding and living on the margins of society.

Besides, the government agencies have had an informal agreement whereby the Swedish Police Authority has priority to detention places, even if the Swedish Migration Agency might have more justified cases – which is inefficient.

Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office considers that the Swedish Migration Agency does not ensure legally certain and cost-effective operation of the detention centres. The operations lack clear targets and the Swedish Migration Agency has not systematically monitored either quality or costs.

For example, although costs have increased steadily in recent years, the Swedish Migration Agency has not analysed why this is the case. Nor can it account for which detention centre has operated more or less efficiently.

In addition, the design and standard of the different detention centres vary significantly. Security solutions and living environment therefore differ considerably, despite requirements regarding operations and detainees’ rights being the same.

Furthermore, the Swedish Migration Agency has had difficulty recruiting and retaining employees with the right skills. Detention centre staff are not offered continuing professional development at the pace required by the operations which, taken together, has led to lagging training needs.

“It increases the risk of incidents and deficiencies in the treatment of the detainees, who often live under tremendous psychological strain,” says Maria Westerlind, project leader for the audit.