This study examines the implementation of the Youth Supervision Act (2020:616) in Sweden by examining the opportunities and challenges that probation officers face. The Study is limited to four probation offices in Sweden, wich are Halmstad, Skövde, Vänersborg och Stockholm. The study is based on Lennart Lundquist's (1992) theoretical framework "understand, can, want" where the primary goal is to investigate frontline bureaucrats (probation inspectors) understanding, know-how and willingness to enforce the law. Semi-structured interviews are used to interview the parole inspectors from the mentioned prole offices. through semi-structured interviews, nuanced insights are gained about frontline bureaucrats' perspectives, challenges and experiences related to the implementation of youth supervision. The results from the interviewees show that , overall, they view positively the team's opportunities to provide good contributions. Probation inpectors demonstrate an understanding of what the law entails, they possess the necessary skills for execution, the wide scope for action is highlighted and they express a strong will to implement the law. With the enforcement of the law, there are also challenges such as lack of knowledge , both on the part of the probation service and on the part of other actors involved. The respondents emphasize several challenges with collaboration , such as differences in knowledge, different levels of experience and the difference with municpal field-managing authorities. In addition, there are resource limitations in the smaller municipalities. The study underlines the need for further research to deepen the insights of other involved authorities.

No description available.

The first of January 2021, the law (2020:616) on the enforcement of youth monitoring will enter into force. This sanction will essentially mean weekend home arrest. The aim of the study is to use preparatory work to investigate how the new youth sanction is motivated by a crime prevention perspective in the law (2020: 616) on the enforcement of youth monitoring. Furthermore, the aim is to analyze how the law (2020:616) on the enforcement of youth monitoring is in line with theories about crime prevention measures for young offenders. From the aim of the study, two questions have been developed which read as follows;  1. What is the Swedish state of knowledge about crime prevention measures for youth offenders? 2. How is the law (2020:616) on the enforcement of youth monitoring described as a crime prevention measure for youth offenders? To answer the first question, scientific articles and studies have been obtained. The second question is answered by connecting the previous state of knowledge, the theoretical starting point and the empirical material. The study’s empirical material is based on a qualitative content analysis of the preparatory 2019/20:118 which is the basis for the law (2020:616) on the enforcement of youth monitoring. The study's results shows that there are elements of crime prevention measures in the law (2020: 616) on the enforcement of youth monitoring, which is consistent with the study's previous state of knowledge and theoretical starting point.

In January 2021, the new law on youth supervision came into force. A law that enables courts to sentence youths between 15–20 years of age to electronic monitoring for violations of the law. The reason for the existence of the new law is to cover the gap between youth care and closed youth care on the punishment scale. In the past, the social service has overseen all interventions for young people aged 15–20, but the new law transfers responsibility to the Correctional Service for those who have been sentenced to youth supervision. From January 2021, the Social Services and the Correctional Service need to collaborate with young people for the first time. With the new leadership and the different logics of the businesses, we are interested in investigating whether the collaboration between them works. We have interviewed four people from Social Services and four people from the Correctional Service to find out the perception of their collaboration. The results show that there are many factors that facilitate collaboration between them, factors that they worked on even before the first case was active.