Current issues and prospects for the development of social security for employees of the penal enforcement system and their family members

Khimedenova Dina Nikolaevna ORCID: 0000-0002-1270-7447 PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of Criminal Law; Southwest State University 374 Achkasova str., sq. 1, Khalino village, Russia, 305545 sadchikova.dina@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Sokolova Sof'ya Alekseevna Student; Department of Criminal Law; Southwest State University 61 Krasnaya str., block 67, Shchigry, Kursk region, 306530, Russia softysonya@mail.ru

Introduction

Against the background of the continuous democratization of modern society, the protection of certain groups of the population whose activities involve difficult or dangerous conditions that pose a known risk to their lives and health is gaining a special place in the system of social protection of the individual. We are talking not only about rescuers, firefighters and military personnel, but also about representatives of law enforcement agencies, among whom it is worth highlighting employees of the penal correction system (hereinafter referred to as the UIS). In the process of executing various criminal penalties, this category of employees has to face various difficulties, ranging from the harsh regime features of the functioning of correctional institutions to the risks of infection or injury from convicted persons.

Given the above, socio-economic support for employees of the penal correction system is of particular importance. It is a system of special measures and principles that ensure the implementation of social guarantees established by the State. Many modern legal scholars have studied various aspects of social security for prison staff and their family members, including E.S. Brylyakova, E.N. Vedyakov, S.V. Ivanov, L.L. Malkov, M.S. Maskin, S.N. Nikitenko, O.A. Svidersky, M.A. Struchalin, M.I. Tarasov and many others.. However, these scientists considered certain issues of social support for employees of the penitentiary system (their housing, financial, medical, and pension provision), while no comprehensive research was conducted that included the most pressing issues of providing all types of social assistance.

The experience gained in the Russian state in the implementation of social benefits and guarantees to employees of the penitentiary system and their family members is characterized by unsatisfactory and, to a greater extent, half-hearted nature. That is why it is necessary to focus on studying the current problems and prospects for improving the domestic system of social security for employees of the penitentiary system.

Materials and methods

The methodological basis of this work is a group of general scientific and special methods, including dialectical, regulatory, statistical, sociological, predictive, as well as induction and deduction. Due to the application of the described methods, it became possible to comprehensively study the object and subject of research, identify current problems in this area and develop specific ways to eliminate them. Using this methodology, scientific papers for the past five years (from 2020 to 2025) devoted to the problems of social security of employees of the penitentiary department, as well as up-to-date statistical data, were selected.

Based on the results of the study, measures are proposed to improve the system of social benefits and guarantees for employees of the penitentiary system in order to improve their well-being.

Results and discussions

Against the background of the existing array of problems of social protection of employees of the penitentiary department and their family members, it is worth highlighting the most significant ones, the solution of which is necessary in the current conditions of the development of the national state.

Firstly, there are a number of obvious imperfections in the field of medical care for FSIN employees and their family members. In particular, a special, specific procedure for the provision of medical services has been established for employees of the penitentiary system, which differs from the procedure established for other representatives of the population. However, many difficulties arise in the organization of the procedural order of medical care. The existing problems became most pronounced in the period from 2020 to 2023, when the country was gripped by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Thus, during this difficult period for the state, the staff of the penitentiary had to face numerous problems in obtaining medical care in specialized departmental healthcare institutions (lack of qualified specialists, choice of a specialist, high-tech medical care, medicines).

As a result, despite the guarantee of specialized medical care in the medical and sanitary units of the Federal Penitentiary Service, in practice, the staff of the penitentiary service had to go to the territorial polyclinics at their place of residence and receive first aid there. At the same time, an analysis of unpublished law enforcement practice indicates a number of problems that arise in connection with applying to polyclinics at the place of residence or place of service (limiting the number of persons eligible to apply to a medical institution based on their place of residence or place of service, the lack of a financial support agreement for services provided between the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia and the relevant medical organization ^{[1, P. 163]}.

Analyzing the stated problem in more detail and closely, it should be pointed out its global nature. In this context, we are talking about the fact that the legislator has not yet established a proper mechanism for providing high-tech medical care to employees of the penitentiary system according to the list of those types of medical services that are not included in the basic compulsory health insurance program. As a result, paradoxically, with the regulatory guarantee of high-tech medical care, in fact, in practice, this arsenal of services is not provided to the contingent of employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation, primarily due to the existing gap in the mechanism for implementing this type of medical care, which is not included in the list of types under the basic compulsory health insurance program, the list of which is approved at the regional level.

It seems that the identified problem significantly reduces the quality of state social assistance to employees of the Penitentiary System of the Russian Federation and needs to be eliminated unconditionally. In this aspect, the most optimal solution, in our opinion, was proposed by O.A. Svidersky, who pointed out the need to develop and implement administrative regulations for the provision of a separate public service — the provision of high-tech medical care not included in the basic program of compulsory medical insurance, specifying the conceptual framework, subject composition, and legal mechanism for the implementation of this type of service. and responsibility for failure to provide or improper provision of this service ^{[2, p.54]}.

Another, no less significant problem accompanying the process of medical care for FSIN employees is directly related to the unsatisfactory quality of medical services. There are a number of reasons why medical care is provided improperly to the staff of the penitentiary:

the lack of necessary high-tech medical equipment that allows not only timely diagnosis of diseases, but also to facilitate their treatment;

lack of highly specialized medical specialists in the healthcare sector;

common cases of recurrence of chronic diseases, most of them acquired against the background of difficult professional conditions;

the long-term nature of waiting for planned hospitalization due to lack of funding ^{[3, p.79]}.

It seems that one of the main reasons for inadequate medical care for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation is related to the actual lack of experts assessing the quality of services provided. Undoubtedly, the difficulties listed above are largely due to the lack of a system for monitoring the quality of medical care. The situation is significantly aggravated by the fact that the employee of the Medical Management System does not have the right to choose the attending physician.

Examining in more detail the reasons for the negative attitude of Russian prison staff towards the quality of medical services, the following should be highlighted:

- insufficient qualifications of medical personnel;

- lack of choice of a doctor;

- lack of expected positive result from treatment;

- frequent recurrence of chronic diseases shortly after completion of therapy;

- difficulties in passing instrumental examinations (ultrasound, fibrogastroscopy).

In situations where an employee of the medical management System, acting as a patient, remains dissatisfied with the quality or safety of medical care received, and also believes that he has not been provided with the necessary medical care, he has the right to file a complaint with a medical and preventive institution. Of course, a medical organization is unlikely to voluntarily admit its guilt. From a legal point of view, it is impossible to establish the truth in this conflict without conducting an expert examination of the quality of medical services provided, since each side will defend its point of view on this issue.

It is important to note that the importance of the stated problem is also emphasized at the highest state level. Thus, the Concept of the development of the medical System until 2030 once again confirmed the above-mentioned judgments in defining targets through affordable medical care for employees with the opportunity to receive medical care in medical organizations of the state and municipal health systems.

As N.V. Aniskina notes in the aspect under study, the most effective solution to these difficulties may be an increase in budget allocations for medical care for employees ^{[4, P.316]}. However, it is hardly possible to unequivocally agree with the stated judgment. Even with proper and timely financing, in the absence of well-developed quality control of medicine, it is impossible to judge the effectiveness of the provision of certain medical services.

Under the current conditions, it seems that the most rational and feasible way to solve the stated problem will be the regulatory consolidation and further implementation of a mechanism for monitoring the completeness, timing and quality of medical services provided by experts of the quality of medical care provided to the patient.

Having analyzed all the described problems typical for medical care of employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation, it should be noted that it will allow to correct the current situation, eliminate existing difficulties and organize affordable, high-quality and timely medical care for this contingent of employees.

first, the development of regulations for the provision of a separate public service — the provision of high-tech medical care that is not included in the basic program of compulsory medical insurance;

Secondly, the regulatory regulation and implementation of the practice of monitoring the completeness, timing and quality of medical services provided in relation to the contingent of employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation.

It seems that the proposed prospects will make it possible to bring the system of medical care for medical personnel to a qualitatively new level, as well as to make medical care more accessible and effective in general.

Another, no less significant problem that accompanies the modern sphere of medical support for prison employees is related to the formation of a bias towards maintaining their physical health while effectively ignoring the issue of maintaining the mental health of such persons. In particular, as R.N. Kiselyova quite accurately notes, a study of the Russian experience in the field of occupational health protection of prison system employees shows that it does not have a systematic approach and is mainly focused on restoring and maintaining their physical condition, while psychological aspects remain on the sidelines ^{[5, p.88]}.

Many modern legal scholars also speak about the enormous impact of working conditions on the mental health of prison staff. For example, N.G. Samoilov and A.V. Alyoshicheva conducted a major study that proved that the emotional state of employees of Russian colonies is assessed as extremely unsatisfactory. We are talking about the predominance of such obvious symptoms as anxiety, depression, and emotional withdrawal. The vast majority of employees are characterized by psychosomatic and psychovegetative disorders, the intensification of which inevitably leads to deterioration and weakening of mental health ^{[6, p.125]}.

Undoubtedly, close attention to the issues of maintaining the physiological state of employees of the domestic prison system while ignoring their psychological well-being is considered as a kind of imbalance in the medical and sanitary provision of prison staff. It is the stress associated with professional activity that has the greatest negative impact on the body's resources. It seems that, unlike other employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation, correctional officers are subject to the greatest psycho-emotional stress, which requires special attention to their professional "safety".

Many foreign countries have made great strides in this aspect, and the implementation of "stress management" programs is not the least important in their prison systems. They provide for the active work of psychologists in places of detention in various forms, including socio-psychological training. Usually such programs provide personal diagnostics, explanation of the causes and features of stress, as well as training in practical methods of overcoming it, including relaxation techniques, emotion management, time management, creation of a new motivation system, working with images and other approaches ^{[7, p.111]}. In addition to stress prevention measures, programs aimed at improving the socio-psychological atmosphere in prison staff are being actively implemented.

It seems that borrowing foreign experience regarding the implementation of a number of measures to maintain the mental health of correctional officers should be considered as one of the most important areas for improving their health care.

Continuing to consider the issues in this area, it should be noted that the previously stated problem of their housing provision significantly hinders the effectiveness of social support for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation. The global nature of this problem requires a more detailed consideration of the existing shortcomings and the development of specific ways to eliminate them.

First of all, it is worth noting that, in our opinion, the existing list of housing guarantees has largely exhausted itself, as evidenced by statistical data on the minimum housing provision for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation. For example, analyzing the dynamics of the provision of a single social payment (hereinafter referred to as the ERU), it is worth noting that over the past ten years (from 2014 to 2024), only a few employees of the department in question have been able to use this benefit. At the same time, over the past few years, there has been a clear negative trend in the country towards a decrease in the number of people actually receiving ERUs. So, if in 2014 480 families purchased housing under this benefit, already in 2016 – 627 families, then in 2021 the number of such families decreased to 485, and in the past 2024 it decreased again to 197 ^[8]. At the same time, the limits of budget obligations brought to the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the provision of ERUs are fully mastered annually.

Representatives of the highest state bodies of the Russian Federation also point to the topicality and relevance of the issues under study. In particular, the Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Economic Policy, Andrei Kutepov, made a statement about the impossibility of employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation to receive an ERU, primarily due to the lack of adequate funding ^[9]. At the same time, the housing situation continues to be critical, especially given the impressive number of employees in our country.

We believe that in the current circumstances, it is necessary to reconsider the views on the existing arsenal of ways and means of housing support for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation. The regulatory and legal framework governing housing provision for employees of the penitentiary system should be improved, responding to socio-economic changes in the state and "adapting" to current realities. In this case, we are talking about the need to borrow from the positive experience of providing military mortgages (mortgage subsidy programs for military personnel). Having many positive characteristics (it does not depend on the employee's real estate, marital status, dependents; it is provided to all military personnel, etc.), a military mortgage has many advantages over other forms of housing support, as evidenced by official statistics. For example, in the Moscow Region alone, during the entire existence of this program, military personnel purchased 45,148 residential premises ^[10].

Against the background of the above, the most optimal way to solve the stated problem seems to be the need to supplement the list of social guarantees for UIS employees with the possibility of obtaining a service mortgage, which will be provided in the same way and according to the same principles as a military mortgage. The proposed innovation will make it more affordable for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation to obtain housing, and will also prevent the outflow of valuable personnel from bodies and institutions executing criminal penalties.

The implementation of housing guarantees by UIS employees is also hindered by certain bureaucratic difficulties associated with the organization of the procedural procedure for the provision of various housing benefits and privileges. A.V. Ravnyushkin rightly spoke on this issue, emphasizing that when formally meeting the requirements for queuing for a one-time social payment for the purchase or construction of residential premises, employees face the need to incur additional financial costs associated with the exercise of their right to receive this type of social guarantee: to provide documents and various certificates that are issued exclusively on a paid basis (for example, a certificate of the absence of real estate in the property is an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the rights of an individual to the real estate objects he owned) ^{[11, P.280]}. It is worth agreeing with the inadmissibility of the deterioration of the financial situation of an employee in connection with the exercise of his housing rights. In connection with the above, it should be pointed out that it is necessary to amend the procedural procedure for the implementation of the rights in question. In particular, this information should be provided as part of interagency cooperation, rather than imposing additional financial burdens on employees. The proposed mechanism will provide an opportunity to ensure the quality and accessibility of housing guarantees to employees of the management system.

Summarizing the consideration of the current problems in the field of housing for FSIN employees, it is necessary to conclude the importance of their competent and timely elimination. Among the optimal and most rational ways to eliminate the identified difficulties, one can single out, firstly, the addition of a list of social guarantees for employees of the penitentiary service with the possibility of obtaining a service mortgage, and, secondly, simplification of the procedure for providing housing guarantees by improving interdepartmental interaction in the process of obtaining the necessary documents.

In summing up, the above should be summarized. The procedure for implementing social protection measures for Russian employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation in the current conditions is imperfect and has a number of problems. We are talking, first of all, about the unsatisfactory medical care of employees, as well as about the individual difficulties of their housing provision.

Conclusions

In the modern Russian state, effective mechanisms have been developed to counter negative economic phenomena in the country and maintain a decent standard of living for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation by providing a whole package of social benefits. However, the existing experience of providing various social guarantees to employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service and their family members is contradictory. With sufficient effectiveness in providing individual benefits and advantages to employees of the management System, there are actually a number of difficulties, most of which are related to housing provision for this category of employees. Despite the obvious interest in housing for employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation in the country, in practice the implementation of this area is half-hearted and contradictory, as confirmed by numerous examples of court decisions challenging the housing rights of employees of the Penitentiary Service, as well as the constant amendments to the law on these issues, illustrating the lack of elaboration and gaps in existing regulations.

In the course of the study, it was proved that individual problems of medical and housing provision for medical personnel urgently need to be addressed. Among the proposed promising areas for improving social policy in relation to employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation are the following:

regulatory regulations for the provision of high-tech medical care that is not included in the basic program of compulsory medical insurance for employees of medical institutions;

implementation of the practice of monitoring the completeness, timing and quality of medical services provided;

borrowing foreign experience in the implementation of a number of measures to maintain the mental health of correctional officers;

addition of the list of social guarantees for employees of the penitentiary system with the possibility of obtaining an office mortgage;

simplification of the procedure for providing housing guarantees by improving interdepartmental cooperation in the process of obtaining necessary documents.

The developed mechanisms and ways to optimize the modern policy of providing social guarantees to prison staff and their family members, with a competent and consolidated approach, can bring this area to a qualitatively new level, promote the humanization of the rights and freedoms of employees of bodies and institutions executing criminal penalties, and promote conscientious and professional performance of official duties.