Electronic monitoring was adopted to Finnish penal system in 2011. In this study, which is the first empirical one in Finland, offenders were interviewed and surveyed to investigate what matters to their compliance. Interviews were also conducted with probation practitioners in order to assess how they encourage compliance and long-term change processes. An important approach to noncompliance was to help that the breach would not be repeated. Many offenders had been previously in prison, where the ‘climate’ related to trust and fairness was different. That one ‘cannot be free’ was experienced as the most punitive part of electronic monitoring – and prison, for those who had been there. Fear of a more severe punishment was not the primary reason for compliance. Majority of offenders reported that they were not afraid of ending up in prison. Intensive control may play a role, but the study revealed that the roots of compliance lie deeper.
Electronic monitoring lead to increased quality of life, which indicates that compliance cannot be secured with surveillance only (stand-alone), but with complementary support from probation. It can be concluded that these views underline the rehabilitative and humane values of probation and criminal policy related to it.