Welcome to Let’s Talk RESCALED, the podcast where we dive deep into the heart of justice reform. Hosted by Noa Shoshan and brought to you by RESCALED, a European Movement dedicated to reshaping our approach to incarceration.
In our third episode, host Noa Shoshan engages in an insightful conversation with Helene de Vos, Executive Director of RESCALED and former prison researcher at the Leuven Institute of Criminology.
During this episode, we explore the principle of normalization in prison systems, comparing Norwegian and Belgian approaches to detention. Our guest shares valuable insights from her doctoral research on the normalization principle, detailing how smaller-scale facilities like Norway’s Leira prison create environments and initiatives that better prepare individuals for life after release.
Discover how normalized detention settings impact both incarcerated individuals and staff, and learn about the challenges and opportunities in implementing these approaches across different cultural contexts. This conversation highlights how prison conditions reflect broader societal values and why system change requires looking both inside detention facilities and at the society that shapes them.
“When you bring in living conditions from outside, like customers coming to the garden center, you’re not artificially normalizing these interactions, they are normal. These are real, normal situations which are really important in life after release.” – Helene de Vos
For current and future workforce adaptation based on profiles of competencies, recognition of prior learning, micro-credentialing and certification, following correctional systemic changes in Europe.
The “RESIZE” project—Reshaping Correctional Competencies through RESCALED Innovation—is an innovative European partnership designed to address the evolving needs of the staff within the correctional ecosystem. Running from 2025 to 2029 and led by CPIP Romania, RESIZE builds upon the LiberateSkill Pact for Skills. The project will focus on upskilling correctional professionals to navigate and adapt to ongoing systemic changes across Europe. This will be achieved through micro-credentialing, certification, and the recognition of prior learning, ensuring a more dynamic approach to staff development.
The project focuses on small-scale, community-integrated detention houses that align with the RESCALED concept striving to enhance correctional standards and practices. As one of only eight Blueprint Alliances selected by the EU, RESIZE emphasizes a more humane and effective approach to detention, promoting integrated detention houses that prioritize both reintegration and community integration.
With the active collaboration of 24 partner organizations, RESIZE is set to drive transformative change in the future of detention across Europe.
Objectives
The RESIZE project is designed to address the evolving needs of correctional professionals in response to the transition towards small-scale detention houses and a broader shift towards a focus on reintegration and reform. This shift directly impacts the reskilling and upskilling of correctional staff in several key areas:
Focus on rehabilitation techniques: As the correctional system places greater emphasis on reintegration and social integration, there is an increasing demand for staff skilled in counseling, social work, and reintegration techniques. This requires the reskilling of current employees and the upskilling of new hires to effectively engage with incarcerated people in programs that support their successful reintegration into society.
Community-integration: Small-scale detention houses emphasize community integration and support systems as part of the reintegration process. Correctional staff working in these settings require training in community engagement, outreach, and collaboration with external stakeholders such as social services, educational institutions, and local community organizations. Reskilling programs can provide staff with the necessary competencies to foster positive relationships with community partners and facilitate successful offender reintegration.
Interdisciplinary collaboration: The shift towards rehabilitation-oriented correctional practices underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration within the workforce. Correctional staff need to work closely with professionals from diverse fields, including mental health specialists, substance abuse counselors, educators, and social workers, to address the complex needs of incarcerated people. Reskilling initiatives can promote cross-disciplinary training and teamwork, enabling staff to effectively collaborate with colleagues from different backgrounds and expertise areas.
Adoption of innovative practices: As detention houses embrace innovative approaches to incarceration, such as restorative justice, trauma-informed care, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, correctional staff must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement these practices effectively. Reskilling programs can introduce staff to evidence-based interventions and provide training in their implementation, ensuring that they are equipped to support the rehabilitation and well-being of incarcerated people.
Work packages
To achieve these objectives, RESIZE is organized into five structured work packages (WPs):
Workpackage 1: Management and coordination of the project, ensuring effective dissemination, quality assurance, and evaluation of project outputs.
Workpackage 2: Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment to identify the skills gaps and training requirements within the correctional workforce.
Workpackage 3: Development of a European Qualification Map and Correctional Core Competencies Curricula, providing a standardized framework for training programs.
Workpackage 4: Delivery of Core Curricula and training programs, emphasizing a lifelong learning continuum and specialized tracks within Centers of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs).
Workpackage 5: Designing a Long-Term Action Plan for sustainable workforce development, visibility, and dissemination. This includes the establishment of Regional Pacts for Skills, a European Correctional Competencies Observatory, a Micro-credentialing Catalogue, and policy proposals for implementing Recognition, Validation, and Accreditation (RVA).
RESIZE represents a significant step forward in reshaping correctional training, ensuring that correctional professionals across Europe are equipped to work within a modern, rehabilitation-focused detention system.
Results
The project aims to implement regional Pacts for Skills and develop high-quality curricula to enhance the competencies of both current and future staff within the ecosystem of correctional facilities. This will ensure that staff are equipped with the necessary skills to effectively engage in changing correctional practices, support community-based detention models and address the complex needs of incarcerated people.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
The Workspace for Mapping, Engaging, and Networking with, for, and by Incarcerated Women (WOMEN) project addresses the unique challenges faced by incarcerated women in Europe. Despite making up only 6.1% of the prison population1, women in detention often experience greater vulnerability due to past trauma, caregiving responsibilities, and limited access to rehabilitation programs.
Recognizing this issue, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality presented a Motion for a European Parliament Resolution in 2008, emphasizing that women’s incarceration reflects their broader societal position. The resolution argued that prisons are “essentially designed, built and run by men for men”, failing to accommodate the specific needs of incarcerated women.
To bridge this gap, the WOMEN project promotes a paradigm shift from large-scale prisons to detention houses, which are small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated facilities that better support women’s lives during and after detention. The initiative aims to develop expertise in working with incarcerated women and facilitate knowledge-sharing across Europe.
To achieve this, the project will adopt a Human-Centered Design approach and incorporate multiple perspectives for an in-depth understanding of incarcerated women’s diversity and their needs. Through (online) workshops and visits to best practices, WOMEN aims to enable discussions and exchanges between professionals, academics, policymakers, and individuals with lived experience. This know-how will contribute to and be disseminated by various RESCALED Knowledge Workspaces.
The WOMEN project, funded by Erasmus+, is a transnational collaboration involving three core teams from different countries. These include RESCALED, a European movement based in Belgium focused on the implementation of detention houses, Rubikon Center, a Czech NGO that helps individuals move beyond their criminal past, and Silta, a Finnish non-profit organization dedicated to increasing societal equality, participation, and welfare. With the support of Erasmus+, these organizations aim to improve conditions for incarcerated women and enhance their opportunities for maintaining integration with society.
Welcome to Let’s Talk RESCALED, the podcast where we dive deep into the heart of justice reform. Hosted by Noa Shoshan and brought to you by RESCALED, a European Movement dedicated to reshaping our approach to incarceration.
In our second episode, host Noa Shoshan engages in an inspiring conversation with two changemakers from the Netherlands: Gert Jan Slump, criminologist and co-founder of Restorative Justice Netherlands, and Tanja Jadnanansing, Chair of the Executive Board for Amsterdam Zuidoost/ Amsterdam South East.
During this second episode we discover how Amsterdam South East is embracing restorative justice principles and community-centered approaches to create positive change. Our guests share personal insights about their collaboration and vision for justice reform, including their view on detention houses as alternative to large scale prisons.
💡 Discover how concepts like “Love and Law” are reshaping community responses to justice, and learn about practical examples of restorative practices in action. This conversation highlights how local communities can lead the way in developing more humane and effective approaches to conflict, justice and incarceration.
“We want this togetherness. We want people to live together, but we know that when people come together, there will be challenging events. So we are not closing our eyes to that.” – Tanja Jadnanansing
Thank you for tuning in at Let’s Talk RESCALED!
This episode is part of the INSPIRE project, funded by Erasmus+. Through the INSPIRE project, Restorative Justice Nederland aims to refine the concept of a restorative city by identifying key principles, such as dialogue, community involvement, democracy and horizontal relationships, and urban design. In addition, the role of small-scale detention within a restorative city is explored.
Welcome to Let’s Talk RESCALED, the podcast where we dive deep into the heart of justice reform. Hosted by Noa Shoshan and brought to you by RESCALED, a European Movement dedicated to reshaping our approach to incarceration.
In this first episode, you’ll learn more about the RESCALED movement—its mission, values, and vision for a justice system that fosters dignity, safety, and inclusion. Learn about the core principles of detention houses: small-scale, differentiation, and community integration, and why they are essential to creating a more humane and effective approach to liberty deprivation.
Discover the origins of RESCALED, its rapid growth across 17 countries, and the systemic change we advocate. Explore how detention houses strengthen the social fabric, address systemic inequities, and foster reintegration into society.
This episode sets the foundation for a series of thought-provoking discussions with policymakers, practitioners, and advocates who are driving transformative change in justice systems across Europe and beyond. Tune in to learn how we can reshape justice together.
Incarceration is often framed as a significant financial burden on society, with discussions frequently focusing on its immediate costs — such as daily expenses for housing people in detention. However, this perspective risks missing the larger picture: the societal and economic consequences of detention and the potential for meaningful justice reform. A holistic approach to justice emphasises investing in people, not just systems, recognising that the true costs of incarceration extend far beyond budgets and balance sheets. By adopting solutions like detention houses, society can reduce long-term economic burdens while fostering more inclusive and safer communities.
This article explores how detention houses can offer substantial long-term advantages that extend beyond mere cost calculations. It underscores that this shift from large prison institutions to detention houses is about more than rethinking detention—it’s about investing in people and breaking harmful cycles.
The funding paradox: investing in ‘security’ hinders reintegration
A comparative analysis of prison expenditures in 54 countries — by Penal Reform International — highlighted that while there are exceptions, overall funding for prisons remains inadequate in several countries. Typically, penitentiary budgets are less than 0.3% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). For example, in 2017, average prison spending among EU Member States was only 0.2% of their national GDP. This chronic underinvestment leaves prisons struggling to provide basic needs such as nutrition, healthcare, clothing and safe, hygienic living conditions. It also reflects broader political neglect, as prisons are often seen as a low priority in government budgets.
The allocation of these limited resources raises serious concerns about their effectiveness in supporting individuals towards their release. For example, staffing costs consume the majority of prison budgets, yet high turnover and poor working conditions lead to dissatisfaction and ultimately staff shortages. Ageing infrastructure compounds these challenges, failing to meet contemporary standards and requiring considerable (and expensive) renovations to do so. In addition, a significant portion of funding is directed toward security, frequently prioritising high-security measures that can hinder reintegration efforts.
While the legal mandate emphasises reducing recidivism, the current funding approach often undermines this goal by prioritising an appearance of safety over long-term benefits. Resources must be reallocated to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and, if directed toward detention, should invest in an environment appropriate to address these challenges. Transitioning to smaller, community-integrated facilities would better align resources with the goal of successful reintegration, benefiting both incarcerated individuals and staff.
The (hidden) costs of incarceration
Large prison institutions come with significant hidden costs that — yes — affect the state budget, but also families, communities and future generations. Direct expenses, such as housing individuals in detention, represent only a fraction of the overall economic impact. In Belgium, for example, the daily cost to detain one person was approximately €152.44 in (2022) [1]. Spending on personnel accounted for the largest share (77.53%), followed by operational costs (8.76%), care for the medical and psychological needs of individuals (7.79%), maintenance and food for incarcerated people (3.41%) and infrastructure contracts (2.51%). For comparison, the Netherlands reported a significantly higher figure of €339 (2023)[2] and Portugal €56.33 (2022).
However, these figures exclude indirect costs, such as reoffending, lost productivity, prevention and the increased demands on social and health services. For instance, a study in the UK has estimated the annual economic and social cost of adult reoffending at £16.7 billion. This figure is based on data from people released from prison, identified in 2016, who reoffended within a subsequent 12-month follow-up period. Notably, any reoffending that occurred beyond this one-year timeframe is excluded from this estimate, meaning the actual long-term costs could be even higher. In Norway, the total economic cost of crime, including public resources for prevention, private costs for risk reduction, and productivity losses, is estimated at 144 billion NOK (€12.1 billion) annually – offering a broader perspective on how much incarceration costs society.
In addition to financial costs, incarceration also imposes significant social costs that cut through families and communities. When someone is incarcerated, their family often faces financial hardship and emotional distress. Children of incarcerated parents are particularly vulnerable, as they are more likely to experience poverty, mental health challenges and possible involvement in criminal activity. These negative effects ripple outwards, placing an additional burden on social services, schools, and health care systems.
By considering both the financial and social costs of incarceration, we gain a clearer understanding of its broader implications and the potential advantages of alternatives like detention houses.
How detention houses foster social and economic value
Detention houses signify a pivotal shift in how we approach incarceration. These facilities, strategically embedded within communities, prioritise access to health services, education, employment, and cultural opportunities, fostering continuity and connection post-release.
Unlike large prison institutions, detention houses emphasise building supportive relationships among residents, staff and local stakeholders, fostering a collaborative ecosystem. This ecosystem includes the relationships among incarcerated individuals, staff, visitors, and local service providers, all of which shape the social environment surrounding the detention house. Moreover, detention houses function within a broader context that extends beyond their physical boundaries and the criminal justice system. They exist at the junction of other ecosystems: that of the criminal justice system, the health care and mental health care system, the education system, the employment system etc. and the power structures and social inequalities present in these systems.
A compelling example can be found in Leuven, Belgium, where the recent opening of a third transition house showcases how partnerships between municipalities, justice systems, and NGOs can tackle the complex challenges of reintegration. Initiated by the municipality’s social affairs department in collaboration with the local NGO De Kansenfabriek, this facility was established to address a critical gap in local social services. The department had identified that existing services were under immense strain, struggling to meet the needs of the community while also supporting individuals transitioning out of prison. Recognising the potential benefits of a transition house, they took the initiative to explore the practical options, aiming to improve reintegration outcomes for released individuals while easing pressure on social service staff and safeguarding the quality of support for other citizens. This proactive approach not only enhances community welfare but also demonstrates how detention houses can operate within a broader ecosystem, addressing both individual and collective needs.
The silo structure within governments, where each ministry or department operates with its own budget and policies, often prevents a holistic view such as the example above, highlighting how investments in one sector (such as education or health care) can reduce costs in other sectors (such as the justice system). In March 2024, for example, Portugal’s Interministerial Working Group on Health in places where people are deprived of their liberty recommended that responsibilities for health care in prisons be transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health. This would integrate health care in prisons into the National Health Service. Studies also underline this need for the broader impact of such ecosystems. The World Health Organization reports that many individuals entering prison have untreated health conditions, and inadequate care exacerbates these issues, leading to higher public health costs once they are released.
By embracing this ecosystem perspective, we can see that supporting individuals in detention leads to significant savings in healthcare and other services, as successful reintegration minimizes the need for costly interventions. This perspective underscores that the benefits of detention houses go beyond criminal justice costs; they represent an investment in people and a pathway to long-term savings for society.
Conclusion: A smart investment in society
While it may seem cost-effective to cut spending on incarceration and rehabilitation, this short-term thinking overlooks the long-term societal costs. True savings come not from cutting corners, but from making smart investments in the future of incarcerated individuals. By helping them re-enter into society as healthy, productive citizens, we can reduce the overall economic burden of crime, improve public health, and foster stronger, safer communities.
Detention houses embody this approach, offering a vision of justice that prioritises humanity and sustainability. Society must recognize that the daily cost per incarcerated person per day is only a small part of the overall equation. By adopting a holistic view that accounts for both economic and social impacts, we can make more informed decisions and build a justice system that benefits everyone. This includes breaking down silo’s and doing politics from a long-term perspective!
Investing in people is ultimately an investment in the future of society.
This article was written as part of the Erasmus+ funded INSPIRE-project. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING:
[1] The actual daily cost per prisoner was €148.73 in 2021 and €152.44 in 2022 (excluding forensic psychiatric centres and transition houses).
[2] In the Netherlands, the average cost per incarcerated person in a standard prison is around €339 per day. In more specialized facilities, such as penitentiary psychiatric centres (PPC), this cost can rise to €583 per day.
Aebi, M. F., & Cocco, E. (2024). SPACE I — 2023 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison populations. Council of Europe.
Comfort, M., McKay, T., Landwehr, J., Kennedy, E., Lindquist, C., & Bir, A. (2016). The costs of incarceration for families of prisoners. International Review of the Red Cross, 98(903), 783–798.
De Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers — Schriftelijke vraag en antwoord nr 55-1668: Dagelijkse kostprijs gedetineerden gevangenis. (2023, April 25). De Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers. Retrieved from www.lachambre.be
🌍 Exciting news! On October 9, 2024, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 57/9, calling on all States to prioritise the social reintegration of persons released from detention and those subjected to non-custodial measures.
The resolution invites States to introduce appropriate alternatives to traditional incarceration—such as small-scale detention —while prioritising non-custodial measures and utilising options such as conditional release, home leave, and community-based programs and services.
🔑 Key Points:
Promote non-custodial measures like community programs and conditional release,
Encourage alternatives to traditional incarceration, such as small-scale detention.
Leading up to the adoption of the Resolution, 120 NGOs from 49 countries all over the world expressed their support for Costa Rica’s forthcoming resolution,recognising the requirement of a collective global, national and local commitment to social reintegration. Their support also recognises the importance of the role of the Council in advancing a global consensus on this issue while guiding States on the implementation of guiding principles that uphold the human rights and dignity of people who have been sentenced for a criminal offence.
✊This resolution reflects a powerful commitment to human rights and dignity, highlighting the importance of community-based alternatives that support successful re-entry in society!
VZW De Huizen, NGO and Belgian RESCALED Office, is proud to announce the recent legal establishment of detention houses in Belgium. This marks a significant milestone in our years of advocacy for a sustainable, humane, and meaningful penal policy. Our vision of detention, centred on small-scale facilities, differentiation, and community-integration, now has a solid legal foundation. This is an important step in the paradigm shift that we are trying to achieve with VZW De Huizen.
The Role of VZW De Huizen
VZW De Huizen has been a pioneer in the field of small-scale detention in Belgium and has already come a long way. Since 2012, we have been advocating for small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated detention houses, working tirelessly to bring this concept to the forefront of the Belgian political agenda. Over the years, we have built a large and diverse network, both nationally and internationally, comprising political contacts, policy-level stakeholders, the prison administration, social organisations, colleges, universities, and experts from various disciplines. Strong relationships with the press and media have also played a crucial role in VZW De Huizen’s journey.
Years of lobbying at the political and policy level, along with collaborations with the aforementioned stakeholders, have brought VZW De Huizen to where it stands today. The power of collaboration is evident in our story. Through joint efforts, widespread recognition of the new penal paradigm has significantly grown. This recognition has led to concrete outcomes within Belgian penal policy, such as the opening of the first small-scale detention houses in Belgium, including transition houses for individuals nearing the end of their sentence and detention houses for short-term sentences (below three years), as well as the legal anchoring of these new forms of detention.
But how did VZW De Huizen manage to legally embed detention houses, and where did this idea originate from? Within our General Assembly, various working groups were formed to gather the knowledge prevailing within the organisation and apply it in practice. The Sustainable Public Policy working group sought the best strategies to create long-term political support. They concluded that a legal framework was essential to realize a sustainable policy for detention houses. The group members then worked on developing this idea, exploring how and where detention houses could be incorporated into the Basic Law [1]and drafting a proposal. This proposal was subsequently forwarded to the appropriate political contacts. Throughout the process, VZW De Huizen continued to offer support and provide advice. The rest is history.
The Legal Foundation
The recent legal establishment of detention houses marks a significant milestone for VZW De Huizen and for penal reform in Belgium. The Basic Law of January 12, 2005, concerning the prison system and the legal position of detained persons now includes a clear definition of a detention house. The definition is as follows: “A prison specifically designated by the King, consisting of anautonomous small-scale facility embedded in the social environment and maintaining close contacts with it.”
Additionally, the amendment provides for the subsidisation of cities and municipalities with a detention house within their territory to cover the costs associated with promoting the integration of the detention house into the community and ensuring the accessibility of their services for residents residing there.
This legal foundation means that detention houses are now officially recognised within the Belgian criminal justice system and are no longer merely pilot projects that could be terminated at any time. By legally anchoring this policy, it ensures that the rules and guidelines cannot easily be altered by successive governments, providing continuity and stability. This is crucial for the long-term planning and implementation of sustainable practices in detention houses. The legal establishment not only provides a solid basis for the further development of detention houses but also ensures better protection of the rights of incarcerated persons in these facilities. The fact that cities and municipalities with a detention house on their territory are now entitled to subsidies may also offer additional encouragement to those who are hesitant.
Challenges and Future Perspectives
Although the legal establishment of detention houses is a positive step forward, significant challenges remain. While there is widespread recognition of the value of detention houses, further development of the concept is essential. The current detention houses are still too large, and the group of short-term offenders (sentences under three years) is too diverse. For example, the current detention houses in Belgium accommodate 57 individuals ranging in age from 18 to 90 years, convicted of various types of offences. It is crucial to focus on developing detention houses for different target groups, tailored to their needs and requirements. The maximum number of residents should also be determined by the needs of the target group.
Furthermore, there is an ongoing need to recruit suitable staff, and provide the necessary training and support for staff. It is also vital to increase public awareness and acceptance of this small-scale form of detention. The greatest challenge, however, remains the replacement of all traditional prisons with detention houses, rather than merely supplementing the existing prison system. Achieving a more humane, just and effective penal system requires this shift. The further rollout and development of detention houses will demand significant political courage. It is now up to the (re)elected politicians to prioritise this issue in the upcoming legislative term.
“Detention houses are now legally embedded in Belgian law! Patience is key to achieving results, but small-scale detention has proven its worth. If the next government continues to invest in this approach, we can finally start talking about meaningful detention! We are committed to this, and it must and will happen!”
In the future, detention houses could become an integral part of the Belgian criminal justice system, contributing to a more just and humane execution of sentences. The efforts of VZW De Huizen have shown that a different approach is not only desirable but also achievable. With the legal foundation as a strong base, the path is open for further innovations and improvements within penal execution. VZW De Huizen is proud of this progress but will continue to fight for a future where meaningful detention is carried out in small-scale detention houses, thereby contributing to restoration and reintegration. Together, we continue to build the inclusive, safe, and sustainable society of tomorrow!
[1] The Basic Law of January 12, 2005, is the most important law that regulates the rights and obligations of people in detention and also defines the fundamental principles for the execution of sentences. Consult the law here.
Through the INSPIRE project, Restorative Justice Nederland aims to refine the concept of a restorative city by identifying key principles, such as dialogue, community involvement, democracy and horizontal relationships, and urban design. In addition, the role of small-scale detention within a restorative city is explored. After a first article about Utrecht, Gert Jan Slump and Laura Verstraete now bring us the casestudy of Amsterdam Zuidoost in this blog.
The district of Zuidoost is a residential area in Amsterdam developed and built in the 1960s. Inspired by Le Corbusier’s ideas (influential architect and city planner), the urban planning in Zuidoost aimed to separate traffic flows and outdoor spaces vertically to enhance livability. However, this urban concept largely failed, leading to a transformation of the district. Some high-rise buildings were demolished and replaced with low-rise structures, while others were renovated, and traffic flows and outdoor spaces were largely integrated.
Currently, approximately 100,000 residents from 173 nationalities call Zuidoost home. It is recognised as an emerging vibrant district with numerous societal, religious, and cultural grassroots organisations that effectively collaborate with formal institutions. However, criticism persists regarding inadequate basic amenities in the district and significant social issues, particularly poverty.
Under the leadership of district chair Tanja Jadnanansing, Zuidoost is evolving towards a Restorative District, fostering development from within and from grassroots initiatives. The structure of the district can be characterized by six layers:
Conflicts are a natural part of life and require suitable solutions and support for those involved. The aim is to transform conflicts into positive encounters through empathy and understanding
Some conflicts have a public or criminal justice dimension. Even in these cases, dialogue and communication between the directly involved parties is crucial. These parties can rely on the support of law enforcement officials who work alongside them to find fair solutions. From the perspective of community justice, a positive concept of safety is central: it’s not just about reducing or preventing negative aspects, but about fostering positive ones. Justice is a dynamic concept. All of this is encapsulated in the motto “Law and Love.”
Over the next twenty years, structural causes of (criminal) conflict such as housing, poverty, and inequality of opportunities will be addressed. Recognising and working towards rectifying systemic social injustices is inherent in a district where justice is prioritised.
In addressing the structural causes of injustice, the focus is on what people and inhabitants themselves can contribute (their expertise and experiential knowledge) and what they need (their requirements). In every approach and conversation, the question of whether the right people are at the table is essential. In Zuidoost, the focus is on community circles that provide space for dialogue about needs and collaborative actions, facilitating the transformation of society into a community.
When restoration is needed at the level of organisational structure and culture, Zuidoost takes action. This restoration process requires people to come together and step into the circle. The district aims to invite people to do so and explore old structures and organisational cultures that cause harm. Discussions about organisational-level restoration provide space for addressing what people need to undo organisational injustice. Subsequently, what is unjust becomes the focus of fair interventions, facilitated by breakthrough teams and similar initiatives.
Even when it becomes evident that issues need to be addressed and rectified primarily at a systemic level, Zuidoost collaborates to tackle them together. Sometimes, the government itself is the aggressor and initiator. Incidents like the Dutch childcare benefits scandal have painfully highlighted the need for systemic restoration[1]. In Zuidoost, as a Restorative District, systemic injustices are brought to light, and the government and organisations stand side-by-side with residents in addressing them.
Some local elements of the Restorative District include the Krin Taki (a form of an honest and deliberative dialogue), the Neighbourhood Court, youth courts in schools, and the neighbourhood youth court. Additionally, there’s the mediation pool of young people and the interactive Honors College Law and Love program where students at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam develop ideas around justice in collaboration with organisations and residents of Zuidoost.
Amsterdam no longer has a prison (the Bijlmerbajes is closed and the prison capacity has been moved to Zaanstad). It’s intriguing to consider whether there could be space in Zuidoost for a small-scale detention house, perhaps within a community similar to De Tafelberg. Located on a site that previously housed a youth prison and later a closed youth care institution, de Tafelberg now has transformed into a living community. It provides housing for 290 young adults, including 60 with a background in youth care. This initiative by Levvel, a youth care institution, together with the housing association de Alliantie, was developed with the help of many other parties. The concept is called “live, learn, work & play.” It’s an ecosystem where residents are supported in various ways to form a community where personal support largely replaces professional assistance. Social entrepreneurs are part of the community, providing opportunities for work experience, internships, and workshops. The facilities are also available to neighbourhood residents. De Tafelberg is a community-oriented model that could potentially house a small-scale detention house, integrating incarcerated individuals with other citizens. The size ratio of different groups is crucial here.
What’s unique about the Restorative District of Zuidoost is that it doesn’t require a template for its development. Zuidoost is inherently a Restorative District, not created or confined by a framework, but naturally so. Thanks in part to the current district chair and recent developments like the establishment of the neighbourhood court and peer-led youth courts the concept is further strengthened. Over the next two years, work will continue within the outlined framework of the six layers to further develop and enrich it, connected to efforts to develop and establish a small-scale detention facility connected to existing facilities.
Thandiwé Devriendt, the student social media manager at RESCALED, is a criminologist currently pursuing her master’s degree with a keen interest in forensic psychology and minority groups in vulnerable situations. From her studies in Criminology, work, and personal experience, she has chosen to write a blog post on the often underexposed topic of LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system. In her upcoming post, Thandiwé explores why detention houses, compared to traditional prisons, could offer a more humane and dignified detention experience for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The landscape of the criminal justice system for LGBTQ+ individuals is fraught with unique challenges and systemic inequalities that are often overlooked. Detention houses could be a way to address some of these issues, through their three principles: small-scale, differentiation and community-integration.
Status quo of the LGTBQ+[1] community in the criminal justice system
But what do the current numbers say?
When examining the current numbers and information provided the minority group seems to face several challenges. Firstly, LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to be incarcerated. LGBTQ+ youth and transgender people, in particular, are disproportionately more likely to enter the criminal justice system due to a history of bias, abuse and profiling (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Secondly, they are more likely to face abuse when residing in prisons. They are often victims of daily humiliation, physical and sexual abuse. Additionally, they are faced with the inability to speak about these experiences due to fearing it will get worse if you complain. The fear often prevents them from complaining. For instance the European Comittee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has met several transgender women held in male sections of prisons who reported a feeling of unsafety, verbal abuse by staff and in some cases sexual abuse and assault by fellow incarcerated people.Furthermore, many LGBTQ+ individuals are placed in solitary confinement for extended periods solely due to their identity. For example, a report published in 2020 showed that trans women in Honduras prisons tend to be more severely punished, often through extended periods of solitary confinement. These phenomena are often worsened by the poor conditions in the prison systems: overcrowding, physical and sexual violence & heavy reliance on solitary confinement are common (Penal Reform International 2021; CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Thirdly, both staff and other incarcerated people contribute to the abuse and mistreatment of LGBTQ+ individuals (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).
Fourth, the CPT observed that transgender individuals in prisons potentially face higher risks of self-harm, suicide, and violence-related psychological trauma, paralleling the high risks observed outside prison settings. Research suggests that factors such as discrimination, family rejection, and internalized or externalized transphobia contribute to these risks. The LGTBQ+ youth in specific have often faced such challenges, more specific family rejection, homelessness and hostility by the safety net (f.ex. foster care). This not only heightens the risks of above mentioned phenomena but also paves a way to possible criminal behavior (CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Lastly, transgender and gender nonconforming people can face additional forms of mistreatment. Although practices are changing, several facilities still reside strictly according to their genital anatomy, regardless of their gender identity. Consequently their vulnerability to abuse increases when accommodated with a different gender from which they identify with (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).
Creating an inclusive environment according to the three principles
Where there are challenges, there’s room for opportunities, in which detention houses are one of them. Detention houses could offer several possibilities for the LGBTQ+ community who are currently incarcerated in large prison institutions. By focusing on the three key principles of detention houses —small-scale, differentiation, and community-integration — we can create a more supportive and restorative experience for LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system.
In small-scale detention houses, residents are given the opportunity to become more familiar with their environment and staff, fostering a sense of community and security. With fewer residents, the pressure on the staff is relieved. Consequently, the staff can obtain more personal contacts and insights into the group interaction, thus ensuring that any abuse or mistreatment by fellow residents or staff is promptly addressed and that any signs of suicidal thoughts or self-harm are early on noticed and treated.
Furthermore, small-scale detention houses can arrange flexible housing arrangements tailored to the needs and identities of LGBTQ+ individuals according to the judicial possibilities. This differentiated approach allows personalized solutions that ensure the safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ residents without disadvantaging them. This setting may allow for LGBTQ+ individuals to be housed according to their self-reported identity rather than their genital anatomy, making it easier to respect their gender identity and reduce their vulnerability to abuse. This differentiated approach can be co-created by persons with lived experience (formerly/currently incarcerated & an LGTBQ+ member), by doing so one can create a truly succesful implementation and approach.
Community-integrationcan be particularly challenging for LGBTQ+ individuals, who may face double exclusion due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and their criminal past. Community-integrated detention houses focus on preparing residents for successful reintegration by introducing them to supportive environments and resources. By fostering connections with neighbors and community members through activities and interactions, detention houses can help change perceptions and promote acceptance of both LGBTQ+ individuals and those with a criminal past. This approach not only aids in the successful community-integration of LGBTQ+ individuals, but also contributes to a more inclusive society. By utilizing the ecosystem of a detention house, LGBTQ+ individuals can more easily access essential services such as medical treatments for transitioning and therapy, ensuring comprehensive support and care compared to what is typically available in prisons. This is made possible by actively collaborating with actors in this healthy ecosystem to enhance accessibility and inclusivity in healthcare and support services.
By embracing these three principles and exploring legal and regulatory avenues, detention facilities can provide a more humane and dignified experience for LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system. This approach ensures they receive the respect, support, and opportunities they deserve. This blog post also serves as a call to civil society, especially in Europe, to delve deeper into and address the unique experiences and challenges faced by this community.
[1] While some findings originally pertained to a narrower category like LGTB, for this blog post, we have opted to use a broader term, specifically LGBTQ+. Our intention is to promote inclusivity, as we believe that the broader LGBTQ+ community encounters similar challenges.
Sources:
CPT. (2024). Transgender persons in prison. Council of Europe. Retrieved from: 1680af7216 (coe.int)
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
