Linkedin Instagram Facebook-f Youtube
Donate
Linkedin X-twitter Instagram Facebook-f Youtube
LOGO RESCALED

Category: BLOG

Posted on

From Vision to Progress: Belgium’s Next Steps Towards Dedicated Detention Houses for Young Adults

One year ago, the ERASMUS+ BRIDGE project (Building Responsibility and Inclusion through Detention Houses for Youngsters to Support Growth and Education) brought together partners from across Europe around one central question: How can we better address the specific needs of young adults in detention aged 18 to 25?

To put the scale of the issue into perspective: more than 120,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 are currently detained across Europe. In Belgium, the figure stood at 1,742 young adults aged 18 to 25 detained as of January 2026.

De Huizen vzw participated in the project as one of the partners. Together with European colleagues, we exchanged knowledge, visited inspiring initiatives, and explored how detention houses can provide greater opportunities for personal development, responsibility, and reintegration. Among the sites we visited were the small-scale detention houses for young adults (KVJJs) in Amsterdam and Rijnmond, Exodus Amsterdam, and the residential project De Tafelberg.

During these visits, we observed how small living groups, strong relationships between staff and residents, shared daily responsibilities, and close connections with the local community contribute not only to the development of young adults but also to a safe and positive detention environment. We saw how conflicts are primarily resolved through dialogue rather than isolation, how local residents volunteer as “good neighbours” for young detainees, and how former closed institutions have been transformed into open residential settings where autonomy and responsibility are central. These practical experiences became an important source of inspiration for our further reflections within the BRIDGE project.

An increasing body of scientific research also confirms that this stage of life requires a distinct approach. Young adults are still developing cognitively, emotionally, and socially. They are generally more receptive to guidance, education, and positive role models, while at the same time being more vulnerable to the harmful effects of traditional prison environments. Across Europe, this growing body of evidence is encouraging policymakers and practitioners to develop detention models that are small-scale, community-based, and focused on responsibility, personal development, and successful reintegration.

A changing policy landscape

Belgium now finds itself at an important turning point. Unlike several other European countries, Belgium does not yet recognise young adults as a separate legal category within its criminal justice system. From the age of eighteen onwards, they fall under the general criminal law applicable to adults.

Nevertheless, important foundations have been laid in recent years. Through their inclusion in the Basic Act on the Prison System, detention houses have evolved from pilot projects into a structural component of the Belgian detention landscape. Transition houses have also received a clear legal framework, providing a sustainable basis for the further development of small-scale detention. In addition, the continued development of the juvenile justice system reflects the growing recognition that psychological and neurological development does not simply stop at the age of eighteen. Together, these reforms demonstrate a clear shift in thinking: towards greater differentiation, more tailor-made approaches, and increased attention to personal development.

Political momentum

This evolution gained further momentum in 2026. The Flemish Government announced additional investments in small-scale and alternative forms of detention and guidance. Shortly afterwards, the National Preventive Mechanism confirmed, in its evaluation of the detention houses in Forest and Kortrijk, the added value of small-scale detention, highlighting human dignity, strong interpersonal relationships, and reintegration as key strengths.

The new federal coalition agreement goes one step further by explicitly expressing, for the first time, the ambition to further differentiate detention houses for specific target groups, including young adults.

From policy to practice

Belgium currently has three detention houses and five transition houses. Although both are part of the country’s move towards a more differentiated and small-scale detention system, they fulfil distinct roles.

In Belgium, detention houses are small-scale facilities where individuals serving prison sentences of up to three years and presenting a low security risk serve their sentences. Residents live in small groups of approximately 20 to 60 people and receive intensive, individualised support. The emphasis lies on responsibility, independence, and successful reintegration. Residents are expected to actively prepare for their return to society by contributing to household tasks, seeking or maintaining employment, volunteering, participating in education or training, and managing their administrative responsibilities. Because detention houses are generally located within urban communities, residents are able to maintain stronger links with society throughout their detention. Individuals convicted of offences such as sexual crimes or terrorism are not eligible for placement in a detention house.

Transition houses, by contrast, accommodate people transferred from traditional prisons to serve the final part of their sentence. Here too, intensive guidance is provided with the aim of ensuring a successful return to society.

Belgium continues to invest in expanding this network. Against this backdrop, the opening of the new detention house in Genk represents more than simply the addition of another facility. It illustrates that the vision of small-scale detention is steadily becoming reality. Publicly available information also indicates that part of its capacity will be reserved for a specific target group, although no final decision has yet been made regarding which group that will be.

From the perspective of the BRIDGE project, this represents an important opportunity. We hope that young adults will become one of the target groups for whom dedicated detention houses are developed. International practice, scientific research, and the exchange of knowledge within BRIDGE consistently point in the same direction: young adults benefit from an approach that takes account of their developmental stage, strengthens their social networks, and prepares them for a successful return to society. Such an approach not only offers better prospects for the young person but also contributes to a safer society by reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

Building the next bridge

Belgium does not yet have dedicated detention houses for young adults. However, the conditions to make them possible are increasingly falling into place. The legal foundations, reforms in juvenile justice, positive evaluations of detention houses, political ambitions, and the continued expansion of new facilities all demonstrate that the groundwork has been laid.

European cooperation is not an end in itself. Its real value lies in translating scientific research, practical experience, and international expertise into better policies and better detention practices.

The bridge between juvenile justice and adult detention has not yet been fully built. But its foundations are now firmly in place. The next step is to build upon them by developing a detention model for young adults that combines responsibility with opportunity, personal development, and sustainable reintegration.

About the BRIDGE Project: BRIDGE is a one-year (oct 2025 – oct 2026) European collaboration led by RESCALED, together with Restorative Justice Nederland and Richtungswechsel Austria, supported by vzw De Huizen. The project explores detention houses for young adults aged 18–25, focusing on education, responsibility, growth and community integration. Click here to learn more.

Co-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 Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.

Posted on

RESCALED General Assembly 2026 in Malta

On 16 June 2026, RESCALED held its annual General Assembly in Malta, hosted by RISe Foundation, one of RESCALED’s founding members. As we do every year, we combined our official General Assembly with activities to connect, learn, and reflect on our shared work and the future of the movement. Alongside the formal voting on strategy, board members, policies, and new members, the gathering created valuable space for exchange and interaction.

Together with representatives from 15 RESCALED member organisations, we had the opportunity to learn more about the work of RISe Foundation, visit several of their facilities, and welcome three new members to the RESCALED movement: PHÖNIX – Training for Life from Austria, Prirašytos rankos from Lithuania, and Afstaða from Iceland. 

Towards Justice that Heals: Detention Houses as a Way Forward

RESCALED and RISe Foundation co-hosted the conference “Towards Justice that Heals: Detention Houses as a Way Forward”.

We were honoured to welcome Maltese ministers Clifton Grima, Minister for Justice, Research and Innovation; Michael Falzon, Minister for Social Policy and the Family; and Glenn Bedingfield, Minister for Home Affairs and Security, as well as Albanian Deputy Minister Elona Alimadhi Hoxha. Their presence and contribution underlined the importance of European exchange and cooperation in building justice systems that are more humane and focused on healing and reintegration.

During the conference, RISe Foundation presented its transition house for men, its focus on restorative justice, and the results gathered from working at the facilities. RESCALED Knowledge Manager Noa Shoshan and Board Member and Co-founder Hans Claus shared insights on detention houses and the impact of the RESCALED movement. A key message throughout the day was clear: reintegration is a process that starts long before release and continues long after. It requires meaningful relationships, tailored support, and opportunities for personal growth and responsibility. Detention houses can make this possible by offering an environment, where people can receive individualised and tailored support and gradually rebuild their lives in the community.

We were also honoured to be invited to a reception at the Ministry for Justice, Research and Innovation, together with Minister Clifton Grima.

Welcome to our new members

During the official General Assembly meeting, among other decisions, we were delighted to welcome three new members to the RESCALED movement.

PHÖNIX – Training for Life from Austria provides health, sports, and social skills training for people in Austrian prisons.

Prirašytos rankos from Lithuania works through prison volunteering, dialogue initiatives, and storytelling projects, including podcasts, to humanise the experiences of incarcerated people and bridge the gap between prisons and the communities around them.

Afstaða from Iceland is a human rights association working in the fields of prison affairs, reintegration, and support for people with lived experience of imprisonment.

Each of these organisations brings unique experience, expertise, and commitment to advancing detention houses. Strengthening the movement at different levels and in two new countries. 

The day concluded with a meeting at the RISe Education Hub, where former residents shared lived experiences from the transition house and Hans Claus paid a tribute to Charlie Mifsud, the co-founder and ‘heart’ of the RISe Foundation, by offering him a self-made statue in honor of his work. 

Visit to RISe Foundation’s facilities

On the third and final day of the General Assembly, RESCALED visited two transition houses run by RISe Foundation. One of these is the Residential Home in Valletta, a small-scale facility for men in the final year of their prison sentence. Established in 2016, the home accommodates ten residents sharing daily life in a communal setting and are supported to take responsibility, maintain relationships, participate in work and house-related tasks, and access services in the community.

RESCALED also visited the second transition house, which is intended for women. The house opened in October 2025, but is not yet in use. It is designed to accommodate four women and includes several outdoor areas. The facility is located in a quiet residential neighbourhood.

We look back on an inspiring week in Malta, filled with exchange, connection, and shared commitment. A heartfelt thank you to RISe Foundation Malta, and in particular to Charlie Mifsud, Yanika Tabone, Purdey Bartolo, Dr Kevin Sammut Henwood, and Matthew Degiorgio, for their warm welcome and inspiring work.

Together, we continue working towards justice systems that heal, restore, and support successful reintegration.

Posted on

Transforming youth justice through dedicated and innovative work: Lessons from Dutch detention houses

Transforming justice systems requires more than policy reform: it demands courage, vision, and the willingness to challenge long-established assumptions. Across Europe, organisations and practitioners are demonstrating that meaningful change is not a distant aspiration but an achievable reality. By placing relationships, trust, and human dignity at the centre of justice practices, they are creating environments that support growth instead of punishment and opportunity instead of exclusion.

On the 30th and 31st of March, Richtungswechsel, Restorative Justice NL, and VZW De Huizen, as part of the BRIDGE project, had the opportunity to visit several inspirational practices for detention houses1 in the Netherlands – Exodus Amsterdam, KVJJ Amsterdam and KVJJ Rijnmond – as well as De Tafelberg, a unique communal living complex for young people in need. These visits provided the national delegations with valuable opportunities to learn from these inspirational practices that are actively reshaping approaches to youth justice and care.

Operating through action before legal frameworks catch up

In 2016, the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Safety introduced small-scale detention facilities (KVJJs) into its system, with the Amsterdam facility opening as a pilot project. Following an initial positive evaluation2, four additional KVJJs were established, including KVJJ Rijnmond in 2021.

Although the KVJJs are fully operational and financed by the ministry, they are not yet formally embedded within Dutch criminal law. KVJJs are currently too distinct from the traditional youth facilities (JJIs) and as a result, current legal structures provide limited space for direct inclusion of this model.

Efforts are ongoing to formally integrate these facilities into legislation, which would strengthen their long-term sustainability and secure funding structures. Yet, even without this legal foundation, the KVJJs continue to operate successfully. Alongside them, organisations such as Exodus have managed detention facilities under special measures for many years through civil society initiatives. 

Together, these examples demonstrate an important lesson: system change does not always need to wait for legal systems to evolve. Action can begin now, creating meaningful support and opportunities for incarcerated individuals while broader reforms continue to develop. 

Practicing relational security through trusting relationships

While Dutch prison authorities continue planning large-scale prison facilities, experiences from detention houses illustrate that security can also be built through relationships. Relational security, based on trust and meaningful connection, has proven to be a powerful approach in supporting young people in detention. 3

The KVJJs and Exodus Amsterdam work strongly from this relational approach, placing daily interaction between staff and residents at the heart of their practice. KVJJ Amsterdam offers a particularly inspirational practice of the use of relational security. When the facility opened, the location was required to have a time-out room where residents could go to calm down after conflicts. Yet staff quickly realised that the room was almost never used. Conflicts rarely escalated, and when tensions emerged staff chose to engage the residents in conversations aimed at understanding their underlying emotions and circumstances. Eventually, the unused time-out room was transformed into a music room.

What could have remained a space designed for separation and control became a space for creative expression; showing how a different way of working can reshape both spaces and relationships within them. 

Addressing the “Not In My Backyard” challenge

One of the most notable observations during the visits was how these organisations approached the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) challenge. Communities often express concerns about detention houses being established within residential neighbourhoods, making community engagement an essential component of implementation and transformation. 

The organisations addressed this challenge through two key strategies: repurposing buildings with an existing history of social function and building strong, ongoing relationships with surrounding communities.

The Exodus Foundation, for example, provides a range of services including assisted living for (formerly) incarcerated individuals. The facility of Exodus in Amsterdam has undergone several transformations: originally functioning as a kindergarten, and later becoming a guided living and reintegration house in 1984, before being taken over by Exodus approximately 25 years ago.

Staff explained that this previous history of social use has significantly supported their work. The neighbourhood was already familiar with the building’s social purpose which reduced fear and possible resistance. For many residents in the area, the facility has become a normal part of the community.

This experience was shared at KVJJ Rijnmond, which previously operated as a youth care facility. The building’s history with housing vulnerable populations created familiarity among neighbours, contributing to a welcoming environment. Staff described strong relationships with the surrounding community, with very few complaints and, in some cases, active support from local neighbours.

Particularly noteworthy are the two residential apartments directly connected to the facility. The so-called “Good Neighbours” organise activities such as dinners or movie nights for the young residents. These initiatives create opportunities for normal social interactions and help the residents build meaningful connections beyond the boundaries of detention.  

Transforming prison buildings into places of opportunity

Transforming justice systems also requires rethinking the physical environments in which they operate. Buildings designed around control and confinement inevitably shape experiences and relationships. Creating more supportive systems therefore requires transforming the spaces themselves.

De Tafelberg offers a compelling example of such a transformation. Today, it functions as a communal living complex housing 290 young people in need. Yet its history reflects a very different reality.

For many years, the building operated as a youth prison. After its closure, it became a closed youth care institution but little changed beyond the name. The architecture remained largely untouched, and many practices continued to reflect a prison culture. Restrictive measures were justified as protection, yet over time it became increasingly evident that this form of closed care often created harmful and traumatic experiences for young residents. Following years of advocacy for reform in youth care, the facility was ultimately closed permanently. 

Rather than demolishing the building, Levvel, a youth care organisation, envisioned a different future and developed the concept of De Tafelberg. Importantly, young people themselves were involved in shaping that vision. Levvel consulted young people on what they wanted from the space, and their perspectives became central to their redesign process. For example, they highlighted the importance of autonomy. In response, alongside shared kitchens on each floor, every room was equipped with its own kitchen, allowing residents to decide whether they wanted company or privacy. Practical wishes, such as windows that could be opened and increased green spaces on the property, were also incorporated into the design.

The Tafelberg demonstrates that places once associated with punishment and control can be transformed into environments centred on support, autonomy, and community. 

Opportunities for change

Systemic change rarely happens overnight. It requires persistence, collaboration, and the willingness to imagine alternative futures. The initiatives and inspirational practices visited during the BRIDGE visit demonstrate that change is not only possible but already happening. These practices show that dedicated people and innovative ideas can create impactful alternatives to traditional systems. The foundations are already in place. What is needed now is stronger legal recognition, sustainable (financial) support, and continued collaboration to allow these practices not only to survive, but to flourish.

About the BRIDGE Project: BRIDGE is a one-year (oct 2025 – oct 2026) European collaboration led by RESCALED, together with Restorative Justice Nederland and Richtungswechsel Austria, supported by vzw De Huizen. The project explores detention houses for young adults aged 18–25, focusing on education, responsibility, growth and community integration.
Click here to learn more.

Co-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 Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.

Footnotes:

  1.  It is important to note that the practices shown here are considered inspirational because they materialize one or more principles of small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated detention houses. This also means that they do not all reflect a ‘perfect’ detention house. They have been compiled as examples to illustrate innovative and effective ideas that may be useful to consider when implementing a new detention house. It is therefore essential to consult the relevant accompanying information and/or the respective authorities if you wish to learn more about a specific facility
    ↩︎
  2.  The Dutch Scientific Research and Data Center (WODC) is currently conducting another research project into the effectiveness of KVJJs. The results are expected in late 2026. ↩︎
  3.  Although RESCALED focuses specifically on young adults in detention, the KVJJs are specifically aimed at both youngsters and young adults (aged 12 to 23) who have been sentenced under the juvenile justice system. Therefore, the article uses “young people” to capture both age groups accurately. ↩︎
Posted on

Rethinking detention for young adults: reflections from Larvik

A visit to Sǿndre Vestfold fengsel, Larvik 

As part of the Erasmus+ BRIDGE project, we visited Søndre Vestfold fengsel in Larvik, Norway. Together with a Dutch radio journalist and a researcher, I spent several hours inside this small-scale prison for young adult men aged eighteen to twenty-five. Our host was Frode Svendsen, managing coordinator of the facility and someone with many years of experience working with young people in detention.

The BRIDGE project explores how detention for young adults can be organised in ways that are more responsive to this specific stage of life. Young adults in detention often face challenges linked to identity formation, education, mental wellbeing, social belonging and transition into adulthood. Large-scale prisons frequently struggle to respond adequately to these needs.

Within this context, discussions around detention houses become increasingly relevant. Detention houses are small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated. The emphasis is placed on relationships, guidance, participation and reintegration rather than isolation and institutional distance. They are based on the idea that detention should not unnecessarily disconnect people from society, particularly during this formative stage of life.

Søndre Vestfold fengsel, Larvik unit is not formally organised as a detention house. It remains a closed and relatively high-security prison setting. Yet the visit demonstrated how the three core principles of detention houses can also be applied within high-security detention facilities. 

Larvik accommodates a maximum of fifteen young adults and is located close to the centre of the city. At the time of our visit, the average age was 21.3 years. The prison building itself dates back to 1862 and still reflects the architecture of a traditional prison. The robust but refurbished cells and classical gangways clearly belong to another era. Nevertheless, the atmosphere and daily practice inside the unit differ considerably from what one would usually associate with a traditional high-security prison. 

The approach inside the prison is strongly relationship-based. Each young person is supported individually by a contact officer and daily interaction between staff and residents is characterised by proximity, communication and trust. Some staff members wear uniforms, while others do not, but the overall atmosphere remains informal and communicative. During our visit, it became clear that relational security is not seen as separate from safety, but as an essential part of it.

During the visit, an interesting discussion emerged around the question of whether Larvik could be described as a detention house. Because of its closed character and relatively strict security framework, we would rather describe it as a small-scale prison. At the same time, several aspects of the daily practice strongly resonate with principles often associated with detention houses: the small scale, the relational approach, the individual support structure and the continued emphasis on participation and community connection.

We met two of the fifteen young men residing in the prison, they both spoke positively about the staff, the atmosphere and the opportunities available to them. Young men can spend between ten and twelve hours outside their cells each day. After lunch, they briefly return to their rooms for around fifteen minutes without being locked in. This moment is deliberately organised to create some rest and distance from continuous group interaction and stimulation.

Many daily activities take place in a communal living area in the annex building. Access to this space is organised together with staff members, reinforcing the importance of interaction and guidance in the daily regime. There is also a well-equipped kitchen where one of the staff members, who is also a teacher, regularly cooks together with the young men.

Education and daily activities are an important part of the regime. Most young men attend school activities inside the prison and some participate in higher education. Other activities include stress and anger management, group meetings and physical exercise.

Like many detention settings across Europe, Larvik has also seen increasing challenges related to trauma, mental health and psychological vulnerability among young people in detention. The small scale of the prison and the one-to-one approach appear to create more room for individual responsiveness and adaptation to these changing needs.

An interesting example is the toolbox “Play it Right”, originally developed for work with sex offenders but now used more broadly to create conversations around gender equality, sexuality and sexual development. Norway’s “import model” also means that healthcare and psychological services are delivered by external services rather than by the prison administration itself.

What stood out most during the visit was the continued connection with the outside community. Some young men are allowed to participate in sports and leisure activities outside the prison together with their contact officer. There are also interactions with local volunteers and opportunities for young men to contribute to community initiatives.

These practices may appear modest, but they reflect a broader understanding of detention: one in which security and community connection are not necessarily opposites. Particularly for young adults, maintaining links with society can play an important role in supporting development and preventing further social exclusion.

The visit to Larvik does not provide a perfect blueprint, nor does it eliminate the tensions that exist within secure detention. However, it does demonstrate how small-scale approaches, relational practices and community connection can create a different experience of detention for young adults.

Even within a high-security detention facility, Larvik demonstrates how detention can be organised around relationships, responsibility and continued connection with society. It raises an important question for European detention systems: not only how young adults are detained, but what detention should ultimately achieve during this formative stage of life.

About the BRIDGE Project: BRIDGE is a one-year (oct 2025 – oct 2026) European collaboration led by RESCALED, together with Restorative Justice Nederland and Richtungswechsel Austria, supported by vzw De Huizen. The project explores detention houses for young adults aged 18–25, focusing on education, responsibility, growth and community integration.
Click here to learn more.

Co-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 Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.

Posted on

FRAME

FRAME (Frameworks for Realising, Assessing, and Monitoring small-scale detention in Europe) is a two-year European project that strengthens how small-scale detention is assessed, implemented, and embedded across Europe. As small-scale detention increasingly replaces large prison institutions, FRAME works to make sure  these facilities are measurable, comparable across countries, and anchored in human rights, policy, and positive social impact.

The project brings together four organisations with complementary expertise in justice reform: RESCALED (Belgium – European), Antigone Association (Italy), Irish Penal Reform Trust (Ireland), and Penal Reform International (the Netherlands – International).

What FRAME does

FRAME responds to increasing EU-level recognition of the need to move from large prison institutions toward small-scale, community-integrated detention houses, supported by key policy developments such as the Council Conclusions of June 2024 and the UN Resolution 57/9 of October 2024 on social reintegration. 

These instruments recognise small-scale detention houses as a way to improve reintegration, protect human rights, and reduce reoffending. They also call for evidence-based assessment and dissemination of good practices across Member States. 

FRAME turns these commitments into action by embedding small-scale detention within national and European monitoring frameworks and developing tools that link small-scale detention to sustainable development.

FRAME develops a data-driven monitoring and evaluation framework specifically designed for small-scale detention houses. The framework combines quantitative and qualitative indicators and connects national, European, and international standards, including the European Prison Rules and the UN Mandela Rules, to improve transparency, accountability, and learning between countries.

Human rights, social impact and the SDGs

Through comparative case studies in eight European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, France, Lithuania, Finland, and Germany) FRAME examines;

  • how national, European, and international human rights standards are applied in small-scale detention; and
  • how small-scale detention contributes to broader societal outcomes by integrating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into monitoring practices.

This approach connects deprivation of liberty to outcomes such as social inclusion, reduced inequality, mental well-being, education, and access to employment.

From monitoring to policy change

FRAME translates evidence into policy recommendations and legislative proposals that support the formal recognition of small-scale detention within national, European, and international frameworks. A central objective is to ensure that small-scale detention replaces rather than supplements large-scale prisons, with clear criteria to avoid unnecessary deprivation of liberty.

How FRAME works

FRAME is structured around five interconnected work packages:

  • WP1 – Project management and coordination: ensures effective project management, transparent financial oversight, and long-term sustainability of project outcomes.
  • WP2 – Monitoring small-scale detention: aligns monitoring frameworks and develops qualitative and quantitative tools to assess conditions and effectiveness in small-scale detention.
  • WP3 – Accessing small scale detention in relation to SDG’s: integrates the UN Sustainable Development Goals into monitoring frameworks to assess broader social impact.
  • WP4 – Realising small-scale detention: translates evidence into legal and policy proposals that embed small-scale detention as a regulated replacement for large prisons.
  • WP5 – Communication, dissemination and impact: ensures visibility, stakeholder engagement, knowledge exchange, and long-term impact beyond the project duration.

Together, these work packages ensure coherence between evidence, policy, and practice.

Engagement and impact

FRAME takes an ecosystem approach, working closely with policymakers, legal professionals, practitioners, researchers, people with lived experience, community organisations, and human rights actors. Through interactive workshops, learning sessions, strategic visits, and policy roundtables, the project brings together diverse perspectives to ensure that monitoring, evaluation, and policy development are grounded in real-world practice. This collaboration helps co-create evidence-based solutions that support lasting reform and the sustainable implementation of small-scale detention across Europe.

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.

Posted on

Rethinking Justice for Young Adults

Across Europe, justice systems are reevaluating their approach to addressing young adults who come into conflict with the law. For those aged eighteen to twenty-five, this period represents a crucial stage of transition from dependence to autonomy, from impulsivity to reflection, from isolation to belonging. Yet traditional custodial institutions, designed primarily for control, often interrupt this process. Instead of promoting responsibility and reintegration, they can deepen exclusion, making the return to community life more difficult.1

A new vision is taking hold. Governments, researchers, and practitioners are moving away from large, punitive structures toward smaller, community-based environments built on education, trust, and participation. This emerging approach recognises that societies grow safer not through isolation, but through connection.2

The “Missing Middle”: Young Adults Between Systems

A persistent challenge across European justice systems is the so-called “missing middle”, those aged eighteen to twenty-five who are too old for juvenile measures yet not fully matured adults.

In Austria, the Jugendgerichtsgesetz (§§35–36) separates minors from adults, but many under twenty-two are still held in adult facilities.3 The Netherlands recognises that emotional and cognitive development continues into the mid-twenties; Articles 77h–77hh of its Criminal Code allow youth measures up to age twenty-three, contributing to a significant decline in detention rates.4 Switzerland applies a similar principle under Article 61 of its Criminal Code, enabling young adults to join educational and therapeutic programmes such as the Établissement des Léchaires, where growth and guidance replace control.5

In Belgium, the legal framework already provides for an extended approach toward young adults. Under the current law, individuals who committed an offence before the age of eighteen can remain in community institutions that traditionally serve minors until the age of twenty-five. These institutions, governed by the Juvenile Delinquency Decree, combine varying levels of security with strong educational and therapeutic support.6 In addition, the 2025 coalition agreement signals a political intention to adapt the system further. It explicitly states that Belgium aims to develop detention houses for specific target groups, including young adults. While this commitment has not yet been translated into concrete implementation, it indicates a clear policy direction toward more differentiated forms of detention.

By contrast, reforms such as Italy’s 2023 Caivano Decree, which expanded pre-trial confinement for young people, risk reinforcing outdated, punitive reflexes and overcrowded conditions.7 Across Europe, the difference between progress and regression is increasingly clear: one path invests in responsibility and belonging; the other perpetuates control and disconnection.

Why Focus on 18–25: The BRIDGE Perspective

The BRIDGE project, Building Responsibility & Inclusion through Detention houses for youngsters to support growth and education, places the eighteen-to-twenty-five age group at the heart of its mission. This stage of life is a turning point: the development of self-identity, decision-making, and social belonging is still underway. Yet justice systems often treat young adults as if they were fully mature, exposing them to environments that suppress development rather than support it.

BRIDGE proposes a different approach to small-scale, community-linked living environments that promote education, autonomy, and dignity. These are safe places where young adults can learn to take responsibility, build meaningful relationships, and develop the skills necessary for independent living. 

Building on this foundation, Belgium’s loopplankhuizen (“bridge houses”) proposal provides an innovative framework for young adults aged eighteen to twenty-five who struggle to find a place within existing systems.8 Developed by vzw De Huizen, this initiative is designed as a literal and symbolic bridge a path between custody and full social participation. Grounded in the principles of small-scale, differentiation, and community integration, bridge houses reflect the same philosophy that guides BRIDGE.

Each house would accommodate no more than seven to ten residents, creating a small-scale environment where communication, autonomy, and responsibility can grow. Within these small groups, young adults also participate in daily collective processes, learning from one another, building social relationships, and taking shared responsibility for everyday activities.9 Support is personal and holistic: every young adult co-creates a “solution plan” to guide their path toward independence. The houses are also embedded within local communities, allowing residents to participate in nearby educational, employment, and volunteering opportunities. In essence, the facility becomes a bridge, increasing autonomy and promoting participation at a level suited to each young person and their circumstances, rather than excluding them from society.

Learning from Inspirational Facilities Across Europe

Across Europe, only a few facilities focus exclusively on young adults. One notable example is the Søndre Vestfold fengsel, Larvik Unit in Norway, which is specifically designed for individuals aged eighteen to twenty-five.10 Guided by the proximity principle, the unit places relationships at the centre of daily life. The correctional officers that work there, work without uniforms, and high staff-to-resident ratios enable personal follow-up and tailored guidance. Education, outdoor activities, and community volunteering are part of everyday life.11

Beyond such rare examples, several facilities across Europe embody similar values even though they primarily serve minors. Depending on national legislation, some of these institutions can extend their approach to young adults up to the age of eighteen to twenty-five. Even though the legal frameworks differ, as these facilities often fall under youth or minor legislation, the way they operate remains highly inspiring for how detention houses for young adults could and should function.

Seehaus Leonberg in Germany operates as a “school of life” for young men aged fourteen to twenty-three, built around a strong family-like atmosphere. The young people live in small “families” on the Seehaus estate, where everyday life is shaped by shared routines, mutual support, and a positive group culture. A tiered system further supports development by rewarding progress with increased responsibilities and opportunities.12 The Netherlands’ Small-Scale Judicial Youth Facilities (KVJJ) on the other hand maintain close ties to family, school, and community, ensuring that young people remain connected to ordinary life while in detention.13

These examples show that transformation is not merely theoretical but already happening. Across different systems, the most effective approaches share a common foundation rooted in proximity, dignity, and constructive human connection. Where large institutions isolate, small-scale environments empower; where rigid control suppresses growth, supportive structure enables it. This shift is evident not only in how we see and treat young adults in detention, but also in how we design the facilities and systems that shape their everyday lives.

Still, disparities remain. In some countries, young adults continue to be placed in adult prisons with limited access to education, psychosocial support, or meaningful work. Overcrowding, staff shortages, and rigid hierarchies continue to undermine reform. Yet evidence from Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany consistently shows that smaller, relationship-based environments achieve better results in reducing reoffending, improving well-being, and strengthening communities.

A new path forward for young adults

Europe’s justice systems are gradually converging around a shared understanding: safety and stability are built on dignity and support, not repression. The future of detention lies not in expanding institutions or tightening control, but in creating environments that encourages dignity and a sense of belonging.

The future of justice for young adults will be built on bridges—bridges that connect individuals to community, learning, and responsibility; bridges that lead away from exclusion and toward a life of inclusion and belonging.

  1. World Prison Brief. (2025). Country Profiles. https://www.prisonstudies.org/ ↩︎
  2.  Butts, J. A., Mears, D. P., Justice Policy Center, & The Urban Institute. (2001). Reviving Juvenile Justice in a Get-Tough Era. Youth and Society, 33(2), 169–198. ↩︎
  3.  Austrian Ministry of Justice. (2024). Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG) §§35–36. https://www.justiz.gv.at/ ↩︎
  4.  Dutch Ministry of Justice. (2024). Criminal Code Articles 77h–77hh. https://wetten.overheid.nl/ ↩︎
  5.  Swiss Federal Office of Justice. (2023). Criminal Code Article 61. https://www.skjv.ch/ ↩︎
  6.  Aidealajeunesse. (2023). Les Institutions Publiques de Protection de la Jeunesse (IPPJ). https://www.aidealajeunesse.cfwb.be/ ↩︎
  7.  Antigone. (2024). One Year After the Caivano Decree: Dossier ENG. https://www.antigone.it/upload/Dossier_Caivano_(ENG).pdf  ↩︎
  8.  De Huizen. (2019). Aanbevelingennota voor kwalitatieve en succesvolle loopplankhuizen. https://www.dehuizen.be/media/aanbevelingsnota-loopplankhuizen_03102019_web.pdf ↩︎
  9.  ibid ↩︎
  10.  Norwegian Correctional Service. (2025). Youth Punishment Act and KRUS Academy. https://kommunikasjon.ntb.no/ ↩︎
  11.  Antonsen, K., & Sandvold, F. W. (2022). Punishment That Makes a Difference? RESCALED Principles Practiced in Norwegian Prisons. RESCALED Norway. ↩︎
  12.  Seehaus Foundation. (2024). Seehaus Leonberg Youth Project. https://seehaus-ev.de/arbeitsbereiche/seehaus-leonberg/ ↩︎
  13.  Dutch Ministry of Justice. (2024). Small-Scale Judicial Youth Facilities (KVJJ).. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ ↩︎

Posted on

UN political instruments: a strong foundation for RESCALED’s vision of justice reform

The United Nations plays a crucial role in establishing global standards for all forms of deprivation of liberty. Through committees, conventions, and monitoring bodies, like the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), the UN works to ensure the humane treatment of people deprived of their liberty worldwide. These mechanisms, alongside frameworks such as the Nelson Mandela Rules and specialized guidelines for women and young people, form a robust international system designed to protect the human rights and dignity of all persons deprived of their liberty.

These human rights standards provide a strong support base for RESCALED’s innovative approach to detention, reinforcing the core principles of detention houses: small-scale, differentiation, community integration, and the ecosystem perspective. The ecosystem perspective recognizes the complex interconnections and shared responsibility between the justice system and other social systems, like healthcare, education, and employment, in supporting both detention facilities and the broader communities they serve.

Small-scale: The Nelson Mandela Rules explicitly state that the number of people in detention should not hinder individualized treatment (Rule 89.3), while the Havana Rules directly call for small-scale detention facilities integrated into communities (Rule 30). Research shows that positive relationships in detention facilities increase well-being while reducing violence, disorder and self-harm1, and higher quality of life during detention has been linked to reduced reoffending after release2.

Differentiation: Multiple UN instruments mandate individualized approaches. The Nelson Mandela Rules emphasize that prisons “do not need to provide the same degree of security for every group” (Rule 89.2), while the Bangkok Rules, Beijing Rules, and Havana Rules establish specific requirements for women and young people based on their unique needs.

Community integration: The Nelson Mandela Rules emphasize people’s continuing role in the community (Rule 88.1), the Bangkok Rules require women’s facilities to be close to their homes (Rule 4), and the Havana Rules specify that detention facilities should be decentralized and integrated into community environments (Rule 30).

The ecosystem perspective: UN instruments increasingly recognize that detention cannot be viewed in isolation. The UN Special Rapporteur’s report (A/HRC/57/46)3 emphasizes multi-sector collaboration, while the Bangkok Rules, Tokyo Rules, and Nelson Mandela Rules all highlight how community systems contribute to rehabilitation and reintegration.

From guidelines to action

The need for change is increasingly recognized internationally. The 2021 UN System Common Position on Incarceration4 explicitly establishes “reducing the overreliance on incarceration” as a primary objective. With global prison populations exceeding 11 million people and having increased by 25% since 2000, the document emphasizes that “incarceration should be used as a last resort.”

5Recent policy developments demonstrate concrete progress. The 2024 European Council Conclusions on Small-scale Detention, unanimously approved by all 27 EU Ministers for Justice, specifically recognize that “small-scale detention can improve both the working conditions for staff and the quality of life of detained persons.” Similarly, UN Resolution 57/9 on “Social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures”6 encourages member states to consider introducing “appropriate alternatives to traditional incarceration, including small-scale detention centres.”

However, significant work remains to bridge the gap between policy frameworks and practical implementation, precisely what RESCALED is working to achieve across Europe. While UN standards establish minimum requirements for dignity and humane treatment, they often lack specific guidance on implementation. RESCALED goes beyond these baseline standards by providing a comprehensive, actionable framework demonstrating how detention houses can transform detention from isolation into meaningful opportunity.

The path forward

When implemented effectively, this approach benefits everyone: people in detention are treated with dignity and have real opportunities to rebuild their lives; families can stay connected; communities take shared responsibility for safer neighbourhoods; staff work in more positive environments; and society creates inclusive systems recognizing everyone’s potential to contribute.

Want to know more about the connections between international human rights standards and RESCALED’s vision for justice reform? Read the full blogpost (PDF)

UN political instruments- a strong foundation for RESCALED’s vision of justice reformDownload

  1. Auty & Liebling, 2020; Johnsen et al. 2011; Liebling, 2004; 2011. ↩︎
  2. Auty & Liebling, 2020. ↩︎
  3. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/57/46  ↩︎
  4. https://www.unodc.org/res/justice-and-prison-reform/nelsonmandelarules-GoF/UN_System_Common_Position_on_Incarceration.pdf ↩︎
  5. https://share.google/ZJkq7ukvYsNuQYRav  ↩︎
  6. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4063839/files/A_HRC_RES_57_9-EN.pdf  ↩︎
Posted on

The sentence is not sickness: a case for health-centered justice in Europe

Across Europe, prisons have become ground zero for a growing mental health crisis. This crisis is not just about the vulnerabilities of those incarcerated, but also about the failures of our public institutions. Despite longstanding international obligations, mental health care in detention remains wholly insufficient.1

On any given day, over 1,5 million people are imprisoned across Europe.2 While mental health conditions are widespread in society, they are dramatically amplified behind bars. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about one in three people in detention live with a mental health condition, double the rate in the general population.3

This overrepresentation is no accident. The same factors that increase the risk of poor mental health also increase the risk of incarceration.4 Furthermore, prisons have absorbed the burden of underfunded psychiatric institutions, becoming de facto mental health facilities, though they are utterly unsuited to this role.5 Overcrowding, constant noise, lack of privacy, and punitive measures like solitary confinement actively worsen mental health conditions.6

Nonetheless, the right to health is inalienable, even in detention. The principle of equivalence holds that healthcare in detention must meet the same standards as in the community.7 The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly affirmed that States are obliged to provide the requisite medical assistance and ensure conditions compatible with human dignity. Recent judgments go further, questioning whether prisons are ever appropriate for people with serious mental conditions.8

Despite decades of international guidance, thousands suffer from untreated or misdiagnosed mental health conditions in detention. This is not incidental, it is structural. RESCALED’s research across 15 European countries, as part of the RESIZE project, found seven critical shortcomings9:

  1. Governance gaps: In most countries, health care in detention is managed by justice ministries, not health ministries. This creates an institutional conflict between punishment and care. Integration with national health systems is rare, leaving health in detention isolated and fragmented.
  2. Chronic understaffing: Prisons are expected to manage complex health needs with a fraction of the workforce available in the community. There are too few mental health specialists, leading to underdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and staff burnout.
  3. Lack of infrastructure: Many with severe mental health conditions are placed in ordinary prisons instead of specialized facilities. Therapeutic environments are in short supply, and those that exist are overwhelmed.
  4. Inadequate screening and care: Psychiatric screenings are inconsistent and often substandard. Vulnerable groups -women, young adults, the elderly- rarely receive specialized, trauma-informed care.
  5. Uneven access to community services: Partnerships with external providers are inconsistent and often unstable. Many are released without support, increasing the risk of relapse and reoffending.
  6. Lack of continuity of care: Mental health support often ends abruptly at release, with little or no handover. This undermines the principle of continuity of care, a basic patient right. 
  7. Data deficiencies: Many countries fail to collect or report data on key indicators like prevalence of mental disorders or suicide. Without data, there is no accountability or evidence-based policy.10

These failures are not isolated; they are symptoms of a system designed for containment, not care. Centralized prisons prioritize security and efficiency at the expense of health and dignity. Even as rhetoric shifts toward restorative justice, mental health care remains marginal, often reduced to crisis management.

Detention houses offer a clear path forward, built on three principles: small-scale, differentiation, and community-integration.

  1. Small-scale: Detention houses accommodate small groups (8-30 people), enabling personalized care and meaningful relationships between staff and residents.
  2. Differentiation: Facilities are tailored to specific needs like mental health conditions, as required by European human rights law. Staff are trained in relevant approaches, and regimes are adapted accordingly.
  3. Community-integration: Detention houses are embedded in local communities, allowing residents to access local health clinics and programs to promote continuity and quality of care.

Across Europe, many facilities already embody this approach, demonstrating that more humane and community-connected forms of detention are both possible and already being realized.11 Detention houses succeed where centralized prisons fail because they function as part of a broader ecosystem. They connect directly to community health services, ensuring residents remain part of the wider system of treatment and support.

Given the evidence that centralized carceral institutions consistently undermine basic rights, it is clear that a fundamental rethinking of our approach is necessary. The path forward lies in shifting responsibility for mental health back to health systems and embedding care within the broader community ecosystem, as exemplified by the RESCALED approach.

About the RESIZE project: To address the issues highlighted in this blog post, RESCALED is leading the “Reshaping Correctional Competencies through RESCALED Innovation” (RESIZE) initiative. Find out more here.

Read the full report on Mental Health

Report RESCALED – The sentence is not sickness, a case for health-centered justice in Europe.docxDownload
  1. The scope of this report encompasses prisons and where appropriate, detention facilities. For the purpose of this report, the latter refers to facilities where individuals serve sentences involving the deprivation of liberty. The following settings do not fall under the scope of this report: juvenile detention centers, police stations, immigration holding centers, psychiatric hospitals, social care homes, etc. ↩︎
  2. Although it is estimated that 6 million people are incarcerated every year in the WHO European Region. See World Health Organization (February 2023). Status report on prison health in the WHO European Region, XI.
    ↩︎
  3. World Health Organization. (s.d.). Health in Prisons European Database (HIPED). Retrieved October 8, 2025 from https://www.who.int/data/region/europe/health-in-prisons-european-database-(hiped). For this purpose, the World Health Organization defines mental health conditions as depression, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia and other psychosis, dementia, and developmental disorders, including autism. ↩︎
  4. Council of Europe. (May 2022). Prisons and probation: a Council of Europe White Paper regarding persons with mental health disorders (PC-CP (2021) 8 Rev 6). ↩︎
  5. Schildbach, S., & Schildbach, C. (October 2018). Criminalization Through Transinstitutionalization: A Critical Review of the Penrose Hypothesis in the Context of Compensation Imprisonment. ↩︎
  6. MacDonald, M. (June 2018). Overcrowding and its impact on prison conditions and health. Council of Europe. (February 2019). Organisation and management of health care in prison, 37.  ↩︎
  7. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. (April 1998). Recommendation No. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the ethical and organizational aspects of health care in prison; United Nations. (December 2015). Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), Rule 24; Council of Europe. (June 2006). European Prison Rules (Recommendation REC(2006)2), Rule 40. ↩︎
  8. For more details on this extensive case-law, see the full report.  ↩︎
  9. The countries surveyed were Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain ↩︎
  10. Findings based on the survey conducted by RESCALED as part of the RESIZE project, as well as data from World Health Organization. (February 2023). Status report on prison health in the WHO European Region. ↩︎
  11. For example, Belgium’s detention and transition houses, Italy’s Residenze per l’Esecuzione delle Misure di Sicurezza (REMS), Spain’s PAIEM program, Switzerland’s Vollzugszentrum Klosterfiechten, Portugal’s Torres Novas, and the Netherlands’ Huis van Herstel. For more inspirational practices, see RESCALED. (s.d.). Inspirational practices. Retrieved October 8, 2025, from https://inspirational-practices.rescaled.org/.  ↩︎
Posted on

Rethinking justice: our children are the future

I often meet children who miss their parent but can barely find the words to express their feelings. Sometimes they casually mention that they were allowed to see their dad for an hour last month, and sometimes they avoid the subject altogether.

I know this silence well. I was one of those children. Sometimes I stayed silent because talking about it hurt too much. When I did speak, my words were tangled and hard for others to grasp. Then I would immediately regret speaking, wishing I had said nothing at all. I didn’t want the looks, no matter how well-intentioned they might have been.

At the same time, I felt burdened to say that I missed my dad, that I was tired and worried. After all, I missed my father because he had committed a crime. It constantly felt as though my missing wasn’t allowed to exist. He was the one serving a sentence, not me. Moreover, it was his own fault, and if you do something against the law, you must face the consequences. That was a lesson I learned from him as well.

But the truth is this: a prison sentence never impacts only one person.

Invisible children

When someone goes to prison, their partners, children, and families also carry the consequences, yet in public debate and policy, they remain invisible.

It wasn’t my sentence, and it isn’t the sentence of the approximately 25,000 children in the Netherlands who currently have a parent in prison. And yet, in many ways, they too are punished. Behind their silence lies a reality that we, as a society, pay far too little attention to.

These children feel the impact of a parent’s prison sentence every single day. They are often literally and figuratively invisible. In the classroom, they usually don’t tell the real reason why their father or mother is absent. If they do, they risk facing the consequences:, 

“Maybe you should aim a little lower.”

“Better not talk about it, because it scares the other kids.” 

“We’d rather our child doesn’t play with yours.”

Teachers and social workers often don’t recognize the signs either, because nothing is said, and no official notification is made when a parent goes to prison. And maybe that’s for the best, because before you know it, the system may step in too quickly, deciding that contact with the parent should be cut off altogether. That, too, is a form of professional helplessness.

The reality is that most of these children are caught in silent grief, loyalty conflicts, shame, and uncertainty, all playing out behind closed doors, with all that follows from it.

Beyond judgment

I can already hear the voices: “He should have thought of that earlier,” “What a bad example!” 

I understand those reactions. But behind many crimes, there is a parent who takes his kids to school, buys his son the soccer shoes he dreamed of, reads bedtime stories, tells bad jokes, and wipes away his daughter’s tears after a hard day at school. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, there are situations where contact between a child and a parent is not safe or desirable. But when safety is not the issue, decisions about contact should be made in the best interest of the child and, whenever possible, rest with the child themselves.

In many cases, two perspectives exist side by side: a crime is something you do, a parent is someone you are.

The hidden impact

Research on ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) shows that having a parent in detention is a profound childhood experience. Before I continue, let me add a caveat: professionals shouldn’t fixate on numbers and facts, as this can also contribute to stigmatization. 

Anyway…

The effects can last well into adulthood. Some children develop behavioral problems or struggle at school. Others withdraw or take on the role of “the strong one” in the family. But there are also resilience factors, such as supportive networks, hobbies, and stable routines, that can help prevent children’s lasting harm.

What these children especially need is a safe and stable environment where they are free to love their parent, unconditionally, and where they can receive that unconditional love in return.

What I mean is that the punishment itself isn’t what creates the greatest risk of developmental problems, but rather how we, as a society, view and treat these children.

A different approach: detention houses

What if justice looked different?

In large-scale prisons, visiting opportunities are limited and rarely designed with children in mind. To help bridge this gap, the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency, often in collaboration with volunteer organizations such as Exodus Netherlands, organizes special parent–child days at least four times a year. These initiatives allow children to spend time with their parent in a more natural, meaningful way.

This also means that some children see their parent for barely eight hours a year. just eight hours to hold on to a bond that shapes their entire childhood. 

Knowing that children benefit from contact with their parents, and that such contact supports healthy development, makes this reality a bitter pill to swallow. After all, our children are the future, aren’t they?

Detention houses could offer a different perspective. For children, this could mean fewer barriers and less rigid, impersonal security measures, making visits feel more natural. Detention houses support integration during the sentence, meaning that parents can remain visibly involved in their child’s upbringing, helping with homework or even attending parent–teacher meetings, ensuring continuity in their role. 

Because detention houses are located within society, they are often closer to home, which reduces travel time and makes visits less of a burden while allowing for more frequent contact. The buildings and atmosphere themselves are more homely, less intimidating, and safer, with room for simple, everyday moments like playing a game or sitting on the couch together. Such settings encourage genuine contact without children having to be on guard, everyday moments for most children, but a rare luxury for those with a parent in detention.

In this way, detention houses create space for children to remain children, and for parents to remain parents.

But most importantly, detention houses create more room for tailored approaches, shaped around the needs of the parent AND the child.

Families know the parent best, yet in most cases they are not considered an active partner. I believe that is a missed opportunity. When genuine trust is built, and trust truly is the key, families can play a pivotal role in the parents’ life, time in detention and (re)integration process.

Moreover, detention houses do not only enable a more person-focused approach; they allow the entire family system to benefit. Strong family relationships make children and parents more resilient against the negative effects of detention, and in turn, this reduces the risk of reoffending. It is, quite simply, a win–win for children, families, and society as a whole.

Our children, our future

When we talk about justice, we must also talk about the children who live with its consequences. They didn’t commit the crime, yet they carry the sentence in silence.

If we truly believe our children are the future, then we must build a justice system that protects not only society from harm, but also children from unnecessary loss. A system that sees them, supports them, and allows them to keep hold of the bond that shapes their childhood.

Because their future is our future, too.

Annelyn Smit (Not My Crime) contributed to RESCALED’s position paper Lived Experience at the Core – Embedding Voices, Knowledge, and Expertise in the RESCALED Movement.

The paper stresses the meaningful inclusion of people with lived experience, uniting diverse perspectives within one framework and centring the individual. It calls for lived experience to be embedded as a foundation for systemic change, a vision Not My Crime fully supports.

Posted on

The voice of survivors in justice reform

Lived experience as a key to restoration

Nothing about us without us. These words capture why the voice of survivors must not be absent in the justice system. Precisely there, where people serve their sentence, the need for recovery is great. Yet, our prison system is currently focused mainly on punishment and survival, far less on recovery and responsibility. As a result, one crucial voice remains unheard: that of the survivors. Their perspective can contribute to building a society that is safer and more just. Centering their perspective is not only about recognition, it is about transforming a system built on retribution into one that truly embraces accountability and healing. 

Justice and recovery is also for survivors

Survivors want more than reparation and recognition of their pain. They long for a society where harm is not repeated, where harm is acknowledged, responsibility is taken, steps are taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again, and where their voices are not only heard but truly valued, not only in the individual case, but also in the broader debate. Too often, survivors are framed only as vulnerable. Yet many are people with knowledge, strength and vision for justice reform.

This became clear during a meeting between survivors and incarcerated people in PI Vught (a Dutch maximum-security prison) on April 7, 2025. Survivors shared about their healing process and how it is only possible when they see that someone who caused harm understands its impact. It is about being seen, heard, spoken to and knowing that the incarcerated individual no longer causes harm. Taking accountability. 

Inside prison, however, there is often little space to reflect on one’s own behaviour, the underlying patterns behind it, or its consequences for others. Prison life is largely about surviving in a harsh culture. Yet strikingly, incarcerated individuals in this dialogue expressed a deep desire for restorative justice and a willingness to take responsibility and repair. 

One participant described the restorative co-creation session as stirring more within him than years of therapy. Together, survivors and incarcerated people said they could finally see each other as human beings, gain insight into one another’s experiences and break down stigmas. Dialogue opened the door to mutual understanding. 

This shows that survivors and incarcerated people are not simply on opposite sides, but deeply interconnected within the same system(s). If we truly want to build a safe and just society, we must break through the victim–offender frame, create space for dialogue and work together to transform the system itself.

Lived Experience as a Driver for Change

Projects such as Herstelcirkels (Restorative Circles), where survivors and others meet in a safe setting, demonstrate that lived experience has impact only when applied structurally, in an organized, lasting and equal way. Not as a one-off guest lecture, but as a permanent part of policy and practice. Not just consultation, but meaningful collaboration, co-creation and co-decision-making.

Herstelcirkels was set up as a co-creation by survivors of sexual violence, their loved ones and professionals. By placing lived experience at the center, services have been developed that better meet the needs of those affected by offence and their networks.

Professor Nicole Immler (Historical Memory and Transformative Justice) calls this transformative recognition: recognition that goes beyond simply listening. It means seeing people affected by harm as individuals with potential, with vision, with agency. As she puts it:

“It is not ‘we bake the cake and you come to eat.’

It is ‘you are making the cake together and you eat it together.’”

This is the transformation from being defined by harm to becoming an actor: from trauma to emancipation. Turning anger into action is not only healing, but also a source of social renewal.

Why survivor expertise matters in justice reform?

During the sentence is precisely the moment when people who have caused harm can be confronted with its consequences. That is where opportunities for restorative justice lie, such as:

  • Dialogue and mediation, facilitated in a safe setting
  • Discussion groups with survivors and incarcerated individuals, offering insight into both the impact of crime and its root causes (for example through SamenSpraak or in groups with only survivors or incarcerated individuals) 
  • Creating restorative toolkit and creative methods that make visible what harm means and how repair is possible
  • Innovation in restorative justice through collaboration between survivors and incarcerated individuals: creating restorative pathways that support healing and prevent future victimization, both during and after detention. 
  • Structural involvement of survivors in detention policy and practice

For this to be possible, they environment must be safe. Not one based on fear and survival and inflicts unnecessary harm, but one that actively supports responsibility and recovery. Detention must be personal, humane and emotionally safe. Approaches such as small-scale detention (RESCALED) show how a more community-oriented, humane environment can create the necessary conditions for both survivors and incarcerated individuals to engage in dialogue and restoration. Only then can people take responsibility and engage in dialogue without being retraumatized by the system itself. 

This is essential not only for incarcerated individuals, but equally for survivors because safety itself takes on a new meaning: true safety is not achieved through exclusion alone, through walls and fences, but by preventing harm from being repeated and preventing new victims through restoration. 

When survivors are consistently given a voice in shaping detention and engaged as co-creators, safety gains this deeper dimension. Survivors and incarcerated individuals are both part of the same system. Everyone involved in justice must therefore have a voice not only in how sentences are carried out, but also in how justice itself is shaped. And who better to guide that change than a survivor? 

The Next Step

The use of lived experience in detention requires courage. Courage to see detention not only as a moment of punishment but also as a place of restoration. Courage to no longer exclude survivors, but to recognize them as co-architects of change. Survivors know better than anyone what is needed for a safer society. That has become their highest priority after the harm they endured. And they have something to offer: their knowledge, their experiences, their vision. Only together, survivors, incarcerated individuals, and professionals, can we break the cycle of violence.

Call to Action

Let the voice of survivors always be heard in justice. Not afterwards, not occasionally, but as the starting point for a more just and safer society.

  • Create safe spaces for dialogue and responsibility
  • Give survivors a voice in detention policy and practice
  • Build justice together. Beyond punishment, toward recovery and restoration. 

Only then will we build not prisons of stone, but bridges toward a society without new victimization.
Are we ready to take the step together to truly give survivors a voice in justice reform?

Sonja contributed to RESCALED’s position paper Lived Experience at the Core – Embedding Voices, Knowledge, and Expertise in the RESCALED Movement.

The paper stresses the meaningful inclusion of people with lived experience, uniting diverse perspectives within one framework and centring the individual. It calls for lived experience to be embedded as a foundation for systemic change, a vision Sonja fully supports.