BLOG Archives - RESCALED

25 November 202527 November 2025

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.

World Prison Brief. (2025). Country Profiles. https://www.prisonstudies.org/ ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Austrian Ministry of Justice. (2024). Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG) §§35–36. https://www.justiz.gv.at/ ↩︎
Dutch Ministry of Justice. (2024). Criminal Code Articles 77h–77hh. https://wetten.overheid.nl/ ↩︎
Swiss Federal Office of Justice. (2023). Criminal Code Article 61. https://www.skjv.ch/ ↩︎
Aidealajeunesse. (2023). Les Institutions Publiques de Protection de la Jeunesse (IPPJ). https://www.aidealajeunesse.cfwb.be/ ↩︎
Antigone. (2024). One Year After the Caivano Decree: Dossier ENG. https://www.antigone.it/upload/Dossier_Caivano_(ENG).pdf ↩︎
De Huizen. (2019). Aanbevelingennota voor kwalitatieve en succesvolle loopplankhuizen. https://www.dehuizen.be/media/aanbevelingsnota-loopplankhuizen_03102019_web.pdf ↩︎
ibid ↩︎
Norwegian Correctional Service. (2025). Youth Punishment Act and KRUS Academy. https://kommunikasjon.ntb.no/ ↩︎
Antonsen, K., & Sandvold, F. W. (2022). Punishment That Makes a Difference? RESCALED Principles Practiced in Norwegian Prisons. RESCALED Norway. ↩︎
Seehaus Foundation. (2024). Seehaus Leonberg Youth Project. https://seehaus-ev.de/arbeitsbereiche/seehaus-leonberg/ ↩︎
Dutch Ministry of Justice. (2024). Small-Scale Judicial Youth Facilities (KVJJ).. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ ↩︎

24 October 202524 October 2025

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 reform Download

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

10 October 202510 October 2025

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:

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.
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.
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.
Inadequate screening and care: Psychiatric screenings are inconsistent and often substandard. Vulnerable groups -women, young adults, the elderly- rarely receive specialized, trauma-informed care.
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.
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.
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.

Small-scale: Detention houses accommodate small groups (8-30 people), enabling personalized care and meaningful relationships between staff and residents.
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.
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.docx Download

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. ↩︎
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.
↩︎
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. ↩︎
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). ↩︎
Schildbach, S., & Schildbach, C. (October 2018). Criminalization Through Transinstitutionalization: A Critical Review of the Penrose Hypothesis in the Context of Compensation Imprisonment. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
For more details on this extensive case-law, see the full report. ↩︎
The countries surveyed were Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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/. ↩︎

2 October 20252 October 2025

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.

25 September 202525 September 2025

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.

4 September 202518 September 2025

Lived experience: the power and pitfalls

Lived experience and experience experts are increasingly recognised as valuable contributors in social domains, healthcare, and justice reform. From mental health and substance use care to reintegration programmes for formerly incarcerated individuals the involvement of people with firsthand knowledge has the potential to transform policies and practices. However, drawing on lived experience must be approached with care to ensure ethical engagement, prevent exploitation, and safeguard the well-being of those who choose to share their personal stories.

My own journey: from lived experience to becoming an experience expert

As a person with lived experience, I have personally navigated the complexities of this landscape. Over the years, I was frequently invited to contribute to articles, projects, and media programmes as someone with firsthand knowledge of the justice system. Sometimes, these opportunities were beneficial, providing networking possibilities, financial support, or a sense of purpose during difficult times. However, I also encountered empty promises,offers that suggested my participation would lead to job opportunities or professional development, only for these assurances to disappear once my contribution had been secured.

There were moments when I worked extensively on projects, dedicating countless unpaid hours, only to discover that other professionals involved had received significant financial compensation. In some cases, I was assured anonymity, only to be made identifiable in publications. Such experiences underscored the importance of informed consent, fair compensation, and the need for structured pathways for people with lived experience to transition into professional roles.

I was fortunate to break free from the limitations of being seen solely as a “lived experience” contributor. Through education, skill-building, and collaboration with professionals, I evolved into a professional, a professional with lived experience, an experience expert. I founded Stichting Sileo to help others make the same transition, to ensure that people with lived experience have the opportunity to develop into professionals if they choose to, but also recognising that not everyone may wish or be able to take this path. Lived experience is a valuable perspective in itself.

The value of lived experience and experience experts

The shift from a “repair” model to a “recovery” model in social and healthcare sectors has emphasised the importance of lived experience in ensuring a deeper understanding of systemic barriers and personal resilience. Organisations such as RESCALED and Sileo advocate for embedding the voices of those affected by the justice system into reform efforts. When applied ethically, lived experience enhances policy design, strengthens reintegration programmes, and offers unique insights into the lived realities of people navigating complex social systems. The role of experience experts, in the criminal justice sector, is increasingly formalised, with structured training programmes ensuring that their insights contribute effectively and ethically to policy and practice.

The risks and exploitation of lived experience

Despite the growing appreciation for lived experience, risks remain. Too often, people with lived experience are invited to share their stories in ways that can be exploitative. NGOs, journalists, and documentary makers may approach people during vulnerable moments, requesting personal narratives without ensuring informed consent or considering the long-term effects. Many people do not immediately grasp the consequences of being publicly identified as a former incarcerated individual or someone with a troubled past, labels that can follow them indefinitely and hinder their reintegration.

Sometimes, people with lived experience are offered opportunities under false pretences leading to the belief that participating in a project, interview, or initiative will come with paid work or career opportunities, only to find out that their contributions are undervalued or unpaid. Meanwhile, professionals involved in the same projects often earn substantial fees. This creates an imbalance in which the very people whose experiences are being leveraged receive little to no compensation or professional advancement. After release, their stories and experiences are often the only resources they possess, leaving them vulnerable to further exploitation.

Another challenge is the tendency of some people to reduce themselves to their lived experience. When lived experience becomes an identity rather than a perspective, it can trap people in a cycle of self-definition that limits their growth. Instead of seeing themselves as professionals with a broad range of skills and contributions, they may be pigeonholed as “ex-detainees”. This narrow framing not only affects personal development but also reinforces societal stigmas that hinder long-term reintegration and empowerment.

Furthermore, there is a crucial distinction between those with lived experience and experience experts. While people with lived experience have valuable perspectives, expertise goes beyond personal history—therefore experience experts are people who have developed critical insights and professional expertise alongside their lived experience. Experience experts are not merely about sharing a personal story, but about using personal experience and developed professional skills as a foundation for systemic change.

The path forward: ethical and sustainable inclusion of lived experience

To realise the ethical and sustainable inclusion of lived experience, as well as experience experts, it’s important to consider the differences as an organisation/NGO, also taking in account the individual aspects such as motivation, expectations and abilities of the lived experience. For the experience experts it’s important to have an approach by the equity method that acknowledges the circumstances from which they came, while also upholding the same standards as other professionals.

To truly harness the power of lived experience while avoiding and managing its pitfalls and risks, several key measures must be taken:

Fair compensation: People with lived experience should be paid equitably for their contributions, just like any other expert or professional.
Informed consent: People should fully understand the long-term implications of sharing their stories, including potential social and professional repercussions.
Development pathways: Structured programmes should be in place to help people transition from lived experience to experience expertise, ensuring that experience is combined with professional knowledge and expertise, ultimately resulting in a sustainable career.
Protection against exploitation: NGOs, media, and institutions must be held accountable for ethical engagement with people with lived experience, ensuring that they are not used merely as a “token voice.”
Collaboration with professionals: Experience experts should work alongside professionals as equals, combining insights from lived experience with evidence-based practices to drive systemic change.

By prioritising ethical engagement and structured pathways, we can ensure that people with lived experience and experience experts are empowered, not exploited. The voices of lived experience must be amplified in ways that lead to long-term impact, professional growth, and societal transformation. We invite all relevant parties within the criminal justice system to join us, so together we can continue building a future where lived experience is not a label, but a stepping stone towards expertise, leadership, and meaningful contribution.

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

31 July 20259 September 2025

Justice reform needs lived experience – Here’s how we’re working on it

When we talk about justice reform, whose voices are shaping the conversation? At RESCALED, our vision is that lived experience is part of the very foundation of justice reform, seamlessly embedded across all its aspects. Therefore, we feel an undeniable urgency to articulate how we envision, collaborate with and actively integrate [people with] lived experience into the RESCALED movement. This is vital because it grounds reform efforts in reality, creating more inclusive, effective, and compassionate approaches. But we also recognise that this is not yet the norm, neither within the broader justice system nor within our own movement.

For many years, justice policies have been shaped by experts from a distance; researchers, policymakers, and professionals working within the system. While their knowledge is crucial, we often overlook leveraging the unique perspectives of those directly impacted: people who have been incarcerated, survivors of crime, their family members, children, peers, and local communities affected by the system.

At RESCALED, we are committed to bridging this gap, but we also know we are still learning how to do it meaningfully.

A commitment to meaningful collaboration

RESCALED was founded on the belief that large-scale prison institutions should be replaced with detention houses; small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated facilities that prioritise dignity, accountability, and maintain integration with society as much as possible. But transforming justice isn’t just about changing physical spaces; it’s about reshaping the foundations of how society addresses crime, systemic inequalities and social well-being. It involves strengthening our social fabric by supporting fairness, equity, and a sustainable way of living for all. And it is about changing who has a say in shaping the future of justice.

“Nothing about us without us” – a saying used by diverse groups of people experiencing exclusion from society – states the urgency of involving ALL stakeholders and thus including people with lived experience.

To include all relevant stakeholders, RESCALED examined what forms of lived experience are essential for effective justice reform. This meant applying a definition of lived experience in a broad sense and making a distinction between People with lived experience, experience experts and people affected by the justice system. By engaging in conversation from this point of view, collaborations at the local, national and European level grew, not only with lived experience by incarceration, but also with survivors, children and family members of incarcerated people and survivors, professionals working in the system, etc.:

Meaningful collaboration: We work together with member organisations like SILEO or Bonjo (the Netherlands), Angelus Custos (Croatia), WayBack (Norway), and Village of Hope (Estonia), initiatives led by individuals with lived experience who are committed to driving systemic change. Other member organisations like RUBIKON centrum focus actively on working with people with lived experience across their staff and activities. Formerly incarcerated individuals, children and peers of incarcerated people, survivors and former professionals working in the system are a part of our RESCALED team, board and broader movement.

Advocacy and representation: We actively support initiatives that challenge stigma and push for policy changes that recognise the value of lived experience and experience experts in justice reform. When it comes to supporting the use of detention houses, lived experience plays a fundamental role in many formats: guest lectures, events, writing media articles, involvement in research design, working groups and advisory boards, EU-funded projects, training programs for our staff and reviews of code of ethics, …

A multi-stakeholder approach: Effective collaboration requires diverse voices at the table, creating inclusivity and equity in decision-making. A multi-stakeholder approach ensures balance by avoiding tokenism, where one person with lived experience, or conversely, only one without it, can overshadow or undermine collective input, and stigmatisation might occur. People with lived experience have the autonomy to decide if and when their lived experience is disclosed, and whether their personal story plays a role in their contribution to the RESCALED movement or if their collaboration is solely based on professional expertise

And respect for diversity: Lived experience is always personal and non-comparable. People with lived experience may have all kinds of different backgrounds, differing in gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, and more. They also have diverse experiences, perspectives, opinions and values, whether as survivors of a criminal offence, formerly incarcerated individual, parent, or child of someone incarcerated. The movement does not speak on behalf of (groups of) individuals with lived experience, but rather looks for ways to empower their expertise and experiences, whether visible or not, to uniquely contribute to shaping social change.

How we plan to do more

While we emphasise collaboration over mere participation, we recognise that we can do more. To embed lived experience in our justice reform efforts. And to contribute to several critical areas: advocacy, improved policy design, implementation of detention houses, creation of evidence, and lasting social change.

Some key challenges we are tackling:

Amplifying individual stories: Personal narratives are not a substitute for structural advocacy, but they are powerful. We are still working on ways to safely integrate storytelling into our justice reform efforts – to raise awareness, without risking stigmatisation and retraumatisation.

Balancing equity, transparency and trust: RESCALED is committed to creating equitable opportunities that uphold the dignity and respect of all people. These opportunities ensure that they, regardless of their background, have fair and meaningful access to decision-making processes. Thus we must find ways to equitably distribute financial resources, such as wages, expense allowance, project-based funding or other forms of financial support. At the same time, placing people in the right context requires honesty, transparency and resources for safeguarding. We are learning to create a safe environment to the best of our ability, and if applicable, redirecting individuals to opportunities better aligned with their current skills, experience, or goals. However, we know this commitment is also a process of trial-and-error. Striving for the “best” approach must not prevent us from meaningful collaboration. Instead, it is exactly these collaborations which continuously allow us to learn and show us how to better create a safe environment.

The Knowledge Workspaces: a step forward: One initiative we are launching to deepen this engagement is the RESCALED Knowledges Workspaces, spaces of connection between research, practice and policy. From a multi-stakeholder approach, KW drivers will deepen the justice reform and ecosystem perspective to develop practical, research-backed solutions. This means that experience experts are among the drivers in each Knowledge Workspace (no matter the topic) and other stakeholders also take part in the Knowledge Workspace on lived experience. These workspaces are not just about talking; they are about co-creating knowledge that leads to action. The KW Justice Through Lived Experience will aim to help implement our commitment, and that of others, to further embed lived experience in practice, effectively and safely.

Justice reform is a collective effort

We know that embedding lived experience in justice reform requires more than good intentions, it requires structural change, long-term commitment, and constant reflection on what we can do better.

‼️If you are interested, please read our full positioning paper on lived experience. We would love to hear from you, drop us a message at info@rescaled.org.

🔍 Want to become part of or collaborate with RESCALED? Reach out to our Head of Social Impact, Veronique Aicha at veronique.aicha@rescaled.org.

📩 Interested in co-producing on the topic of lived experience and system change? Contact RESCALED Knowledge Manager, Noa Shoshan at noa.shoshan@rescaled.org

Lived Experience at the Core Embedding Voices, Knowledge, and Expertise in the RESCALED Movement Download

This document reflects the perspectives and feedback of both individuals with lived experience and the organisations that support them.

22 July 20259 September 2025

The personal is political, the political is personal

I consider myself a privileged woman in many ways. I get to work with amazing people and travel to places all over Europe, meeting smart, funny, and kind people. I have two healthy children, I studied at university, and I have many friends who are there for me whenever I need them and vice versa.

But my life started out differently. My father is from Algeria, born on 21 November, 1954, 20 days after the start of the war of independence against France. My mother is from a Christian family in the south of the Netherlands, she was the 7th daughter of 10 children, when all my grandparents wanted was a boy. So here are two people, neglected in their early childhood, who came together. Ultimately this led to my mother in the hospital and my father being sent to prison for a couple of years when I was six years old.

You would think that justice was done. She survived and my father was punished. I remember a police officer that day saying to me, to comfort me, ‘do not worry, your father will be sent to a place far away from society’. This terrified me. I believed they would let him fall off the earth. In a way they did. Because for the next five years I saw my father only a few times. I am now 39 years old, and it is 33 years since my father was sent to prison. But the repercussions of how we deal with injustice in society I still feel today.

However sad the story of my parents might be, it is not a unique story. There are so many more stories like theirs. Their story is part of patterns of injustice. My father was a child born and raised in war, like many children in the world today, Sudan, Palestine, Congo and many more. Social and political injustice creates collective trauma that leads to personal trauma. So my way to deal with this is to work towards a different future in our criminal justice system. That is why I work for RESCALED.

A detention house itself is part of the fabric of the city, part of all the ecosystems in the city. As human beings, we belong to many ecosystems in communities; schools, work, sports, cultural activities, and more. A detention house is not just an architectural replacement to a prison , it is a different answer to justice being done in society. Not by removing an individual from society, but by doing the opposite, including a person into every fibre of society, making sure that whenever possible the person in a detention house will be part of every ecosystem in communities.

This means society and communities itself must become a place of justice. Our cities must become restorative. Not only the individuals in detention houses need to heal the injustice they might have done to people in communities, but the ecosystems in cities must also heal from the injustice they have inflicted onto their communities. I am talking about the lack of social housing, the underperformance of schools in certain neighbourhoods for years,, I am talking about capitalist systems of which often poor people are the victims, of which the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 in the United Kingdom is an example. The Prime Minister Keir Starmer said this about it; “It should never have happened. The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty, to protect you and your loved ones. Today is a long awaited day of truth, but it must now lead to a day of justice.”

How do we change and heal these patterns of injustice in our cities? That is the essence of a restorative city. It’s too much to go into here, but RESCALED has written a booklet about detention houses within restorative cities, to be shared with anyone who is interested.

In 2026, RESCALED will organize restorative city walks in different European cities, walks that show places of injustice and tell stories that could lead to restorative cities. Because justice is not about walls and distance, but about proximity, connection, and responsibility. society gets to choose: do we build prisons? Or do we build futures?

Detention houses are intentionally designed as part of the social and physical fabric of our communities. They are not isolated structures built to exclude, but integrated spaces created to support the well-being of the individuals within them and the society around them. This is not a utopian idea. It is a deliberate and practical choice that reflects the kind of society we want to be. We already make bold decisions when it comes to our planet: we set climate goals, we invest in renewable energy, we demand sustainable solutions. Why, then, should we accept outdated, harmful prison systems in justice that we would never accept in health care, education, or climate policy?

Just as we are transitioning to a sustainable future for our environment, we can, and must, choose a justice system rooted in human dignity, social equity, and individual autonomy. A system that heals rather than harms, connects rather than isolates, and prepares rather than punishes.

It has always surprised me that one of the symbols of our justice system is Lady Justice wearing a blindfold, representing neutrality. But we need to accept that she is not neutral and never has been neutral. Our laws were written in a time where men held all power, and when women and people of colour did not have rights in many countries. Today, we still see the ripples of that legacy in our societies and justice systems.

I am asking you to not turn a blind eye towards injustice. I am asking you to keep looking beyond the words that are written in policies and see the people and stories behind it. And more importantly, recognise the patterns of injustice behind those stories, patterns of injustice that cause collective traumaThese are not individual failures, but collective problems that we, as a society, have created together. And therefore, we must deal with it together and not place that on the individual shoulders of people in prison and their families.

Too many of the people in prison were raised in poverty. Too many of them lack access to quality education. Too many come from broken homes. Too many live with the ongoing effects of colonial histories. Too many deal with mental health issues. So why do we not feel collective shame when we imprison people? Why do we not feel collective shame when we talk about improving prisons? And why are we not talking about removing prisons from our societies instead?

The personal is political, the political is personal.

You are probably reading this because you want a different future, because you realise we can do better. You are likely trying to shape a better future every single day. And you probably have your own personal painful history as well, perhaps also shaped through justice systems.

Nevertheless, you stand up when you are faced with injustice, not only for yourself, but for your family, friends and strangers. I thank you for that.

For justice is not written in law books, it is not embodied by the state.

Justice lives in us; it lives in communities where we live.

Veronique Aicha

You can sign up at RESCALED to either organize or to take the walk.
veronique.aicha@rescaled.org

10 July 202510 July 2025

From isolation to integration: a new vision for youth justice in Austria

Youth detention is a crucial issue throughout Europe, as stakeholders pursue more humane, effective, and community-focused ways to support young people facing deprivation of liberty.

In Austria, research initiated by Salzburg Children’s and Youth Advocacy sparked a collaboration with the NGO Richtungswechsel. A joint visit to the small-scale facility of Seehaus in Germany, together with Salzburg’s prison director, Colonel Knebel, further fuelled interest in practical alternatives for Austria’s youth detention system.

In May 2025, the first Youth Custody Conference took place in Salzburg. Richtungswechsel and Salzburg Children’s and Youth Advocacy initiated a meaningful dialogue about what a child-centred, rights-based, and progressive model of youth detention could look like in Austria.

Over 120 experts from 16 countries gathered to share insights and examine the feasibility of small-scale custodial alternatives. The conference showcased inspiring international practices and explored how such approaches might be adapted to Austria’s legal, political, and social contexts.

Institutional perspectives: Austria and beyond

The conference opened with insights from Katharina Dürr of the General Directorate for the Austrian Prison System. Dürr outlined the current state of Austria’s youth detention framework, emphasising challenges such as overcrowding, limited family proximity, and restricted access to support services within existing institutions. Her presentation highlighted the urgent need for reform to support young people in detention better and facilitate their (re)integration.

Next, Karel Dvořák, the Czech Republic’s Deputy Minister of Justice, described ongoing efforts in Czechia to move away from large-scale incarceration towards smaller, target group–oriented facilities more closely embedded in local communities. He showcased promising examples, such as an open prison for men and a probation house supporting reintegration, which already reflect key approaches to incarceration like dynamic security and trust-based relationships.

He emphasised the Czech Republic’s collaboration with the RESCALED network, notably through RUBIKON, the Czech member of RESCALED, and underlined the government’s intention to develop a context-specific detention house facility. Dvořák concluded with a clear commitment to realising the EU Council’s call for small-scale detention, stating:

“We have a common task to fulfil the conclusion of small-scale detention adopted by the EU Council last year.”

His contribution reflected both a grounded awareness of current systemic challenges and a forward-looking dedication to transforming imprisonment into a more humane, reintegrative, and community-connected system.

Setting a new vision

Colonel Dipl. – Päd. Dietmar Knebel from the Austrian Ministry of Justice officially launched the conference, emphasising political will and the need for a justice system that prioritises young people’s development and societal safety.

“What these young individuals truly need is structure within an environment that fits their specific needs surrounded by peers, personal mentors, and small, intensively supported groups.“

Building on this foundation, Noa Shoshan, Knowledge Manager at RESCALED Europe, presented the movement’s core principles and vision: a paradigm shift from large prison institutions toward small-scale detention houses embedded in and supported by local communities.

She described these houses as accommodating a maximum of 30 residents, working closely with local services, schools, neighbours, and civil society organisations. She emphasised the need for a collective effort. RESCALED’s work goes beyond policy; it seeks to shift societal narratives around incarceration through knowledge sharing, raising awareness, and the cross-national exchange of best practices.

Importantly, Shoshan stressed that there is no one-size-fits-all model:

“There is not one perfect detention house model – in practice, it materialises in various ways because it depends on a national context, it depends on the legal frameworks, it depends on the community where it is located, and it depends on the local services.”

Therefore, implementation must be tailored to context and involve early community engagement to address scepticism and promote shared responsibility.

Overall, detention houses offer a more sustainable and effective approach to incarceration. However, they must be part of a broader ecosystem prioritising integration, differentiation, and community-based care.

Political momentum is increasing: all 27 EU Ministers of Justice recently issued a joint statement endorsing small-scale detention, and the UN Human Rights Council emphasised these models in a resolution on social (re)integration.

Model from practice: Estonia and Germany

Stanislav Solodov from Estonia’s Ministry of Justice outlined two initiatives to support young people’s reintegration. These efforts reflect Estonia’s broader strategy of combining state-led policy with NGO-driven practices to promote long-term change.

The monitoring programme connects young people aged 14 to 20 with trained mentors six months before their release. Building trust is a key aspect of supporting personal growth, helping to shift values and attitudes, and ultimately enabling sustainable behaviour change. The second initiative is the halfway house, operated in partnership with the Village of Hope. Up to 20 young people live in a structured, family-like environment in these small-scale residential settings.

Solodov emphasised that a minimum of nine months of long-term support is critical for success. Shorter interventions show little effect.

From Germany, Ulrich Weinhold and Irmela Abrell shared insights into the Seehaus e.V. facilities, where adolescents in conflict with the law live in supervised homes together with mentor families. Daily life in Seehaus follows a clear and structured routine, including school attendance, vocational training, shared meals, household responsibilities, sports, and group discussions. This everyday structure is designed to promote responsibility, rhythm, and a sense of community.

Instead of control and punishment, daily life is built on trust, accountability, and positive relationships.

“We don’t focus on what went wrong – we focus on what can go right from here.”

A cornerstone of Seehaus is its commitment to restorative justice. Crime is seen as harm done to human relationships, and change is facilitated through dialogue, accountability, and active involvement of survivors, peers, and the community. Through this approach, Seehaus promotes communal living as a route to reintegration, focused on personal development and constructively resolving conflicts.

Austria’s opportunity to lead change

Throughout the Youth Justice Conference, participants expressed a common belief: youth detention should not merely aim to reduce harm but must actively support young people in growing, restoring relationships, and envisioning a future beyond deprivation of liberty. While some voiced concerns that Austria risks falling behind, others emphasised that the necessary momentum is already present. What is needed now is bold leadership and practical steps forward.

Austria now stands at a pivotal crossroads. Experts, practitioners, and policymakers alike signalled a strong desire for transformation; one that embraces small-scale, human-centred approaches rooted in dignity, participation, and community.

The conference clarified that the necessary foundations are already in place: international inspiration, local expertise, and a wealth of practical models. Yet, the political will and societal vision remain to bring them to life. The examples of RESCALED, Estonia, and Seehaus, along with the voices of the Austrian professionals, highlight what is possible: an approach to detention that restores dignity, supports growth, and aligns justice with social integration.

By initiating a pilot project grounded in these values, Austria has the chance to reform its system and contribute meaningfully to a growing European movement. A system that reimagines detention as a space for support, accountability, hope, and that gives young people a chance.

19 August 202417 April 2025

Detention houses legally embedded in Belgium: “There’s no way back now!”

Belgium legalises detention houses – RESCALED milestone for justice reform in Europe

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 an autonomous 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!”

- Mathilde Steenbergen, Head of Cabinet of the Minister of Justice and, as of September 1, 2024,
Director General of Belgium's Directorate General of Penitentiary Institutions

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.

Category: BLOG