FEATURED – RESCALED

28 November 202429 November 2024

DETENTION HOUSE ECONOMICS: UNPACKING THE MYTHS OF COST-EFFICIENCY

A miniature house and a scale with gold coins on one side, representing the balance between justice and financial costs.

Incarceration is often framed as a significant financial burden on society, with discussions frequently focusing on its immediate costs — such as daily expenses for housing people in detention. However, this perspective risks missing the larger picture: the societal and economic consequences of detention and the potential for meaningful justice reform. A holistic approach to justice emphasises investing in people, not just systems, recognising that the true costs of incarceration extend far beyond budgets and balance sheets. By adopting solutions like detention houses, society can reduce long-term economic burdens while fostering more inclusive and safer communities.

This article explores how detention houses can offer substantial long-term advantages that extend beyond mere cost calculations. It underscores that this shift from large prison institutions to detention houses is about more than rethinking detention—it’s about investing in people and breaking harmful cycles.

The funding paradox: investing in ‘security’ hinders reintegration

A comparative analysis of prison expenditures in 54 countries — by Penal Reform International — highlighted that while there are exceptions, overall funding for prisons remains inadequate in several countries. Typically, penitentiary budgets are less than 0.3% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). For example, in 2017, average prison spending among EU Member States was only 0.2% of their national GDP. This chronic underinvestment leaves prisons struggling to provide basic needs such as nutrition, healthcare, clothing and safe, hygienic living conditions. It also reflects broader political neglect, as prisons are often seen as a low priority in government budgets.

The allocation of these limited resources raises serious concerns about their effectiveness in supporting individuals towards their release. For example, staffing costs consume the majority of prison budgets, yet high turnover and poor working conditions lead to dissatisfaction and ultimately staff shortages. Ageing infrastructure compounds these challenges, failing to meet contemporary standards and requiring considerable (and expensive) renovations to do so. In addition, a significant portion of funding is directed toward security, frequently prioritising high-security measures that can hinder reintegration efforts.

While the legal mandate emphasises reducing recidivism, the current funding approach often undermines this goal by prioritising an appearance of safety over long-term benefits. Resources must be reallocated to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and, if directed toward detention, should invest in an environment appropriate to address these challenges. Transitioning to smaller, community-integrated facilities would better align resources with the goal of successful reintegration, benefiting both incarcerated individuals and staff.

The (hidden) costs of incarceration

Large prison institutions come with significant hidden costs that — yes — affect the state budget, but also families, communities and future generations. Direct expenses, such as housing individuals in detention, represent only a fraction of the overall economic impact. In Belgium, for example, the daily cost to detain one person was approximately €152.44 in (2022) [1]. Spending on personnel accounted for the largest share (77.53%), followed by operational costs (8.76%), care for the medical and psychological needs of individuals (7.79%), maintenance and food for incarcerated people (3.41%) and infrastructure contracts (2.51%). For comparison, the Netherlands reported a significantly higher figure of €339 (2023) [2] and Portugal €56.33 (2022).

However, these figures exclude indirect costs, such as reoffending, lost productivity, prevention and the increased demands on social and health services. For instance, a study in the UK has estimated the annual economic and social cost of adult reoffending at £16.7 billion. This figure is based on data from people released from prison, identified in 2016, who reoffended within a subsequent 12-month follow-up period. Notably, any reoffending that occurred beyond this one-year timeframe is excluded from this estimate, meaning the actual long-term costs could be even higher. In Norway, the total economic cost of crime, including public resources for prevention, private costs for risk reduction, and productivity losses, is estimated at 144 billion NOK (€12.1 billion) annually – offering a broader perspective on how much incarceration costs society.

In addition to financial costs, incarceration also imposes significant social costs that cut through families and communities. When someone is incarcerated, their family often faces financial hardship and emotional distress. Children of incarcerated parents are particularly vulnerable, as they are more likely to experience poverty, mental health challenges and possible involvement in criminal activity. These negative effects ripple outwards, placing an additional burden on social services, schools, and health care systems.

By considering both the financial and social costs of incarceration, we gain a clearer understanding of its broader implications and the potential advantages of alternatives like detention houses.

How detention houses foster social and economic value

Detention houses signify a pivotal shift in how we approach incarceration. These facilities, strategically embedded within communities, prioritise access to health services, education, employment, and cultural opportunities, fostering continuity and connection post-release.

Unlike large prison institutions, detention houses emphasise building supportive relationships among residents, staff and local stakeholders, fostering a collaborative ecosystem. This ecosystem includes the relationships among incarcerated individuals, staff, visitors, and local service providers, all of which shape the social environment surrounding the detention house. Moreover, detention houses function within a broader context that extends beyond their physical boundaries and the criminal justice system. They exist at the junction of other ecosystems: that of the criminal justice system, the health care and mental health care system, the education system, the employment system etc. and the power structures and social inequalities present in these systems.

A compelling example can be found in Leuven, Belgium, where the recent opening of a third transition house showcases how partnerships between municipalities, justice systems, and NGOs can tackle the complex challenges of reintegration. Initiated by the municipality’s social affairs department in collaboration with the local NGO De Kansenfabriek, this facility was established to address a critical gap in local social services. The department had identified that existing services were under immense strain, struggling to meet the needs of the community while also supporting individuals transitioning out of prison. Recognising the potential benefits of a transition house, they took the initiative to explore the practical options, aiming to improve reintegration outcomes for released individuals while easing pressure on social service staff and safeguarding the quality of support for other citizens. This proactive approach not only enhances community welfare but also demonstrates how detention houses can operate within a broader ecosystem, addressing both individual and collective needs.

The silo structure within governments, where each ministry or department operates with its own budget and policies, often prevents a holistic view such as the example above, highlighting how investments in one sector (such as education or health care) can reduce costs in other sectors (such as the justice system). In March 2024, for example, Portugal’s Interministerial Working Group on Health in places where people are deprived of their liberty recommended that responsibilities for health care in prisons be transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health. This would integrate health care in prisons into the National Health Service. Studies also underline this need for the broader impact of such ecosystems. The World Health Organization reports that many individuals entering prison have untreated health conditions, and inadequate care exacerbates these issues, leading to higher public health costs once they are released.

By embracing this ecosystem perspective, we can see that supporting individuals in detention leads to significant savings in healthcare and other services, as successful reintegration minimizes the need for costly interventions. This perspective underscores that the benefits of detention houses go beyond criminal justice costs; they represent an investment in people and a pathway to long-term savings for society.

Conclusion: A smart investment in society

While it may seem cost-effective to cut spending on incarceration and rehabilitation, this short-term thinking overlooks the long-term societal costs. True savings come not from cutting corners, but from making smart investments in the future of incarcerated individuals. By helping them re-enter into society as healthy, productive citizens, we can reduce the overall economic burden of crime, improve public health, and foster stronger, safer communities.

Detention houses embody this approach, offering a vision of justice that prioritises humanity and sustainability. Society must recognize that the daily cost per incarcerated person per day is only a small part of the overall equation. By adopting a holistic view that accounts for both economic and social impacts, we can make more informed decisions and build a justice system that benefits everyone. This includes breaking down silo’s and doing politics from a long-term perspective!

Investing in people is ultimately an investment in the future of society.

This article was written as part of the Erasmus+ funded INSPIRE-project. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING:

[1] The actual daily cost per prisoner was €148.73 in 2021 and €152.44 in 2022 (excluding forensic psychiatric centres and transition houses).

[2] In the Netherlands, the average cost per incarcerated person in a standard prison is around €339 per day. In more specialized facilities, such as penitentiary psychiatric centres (PPC), this cost can rise to €583 per day.

Aebi, M. F., & Cocco, E. (2024). SPACE I — 2023 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison populations. Council of Europe.

Comfort, M., McKay, T., Landwehr, J., Kennedy, E., Lindquist, C., & Bir, A. (2016). The costs of incarceration for families of prisoners. International Review of the Red Cross, 98(903), 783–798.

De Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers — Schriftelijke vraag en antwoord nr 55-1668: Dagelijkse kostprijs gedetineerden gevangenis. (2023, April 25). De Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers. Retrieved from www.lachambre.be

Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. (2024). Infographic Gevangeniswezen 2024. In Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://www.dji.nl/binaries/dji/documenten/publicaties/2023/05/30/infographic-gevangeniswezen/Infographic+gevangeniswezen.pdf

Dgrsp. (2024, April 1). Apresentado o Plano de saúde para as prisões. justiça.gov.pt. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://justica.gov.pt/Noticias/Apresentado-o-Plano-de-saude-para-as-prisoes

“Imprisonment is expensive” — Breaking down the costs and impacts globally — Penal Reform International. (2020, August 5). Penal Reform International. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://www.penalreform.org/blog/imprisonment-is-expensive-breaking-down-the-costs-and/

Newton, A., May, X., Eames, S., Ahmad, M., & Ministry of Justice. (2019). Economic and social costs of reoffending: Analytical report (ISBN 978-1-84099-887-0). Ministry of Justice. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d1de7a4e5274a08d13a684e/economic-social-costs-reoffending.pdf

Novais, J. [Coordinator]. (2022, March 14). Estudo de viabilidade económica e financeira. Centro de Estudos de Gestão e Economia Aplicada, Católica Porto. Prepared for Reshape Portugal. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://reshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/RESHAPE_Estudo-viabilidade-economica-e-financeira.pdf

Oslo Economics. (2023). Samfunnsøkonomiske gevinster av redusert tilbakefall til kriminalitet. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://www.rodekors.no/globalassets/_rapporter/humanitar-analyse-rapporter/samfunnsokonomiske-gevinster-av-redusert-tilbakefall-til-kriminalitet.pdf

World Health Organization — Regional Office for Europe. (2019). Health in prisons: Fact sheets for 38 European countries. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/346831/WHO-EURO-2019-3694-43453-61042-eng.pdf?sequence=1

RESCALED will also initiate further cost-benefit analyses on detention houses in various European countries.

19 November 202419 November 2024

UN Human Rights Council encourage alternatives to traditional incarceration, such as small-scale detention

🌍 Exciting news! On October 9, 2024, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 57/9, calling on all States to prioritise the social reintegration of persons released from detention and those subjected to non-custodial measures.

The resolution invites States to introduce appropriate alternatives to traditional incarceration—such as small-scale detention —while prioritising non-custodial measures and utilising options such as conditional release, home leave, and community-based programs and services.

🔑 Key Points:

Promote non-custodial measures like community programs and conditional release,
Encourage alternatives to traditional incarceration, such as small-scale detention.

Leading up to the adoption of the Resolution, 120 NGOs from 49 countries all over the world expressed their support for Costa Rica’s forthcoming resolution,recognising the requirement of a collective global, national and local commitment to social reintegration. Their support also recognises the importance of the role of the Council in advancing a global consensus on this issue while guiding States on the implementation of guiding principles that uphold the human rights and dignity of people who have been sentenced for a criminal offence.

✊This resolution reflects a powerful commitment to human rights and dignity, highlighting the importance of community-based alternatives that support successful re-entry in society!

📄Read the full text of Resolution 57/9 here

19 August 20245 September 2024

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

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.

16 July 20245 September 2024

Case study Amsterdam Zuidoost – Restorative Cities

Through the INSPIRE project, Restorative Justice Nederland aims to refine the concept of a restorative city by identifying key principles, such as dialogue, community involvement, democracy and horizontal relationships, and urban design. In addition, the role of small-scale detention within a restorative city is explored. After a first article about Utrecht, Gert Jan Slump and Laura Verstraete now bring us the casestudy of Amsterdam Zuidoost in this blog.

The district of Zuidoost is a residential area in Amsterdam developed and built in the 1960s. Inspired by Le Corbusier’s ideas (influential architect and city planner), the urban planning in Zuidoost aimed to separate traffic flows and outdoor spaces vertically to enhance livability. However, this urban concept largely failed, leading to a transformation of the district. Some high-rise buildings were demolished and replaced with low-rise structures, while others were renovated, and traffic flows and outdoor spaces were largely integrated.

Currently, approximately 100,000 residents from 173 nationalities call Zuidoost home. It is recognised as an emerging vibrant district with numerous societal, religious, and cultural grassroots organisations that effectively collaborate with formal institutions. However, criticism persists regarding inadequate basic amenities in the district and significant social issues, particularly poverty.

Under the leadership of district chair Tanja Jadnanansing, Zuidoost is evolving towards a Restorative District, fostering development from within and from grassroots initiatives. The structure of the district can be characterized by six layers:

1. 1. 1. Conflicts are a natural part of life and require suitable solutions and support for those involved. The aim is to transform conflicts into positive encounters through empathy and understanding
    2. Some conflicts have a public or criminal justice dimension. Even in these cases, dialogue and communication between the directly involved parties is crucial. These parties can rely on the support of law enforcement officials who work alongside them to find fair solutions. From the perspective of community justice, a positive concept of safety is central: it’s not just about reducing or preventing negative aspects, but about fostering positive ones. Justice is a dynamic concept. All of this is encapsulated in the motto “Law and Love.”
    3. Over the next twenty years, structural causes of (criminal) conflict such as housing, poverty, and inequality of opportunities will be addressed. Recognising and working towards rectifying systemic social injustices is inherent in a district where justice is prioritised.
    4. In addressing the structural causes of injustice, the focus is on what people and inhabitants themselves can contribute (their expertise and experiential knowledge) and what they need (their requirements). In every approach and conversation, the question of whether the right people are at the table is essential. In Zuidoost, the focus is on community circles that provide space for dialogue about needs and collaborative actions, facilitating the transformation of society into a community.
    5. When restoration is needed at the level of organisational structure and culture, Zuidoost takes action. This restoration process requires people to come together and step into the circle. The district aims to invite people to do so and explore old structures and organisational cultures that cause harm. Discussions about organisational-level restoration provide space for addressing what people need to undo organisational injustice. Subsequently, what is unjust becomes the focus of fair interventions, facilitated by breakthrough teams and similar initiatives.
    6. Even when it becomes evident that issues need to be addressed and rectified primarily at a systemic level, Zuidoost collaborates to tackle them together. Sometimes, the government itself is the aggressor and initiator. Incidents like the Dutch childcare benefits scandal have painfully highlighted the need for systemic restoration[1]. In Zuidoost, as a Restorative District, systemic injustices are brought to light, and the government and organisations stand side-by-side with residents in addressing them.

Some local elements of the Restorative District include the Krin Taki (a form of an honest and deliberative dialogue), the Neighbourhood Court, youth courts in schools, and the neighbourhood youth court. Additionally, there’s the mediation pool of young people and the interactive Honors College Law and Love program where students at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam develop ideas around justice in collaboration with organisations and residents of Zuidoost.

Small-scale detention in Amsterdam

Amsterdam no longer has a prison (the Bijlmerbajes is closed and the prison capacity has been moved to Zaanstad). It’s intriguing to consider whether there could be space in Zuidoost for a small-scale detention house, perhaps within a community similar to De Tafelberg. Located on a site that previously housed a youth prison and later a closed youth care institution, de Tafelberg now has transformed into a living community. It provides housing for 290 young adults, including 60 with a background in youth care. This initiative by Levvel, a youth care institution, together with the housing association de Alliantie, was developed with the help of many other parties. The concept is called “live, learn, work & play.” It’s an ecosystem where residents are supported in various ways to form a community where personal support largely replaces professional assistance. Social entrepreneurs are part of the community, providing opportunities for work experience, internships, and workshops. The facilities are also available to neighbourhood residents. De Tafelberg is a community-oriented model that could potentially house a small-scale detention house, integrating incarcerated individuals with other citizens. The size ratio of different groups is crucial here.

What’s unique about the Restorative District of Zuidoost is that it doesn’t require a template for its development. Zuidoost is inherently a Restorative District, not created or confined by a framework, but naturally so. Thanks in part to the current district chair and recent developments like the establishment of the neighbourhood court and peer-led youth courts the concept is further strengthened. Over the next two years, work will continue within the outlined framework of the six layers to further develop and enrich it, connected to efforts to develop and establish a small-scale detention facility connected to existing facilities.

28 June 202428 June 2024

Creating an inclusive environment: How detention houses could better serve the incarcerated LGBTQ+ Community

Thandiwé Devriendt, the student social media manager at RESCALED, is a criminologist currently pursuing her master’s degree with a keen interest in forensic psychology and minority groups in vulnerable situations. From her studies in Criminology, work, and personal experience, she has chosen to write a blog post on the often underexposed topic of LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system. In her upcoming post, Thandiwé explores why detention houses, compared to traditional prisons, could offer a more humane and dignified detention experience for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The landscape of the criminal justice system for LGBTQ+ individuals is fraught with unique challenges and systemic inequalities that are often overlooked. Detention houses could be a way to address some of these issues, through their three principles: small-scale, differentiation and community-integration.

Status quo of the LGTBQ+^[1] community in the criminal justice system

But what do the current numbers say?

When examining the current numbers and information provided the minority group seems to face several challenges. Firstly, LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to be incarcerated. LGBTQ+ youth and transgender people, in particular, are disproportionately more likely to enter the criminal justice system due to a history of bias, abuse and profiling (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).

Secondly, they are more likely to face abuse when residing in prisons. They are often victims of daily humiliation, physical and sexual abuse. Additionally, they are faced with the inability to speak about these experiences due to fearing it will get worse if you complain. The fear often prevents them from complaining. For instance the European Comittee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has met several transgender women held in male sections of prisons who reported a feeling of unsafety, verbal abuse by staff and in some cases sexual abuse and assault by fellow incarcerated people. Furthermore, many LGBTQ+ individuals are placed in solitary confinement for extended periods solely due to their identity. For example, a report published in 2020 showed that trans women in Honduras prisons tend to be more severely punished, often through extended periods of solitary confinement. These phenomena are often worsened by the poor conditions in the prison systems: overcrowding, physical and sexual violence & heavy reliance on solitary confinement are common (Penal Reform International 2021; CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).

Thirdly, both staff and other incarcerated people contribute to the abuse and mistreatment of LGBTQ+ individuals (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).

Fourth, the CPT observed that transgender individuals in prisons potentially face higher risks of self-harm, suicide, and violence-related psychological trauma, paralleling the high risks observed outside prison settings. Research suggests that factors such as discrimination, family rejection, and internalized or externalized transphobia contribute to these risks. The LGTBQ+ youth in specific have often faced such challenges, more specific family rejection, homelessness and hostility by the safety net (f.ex. foster care). This not only heightens the risks of above mentioned phenomena but also paves a way to possible criminal behavior (CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).

Lastly, transgender and gender nonconforming people can face additional forms of mistreatment. Although practices are changing, several facilities still reside strictly according to their genital anatomy, regardless of their gender identity. Consequently their vulnerability to abuse increases when accommodated with a different gender from which they identify with (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).

Creating an inclusive environment according to the three principles

Where there are challenges, there’s room for opportunities, in which detention houses are one of them. Detention houses could offer several possibilities for the LGBTQ+ community who are currently incarcerated in large prison institutions. By focusing on the three key principles of detention houses —small-scale, differentiation, and community-integration — we can create a more supportive and restorative experience for LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system.

In small-scale detention houses, residents are given the opportunity to become more familiar with their environment and staff, fostering a sense of community and security. With fewer residents, the pressure on the staff is relieved. Consequently, the staff can obtain more personal contacts and insights into the group interaction, thus ensuring that any abuse or mistreatment by fellow residents or staff is promptly addressed and that any signs of suicidal thoughts or self-harm are early on noticed and treated.

Furthermore, small-scale detention houses can arrange flexible housing arrangements tailored to the needs and identities of LGBTQ+ individuals according to the judicial possibilities. This differentiated approach allows personalized solutions that ensure the safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ residents without disadvantaging them. This setting may allow for LGBTQ+ individuals to be housed according to their self-reported identity rather than their genital anatomy, making it easier to respect their gender identity and reduce their vulnerability to abuse. This differentiated approach can be co-created by persons with lived experience (formerly/currently incarcerated & an LGTBQ+ member), by doing so one can create a truly succesful implementation and approach.

Community-integration can be particularly challenging for LGBTQ+ individuals, who may face double exclusion due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and their criminal past. Community-integrated detention houses focus on preparing residents for successful reintegration by introducing them to supportive environments and resources. By fostering connections with neighbors and community members through activities and interactions, detention houses can help change perceptions and promote acceptance of both LGBTQ+ individuals and those with a criminal past. This approach not only aids in the successful community-integration of LGBTQ+ individuals, but also contributes to a more inclusive society. By utilizing the ecosystem of a detention house, LGBTQ+ individuals can more easily access essential services such as medical treatments for transitioning and therapy, ensuring comprehensive support and care compared to what is typically available in prisons. This is made possible by actively collaborating with actors in this healthy ecosystem to enhance accessibility and inclusivity in healthcare and support services.

By embracing these three principles and exploring legal and regulatory avenues, detention facilities can provide a more humane and dignified experience for LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system. This approach ensures they receive the respect, support, and opportunities they deserve. This blog post also serves as a call to civil society, especially in Europe, to delve deeper into and address the unique experiences and challenges faced by this community.

[1] While some findings originally pertained to a narrower category like LGTB, for this blog post, we have opted to use a broader term, specifically LGBTQ+. Our intention is to promote inclusivity, as we believe that the broader LGBTQ+ community encounters similar challenges.

Sources:

- - CPT. (2024). Transgender persons in prison. Council of Europe. Retrieved from: 1680af7216 (coe.int)
  - National Center for Transgender Equality. (2014). Standing with LGBT prisoners: An advocate’s guide to ending abuse and combating imprisonment. Retrieved from https://transequality.org/issues/resources/standing-lgbt-prisoners-advocate%E2%80%99s-guide-ending-abuse-and-combating-imprisonment
  - Penal Reform International. (2021). Global prison trends 2021: LGBTQ+ people in prison. Retrieved from https://www.penalreform.org/global-prison-trends-2021/lgbtq-people-in-prison/

17 June 20249 September 2024

One small step for detention houses, one giant leap for RESCALED

The European Movement for Detention Houses now has members in seventeen European countries!

For a movement, growth is important. But equally important is how you grow as a movement. RESCALED is a movement of people who share values on a personal level. We discuss, we laugh, we support each other with the RESCALED mission and vision in mind. We are honoured to welcome ten new members to the movement and look forward to all the synergies in the near future! On June 11th, the RESCALED General Assembly welcomed ten new members:

- Release (Ireland)
- Village of Hope (Estonia)
- Richtungswechsel (Austria)
- Associazione Antigone (Italy)
- Association Possible (France)
- Stichting Sileo (the Netherlands)
- Silta-Valmennusyhdistys ry (Finland)
- Coalition of NGOs for Child Protection KOMF (Kosovo)
- CPIP – Center for Promoting Lifelong Learning (Romania)
- Angelus Custos Association For Civil Society Development (Croatia)

Our movement also re-elected board members Berit Johnsen, Rogier Elshout, Hans Claus, Roger Nilsen and Gonçalo Noronha Andrade, and welcomed Birte Metz to the RESCALED Board. Tim Verbist has joined as an advisor to the Board!

14 June 202417 June 2024

JUST IN: EU COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS ON SMALL-SCALE DETENTION

RESCALED Welcomes Landmark EU Council Conclusions Under Belgian Presidency (EU2024BE)

Brussels, 14 June 2024 — Today, the ministers for Justice of the 27 EU countries have unanimously expressed their support for the use of detention houses. They did so by adopting Council Conclusions on Small-scale Detention and thereby inviting all member states to consider, where appropriate, the use of small-scale detention facilities for custodial purposes, including detention houses, with the aim of limiting the negative impacts of detention, and ensuring better guidance for incarcerated persons on returning to society. The RESCALED Movement, a leading advocate for the use of detention houses in Europe, applauds the adoption of these Council Conclusions, as it marks a significant step towards a more sustainable justice system and a greener, fairer and more inclusive future. This is a strong and hopeful sign in times when many European prison systems are struggling with overcrowding, staff shortages or high recidivism rates.

Key Highlights from the Council Conclusions:

- - Social rehabilitation and reintegration into society: Small-scale detention can better facilitate social rehabilitation and reintegration of incarcerated people into society, with the aim of helping prevent reoffending and building more inclusive communities
  - Small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated: The Member States are invited to explore and raise awareness for the potential benefits of small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated detention facilities and consider, where appropriate, the use of these facilities
  - Towards a safe and inclusive society: The Council considers small-scale detention to contribute to a better sense of community and better social integration, which may reduce reoffending. Thus, small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated detention facilities can help achieve safer and more resilient communities.

“We are thrilled to witness this political will to explore the benefits of small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated detention houses for European societies. It is hopeful to see the relation between effective justice policies and well-developed social policies reflected in the Council Conclusions on Small-scale Detention,” says Helene De Vos, Executive Director of RESCALED. “This milestone is part of a wider European movement towards a justice system that truly meets the needs of inclusive, safe and sustainable societies.”

Moving forward, the RESCALED Movement will continue to:

- - Map good practices of small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated detention facilities already existing all across Europe, see also https://inspirational-practices.rescaled.org
  - Increase the know-how on detention houses in collaboration with researchers and practitioners
  - Support national Ministries of Justice, prison administrations and local governments in the implementation of detention houses instead of large prison institutions
  - Engage with local communities to sustain support for detention houses by raising awareness of the benefits of small-scale, differentiation and community-integration

Read the full text of the Council Conclusions ‘Small-scale detention: focusing on social rehabilitation and reintegration into society’.

About RESCALED:

RESCALED, the European Movement for Detention Houses is a growing movement with members in seventeen countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Kosovo, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Spain. Some members manage small-scale detention houses, whilst others are involved in advocacy, in services to (formerly) incarcerated people and in research. RESCALED’s vision is that one day, societies are inclusive, safe and sustainable. For this purpose, it supports the use of detention houses instead of large prison institutions. Detention houses are small-scale, differentiated and community-integrated. They benefit not only incarcerated people but also their social network, potential victims, the criminal justice system, its staff and society at large. Detention houses allow for a better application of European laws and principles and contribute to restoration, reduced reoffending and social sustainability.

For more information, please contact:

Helene De Vos

Executive Director

RESCALED

info@rescaled.org

5 June 202430 May 2024

Nature-based detention houses

This post was originally published on 24th October 2023 by Penal Reform International.

In a context of climate crisis and rising costs, prisons, like all institutions, must take action to be more sustainable and minimise impact on the environment. In this blog, Wiep Fokker from Restorative Justice Netherlands makes the case for nature-based detention houses as an ecologically sustainable model for penal reform.

The climate and biodiversity crisis call for a commitment to sustainability in all sectors of our society. While this includes the prison system, there has been little talk of sustainable detention in Europe. It is high time we took a closer look at the ecological sustainability of detention that could contribute to future penal reform: Nature-Based Detention Houses. RESCALED is a European movement with the mission to support the use of detention houses instead of large prison institutions, with the aim that one day, societies are inclusive, safe and sustainable.

A detention house is based on three pillars: small scale, differentiation, and community-integration. There is not one perfect example of a detention house, instead, RESCALED is showing the spectrum of many possibilities to create nature-based detention houses in Europe. How can these houses help us make criminal justice fairer, more effective and environmentally friendly? And why is this shift crucial?

To start with the big ‘Why?’ of the story. You may wonder why it is necessary to add the ‘nature-based’ part to the concept of detention houses. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), nature-based solutions “address societal challenges through the protection, sustainable management and restoration of both natural and modified ecosystems, benefitting both biodiversity and human well-being”.

This is important since the climate and biodiversity crises we are currently facing ask for precise and swift action. In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted to translate the three dimensions of sustainability (social, ecological, economic) into 17 concrete goals for sustainably developed societies in 2030. While much of the focus to date has been on social sustainability, comprehensive solutions can be found in an interconnected combination of the three dimensions of sustainability: social (people), ecological (planet) and economic (prosperity). Therefore, nature-based detention houses could be defined as small scale, differentiated detention facilities embedded within the community, which protect, manage and restore surrounding ecosystems.

Let’s take a closer look at the dimension ‘planet’ and see what added value this – together with people and prosperity – could bring to our justice systems. Thus, let’s move on to the ‘How?’ of the story.

The meaningful ecological impact of detention houses can be ensured by working on both methods and materials: on the one hand, material changes require amendments in architecture, energy and food supply; on the other, changes in methods of activities, transport and waste management can reduce negative impacts on the environment. In this, the so-called ‘ecological footprint’ can be a helpful tool to measure the ecological impacts of detention houses on both a local and (inter)national level. This was, for example, calculated for the Dutch judicial organisation (DJI). The method covers the “total area of land and sea required to sustain an activity or population”, which includes environmental impacts and enables organisations to gain insights in their consumption or production patterns. The aim of nature-based detention houses would therefore be to make the ecological footprint as small as possible and to maximise their positive impact on the surrounding ecosystem.

As for the material aspects, the architectural possibilities offered by detention houses can be promising. Such buildings could for example contain green facades, which is a proven way to contribute to the reduction of air and surface temperatures. Examples of such ‘Vertical Forests’ can be found in various cities around the world, inspired by architect Stefano Boeri.

The great amount of greenspace included in the inside and outside areas of nature-based detention houses would not only counter biodiversity losses, but also support the wellbeing of both incarcerated people and staff^[1]. For example, the mere prospect of a natural living environment with vegetation and wooded area can result in a decrease in self-harm and violence among incarcerated people^[2]. When it comes to the methodological aspects, in nature-based detention houses the focus should be on local and reciprocal collaboration and circular economy, for working in line with the ‘doughnut model’ (see below). Recycling of waste should be encouraged, both in the living environment and during working activities. Or think about sustainable meals for incarcerated people, with more plant-based nutrients and produced in an environmentally friendly way in their own vegetable gardens. These changes could be beneficial for both the environment as well as for the health of incarcerated people.

Are you curious to read more about nature-based detention houses? An introduction to my research on the three levels of sustainability is published on the website of WISH-EU. From the beginning of 2024 onwards, RESCALED together with Restorative Justice Netherlands will share examples of the different aspects of nature-based detention houses as part of their continued work on the ‘Ecosystem’ of detention houses. Stay updated via the LinkedIn or Instagram of Restorative Justice Netherlands or LinkedIn or Instagram of RESCALED. For questions, reach out to me directly at wiep.fokker@restorativejustice.nl.

[1] Moran, D., Jones, P. I., Jordaan, J. A., & Porter, A. E. (2022). Nature contact in the carceral workplace: greenspace and staff sickness absence in prisons in England and Wales. Environment and Behavior, 54(2), 276-299. Boone, M., Althoff, M. & Koenraadt, F. (2016). Het leefklimaat in justitiële inrichtingen. Boom Lemma.

[2] Moran, D., Jones, P. I., Jordaan, J. A., & Porter, A. E. (2020). Does nature contact in prison improve well-being? Mapping land cover to identify the effect of greenspace on self-harm and violence in prisons in England and Wales. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111(6), 1779-1795.

30 May 20249 September 2024

The ecosystem of detention houses

Detention houses have emerged on the local, national and, more recently, even the European level, attracting the attention of policymakers, researchers, practitioners and civil society. These detention houses are based on three principles that reinforce each other: small-scale, differentiation and community-integration. If people are to be deprived of their liberty as a pre-trial measure or as a sentence, a detention house provides the right context for each individual. To fully grasp the value and potential of detention houses, we need to look beyond their observable features (like their scale or location) and consider all dimensions of their ecosystem. This blog text will explain this ecosystem approach and how this can be applied to justice reform.

Detention houses as healthy ecosystems

The ecosystem of a detention house is shaped by the individuals that are connected to the detention house, their communities and society as a whole, which all mutually influence each other. Incarcerated people mostly stay at the detention house, while staff members come and go on a daily basis. Visitors may enter for a shorter period of time and then leave again, which is also the case for psychologists, teachers, and social workers. Incarcerated people may also leave the detention houses to go to school and return in the evening, for example. All the individuals involved interact in a web of relationships, together shaping the social environment in and around the detention house. These relationships can be facilitated, or impeded or blocked, by other features like architectural design, work and education opportunities, psychosocial support, staff well-being, the use of technology etc. Considering all these dimensions in and around a detention house in a holistic way is what we call the ecosystem perspective on detention houses. In healthy ecosystems, all different elements reinforce each other when they interact to form an effective and harmonious system. For example, when the design helps to create a constructive social climate, when staff members contribute to relational security, when neighbouring schools are supported to include incarcerated people among their students etc. The reverse can also happen: a disruptive factor can throw the ecosystem out of balance.

Towards safe, sustainable and inclusive societies

The ecosystem of a detention house is not limited to the physical boundaries of the detention house, nor is it limited to the boundaries of the criminal justice system. On the contrary, it exists at the junction of other ecosystems: that of the criminal justice system, the health care and mental health care system, the education system, the employment system etc. These different ecosystems interact and overlap, just as the ecosystems of forests and lakes do in nature. Such a holistic approach to detention houses is needed because of the complex nature of the social challenges they are facing and trying to meet. Crime and its root causes find their origin in the complexity of social issues. Therefore, societal reactions to crime cannot be isolated from the society. At the same time, it is clear that part of the current pressure on the criminal justice system is due to shortcomings in other systems, such as the mental health care system. These pressures cannot be solved by detention houses if not addressed holistically. The key is therefore to involve society in the implementation of detention houses and appeal to the shared responsibilities of justice, health care, mental health care, education, employment and other relevant systems in society.

Increasing the know-how on detention houses

So, how to grasp this ecosystem of a detention house? That journey has been kicked off on 20 March 2024, with more than 80 experts from across Europe, discussing 14 different topics related to detention houses and exploring their interconnectedness. The experts’ insights have informed the establishment of various Knowledge Workspaces managed by RESCALED, which are designed to dive into specific topics while always considering the broader ecosystem of a detention house. Each Knowledge Workspace serves as a space for connections between research, practice and policy, as well as different perspectives and backgrounds. These connections foster new insights, shared understanding and innovative solutions, and this know-how can subsequently support the implementation of detention houses in Europe, with continuous reflection and improvement of the existing knowledge. It is only through this comprehensive and systemic approach that we can be confident that the justice reform from large prison institutions to detention houses contributes to more inclusive, safe and sustainable societies.

We look forward to spearheading this process with the RESCALED Movement!

21 May 202430 May 2024

Small-scale detention

Originally published on 19 April 2024 in Italian at www.rapportoantigone.it

This model of detention refers to three fundamental principles: small-scale, differentiation and community-integration

On March 21st we were guests of the Belgian Federal Senate, at the invitation of the European RESCALED network, to discuss small-scale detention with representatives of European institutions and civil society.

In recent years, the activism and visibility of RESCALED has grown in Europe, a network that supports small-scale detention houses that question the effectiveness of large prison institutions and traditional security measures. This model of detention refers to three fundamental principles: small-scale, differentiation and integration into the community.

In 2022 RESCALED attempted to map and describe the most interesting small-scale detention practices in Europe, differentiated and integrated into the community, adopting a common evaluation matrix, which in turn served as the basis for the preparation of detailed reports. All to enrich understanding of the most interesting practices and gain in-depth insight into the factors that contribute to the success, or potential risks, associated with the implementation of small-scale detention facilities.

To correctly understand the RESCALED approach, it is important first of all to clarify, the intentions of those who created the movement, and what the three principles stated above refer to.

1. 1. Small-scale: Detention houses have limited capacity, to allow for the creation of a community where individuals can regain their autonomy and act responsibly.
  2. Differentiation: Differentiation refers to the creation of an optimal environment that meets the unique needs and circumstances of individuals. It involves the ambition to place individuals within an appropriate context based on their needs and characteristics. This can be done by tailoring the security dimension based on the risk represented by residents and providing complete and personalized support, through services, activities and programs, to prepare people for their return to society.
  3. Community-integration: Detention houses should be integrated into the local community, to allow interaction and collaboration with the community. By using existing community services and in turn, offering shared services to residents in line with their needs, detention houses should establish meaningful links with the community.

The project is clearly ambitious and clashes, head-on, with many of the characteristics we generally associate with detention

The project is clearly ambitious and clashes, head-on, with many of the characteristics we generally associate with detention. It seems impossible, for example, to talk about a small scale, in a Europe where apparently increasingly larger prisons are apparently being built. Or to reason about differentiation, a principle often stated, but which usually represents only a feeble attempt to counteract the depersonalisation, disempowerment and rigid discipline that we almost naturally associate with detention. And the same goes for community-integration, a principle that is often appealed to, but which usually does not prevail over its opposite, i.e., the idea that prison is first and foremost a device for separation from the community.

Today in Lithuania many transition houses are opening, open prisons to prepare for release

Yet, among the experiences described by the mapping done by RESCALED, there are surprising cases. As one would expect, many of these concern the Scandinavian countries, countries that traditionally combine limited recourse to criminal justice with considerable support for inclusion policies through solid and widespread welfare.

But it also turns out that interesting things have happened in other countries in recent years. This is for instance the case of Lithuania, a country that for years had the highest detention rate among European countries and a detention model substantially borrowed from the Soviet Union. Today, many transition houses, open prisons to prepare for release, are opening in Lithuania, which to some extent try to adopt the principles stated above: small-scale, differentiation and community-integration.

The same thing has happened in Belgium in recent years, with the opening of several transition houses, as well as a number of detention facilities designed for a different type of user, people who have to serve short sentences. These too are small in size and with lower security levels, adapted to the risk actually posed by the persons housed and not calibrated, as often happens in traditional detention facilities, to the risk posed by the more conflictual and less cooperative minority of the incarcerated population.

Finally, and this is the experience of many countries, Italy included, for specific groups of incarcerated people, generally characterized by some form of vulnerability, the use of small-scale detention facilities, generally considered an improvement over mass incarceration, has been and is attempted. Think, for Italy, of our many small juvenile prisons, of the ICAM for detained mothers, or of the REMS for recipients of psychiatric security measures. Small-sized structures in which the progress made in terms of differentiation and integration with the community is probably not exciting, but in which at the same time the mere fact of their small size ends up at least containing their opposite, the depersonalisation typical of larger structures.

Warning against the risk that small-scale detention, if built in partnership with the private sector, may open the doors to forms of privatisation of detention

Antigone welcomed the confrontation with this reality, offering its experience and expertise. And for instance by promoting a reflection on the methods of monitoring and supervision of these facilities, which remain places of liberty deprivation, and therefore contexts where the risk of an illegitimate and arbitrary compression of fundamental rights is always present. But also warning against the risk that small-scale detention, if built in partnership with the private sector, as happens in some cases for example in the Netherlands or Portugal, may open the doors to forms of privatisation of detention. An outcome that is unacceptable to us but which must always be kept in mind, especially in recent years in which we have seen, not only in Italy, the disastrous outcome of entrusting the management of detention centres for migrants to private entities.

As I said, we therefore welcomed this confrontation. And this for several reasons. The first, the most obvious, is that we are interested in learning more about detention methods and practices that are different from those we are used to. Many scholars and operators from other countries are interested in ours, and in particular in the experience of REMS, which in Europe is often considered a good practice from which to take an example.

The second is that in Italy there has been a debate on these issues for years, generally confined to professionals, which has to some extent come out into the open with proposed law no. 1064 for the establishment of Territorial Social Reintegration Houses. The proposed law aims to establish alternative structures to prison, aimed at accommodating all persons who are serving a prison sentence, including residual sentences not exceeding twelve months. As of December 31 2023, this group was, as we reported, 7,648 people.

In these new facilities, with a limited capacity of between five and fifteen people, placed under the direction of the mayor or someone delegated by them, and in which staff employed by the Municipality should operate, it would be concretely possible to implement the constitutional principle of the re-educative purpose of punishment precisely because of their small size, but also because of their integration into the community, both of which are central to the reflection I mentioned above.

To reflect on the function we want prison to perform, on the characteristics it should have to carry it out and, on the indicators, we should use to verify its adequacy in practice

Finally, and this to me is perhaps the most interesting reason for this debate, the opportunity it presents to reflect on the function we want prison to perform, on the characteristics it should have to carry it out and, on the indicators, we should use to verify its adequacy in practice.

After all, decades of senseless debate on more or less extraordinary prison-building plans have not allowed us to make any progress in this direction. Over the years, astronomical figures and ambitious plans in terms of prison capacity have been discussed. Thousands and thousands of prison places have been promised and never realised, in a growing building frenzy, which was never accompanied by a reflection on what was actually to be built, and for what purpose. We continue to re-propose old detention models, more or less humanized, which we have seen in operation over the decades and which, when investigated, have proven to be good devices perhaps for the storage of human beings, generally in less than dignified conditions, but nothing more.

Is this the meaning of detention in our system? The containment and neutralisation of people who have to serve a prison sentence? Are we okay with this or do we want to try something else? And in which spaces, and with which organisational models? The debate on small-scale detention, as on any other concept of detention, inevitably raises these questions and imposes a reflection of which we have not been capable, and of which there is evidently a great need.

Category: FEATURED