FEATURED Archives

10 October 20251 July 2026

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/. ↩︎

25 September 20251 July 2026

The voice of survivors in justice reform

Lived experience as a key to restoration

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

Justice and recovery is also for survivors

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

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

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

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

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

Lived Experience as a Driver for Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why survivor expertise matters in justice reform?

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Step

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

31 July 202511 August 2026

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.

📩 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

30 May 20255 June 2025

General Assembly 2025: welcoming new members and strengthening the RESCALED movement

On the 23rd of May 2025, RESCALED held its annual General Assembly in Salzburg, Austria. This year’s event marked a meaningful gathering to reflect, (re)connect, and look ahead.

In addition to reflecting on the key highlights and achievements of the past year, including our growing impact and the expanding reach of the RESCALED movement across Europe. We took time to (re)connect, with new members bringing fresh perspectives, and long-standing members sharing valuable insights and impact. But most importantly, we looked ahead together, reaffirming our shared vision for the future and the path we are taking as a movement.

This year, we were proud to welcome three new members who each enrich our network with their own unique strengths and commitments:

Diagrama Foundation (United Kingdom)

Diagrama Foundation supports vulnerable children and young people in custodial and care settings. Their approach is based on trauma-informed care, restorative justice principles, and child development theory. Operating small-scale, therapeutic residential settings, that move away from punitive, institutional approaches and instead prioritise relational security, personal growth, and reintegration into the community. Diagrama has charity status in England and Wales and is part of Fundación Diagrama, one of Spain’s largest NGOs.

Jalta – Cultural and Social Centre (Slovakia)

Based in Slovakia, Jalta works at the intersection of community engagement, policy advocacy, and creative methodologies. Through projects like #stopdiscrimination they address systemic issues affecting vulnerable groups and promote inclusive reform through public advocacy, workshops, and educational campaigns, while projects like inVulnerables/DAR and Theatregeneration offer creative and educational methodologies that support the reintegration of justice-involved youth and vulnerable individuals through European collaborations.

Dr. Olta Qejvani (Albania)

Dr. Olta Qejvani is a lecturer in European Law and has over a decade of experience across academia, civil society, and public administration. She has represented Albania at the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where her project ‘Different local communities, same youth perspective’ was recognized as one of the best initiatives for youth participation at the local level.

Board elections

We also proudly re-elected Gonçalo Noronha Andrade and Birte Metz to the RESCALED Board. Their ongoing leadership will continue to strengthen and guide our movement.

We look ahead with energy and purpose, moving forward as a European movement with members across 20 countries, committed to driving justice reform.

15 May 20255 June 2025

Women in detention: Challenges and new approaches

Around the world, women make up a small but growing group within the prison population. According to the World Prison Brief¹ over 733,000 women and girls are incarcerated globally, accounting for about 6.8% of the total prison population worldwide. In Europe, the proportion is even lower, around 5% of people in prison are women².

While this percentage may seem small, it masks a deeply concerning trend: the dramatic and disproportionate growth in women’s³ imprisonment. Since 2000, the global women prison population has surged by 57%, compared to a 22% increase for men over the same period⁴. This rapid rise is particularly severe in certain regions and countries. Both Asia and Oceania have seen their women prison populations more than double since 2000, with countries like Cambodia, Indonesia, and Brazil experiencing explosive growth. The highest numbers of incarcerated women are found in the USA (174,607), China (145,000), and Brazil (50,441)⁵^–⁶^–⁷.

While Europe has seen a slight overall decline in women’s imprisonment, patterns vary significantly by country ⁸. Excluding Russia, the women prison population in the rest of Europe actually grew by about 25% from 2000 to 2024⁹. Women make up approximately 5-6% of the European prison population, with notable variations, from as high as 9.5% in Malta and 8.5% in Czechia to as low as 3.2% in France and 3.7% in Bulgaria¹⁰. Some countries like Poland see their women prisoner population more than double since 2000¹¹.

Understanding women’s pathways to incarceration

Incarcerated women often follow different pathways into crime than men, reflecting different life experiences and vulnerabilities¹². Their paths are frequently characterized by economic hardship, poverty, low levels of education, lack of employment opportunities, and homelessness.

While men dominate statistics for violent crime, women are more often imprisoned for non-violent offenses, particularly property and drug-related crimes¹³. For example, in England and Wales, shoplifting accounts for 40% of women’s prison sentences under six months, while almost two-thirds (64%) of prison sentences given to women were for less than six months¹⁴.

A system not designed for women

Prison systems worldwide share a fundamental problem: they were originally designed by men and for men¹⁵. As women constitute a minority of the prison population, their specific needs are often overlooked within this man-centric framework. The ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach fundamentally fails to provide a safe, humane, or rehabilitative environment for many incarcerated women.

Key challenges include:

Histories of trauma and mental health:

Women behind bars are more likely than men to have suffered abuse and trauma prior to incarceration. Over 90% have experienced some form of childhood trauma, including physical or sexual abuse, neglect, bullying, or witnessing extreme violence¹⁶, often continuing into adulthood with intimate partner violence.

This continuous exposure to trauma contributes to high rates of mental health issues¹⁷, with studies showing 57% of women under probation supervision in Ireland experiencing mental health problems (compared to 40% of men)¹⁸.

Reproductive and healthcare needs:

Women have specific reproductive and sexual healthcare needs that prisons commonly fail to address¹⁹. Many incarcerated women are of child-bearing age and approximately 5-10% of women are pregnant when admitted to prison²⁰, requiring prenatal care, proper nutrition, and childbirth arrangements. Even basic reproductive health can be neglected in prisons, with inadequate access to gynecological services, mammograms, pap smears, and even menstrual hygiene products.

Safety and dignity

Women in prison are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, abuse, and violence, perpetrated by both staff and fellow incarcerated individuals²¹. Lack of privacy, supervision by male staff in sensitive situations, and invasive or humiliating search procedures can violate dignity and exacerbate feelings of vulnerability and fear. Although International standards recommend searches be conducted by women staff, yet this is not always implemented²².

Family responsibilities and caregiving

Most incarcerated women are mothers, and many were the primary caregivers for their children prior to arrest²³. In Italy, at the end of 2021 nearly 64% of women in detention were mothers²⁴, and in the UK, an estimated 17,500 children were separated from their mothers by imprisonment in 2020. This separation doubles the risk of poor mental health in children and increases their risk of poverty and housing insecurity²⁵. Traditional prisons, with distant locations and limited visitation, make maintaining family bonds extremely difficult.

International standards and reform movements

The international community has formally recognized the inadequacy of treating incarcerated women identically to men and the need for gender-specific approaches. International standards have been developed to address these issues, like the United Nations Bangkok Rules (2010). These rules set standards for non-discrimination and gender-responsive approaches, covering admission procedures, healthcare, humane treatment, and family contact²⁶ and they emphasize the need for alternatives to imprisonment for women²⁷.

The Council of Europe has also addressed women’s incarceration through the European Prison Rules (revised in 2006, updated in 2020)²⁸, which emphasize that imprisonment should be a last resort, especially for mothers of young children. These standards call for prison conditions that respect human rights, tailored healthcare, protection from abuse, and support for family contact.

Despite these detailed international and European standards, a significant implementation gap persists.

RESCALED Movement

For women experiencing incarceration large-scale prisons often fail to meet their (most basic) needs. But what if women were incarcerated in a more humane, community-integrated setting?

Detention houses provide exactly that through three key principles:

Small-scale: Detention houses typically accommodate only about 8 to 30 residents, creating more personal, human-centered environments. Finland’s Vanaja Prison exemplifies this approach by housing up to 57 women in small-scale house units of five people each, plus a special family house for parents with children. This village-like arrangement creates a more intimate environment where staff can develop meaningful relationships with each resident and tailor support to individual needs, particularly helpful for women who have experienced trauma.

Differentiation: This principle means placing individuals in the context best suited to their specific circumstances. In these kinds of contexts, staff are trained in gender-responsive practices and the programming is tailored specifically for women’s needs, covering topics like healthy relationships, parenting skills, and women’s health.

The prison for women in Řepy (Czech Republic) demonstrates differentiation through its specialized selection process and treatment approach. With a capacity of 56 women, Řepy divides residents into smaller groups based on security level.

Community-Integration: Detention houses are embedded in the community rather than isolated, allowing residents to remain literally and figuratively closer to normal life. Scotland’s Community Custody Units illustrate this well, designed with family-friendly visit areas including community rooms and gardens that create child-friendly environments. This integration reduces stigma, improves access to community services like healthcare and education, and makes regular family visits more feasible.

The economic argument for community-based solutions is compelling. Research shows that the cost per woman at Women’s Centres ranges from £1,223 to £4,125 depending on their level of need, while a place in prison costs £52,121 per year. Despite this clear cost advantage, investment in Women’s Centres tends to be short-term, inconsistent, and inadequate, limiting their potential impact²⁹.

By shifting from large prisons to detention houses, RESCALED envisions a justice system that is not only more humane, but also more effective for society.

Women benefit from environments that respect their dignity, address their trauma, and keep them connected to their families. Communities benefit as well: because small-scale, community-integrated detention houses are more transparent and oriented toward reintegration, they can reduce recidivism and aid public safety in the long run.

For women in detention, who have too often been unseen and underserved, detention houses offer a chance to be treated as people, not statistics, as mothers, workers, and community members who, with the right support, can successfully turn their lives around.

Read the full report on Women Download

About the WOMEN Project: To address the challenges outlined in this blog post, RESCALED is proud to be leading the “Workspace for Mapping, Engaging, and Networking with, for, and by Incarcerated Women” (WOMEN) project. Click here to learn more.

Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2024, June) . Council of Europe: ‘SPACE I’ Annual penal statistics: Prison Populations 2023. ↩︎
Throughout this text, we use the term “women” instead of “female” to center the social and gendered dimensions of incarceration. Where sources use the term “female” (e.g., in data sets or reports), this reflects their original language. Our choice aligns with person-centered, gender-responsive language. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2021, June). Data Matters No. 1: Nearly twelve million people imprisoned globally, nearly one-third unsentenced with prisons overcrowded in half of all countries. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Webster, R. (2025, February). Global female incarceration on the rise. Russell Webster. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2022, October). World Female Imprisonment List (5ª edition). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. ↩︎
Eurostat. (2025, April). Prison statistics. Statistics Explained. ↩︎
Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2022, October). World Female Imprisonment List (5ª edition). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. ↩︎
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Prison Reform Trust. (2025, April). Resetting the approach to women’s imprisonment. ↩︎
Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules. ↩︎
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
Penal Reform International, & Association for the Prevention of Torture. (2015). Women in detention: A guide to gender-sensitive monitoring (2nd ed.). ↩︎
Probation Service. (2021, June). Towards a ‘best practice’ approach to working with women who offend. ↩︎
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2014). Handbook on women and imprisonment (2nd ed.). United Nations. ↩︎
Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Reproductive health care for incarcerated women in the United States. Wikipedia. ↩︎
Abasguliyeva, K., Misenheimer, A., Ram, S., Tromboo, H., & Tsoi, K. W. (2024, September 11). Prison in Pink: The Struggles of Female Incarceration. OxJournal. ↩︎
Penal Reform International. (2013). UN Bangkok Rules on women offenders and prisoners: Short guide. ↩︎
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
Associazione Antigone. (2023). Dalla parte di Antigone: Cartella stampa. ↩︎
Prison Reform Trust. (2025, April). Resetting the approach to women’s imprisonment. ↩︎
Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules. ↩︎
United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children. (2020, December 10). Leading human rights experts call for overdue implementation of the UN Bangkok Rules a decade after they were adopted. ↩︎
Quaker Council for European Affairs. (2007). Women in prison: A review of the conditions in member states of the Council of Europe. ↩︎
Women’s Budget Group. (2020, October). The case for sustainable funding for women’s centres. ↩︎

28 November 202417 April 2025

DETENTION HOUSE ECONOMICS: UNPACKING THE MYTHS OF COST-EFFICIENCY

Detention House Economics – RESCALED report exploring cost-efficiency of detention houses versus traditional prisons

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 202417 April 2025

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

UN Human Rights Council calls for alternatives to incarceration including small-scale detention houses

🌍 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 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.

16 July 202417 April 2025

Case study Amsterdam Zuidoost – Restorative Cities

Amsterdam Zuidoost restorative city project – RESCALED case study on justice innovation

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.

Category: FEATURED