Go to (on this page): content, search field of menu.
U bevindt zich op: Home › Publications › Audits
Detention, treatment and follow-up care for young offenders
Of the young offenders who have been detained for more than two months in a judicial institution, it is not known how half of them are faring six months after their release.
Young people who break the law are tried under juvenile criminal law, which focuses on education rather than punishment. Our audit of the detention, treatment and follow-up care of young people also focused on education. We examined the extent to which the fourteen young offenders' institutions in the Netherlands reduce the chance of young criminals reoffending. We concentrated on young people sent to such institutions for both minor and serious offences. Our audit sheds light on the contribution made by institutions to improving the behaviour, attitude, circumstances and prospects of young criminals.
Main conclusions
In our audit we question the way the system works, but more specifically the fact that implementation sometimes deviates markedly from official policy. In legislation and policy the Minister of Justice has set a number of conditions that juvenile detention and institutional treatment need to fulfil. These conditions appear to be consistent, but our conclusion is that they do not provide an equally strong legal basis for dealing with all young offenders. Our main conclusion is that the rules on paper and the reality in institutions are often two entirely different things. This does little to help young people or society, and is costly.
Young people can benefit from their time in detention if they follow a detention or treatment plan. We believe it is positive that institutions base such plans at least in part on examinations or testing carried out during a earlier stage in the criminal proceedings. The emphasis is on improving the young person's personal effectiveness, with institutions often working to encourage socially responsible behaviour and manage tension and aggression. However, we found there was often much less emphasis on tackling recognised problems in the young person's everyday environment (e.g. preventing substance abuse or clearing debts) or analysing the offences committed. Parents or carers were rarely involved in formulating the plan.
Institutions also need to prepare young people to return to society. They can do this in a number of ways, for example by not releasing them directly from a closed institution into normal society, but by first reintroducing them to increasingly more open surroundings. More, and more appropriate, use should be made of this method, which we believe will contribute to these young people's successful return to society. Follow-up care also leads to a reduction in reoffending, and we believe that institutions could make more use of it.
UpMain recommendations
In our opinion, the main priority is that both institutions themselves, and the Minister of Justice, work to improve the effectiveness of detention and treatment in youth institutions. Either the institutions must comply with official policy, or the impracticability of doing so must be addressed. This will create the space for a solution to be found.
We recommend that the Minister of Justice adapts the legal framework so that the plan-based approach is applied to more young people in youth institutions, and at an earlier stage. We also recommend that major problems currently experienced by institutions, such as waiting times for places and the training and payment of group leaders, be solved.
UpMinisters' and institutions' responses
On 4 September 2007 the State Secretary for Justice responded to this audit, writing in his own capacity and on behalf of his colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Youth and Families, and the six state-run institutions for young people. The Jongeren Opvangcentrum (Crisis Centre for Young People) has said that it agrees with the government's response. Jongerenhuis Harreveld (a treatment centre for young people with problems) and the Frentrop Stichting umbrella organisation both sent a written response. The OG Heldringstichting (which treats children with serious behavioural or mental health problems) has no comments to report. We have not yet received any response from the Van Het Poortje, Rentray, Het Keerpunt or De Sprengen young offenders' institutions.
The State Secretary for Justice, the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Youth and Families read our draft report with interest and believe that it contains valuable recommendations. Some of our findings and recommendations reflect current developments in the sector, while others raise new issues.
The director of Jongerenhuis Harreveld believes that the report can make an important contribution to improving care for young people in the sector. In his opinion the conclusions are clear, and can be used as a basis for improvements.
The board of the Frentrop Stichting is pleased that the audit critically examined the system of rules and conditions governing young offenders' institutions, and that it recognised the complex environment in which such institutions work.
The report was submitted to the House of Representatives on 4 October 2007.
Up