Selective Rehabilitation

Full text

Selective rehabilitation: from grades of freedom to the ‘New Penitentiary
Institution’
1. Introduction and terminology
Since the introduction of the Penal Principles Act (Beginselenwet Gevangeniswezen) 1953,
rehabilitation and differentiation have been the cornerstones of Dutch imprisonment policy.
Actually, Dutch legislation speaks of resocialisation, a concept not known to the English
vocabulary. According to Dutch law and the Dutch dictionary, resocialisation means
preparation for a return to society. The English word reintegration comes close to this
meaning, although it has a broader significance, including also the period between the return
to society and the actual reintegration. The commonly used term in the English literature,
however, is rehabilitation, although this term emphasises the role more as the word
resocialisation; I will adopt this practice. In 1953 the rehabilitation aim was introduced as a
fundamental principle of prison law in the new Penal Principles Act 1953. Literally the law
said: `while maintaining the character of the prison sentence, the implementation of the
sentence will also serve to prepare the return of the prisoner to society.’ Concerning the
precise formulation of this principle, there was heated political discussion at that time. The
passage ‘while maintaining the character of the prison sentence’ can be seen as a compromise
between the Minister of Justice and the (Dutch) Lower House that wanted to prevent the
Minister from changing the prison into some kind of retreat. The passage expresses that
confinement remains the most important aim of imprisonment (not to be confused with the
most important aim of carrying out the sentence). In the latest modification of the prison
legislation, the formulation changed once again; according to the present Prison Bill the
implementation of the prison sentence had to serve the return to society as far as possible.
According to some Members of Parliament, this formulation weakened the promise of the
original text, because as far as possible only amounted to a promise to try to do this, while
also was much more concrete.1 According to the Minister of Justice, however, the different
formulation should only have been seen as an editorial change.2
What preparation for a return to society exactly means, is subject to discussion. Some defend
the opinion that only those activities supposed to diminish recidivism form part of the
rehabilitation objective, while others use a broader definition to the effect that all activities
aiming at the preservation or improvement of the psycho-social behaviour of the detainee,
including those activities developed to diminish recidivism, form part of the rehabilitation
objective3 Also not clear or defined in the legislation is which aspects or provisions of the
Prison System are meant to encourage rehabilitation . Nelissen, who carried out a broad study
on rehabilitation, mentions the following aspects: individualisation, differentiation, the
phasing of detention time, regime activities, penitentiary programmes and integration
projects.4 In this contribution I will not take a specific position in these debates beforehand,
but will show that both the aims and efforts concerning rehabilitation have undergone
important changes over the years.
Rehabilitation or the activities organised to prepare for a return to society will be approached
along three different lines: the scientific foundation of rehabilitation, rehabilitation efforts in
1 Handelingen II 1996/1997, p. 4814.
2 Handelingen II 1996/1997, p. 1709
3 Nelissen 2000, p. 30.
4 Nelissen 2000, p. 60.

the form of policy and rehabilitation in practice. I will restrict myself to the developments
regarding imprisonment for adults, since developments in the youth sector have already been
described by Liefaard and Weijers. It will become clear that as a result of the safety doctrine,
the disappointing effects of rehabilitation efforts and the desired economic savings, the
significance of the rehabilitation principle has, at least for certain categories of prisoners,
been seriously eroded.
2. Rehabilitation from a scientific perspective
It can be concluded that 1953 marked a crucial year in the development of the Dutch
penitentiary system. In that year the Penitentiary Principles Act was accepted in which some
fundamental principles of imprisonment were laid down. Obviously, the most fundamental
principle that was laid down in the new Bill was the rehabilitation principle, meaning that the
implementation of the prison sentence served as a preparation for the return of the detainee to
society. In an article in the Dutch Journal of Criminology, Van Ruller highlighted the desire
that had been felt since the beginning of the 19th century to supplement the punitive character
of sentences with the rehabilitative aim as an irrational aspect of sentencing.5 Although this
development can be seen on the one hand as an effort to give punishment a rational basis, on
the other hand it has as a consequence that neither of the two objectives can ever be brought
to perfection. The history of custodial sentences teaches us that periods in which the punitive
aim was emphasised alternated with periods in which the rehabilitative aim occupied centre
stage.6
Scientific knowledge about the methods by which the rehabilitation aim could be achieved
was still lacking in the initial period after its legalisation. Throughout the discussion on the
Act in the (Dutch) Lower House, suggestions were also made about the activities that could
be developed in order to attain these ambitions. A general theory on how rehabilitation should
be achieved was however lacking. The concrete realisation of the rehabilitation objective was
left to the separate prison authorities which tried to prepare detainees for life outside prison
by, for example, organising socio-therapy and group-sessions.7 Only in the 1950s and 1960s
did research start in Canada and the United States on the effects of all kinds of rehabilitation
programmes. The research was mostly restricted to the effects on recidivism, a restriction that
is quite understandable, since the broader definition of rehabilitation is much more difficult to
operationalise. The results were mostly not very encouraging.8 With the appearance of
Martinson’s ‘What Works’ in 1974,9 the coup the grâce seemed to have been delivered to the
rehabilitation ideal. Based on the outcome of hundreds of evaluations, Martinson came to the
conclusion that none of the programmes provided a method by which to diminish recidivism
for the whole population. Although Martinson’s results were very controversial,10 as he
himself admitted in a latter publication,11 the results of his study were summarized as
5 Sibo van Ruller, Het irrationele van strafrechtelijke sancties, Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 1993, p. 336-350.
6 Herman Franke, Twee eeuwen gevangen, Het Spectrum Utrecht 1990.
7 Nelissen 2000, more in particular chapter 2.
8 Cressey, D.R., (1958) ‘The nature and effectiveness of correctional techniques’, Law and Contemporary
Problems 23: 754-771, Wootton, B. (1959) Social science and social pathology. London: George Allen &
Unwin
9 Martinson, Robert, (1974) ‘What Works? Questions and answers about prison reform.’ The public interest 35:
22-54
10 Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreay (1989) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation. Reconsidering
the ‘Nothing Works Debate’, pp.23-44 in: Lynne Goodstein and Doris Layton MacKenzie (eds.), The American
prison, issues in research and policy. New York: Plenum Press.
11 Martinson, R, (1979) ‘New findings, new views: a note of caution regarding sentencing reform’, Hofstra Law
Review 7: 243-258.

‘Nothing Works’ and used in a political sense to realise a serious hardening of the penal
climate.
Comparable studies in the Netherlands had the same results. Dutch researchers investigated
whether different regimes had a different effect on recidivism rates, but hardly found any
disparities.12 The modality of the prison sentence or the regime had at the very most a short-
term effect, in the long term no differences occurred. The results of a general study on the
effectiveness of sentencing were very disappointing, but they concluded that extra-mural
sentences could probably have a more positive effect on recidivism rates because they could
be adapted to the individual circumstances of the delinquent.13
Serious research on the effects of rehabilitation programmes only seem to have started after
the publication of Martinson’s famous study. The most serious criticism he received was that
strong conclusions could not be drawn from his study, for the simple reason that the quality of
most of the studies evaluated was very low. Besides, what Martinson had overlooked, or not
given enough attention to according to his critics, was that some programmes did not
generally work, but they certainly had an effect on certain categories of offenders. From that
time onwards, studies concerning the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes started to
concentrate on the question what could work for certain categories of offenders in certain
circumstances. 14
From the end of the 1990s onwards, an approach became very popular in the Netherlands that
was mainly established by the Canadian scholars Andrews and Bonta and their colleagues,
known as What Works. In succinct terms, the model contains the following: Based on a meta-
analysis of an admirable number of rehabilitation programmes, Andrews et al. came to the
conclusion that the effectiveness of a programme for a particular offender depends on the risk
that he will reoffend (the risk principle), the extent to which the programme can attain the
needs that resulted in the criminal behaviour (the need principle) and the responsivity of the
offender to a particular programme (the responsivity principle). The principles put efforts into
the implementation and content of programmes. To start with the risk principle, the severity of
a programme must be adapted to the risk that a person will reoffend. Too severe a treatment
can even have the opposite effect; that is more recidivism. For that reason, the risk of
reoffending must be determined before one can start intervening at all. As a consequence of
the need principle, the treatment should concentrate on those aspects that are really linked to
criminal behaviour. To teach skills or to deal with shortcomings that have no relation to the
offending at all is senseless in terms of What Works. For example, strengthening self-
confidence and challenging feelings of depression are two activities that are not in accordance
with the need principle. The third principle, the responsivity principle, demands that the
inherent style and method of a programme must fit the cognitive and emotional skills of the
offender; an effective programme demands that the programme and trainer are attuned to each
other. Programmes should also be extensively described and be methodologically well
founded in order to ensure that success does not only depend on specific trainers.15 Also in the
12 Fiselier, J. Open gesticht en recidive, Nijmegen Criminologisch Instituut 1969, Dijksterhuis F.P.H., De
Gevangenis Bankenbosch, Van Gorcum, Assen 1973, Van der Linden, B van der, Middellanggestraften: een
vergelijking van twee gevangenisregiems. Ministerie van Justitie/WODC, ‘Gravenhage 1981.
13d’Anjou, L.J.M., d’, G. de Jonge en J.J. van de Kaaden, Effektiviteit van Sankties, ’s Gravenhagen, WODC,
Miniserie van Justitie, 1975.
14 For an overview of the international research on Works during the 1980s, see Ted Palmer, The effectiveness of
interventions, Crime & Delinquency 1991, vol.37 no.,3, p.330-346.
15 Andrews, D.A., Ivan Zinger, Robert D. Hoge, James Bonta, Paul Gendreau and Francis T. Cullen (1990a) ‘
Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically informed meta- analysis’,
Criminology 28: 369-404, Andrews, D.A., James Bonta and R.D. Hoge (1990b) ‘Classification for effective

Netherlands, research on the effectiveness of sentencing was given a new impulse. Contrary
to the earlier study by D’Anjou, for example, Bol comes to the conclusion that the nature of
the penal intervention can make a difference. In particular, sentences based on the learning
theory as cognitive therapy and behaviouristic interventions could be successful. Besides, the
positive confirmation of desired behaviour and the personal attention of trainers also had a
positive effect on reducing recidivism.16 A few years later, also Beenakkers came to the
conclusion that interventions focussed on cognition and behaviour were most successful in
terms of reducing recidivism.17 She was very enthusiastic about the Reasoning and
Rehabilitation (R&R) programme developed in Canada which is also known as Cognitive Skills
training. Besides those few general studies on the effectiveness of sentening, many studies were
carried out on the effectiveness of community sentences in the 1990s. In general, the results of
these studies were often very disappointing or vague because of serious methodological
problems.18
In 2002 a Dutch version of What Works, ‘ Push Back Recidivism’ , was introduced in the
Netherlands. As with its Canadian and British counterparts, it aims to treat offenders
according to more scientific grounds, mainly based on the work of the Canadian scholars
Andrews and Bonta. The programme consists of two components: 1) A screening of all
convicted prisoners on whom an unconditional custodial sentence of a minimum of four
months has been imposed concerning the criminogenic factors as defined in the What Works
programme (risk, needs, responsivity). 2) The application of behavioural, cognitive
interventions that have a demonstrable positive effect on recidivism. According to the British
example, an acknowledgement committee tests if rehabilitation programmes can result in
diminishing or preventing recidivism. The work of the committee, according to its own
website, is based on a scientifically recognised model for behavioural change and is based on
10 quality criteria. The programme must:
1. be theoretically founded
2. be developed for a clearly specified group of offenders
3. be directed at changing the causes of criminal behaviour
4. be effective
5. also be directed at learning practical skills
6. adapt its intensity to the category of offenders it is aimed at
7. stimulate involvement and motivation
8. guarantee continuity
9. implement the intervention aimed at
10. continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.
The committee was established in August 2005 and by March 2007 five programmes for
adults have been temporarily recognised, the above-mentioned Dutch variant on the Cognitive
Skill Programme was one of the first. Temporary recognition amounts to two years, after that
period the committee will decide whether enough improvement has been attained in order to
rehabilitation; rediscovering psychology’, Criminal justice and behaviour, 17: 19-52, Bonta, J. (2002)
‘Recidivepreventie bij delinquenten; een overzicht van de huidige kennis en een visie op de toekomst’, Justitiële
Verkenningen 28: 20-36
16 Bol, M.W. (1995) Gedragsbeïnvloeding door strafrechtelijk ingrijpen, WODC, Onderzoek en Beleid 140,
Arnhem: Gouda Quint.
17 Beenakkers, E.M.Th (2001) Effectiviteit van sanctieprogramma’s, bouwstenen voor een toetsingskader,
WODC Onderzoeksnotities 1.
18 Wartna, B.S.J, N. Tollenaar en A.A.M. Essers, Door na de gevangenis, Een cijfermatig overzicht van de
strafrechtelijke recidive onder ex-gedetineerden, WODC, Onderzoek en Beleid nr. 228. ’s Gravenhage 1999.

be given full recognition. Only programmes recognised by the committee will be
compensated by the Ministry of Justice.19
Even more than before, the instrument is very selectively used. For the unselected a very
sober regime remains as I will demonstrate in the next section.
3. Rehabilitation in the form of policy
1953-1995
The meaning that was given to the concept of rehabilitation changed over the years. As we
saw in the contribution Franke, already in the 17th century, long before the official
introduction of the principle in the law, criminals, homeless people and beggars were locked
up in the famous rasp and spinhouses for the purpose of correction. In the 19th century
enforcing discipline was no longer felt to be satisfactory, one strived for moral improvement
as well. The chosen method, however, was –according to our modern standards- not only
cruel, but also very ineffective. By locking people up in solitary confinement and thereby
protecting them against all evil influences, one hoped that they would repent of their own
volition and with the help of God. The cell system was officially left behind with the
introduction of the 1953 Penitentiary Act. The meaning that was given to the rehabilitation
principle in those first years was quite ambitious. According to Franke, the rehabilitation of
prisoners had to increase their self-respect and self-confidence, to increase their feelings of
responsibility, own initiative and social resistance.
Disappointing outcomes of studies regarding rehabilitation efforts (section 2) confirmed the
already existing political doubts and financial objections towards a too ambitious
rehabilitation programme. As a result, the ambitious content that was given to the
rehabilitation aim in the first instance became rather quickly eroded. In the Prison Paper of
1976 rehabilitation was formulated in negative terms. ‘Imprisonment should not result in the
banishment of the convicted person from society or in a radical alienation from his most
important relations. The ties between the prisoner and society should be retained or even
strengthened’, a formulation that brings Franke to the conclusion that what was a means
became an end in itself. The principle of minimal infringements in fact totally merged with
the rehabilitation principle. 20
This becomes even clearer in the latter policy paper, Task and Future (Taak en Toekomst)
1982. The rehabilitation aim was formulated in much less ambitious terms than before. One
no longer believed that imprisonment could make ‘better’ people of prisoners and prevent
them from committing crimes after their return to society.21 To alienate the prisoner from
society as little as possible was now formulated as a central aim of imprisonment. Besides,
two other principles occupied a central place in the paper: restricting the harm of
imprisonment itself and the humanisation of detention. Preparing prisoners for their return to
society was also still an aim, but on a much less ambitious scale than before. Activities were
organised to occupy inmates during their detention, but without narrowly defined objectives.
By offering activities and rehabilitation programmes, the prisoner had to have the possibility
19 Referentiedocument erkenningscommissie gedragsinterventies justitie, gepubliceerd op
http://www.justitie.nl/onderwerpen/criminaliteit/erkenningscommissie/documenten/
20 Franke 1999, p. 646.
21 Taak en Toekomst van het Nederlandse Gevangeniswezen, p. 21.

to improve himself. The prisoner was recognised as an autonomous individual with his own
will and possibilities. Imprisonment had to be organised in such a way that it did not prevent
the prisoner from reintegrating himself; this process, however, is no longer seen as the
exclusive responsibility of the government and the prison authorities. Task and Future marked
a not unimportant shift from encouraging rehabilitation towards not obstructing it.
As described in chapter two of this volume, the penal climate changed dramatically in the
1990s. The shortage of cells increased enormously and crime and safety became important
items on the political agenda. Besides, more problematic categories of inmates were being
confined such as, for example, drugs addicts and mentally disturbed offenders, and there were
some spectacular escapes from prison. As a result of all this, the tone of the next prison paper,
Working Detention 1994, differed a great deal from Task and Future. A broad and unrestricted
offering of activities was no longer seen as acceptable and appropriate for the changed prison
population. The three central concepts in the document were safety, humanity and efficiency.
In particular the last concept had far-reaching consequences for the realisation of the
rehabilitation aim.
Different from Task and Future, the rehabilitation aim was defined in its narrowest sense,
meaning that its efforts should have a direct effect on reoffending and motivation was seen as
the most important condition for this. 22 Under the assumption that most inmates would lack
this condition, the efficiency aim led to the exclusion of whole groups of prisoners from
reintegrating activities. According to Nelissen, the return of diminishing recidivism as a
criterion for the success of rehabilitation programmes is not as obvious as it seems. In the
first place, because in the policy paper Task and Future a much more realistic and less
ambitious approach was chosen concerning rehabilitation and diminishing recidivism.
Secondly, the emphasis placed on reducing recidivism was in great contrast to the
comparatively little attention which rehabilitation received in the paper. He also points out
that according to the scientific knowledge of that time, it did not seem very logical to select
prisoners for the rehabilitation programmes who were already determinated to ”go straight”.
The literature on the effectiveness of sanctions taught us, on the contrary, that it was much
more efficient to offer intensive rehabilitation programmes to prisoners with a high risk of
recidivism (see section 2).
The majority of prisoners were submitted to a ‘standard regime’ in which work had a central
place. As far as rehabilitation was still aimed at in the standard regime, it had to be attained by
getting used to structuring the day around working activities and by imparting a discipline of
work on the prisoners. Another characteristic of the standard regime is a ‘bonus malus system’
in which inmates are punished for bad behaviour and in which they can have access to extra
facilities such as recreation, education and psycho-social aid by behaving in an appreciated
way. Only 20% of prisoners could qualify for special activities to encourage their return to
society.
Simultaneously with the appearance of Working Detention, the first Draft of a new
Penitentiary Bill was published in which some of the thoughts of Working Detention had
already been elaborated. The most important change in the new Bill concerned the
differentiation system. Differentiation means that prisoners are divided between different
institutions regarding their personal characteristics such as age, gender and the length of their
sentence and this has always been seen as an important condition for the fulfilment of the
rehabilitation ideal in the Netherlands. A distinction can be made between differentiation,
organised by law and implemented under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice (external
differentiation), and internal differentiation, organised by the institutions themselves. Until the
22 Werkzame Detentie 1994, p. 19.

acceptance of the Penitentiary Principles Act, the emphasis lay on internal differentiation,
with a broad range of regimes and rehabilitation activities as a result (see section 4). In the
explanatory memorandum of the new Bill and also in the preparatory papers preceding the
Bill, a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed concerning these broad differences between
the institutions. There were three major objections: 1) The Department of Justice did not have
control over the prison institutions and had no idea what kind of activities were being
organised; 2) this situation gave no legal certainty to the prisoners in question and, above all,
the existing differentiation system did not seem to be very effective in terms of encouraging
rehabilitation.
The most important change brought about by the new Bill was that external differentiation is
much more emphasised and elaborated. Directly in line with Working Detention, security as
such became a differentiation criterion; it is even the most important criterion under the
current legislation. It is related to both the risk of absconding (vluchtgevaarlijkheid) as to the
possible dangerous behaviour of the detainee inside prison (beheersgevaarlijkheid). Besides
security, the phasing out of detention time is an important selection criterion and an important
aspect of rehabilitation as well. One of the ideas behind the differentiation system is that
prisoners gradually get used to more freedom. So, under normal circumstances, prisoners will
follow the following phases: normal security, limited security, minimum security or even a
penitentiary programme that is implemented outside the prison walls. Finally, special care is
an important external selection criterion. Some prisons or prison wings have special centre
for vulnerable groups. For example, special regimes exist for detainees who are addicted or
suffer from mental illness, for mothers with children and young adults who are mentally
immature. Also the Penitentiary Hospital and Selection Centre have regimes based on this
criterion.
1995 and further
Despite the promise by the Minister of Justice to the Lower House in 1976 to submit a Policy
Paper on the Prison System every five years, Working Detention 1994 is still the latest Policy
Paper on imprisonment Prison Policy concerning rehabilitation after 1994, however, is
characterised by two partly contrasting developments. From the assumption that rehabilitation
efforts have to contribute to the general safety of society and as such has to result in less
recidivism, a two-track system concerning rehabilitation in prison has been developed. On the
one hand, promising programmes have been developed for some categories of offenders
while, on the other, more and more categories of offenders are being excluded from all kinds
of rehabilitation programmes. Cavadino and Dignan put it like this: What has happened has
been more like a redrawing of the boundaries of the community (emphasis added, C &D) – to
exclude those offenders who are seen as incorrigible lost souls, but still to include less serious
and persistent offenders. This is, of course, a policy of bifurcation - dividing offenders into
two categories of less serious and more serious criminals, towards whom radically different
approaches may be taken.23
I will give some examples of this strategy. One can make a distinction into two phases.
Between 1995 and 2005, exceptions were made to access to normal facilities for some
(increasing) categories of offenders for reasons of security or (a lack of) effectiveness. Since
2005, however, the exceptions have become the rule and only some categories of offenders
can qualify for specific rehabilitation programmes.
23 Michail Cavadino and James Dignan, Penal Systems, A comparative appro`ach, Sage Publications, London
2006, p. 120.

In 1994 an extra high-security prison was built as a response to increasing escapes by some
prisoners in the early 1990s. Selected for this prison were detainees who either had a high risk
of absconding or had proved to be disruptive. The regime is much stricter than in a normal
prison and most activities are undertaken on an individual basis. Subject to the same criterion
special wings have recently been opened for suspects of and those convicted of terrorism.
They are put together to prevent them from recruiting other detainees for terrorist activities.
More striking are the exceptions which are made to the regular differentiation and
rehabilitation facilities based on the efficiency criterion. Illustrative is the penitentiary
programme that was introduced in the Penitentiary Principles Act 1999. A penitentiary
programme can start in the last six weeks to one year of a prison sentence. The prisoner stays
out of prison and follows a programme that can contain different activities. Most of the time,
he is electronically monitored. In line with the development described above, motivation and
the ability to keep an appointment are important statutory selection criteria for participation. A
strict application of those criteria had as an effect that in the first years much fewer
programmes commenced than were expected. More important in the light of our topic,
however, is that the detainees selected for those programmes are the ones that least need them,
at least according to the prison and probation officers interviewed in 2001.24 Such detainees
already have the skills and contacts to reintegrate into society without the help of the
authorities.
Even more worrying is the exclusion of whole categories of prisoners from reintegrating
programmes. In 1994, a sober regime was introduced. This option was introduced as a result
of the ongoing debate on the safety problems in the largest cities. Addicted offenders
committed small-scale crimes on a rather big scale, but could not be locked up because of a
shortage of cells. As a solution, cheap cells were built, for this group in particular. Because of
their addiction and the short periods of detention, rehabilitation efforts for this group were
seen as a waist of money.25 The regime could be imposed for a maximum period of three
months and was meant exclusively for prisoners on remand, prisoners sentenced to short
sentences and persons detained for the non-payment of fines.
In 2002 another group was excluded from the normal rehabilitation programmes. During that
time, the Netherlands was being overwhelmed by small-scale drug smugglers coming from, in
particular, the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam. Instead of being arrested and prosecuted,
some of them were sent back to their homelands with a caution. This policy by the
prosecution service resulted –during election time - in political controversy in which the
Minister of Justice was forced to resign or guarantee that all smugglers would be arrested and
detained. He chose the latter course and introduced the Temporarily Bill on Penitentiary
Emergency Capacity for Drug Smugglers that would make it possible to exclude all drug
smugglers from the normal prison system and to detain them under unconventional
circumstances. The Bill created a totally different penitentiary regime for such drug
smugglers, more specificly drug smugglers arriving at Schiphol Airport with globules of
cocaine inside their body or cocaine in their luggage. The most fundamental difference with
the regular regime was that for this specific group an exception was being made to the
principle of one prisoner in one cell. The other differences with our -at that time - normal
penitentiary system were also draconian. There was no differentiation being made at all, not
even between prisoners on remand and convicted prisoners. There were hardly any day-
24 Reidnied. J. De doelgroep en doelstelling van het penitentiair programma onder de Penitentiaire
Beginselenwet, in: M. Boone and G. de Jonge, Gouda Quint Deventer 2001.
25 Uit Beijerse and Van Swaaningen 2005.

programmes: no right to sporting facilities, education, recreation, library services or social
work. Only some internationally guaranteed rights were maintained, such as, for example,
visits by relatives (as far as this was applicable to this mainly foreign population) and the right
to spend one hour a day in the open air.
Although the Minister of Justice defended the Emergency Bill with the argument that he
wanted to protect the quality of the normal system, penitentiary experts warned from the
beginning of the eroding effect that the Bill would have on penitentiary law. And indeed, as
soon as the Bill entered into force, the relative absence of any problems26 was used as an
argument to force huge economic cuts on the regular regime. 27First of all, experiments started
with sharing cells. And although 20% of inmates felt unsafe, the general introduction of cell
sharing followed. Not only convicted prisoners were subjected to this measure, as the
Commission for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and the European Prison Rules
recommended, but also unconvicted and even minor prisoners.28 The same thing happened to
the standard regime. The Temporarily Bill was prolonged for two years in 2003. In 2005 the
Bill was indeed abolished, but by that time the standard regime in the prisons was being
modelled along the lines of the regime in the Detention Centre for drug addicts. Instead of 43
hours, only 18 hours per week were reserved for activities in a limited community regime,
while the day-programmes in both the limited community regime as well as in the general
community were seriously reduced. The evening-programmes in almost all prisons have been
brought to an end. Day-programmes in most institutions last from 8am to 4pm, meaning that
prisoners stay in their cells for 16 hours a day. So, in less than ten years, the sober regime that
was introduced as an exceptional regime for specific categories of prisoners for only a short
period of time has become the normal regime in the Netherlands.
The measures as announced and taken in the second half of the 1990s, however, were still
defended within the limits or as an exception to the existing doctrine on imprisonment as laid
down in the Framework Act 1953 and elaborated by several scholars since that time. This can
also be said of the regime under the Temporarily Bill, since the Minister of Justice at that time
emphasised that he had introduced the Temporarily Bill to prevent a downsizing effect on the
regular level of detention.29 The starting point of Prison Policy nowadays is, however, that
rehabilitation programmes are only used very selectively. This mostly becomes visible in the
documents on the project ‘Modernising Sentencing Implementation’ in which a total new
concept of imprisonment is introduced.
Modernising Sentencing Implementation was introduced as part of the general Safety
Programme. Three phenomena contributed to the feeling that drastic measures were
necessary. First, there was renewed quantitative pressure on the prison system since the
beginning of the new century. Second, the need to economise: cutbacks of Euro125 million
were announced in the Justice Budget in 2001. Finally, there was the understanding that
resorting to criminal law as an instrument to enhance security would only increase in the
coming years. The two concepts that had already justified several measures in recent years
now became key concepts for a radical change to the prison structure. Based on selectivity
and effectivity, a new selection and differentiation system was introduced, which is termed
Tailor-made Detention and Treatment (Detentie en Behandeling op Maat). The underlying
26 Very relative, because an evaluation of the Bill in fact noted many problems, in particular problems
concerning detainees and staff, although there were no major incidents concerning safety (Maalsté et al. 2002)
27 Boone. M. Noodwet Drugskoeriers, in: E.R. Mulller en P.C. Vegter, Detentie: Gevangen in Nederland
28 As can be read in the contribution by Weijers and Liefaard.
29 Kamerstukken II, 2001/02, 28201, no. 3, p. 2.

notion of this system is that every person is responsible for his own behaviour.30 In the near
future prisoners will be selected on the basis of only two criteria: the judicial status of
imprisonment and the remaining period of detention after conviction. The application of these
two criteria result in only three categories of adult prisoners.
1. Pre-trial detainees
2. Short-term prisoners (prisoners with a remaining detention period of four months)
3. Long-term prisoners (prisoners with a remaining detention period of more than four
months).
The standard regime for pre-trial detainees and short-term prisoners will roughly consist of
the internationally guaranteed rights: physical exercise, mental care, visits, library use,
recreation facilities and periods in the open air. Different to the current situation, work and
education no longer form part of the standard regime. Work will only be offered if it is cost-
effective. Education for all inmates does not fit within the aims of effectiveness and
efficiency. For the first category, pre-trial detainees, only the standard regime remains. The
emphasis during this period of detention lies on the availability of the prisoner for the police
investigation, and because of possible interruptions, neither work nor education is expected to
be (cost-)effective during this period. Short-term prisoners will also be exposed to the
standard regime. Work can be part of the regime in some situations, but only if it is cost-
effective. Education can only have some effect if it can be offered for a longer period of time,
according to the Minister of Justice, therefore short-term detainees will be excluded.
Only for the last category, long-term prisoners, will work and education be possible.31 The
effectiveness requirement also remains for this group of prisoners, however. Only long-term
prisoners can qualify for the rehabilitation programmes that are part of the ‘Push Back
Recidivism’ programme (see section 2). From the 30,000 detainees entering the prison system
every year, at most a few thousand candidates will be selected for these rehabilitation
programmes. For the overwhelming majority of prisoners, the only rehabilitation activities
that remain after the implementation of Tailor-made Detention and Treatment are some
aftercare facilities.
However, also the organisation of aftercare services has changed under the influence of the
Modernising Sanction Implementation programme. According to the Minister of Justice,
aftercare does not belong to his primary responsibility, because after release prisoners must be
considered as ordinary citizens for whom the Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible. For
this reason, aftercare is no longer an initial task of the Probation Service (it has not work in
prisons for a long time), but of the local authorities where prisoners will reside after their
release. Social integration officers in the prisons have to arrange an optimal transfer to those
local authorities and have to support prisoners in their efforts in obtaining: residence permits,
employment, housing and care. Although the starting point that all prisoners (sentenced to at
least 4 months unconditional imprisonment) have a right to some basic aftercare facilities
must be praised, to date this system has proved to be very ineffective. There is a lack of social
integration officers in the prisons, the cooperation between prisons and local authorities is not
very fluent and local authorities do not give prisoners the priority they need.32
30 Kamerstukken II, vergaderjaar 2005-2006, 30300 VI, no. 147.
31 Kamerstukken II, vergaderjaar 2005-2006, 30300 VI, no. 147.
32 Special Edition PROCES, no. 6 2005

4. Rehabilitation in practice
Boin clearly describes in his thesis33 how the implementation of the rehabilitation principle
in the 1950s and 1960s was mostly left to the local prison authorities. Although they primarily
did not know how to flesh out this assignment, they slowly became more enthusiastic. Their
efforts to develop ‘effective regimes’ in their own prisons also had as a result, however, that
they extricated themselves from the central prison authority. But, as explained in section 2,
not much information existed in those years about the conditions under which sentencing
could be effective. A great deal of trust was placed in the system of differentiation and
selection, but subsequent committees concluded that not enough information existed about the
correct selection criteria.34 The same was true for therapeutic activities organised in prison.
Different penal experts observed a lack of scientific, theoretical knowledge on which those
activities were based.35 Nelissen concluded, with a feeling of understatement, that at the end
of the 1960s the treatment philosophy had not really resulted in what the head of the Prison
Department of the Ministry of Justice had hoped for in the 1950s, namely that prisoners
would return to society as regenerated people.36
The explanation for this situation still lies in the observation by Van Ruller as mentioned
above: the introduction of the rehabilitation aim in the prison system brought about a conflict
of goals that could not easily be resolved. Empirical studies on the state of affairs in prisons
have illustrated that activities organised in the name of rehabilitation (also) served other aims
in reality. Heijder, for example, comes to this conclusion for prison labour. All work in prison
also serves at least the aim of maintaining peace and order among the prisoners, he states. 37
Denkers observes a discrepancy between the official goals and the factual goals and comes to
the conclusion that the prison administrations in reality strive for humanisation instead of
rehabilitation. As far as rehabilitation was seriously aimed for, humanisation was seen as an
important condition to that end.38 This is also one of the main conclusions of the study by
Nelissen. He adds to this observation that the emphasis put on humanisation and the personal
autonomy and integrity of the offender also had, as a result, that the treatment of offenders has
always occupied a very marginal position within the Dutch prison system.39
As we have seen in the former section, prison policy concerning rehabilitation has been very
bifurcated during the last 10 years. Besides, it has been much more centralised since the
Penitentiary Principles Act 1999 which lives up to the expectation that prison authorities have
much less room for creating their own regime. Still, it is not easy to obtain a broad view as to
what has happened inside the prisons during the last decade. On what scale have prisoners
really been excluded from rehabilitation efforts or are prison authorities keeping standards
much higher as is prescribed in the law and policy? In our evaluation of the Penitentiary
Principles Act we found that despite the trend towards centralisation, many internal regimes
still existed.40 Also Nelissen pictured a rather optimistic view of the provisions regarding
rehabilitation since Working Detention, but he made an important exception for the activities
33 Arjen Boin, Contrasts in Leadership. An Institutional Study of Two Prison Systems, Eburon Delft 1998
34 Commissie voor de bouwkundige voorzieningen van het gevangeniswezen (Commissie ‘sJacob, ’s
Gravenhage, Ministerie van Justitie/Staatsdrukkerij ’s Gravenhage 1958, p.*Gevangenisnota. Het Nederlandse
Gevangeniswezen, Staatsdrukkerij, ’s Gravenhagen, 1964, p.9.
35 Veringa 1964, p. 11 and 12, Zwezerijen 1972, p. 8, Rijksen 1967, p. 32.
36 Nelissen 2000, 39.
37 Heijder., A, Resocialisatie, een ideaal in de gevangenis (lecture), Deventer, Kluwer, 1966, p.21
38 Denkers, F.A.C.M (1976), Criminologie en Beleid, Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt
39 Nelissen 2000, p. 42.
40 M. Boone. Differentiatie en selectie onder de Penitentiaire Beginselenwet, in: De Penitentiaire Beginselenwet
in werking, Gouda Quint-Deventer 2001, p. 1-35.

concerning education.41 Despite the fact that every prisoner has a right to education under the
Penitentiary Principles Act, there is simply no time for education in the standard regime
because of the emphasis on work. Also the prisoners themselves are without doubt
convinced of the importance of rehabilitation as such, although it does not have much trust in
the opportunity to rehabilitate in prison. This can be concluded from the study by Nelissen
and also from a survey conducted among prisoners in 2004. More than 60% of the
respondents had an obviously negative attitude as to the contribution which prison labour
could make to a return to society. The same was true for other aspects aiming at
rehabilitation.42 The situation seems to have worsened as a result of the drastic cuts to day-
programmes in 2005. What the consequences of this policy may be for rehabilitation
opportunities for detainees was studied by Heleen Peters.43 Detainees scarcely succeed in
maintaining relations with relatives as a consequence of the lack of opportunity to make a
telephone call or receive visits. Also financially detainees can prepare themselves on their
return to society even worse than before, because of a lack of work in prison.
5. Conclusion
In the introduction both a rather broad and a narrower definition of the rehabilitation
principle were provided. Although a wide connotation was given to the concept at the time it
was introduced, only the results of the more limited aim, diminishing recidivism, have been
properly investigated. The disappointing results, combined with the increasing costs of
continually locking up more people, has resulted in a much more sober regime for all
detainees and a radical selective use of rehabilitation instruments. This is not so obvious,
however, in the light of the developments described in this section. Since a general theory on
rehabilitation in a broad sense and a scientific foundation for most of the activities developed
was lacking, not much can be said for the rehabilitation potential of both prisoners and
activities. Besides, since prison aims have been so convoluted, it is very difficult to discover
what aspects of the prison regime were meant to encourage rehabilitation and which elements
were added in order to maintain peace in prison and to make the detention situation more
human. Still, from Working Detention onwards, the (expected) shortage of facilities is seen as
an important argument to economise on providing services for certain categories or all
prisoners. Based on this kind of argumentation future plans entail lessening work, education
and all kinds of rehabilitation programmes for the majority of the prison population (prisoners
on remand and short-term prisoners). The question, however, is what the consequences of
reducing these facilities so drastically will be. Just as most prison systems in the world, the
Dutch prison system has not demonstrably realised its most explicit goal: rehabilitation. It has
excelled, however, concerning its more implicit goals: humanity, maintaining order and
safety. This is demonstrated by the low number of incidents, the low escape rate and the
favourable comments of foreign experts on the Dutch Prison System.
41 Nelissen 2000, p. 60-83
42 Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, Gedetineerd in Nederland 2004.
43 Heleen Pieters, Gedonn(d)er in de Bajes, Wetenschapswinkel Rechten Universiteit Utrecht, 2005.