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.
RESCALED GA Salzburg - 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg - 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg - 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg - 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg - 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg - 2025
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.
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Thandiwé Devriendt, the student
social media manager at RESCALED, is a criminologist
currently pursuing her master’s degree with a keen interest
in forensic psychology and minority groups in vulnerable
situations. From her studies in Criminology, work, and
personal experience, she has chosen to write a blog post on
the often underexposed topic of LGBTQ+ individuals in the
criminal justice system. In her upcoming post, Thandiwé
explores why detention houses, compared to traditional
prisons, could offer a more humane and dignified detention
experience for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The landscape of the criminal justice
system for LGBTQ+ individuals is fraught with unique challenges and
systemic inequalities that are often overlooked. Detention houses
could be a way to address some of these issues, through their three
principles: small-scale, differentiation and
community-integration.
Status quo of the LGTBQ+[1] community
in the criminal justice system
But what do the current numbers say?
When examining the current numbers and
information provided the minority group seems to face several
challenges. Firstly, LGBTQ+
individuals are more likely to be incarcerated. LGBTQ+ youth and
transgender people, in particular, are disproportionately more
likely to enter the criminal justice system due to a history of
bias, abuse and profiling (National Center for Transgender Equality,
2014).
Secondly, they are more likely to face
abuse when residing in prisons. They are often victims of daily
humiliation, physical and sexual abuse. Additionally, they are faced
with the inability to speak about these experiences due to fearing
it will get worse if you complain. The fear often prevents them from
complaining. For instance the European Comittee for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
has met several transgender women held in male sections of prisons
who reported a feeling of unsafety, verbal abuse by staff and in
some cases sexual abuse and assault by fellow incarcerated
people.Furthermore, many
LGBTQ+ individuals are placed
in solitary confinement for extended periods solely due to their
identity. For example, a report published in 2020 showed that trans
women in Honduras prisons tend to be more severely punished, often
through extended periods of solitary confinement. These phenomena
are often worsened by the poor conditions in the prison systems:
overcrowding, physical and sexual violence & heavy reliance on
solitary confinement are common (Penal Reform International 2021;
CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Thirdly, both staff and other
incarcerated people contribute to the abuse and mistreatment of
LGBTQ+ individuals (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014;
CPT, 2024).
Fourth, the CPT observed that transgender
individuals in prisons potentially face higher risks of self-harm,
suicide, and violence-related psychological trauma, paralleling the
high risks observed outside prison settings. Research suggests that
factors such as discrimination, family rejection, and internalized
or externalized transphobia contribute to these risks. The LGTBQ+
youth in specific have often faced such challenges, more specific
family rejection, homelessness and hostility by the safety net
(f.ex. foster care). This not only heightens the risks of above
mentioned phenomena but also paves a way to possible criminal
behavior (CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality,
2014).
Lastly, transgender and gender
nonconforming people can face additional forms of mistreatment.
Although practices are changing, several facilities still reside
strictly according to their genital anatomy, regardless of their
gender identity. Consequently their vulnerability to abuse increases
when accommodated with a different gender from which they identify
with (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).
Creating an inclusive environment according to the three
principles
Where there are challenges, there’s room
for opportunities, in which detention houses are one of them.
Detention houses could offer several possibilities for the LGBTQ+
community who are currently incarcerated in large prison
institutions. By focusing on the three key principles of detention
houses —small-scale, differentiation, and community-integration — we
can create a more supportive and restorative experience for LGBTQ+
individuals in the criminal justice system.
In small-scale detention houses, residents are given the
opportunity to become more familiar with their environment and
staff, fostering a sense of community and security. With fewer
residents, the pressure on the staff is relieved. Consequently, the
staff can obtain more personal contacts and insights into the group
interaction, thus ensuring that any abuse or mistreatment by fellow
residents or staff is promptly addressed and that any signs of
suicidal thoughts or self-harm are early on noticed and
treated.
Furthermore, small-scale detention houses
can arrange flexible housing arrangements tailored to the needs and
identities of LGBTQ+ individuals according to the judicial
possibilities. This differentiated approach allows personalized solutions
that ensure the safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ residents without
disadvantaging them. This setting may allow for LGBTQ+ individuals
to be housed according to their self-reported identity rather than
their genital anatomy, making it easier to respect their gender
identity and reduce their vulnerability to abuse. This
differentiated approach can be co-created by persons with lived
experience (formerly/currently incarcerated & an LGTBQ+ member),
by doing so one can create a truly succesful implementation and
approach.
Community-integrationcan be particularly challenging for LGBTQ+
individuals, who may face double exclusion due to their sexual
orientation or gender identity and their criminal past. Community-integrated detention houses focus on preparing
residents for successful reintegration by introducing them to
supportive environments and resources. By fostering connections with
neighbors and community members through activities and interactions,
detention houses can help change perceptions and promote acceptance
of both LGBTQ+ individuals and those with a criminal past. This
approach not only aids in the successful community-integration of
LGBTQ+ individuals, but also contributes to a more inclusive
society. By utilizing the ecosystem
of a detention house, LGBTQ+ individuals can more easily
access essential services such as medical treatments for
transitioning and therapy, ensuring comprehensive support and care
compared to what is typically available in prisons. This is made
possible by actively collaborating with actors in this healthy
ecosystem to enhance accessibility and inclusivity in healthcare and
support services.
By embracing these three principles and
exploring legal and regulatory avenues, detention facilities can
provide a more humane and
dignified experience for LGBTQ+ individuals
in the criminal justice system. This approach ensures they receive
the respect, support, and opportunities they deserve. This blog post
also serves as a call to civil society, especially in Europe, to
delve deeper into and address the unique experiences and challenges
faced by this community.
[1] While some findings originally pertained
to a narrower category like LGTB, for this blog post, we have opted
to use a broader term, specifically LGBTQ+. Our intention is to
promote inclusivity, as we believe that the broader LGBTQ+ community
encounters similar challenges.
Sources:
CPT. (2024). Transgender
persons in prison. Council of Europe.
Retrieved from: 1680af7216 (coe.int)
National Center for
Transgender Equality. (2014). Standing with LGBT
prisoners: An advocate’s guide to ending
abuse and combating imprisonment.
Retrieved from
https://transequality.org/issues/resources/standing-lgbt-prisoners-advocate%E2%80%99s-guide-ending-abuse-and-combating-imprisonment
Penal Reform International. (2021). Global prison
trends 2021: LGBTQ+ people in
prison. Retrieved from
https://www.penalreform.org/global-prison-trends-2021/lgbtq-people-in-prison/
What advantages can a social enterprise bring to the management and development of a
detention house? This is one of the questions we ask ourselves as members of the
RESCALED network - the European Movement for Detention Houses - to
implement or improve, in different countries, alternative detention facilities to prisons.
Based on the fundamental three pillars of small-scale, differentiation and
community-integration – detention houses not only humanize conviction but contribute to the
creation of safer, equal and more inclusive societies. As a network of organizations, we
believe that the collective reflection on ways to turn this vision into reality involves not
only the continuous exchange of good practices but also the pooling of doubts and questions
to be answered together.
One of the projects Reshape is involved in as a member of the RESCALED Movement is
INSPIRE, a project funded by the European Union’s Erasmus+ program which,
as evoked by its acronym, has Incarceration & Social Purpose in Restorative Cities as
its main theme. INSPIRE is a collective learning process about detention
houses and their dynamic interaction with their local urban, economic and social context. In
the virtuous intersection of theory and practice, we try to answer the following questions:
What are good examples of restorative justice in relation to detention houses? How can a
detention house be implemented? How can a detention house finance itself through a social
enterprise? And how can we enhance and amplify the voice of lived experience during the
implementation process?
The focus on social entrepreneurship emerges as an effective response in the search for a
circular approach between the desire to build paths of personal
development, the promotion of social inclusion and sustainable projects for people who have
to serve a sentence according to a perspective that does not isolate them but capacitates
them (also) in the world of work. And, since this perspective tends towards real social
reintegration, the community-integration pillar becomes crucially important.
But what are social enterprises in the first place? They can be defined as
businesses “with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for
that purpose in the business or the community, rather than being driven by the need to
maximize profit for shareholders and owners” (DTI, 2002, 13). Unlike commonly understood
companies, social enterprises create employment and services with a social
purpose, democratically engaging people and developing benefits for people with
socioeconomic disadvantages and vulnerability, under the terms of self- and community
empowerment.
These kinds of enterprises have a long history in the socio-educational world, born to
provide answers linked to the job market while pursuing broader goals such as learning,
sharing practices, developing skills and creating environments conducive to the inclusion of
people who are very often marginalized or cared for in an assistentialist way. However, it
is only recently that more in-depth reflection and knowledge about these realities has been
developed, especially in the world of social justice.
One of the many examples of social enterprise within the prison system is the restaurant
“InGalera” in the penitentiary of Bollate (Milan, Italy). This unique
restaurant is open to the public for lunch and dinner, where people can have an experience
which is simultaneously culinary and social: the employees in the preparation and serving of
refined dishes are people who are serving a sentence and/or preparing for release, assisted
and trained by a professional chef and maître d’hôtel. Many of the workers can receive
specific training to obtain a hospitality diploma in the Paolo Frisi Hotel School, located
in one of the sections reserved for job placement in the penitentiary of Bollate. “The
restaurant was created with the purpose of offering regularly employed prisoners the
possibility of learning or regaining a work ethic. It is a meaningful journey in which they
receive professional training and learn to be responsible. Here, they prepare to enter civil
society and the work arena.” (InGalera presentation). Born in 2004, InGalera keeps
representing a strong methodology for training and employment, also thanks to the support of
the Cariplo Foundation, the Italian Minister of Justice and other organizations that foster
the creation of social enterprises.
However, within the INSPIRE project, of greatest interest is the implementation of
social enterprises within detention houses, conceived as a fruitful way of
supporting pathways of successful reentries and contributing to small-scale facilities
sustaining themselves economically by not relying on one source of funding. The interweaving
of detention houses and social enterprises can take place in very different
organizational ways, considering that the activities and services offered by
social enterprises can be developed internally or externally, by the NGO running the
detention house itself or by other organizations.
What is interesting in this kind of approach, as aforementioned, is that social enterprises
respond to two complementary challenges regarding both economic and
socio-educational purposes. The successful running of these realities therefore leads to the
possibility of the detention house becoming more and more self-financed thanks to the
incomes coming from the enterprise’s activities while representing an interesting
pedagogical method for the residents of the detention house itself. In socio-educational
terms, participation in work activities of this kind promotes job training and the
development of skills that are both marketable (for example: woodworking, gardening,
electrical maintenance…) and personal. Thanks to structured employment opportunities, people
in detention houses can prepare themselves for a smoother transition to
liberty as their social reintegration is supported by the benefits of their
engagement in meaningful work: major confidence and self-esteem, sense of
accomplishment and proactiveness, stronger working chances, sense of belonging in a
supportive network of people which can extend beyond the workplace.
The SeeHaus Juvenile Prison in free forms in Leonberg (Germany) serves as a
good example of how a detention house can host a social business program, not only to
generate income for the maintenance of the house but also to offer work and promote job
skills to its residents. Its business regards training and the promotion of a wide range of
activities (gardening, landscaping, metallurgical work, carpentry, construction, and
joinery). Although the income from these activities is not enough to cover the house costs -
mostly covered by public funding and donations – their social enterprise is an efficient
tool for education, training and social inclusion. Through offering services to the
neighbourhood, the social enterprises managed by SeeHaus promote greater integration with
the local community and encourage professional skills for residents. Indeed, social
enterprises play a fundamental role in promoting change in the local
community, positively influencing social and economic dynamics. The work medium
helps mend the tears in the social fabric, creating the conditions for the
inclusion and empowerment of marginalized groups of people and stimulating
local economies, where profits are often reinvested into community initiatives for
transversal well-being. The collaboration between social enterprises and detention houses
exemplifies the transformative potential of businesses with a social mission to create a
more equal and cohesive society.
It is in this respect that social enterprises contribute to the realization of the
community integration pillar which underlies the RESCALED approach.
Implementing detention houses requires the creation of a welcoming
environment for their residents, encouraging mutual involvement and
responsibility with people living in the area, besides collaboration with other services
and/or professionals (social and healthcare programs, local governments, municipalities and
volunteers).
The integration of detention houses, especially when newly built, in local communities is a
big challenge when it comes to cohabitation with neighbors: stigmatization, fear and
misconceptions can create barriers and vicious circles that deepen the sense of isolation
that people deprived of their liberty often experience. The NIMBY (NotInMyBackYard)
effect represents all those attitudes of opposition towards projects that are
seen as negative for the neighborhood – for example detention houses – which are often
brought about by preconceived ideas about conviction. The feeling of threat, the fear of
irrational risks and the difficulty in acceptance mostly come from a lack of information and
sensibilization.
Social enterprises can step in and offer activities that can reduce the NIMBY effect or even
initiate YIMBY (YesInMyBackYard) processes, generating value for the
community as a whole. Initiatives that bring people together throughout shared spaces and
activities like those exemplified before, allow residents to get to know a reality they
probably used to have many prejudices about, transforming stereotypes into faces and names.
Moreover, it can represent a pathway for a more restorative approach to
justice, symbolically and financially speaking, reducing recidivism and contributing to a
general feeling of safety and fairness.
Léa Sébastien (2013). “Le NIMBY est mort. Vive la résistance éclairée : le cas de
l’opposition à un projet de décharge, Essonne, France”, Sociologies pratiques, vol. 27, n°2,
pp. 145-165.
