Young offenders in forensic institutions in the Netherlands after committing serious crimes: Contribution of mandatory treatment and reduction of reincarceration.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, young offenders who have been convicted of a particularly serious offence may be subjected to a so-called 'Placement in an Institution for Juveniles' (PIJ) measure if they are considered to pose a high ongoing risk to public safety. They form a rarely studied distinct group. Treatment in specialist forensic custodial institutions for young people (FYCI) is an intervention of last resort and costly. The most serious young offenders tend to be the hardest to rehabilitate while preventing further offending. Treatment is focussed on reducing risk of harm as well as improving health and other protective factors. AIMS: To explore the contribution of treatment in an FYCI under a forensic treatment order-the PIJ-measure-to the reduction of risk of reoffending. METHODS: In a pre-post intervention study, the Juvenile Forensic Profile (JFP) was used to score complete case files of 178 young offenders at the start and end of their placement in an FYCI under the PIJ-measure, 59% of those serving between the years 2013 and 2016 inclusive. The JFP covers risk and protective factors in seven domains encompassing criminal behaviour, family, environment, risk factors, psychopathology, psychology and behaviour during incarceration. Change or stability in scores was tested against reincarceration within 2 years of PIJ-measure completion. RESULTS: Impulse control and alcohol and drug use problems showed the greatest improvements. Behaviour that deteriorates during the stay is primarily related to obtaining more autonomy during reintegration efforts, including furlough. Reincarceration in the 2 years of community follow-up was unusual (13.5%). The two main variables associated with reincarceration were problematic behaviour during the pre-discharge year and lack of behavioural improvement during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of mandatory treatment in this group of serious young offenders have not previously been studied in a rigorous pre-post intervention study design. We found evidence of an overall tendency to improvement over time in mental state and social skills, reflected by risk assessment scale scores. Continued substance use problems while incarcerated and continuing social skills deficits were most strongly associated with reincarceration suggests a possible need for review of these areas in the PIJ-measure programme. Results contribute to knowledge about risk assessment, treatment and preventions of harms by serious young offenders and may inform evidence-based policies and practices in the Netherlands and beyond.

A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Approach to Evaluating Pre-trial Detention Decisions: Towards Evidence-Based Reform.

The decision to remand a defendant into custody pre-trial is one of the most controversial criminal justice decisions because it deprives individuals of their liberty while they are presumed to be innocent of a crime. Indeed, pre-trial detention decisions can have significant consequences for defendants, which need to be balanced against the potential implications of bail for public safety and the course of criminal proceedings. Despite this, court-based bail and remand decision-making remains relatively underexplored. In this paper, we compare court-based bail/remand decision-making in England and Wales and The Netherlands. We focus on (i) the procedure and structure of decision-making, (ii) the substantive relevant legal frameworks, (iii) the courts in which the decisions are made and the decision-makers in those courts, (iv) the conditions characterizing the decision task, and (v) the court's reasoning of bail and remand in custody decisions. Using a comparative and multi-disciplinary approach, relying on Law, Criminology, and Psychology, we make predictions about bail and remand in custody rates in the two jurisdictions as well as the decision performance of court-based decision-makers. These predictions are then evaluated using available (official) statistics and past research. We identify the need to collect more nuanced statistical data on bail and remand in custody rates and point to potentially fruitful avenues for future research. A comparative, multi-disciplinary, evidence-based approach can underpin remand reform in England and Wales, The Netherlands, and beyond.