114 Serious problems in the implementation of the ISD measure have been identified

(T.K.23760/14). In 2008, new information on the implementation became available:

• The Inspectorate of Implementation of Sanctions (Inspectie voor de Sanctietoepassing) con- ducted on-site inspections in six ISD-institutions(Inspectie voor de Sanctietoepassing 2008). Their report was critical of the implementation of the ISD and it confirmed earlier findings. - Persons convicted to an ISD suffered from more often serious psychiatric diseases, some-

times in combination with intellectual handicaps, than was expected beforehand.

- The Courts should be informed about ISD-candidates by diagnostic reports. These, how- ever, are not always sufficient, leading to convictions for persons who are not suitable for ISD.

- Within a month after entry into ISD, there should be a plan for the individual ISD-trajectory. ISD-institutions do not always manage this.

- The ISD-regimes in the different institutions differ too much.

- The behavioural interventions are not well implemented. The options for the persons with serious psychichiatric problems and limited intellectual abilities are not adequate.

- The motivational efforts are not well implemented and the climate does not always support the behavioural interventions.

- Referral to care and cure outside the penitentiary institution is tough going. Co-operation with municipalities is different, but needs improvements.

- The assumption that most ISD-detainees would stay in a basic detention regime, did not come true. Most are directed towards behavioural interventions.

- An important change was signalled with regards to the aims of the ISD-measure. When the measure was introduced in 2004, it had a strong focus on safeguarding society by long- term detention of prolific offenders. Gradually however, and under the influence of deci- sions of the Courts in ISD-cases, the content of ISD now almost always contains a rehabili- tation trajectory.

- A very important finding was that, whereas the ISD was introduced in 2004 as a measure that should improve safety by incarceration of prolific offenders, the focus changed towards rehabilitation. This was a consequence of decisions of the Courts. In 2008, there is almost always a rehabilitation trajectory connected to the ISD-measure.

• The Inspectorate gave several recommendations to improve the bottlenecks in the implemen- tation of the ISD. In his reaction to this report in June 2008, the Minister of Justice an-

nounced several measures to improve the ISD-measure:

- Improvement of the diagnostic procedures, the programme and the intervention plans. - Improvement of the quality of the staff.

- Improvement of judicial supervision of probation workers. - More referrals to facilities outside detention.

- Better co-operation with municipalities in implementing aftercare.

- Also, it is intended to implement a ‘half-open’ phase between detention and return into so- ciety (T.K.31110/4)

In the same plan, the Ministry announces its intention to broaden the target group for ISD, in- cluding prolific offenders who stay illegally in the Netherlands. They will be incarcerated without the perspective of rehabilitation in the Dutch society.

ISD can only be imposed on requisite of the Prosecutor. In February 2008, the criteria for requi- siting the measure were newly described in directions for criminal proceedings (T.K.23760/14).

115

Aftercare

Since 2006 there is a special aftercare procedure in prisons. Detainees are screened by special penitentiary workers (social service workers, medewerkers maatschappelijke dienstverlening) and problems in the field of identity cards, housing, income and care are identified. If there exists a problem in these fields, a signal is given to the municipality where the detainee will go to after his release. This municipality can take appropriate measures, to stimulate a smooth return into society. Most municipalities assigned a contact person for the penitentiary institution. Information for the municipalities is provided by a special digital platform, per e-mail, fax or regular mail. Mu- nicipalities are responsible for the aftercare. Research showed that data on the problems of de- tainees are badly documented in the registration systems and files (T.K.23760/14). The proce- dure is new and not crystallized out yet and the social service workers are not well embedded in the organization of the penitentiary institutions. The Inspectorate of Implementation of Sanctions (Inspectie voor de Sanctietoepassing) also reports problems in information sharing (Inspectie voor de Sanctietoepassing 2008). In addiction, they report that municipalities often only take action in the case of a repeat offender or an offender with psychiatric problems.

New developments

With regards to (Addiction) Probation Services there were important changes in recent years. These have been described before. New in 2008 is that the Ministry of Justice expressed inten- tions for a small-scale experiment with a more open budget and more autonomy for probation services, which are very tightly bound to production guidelines and output-finance systems (T.K.23760/14). The intention came forth from a motion in Parliament, which got support from a majority of representatives, and was also influenced by Addiction Probation Services them- selves, who pleaded for more space to move (T.K.23760/14). Improvements in ISD will be car- ried out in 2008.

In 2008, a pilot will start in the South of the Netherlands (in Maastricht), which aims at strength- ening quasi-coercive referrals to addiction care programmes from detention.

Targets for the coming years are:

• in 2008, there should be 3,500 referrals to addiction care, of which 300 trajectories will be

bought as extra facilities by the Ministry of Justice;

• in 2009, there must be 4,000 referrals (of which 400 extra places will be bought by the Minis-

try of Justice);

• in 2010, the number of referrals must be increased to 5,000 (of which 700 extra places); • in 2011, the number must have risen to 6,000 (1,150 extra). (T.K.23760/14)

In July 2008, the Ministry of Justice has formulated a general perspective on addiction care in the judicial framework (T.K.23760/14). With regards to the care for addicts in detention, it states that the main strategy is to refer addicts to regular care facilities outside detention. This can happen on a voluntary or on a quasi-compulsive basis. Besides this, medical care is given in detention, and methadone is provided in certain cases. Guidelines for provision of methadone are in development; they will be in line with guidelines in medical care outside detention.

116