INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF JUVENILES AND THE JUVENILES AND THE NORDIC MODEL OF NORDIC MODEL OF JUVENILE JUSTICEJUVENILE JUSTICE

High-risk Offenders under the Age of 18High-risk Offenders under the Age of 18European Conference in Oslo, Norway European Conference in Oslo, Norway

June 5-6, 2008.June 5-6, 2008.

Tapio Lappi-Seppälä Tapio Lappi-Seppälä National Research Institute of Legal PolicyNational Research Institute of Legal Policy

FinlandFinland

““Nordic Model” of Juvenile Nordic Model” of Juvenile JusticeJustice

1.1. Child protection legislation (early 1900s): Child protection legislation (early 1900s): Municipal authorities have the right to interfere Municipal authorities have the right to interfere behaviour of childrenbehaviour of children

2.2. Main emphasis in dealing with juvenile crime on Main emphasis in dealing with juvenile crime on child welfare and social servicechild welfare and social service

3.3. Fairly high age (15 y) of criminal responsibilityFairly high age (15 y) of criminal responsibility4.4. No juvenile courts or specific juvenile codesNo juvenile courts or specific juvenile codes5.5. Fairly few specific juvenile sanctionsFairly few specific juvenile sanctions6.6. ->The role of imprisonment quite restricted->The role of imprisonment quite restricted7.7. ->The role of child welfare must be acknowledged->The role of child welfare must be acknowledged

The diminishing role of The diminishing role of imprisonment in Finlandimprisonment in Finland

Social liberal critics 1960s->Social liberal critics 1960s-> Reduce the overall use of imprisonment Reduce the overall use of imprisonment Avoid the use of prison especially in younger Avoid the use of prison especially in younger

age-groups age-groups Reduce the use of puntively motivated Reduce the use of puntively motivated

placements in reformatory schoolsplacements in reformatory schools Make a clear difference bewteen care and Make a clear difference bewteen care and

coercion: no punishments under the false label of coercion: no punishments under the false label of ”treatment””treatment”

Take care of legal safeguardsTake care of legal safeguards

Court-imposed prison Court-imposed prison sentences for juvenils sentences for juvenils

1975-20061975-200615-17 y 18-20 y

1975 761 22041985 444 14421995 117 8272006 65 724

Court-imposed prison Court-imposed prison sentences for juveniles sentences for juveniles

1985-2006 (15-17 years)1985-2006 (15-17 years)Imposed prison sentences 1985-1990, 1992-2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

15-17 y

15-17 y 444 346 346 280 167 117 90 92 122 85 65 69 69 43 60 65 65

1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

PRISONERS IN DIFFERENT AGE-PRISONERS IN DIFFERENT AGE-GROUPS IN FINLAND 1975-2007GROUPS IN FINLAND 1975-2007

TotalTotal 18-20 y18-20 y 15-17 y15-17 y

19751975 53005300 335335 117117

19901990 34003400 175175 3333

20002000 30003000 100100 1010

20072007 35003500 8080 55

The number of juveniles (15-17 y) The number of juveniles (15-17 y) in Finnish prisons 1975-2007 in Finnish prisons 1975-2007

(annual averages)(annual averages)

117

9386

79

526060

71

59

373646 44

30 323323 2120

10 11 10 7 9 8 9 9 137 8 6 6 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1975

1977

1979 1981

1983

1985

1987

1989 1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

15-17 years

TRENDS AND TRENDS AND CHANGES IN CHANGES IN

INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CHILD WELFARECHILD WELFARE

From punitive responses (1960s) to …From punitive responses (1960s) to …- Best interest of the child (70s/80s)- Best interest of the child (70s/80s)- Family centerness (80s)Family centerness (80s)- Rights of the child (90s)Rights of the child (90s)- Constitutional rights (2000s)Constitutional rights (2000s)

Long-term trends in child welfare Long-term trends in child welfare institutions in Finland institutions in Finland

Places in SatePlaces in SateReformatory Reformatory

Schools (31.12.)Schools (31.12.)

All ”offense based All ”offense based ”placements”placements

(31.12.)(31.12.)19651965 10001000 750750

19751975 550550 600600

19901990 200200 ....

20002000 300300 ....

20072007 300300 200-250200-250

Best interest of the childBest interest of the child all interventions are supportive all interventions are supportive criminal acts have little or no formal rolecriminal acts have little or no formal role

CounsellingCounselling Open care interventions Open care interventions Foster care ordersFoster care orders Institutional placementsInstitutional placements

1/5 non-consensual1/5 non-consensual majority based on family-based reasonsmajority based on family-based reasons

Child welfare interventions Child welfare interventions

CUSTODIAL CARE CUSTODIAL CARE FOR JUVENILES FOR JUVENILES

AND YOUNG AND YOUNG ADULTSADULTS

Enforcing prison Enforcing prison sentences for juveniles sentences for juveniles

and young adultsand young adults No juvenile prisons: Not enough prisonersNo juvenile prisons: Not enough prisoners All juveniles <18 separated from adults in own unitsAll juveniles <18 separated from adults in own units Normality principle: Conditions, activities and Normality principle: Conditions, activities and

arrangements should correspond to those of the civil arrangements should correspond to those of the civil societysociety

Schooling & Education: In co-operation with local schoolsSchooling & Education: In co-operation with local schools Substance abuse programs: Core element in Substance abuse programs: Core element in

rehabilitation work in Finlandrehabilitation work in Finland Life-skills programs and group activitiesLife-skills programs and group activities Work activitiesWork activities Ensuring the ”rehabilitation continuum”Ensuring the ”rehabilitation continuum”

Work Out Project: Net-work model for Work Out Project: Net-work model for rehabilitation continuumrehabilitation continuum

Individual enforcement plan covering both prison-term and Individual enforcement plan covering both prison-term and post-release. Creating a supportive network in co-operation.post-release. Creating a supportive network in co-operation.

Prison term: Holistic rehabilitation and reinforcement of Prison term: Holistic rehabilitation and reinforcement of functional abilitiesfunctional abilities Structured substance abuse program, debt- economic counselling, Structured substance abuse program, debt- economic counselling,

education & work activities, family work, employment courses, creative education & work activities, family work, employment courses, creative activities, group activities. Administered by a multi-professional team.activities, group activities. Administered by a multi-professional team.

Post-release term: intensive guidance with educational & Post-release term: intensive guidance with educational & therapeutic elementstherapeutic elements Professiuonal tutoring, housing support, guidance/work with Professiuonal tutoring, housing support, guidance/work with

substance abuse, family-work. 6+6 months, organized by WOP substance abuse, family-work. 6+6 months, organized by WOP workers.workers.

35 started, 7 interrupted, in 1-3 years 1 returned to prison35 started, 7 interrupted, in 1-3 years 1 returned to prison

THE ”HEAVY END” OF CHILD THE ”HEAVY END” OF CHILD PROTECTION INTERVENTIONS PROTECTION INTERVENTIONS

2900 children 15-17 placed outside home in Finland2900 children 15-17 placed outside home in Finland Most placements are based on parent’s behaviour and Most placements are based on parent’s behaviour and

family-conditionsfamily-conditions The indirect role of crime: The indirect role of crime:

Child is risking his/her own health and development by committing Child is risking his/her own health and development by committing crimescrimes

Always more than reason for a foster care orderAlways more than reason for a foster care order Estimation: 150-200 children under 18 in involuntary Estimation: 150-200 children under 18 in involuntary

residential care with ”delinquent” background residential care with ”delinquent” background No penal motives!No penal motives! Primary object: School and educationPrimary object: School and education Also behavioural restrictions: 20-30 children in ”Intensive Also behavioural restrictions: 20-30 children in ”Intensive

Special Care” Special Care”

””ODD QUESTIONS” FOR THE ODD QUESTIONS” FOR THE CHILD WELFARE CHILD WELFARE

AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES How do the child welfare institutions relate to How do the child welfare institutions relate to

juvenile prisons used elsewhere in the world?juvenile prisons used elsewhere in the world? What treatment programs have been used?What treatment programs have been used? How effective is this treatment in terms of How effective is this treatment in terms of

Crime recution?Crime recution? Different approach in CWF?Different approach in CWF?

Providing a safe and secure home like Providing a safe and secure home like environment for children for their social, emotional environment for children for their social, emotional and personal developmentand personal development

Comparating Comparating Penal Severity?Penal Severity?

Can juvenile justice systems be Can juvenile justice systems be compared in terms of penal severity compared in terms of penal severity

and in the extent of the deprivation of and in the extent of the deprivation of liberty?liberty?

Court imposed sentences (% and /pop)Court imposed sentences (% and /pop) differences in ”filtering”?differences in ”filtering”?

PrisonersPrisoners Involuntary recidential care based on the Involuntary recidential care based on the

child’s offending behaviourchild’s offending behaviour But: comparing different institutions (aims, But: comparing different institutions (aims,

conditions, principles etc)? conditions, principles etc)?

Court practicesCourt practices

Imposed prison sentences for offenders of the age of Imposed prison sentences for offenders of the age of 15-17 years / 100 000 pop (2006, excl. traffic)15-17 years / 100 000 pop (2006, excl. traffic)

SWE: Incl. closed juvenile careSWE: Incl. closed juvenile careDEN+NOR: Incl. combinationsDEN+NOR: Incl. combinations

22 24

74

206

254

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

SWE FIN NOR DEN UK

Prison sentences /100 000 pop

Community sentences for offenders of Community sentences for offenders of the age of 15-17 years / 100 000 popthe age of 15-17 years / 100 000 pop

367

776

2318

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Finland Sweden England&W

Community sentences /100 000 pop

PrisonersPrisoners

Sentenced juveniles (15-17 Sentenced juveniles (15-17 y) on a certain day 2001-y) on a certain day 2001-

2005. 2005. N and % of all prisonersN and % of all prisoners

NN %%

DENDEN 88 0,20,2

FINFIN 55 0,10,1

NORNOR 77 0,20,2

SWESWE 11 0,00,0

Young prisoners (15-17 years) Young prisoners (15-17 years) Share of all prisoners 2005-2006Share of all prisoners 2005-2006

%%

FINFIN 0,10,1

DENDEN 0,10,1

SWESWE 0,20,2

NORNOR 0,30,3

GERGER 1,71,7

SCOTSCOT 2,62,6

ENGLAND & WALESENGLAND & WALES 3,03,0NETHERLANDSNETHERLANDS 9,79,7

Prisoners in the age-group Prisoners in the age-group 15-17 in SWE, FIN and the 15-17 in SWE, FIN and the

UK (2000-2006)UK (2000-2006)

0,3 2,5

125

0

20

4060

80100

120140

SWE FIN UK

Prisoners serving a sentence (15-17 y /100 000 pop in the age-group)

Prisons and child Prisons and child welfare welfare

institutionsinstitutions

Juveniles (15-17 y) placed Juveniles (15-17 y) placed in ”closed” institutions in ”closed” institutions 2006 (N and / 100 000)2006 (N and / 100 000)

Juveniles 15-17 in "closed" institutionsFIN 15-17 y /100 000CJ Prisoners 5 2,5CWF Involuntary placements in public institutions est. 175 88,5

Total 180 91,1SWECJ Prisoners 1 0,3CWF Institutions "with special supervision" 313 81,4

Total 314 81,7England & WalesCJ Prisoners 2450 125,0CWF *SecChildrHomes, SecTrainCentres 500 25,5

Total 2950 150,5

Age-group 15-17 in Age-group 15-17 in institutions: Finland & institutions: Finland &

England (/100 000)England (/100 000)FinlandFinland England % WalesEngland % Wales

PrisonersPrisoners 55 125125

””Closed” child Closed” child welfarewelfare

8585 2525

Prisoners & Child Prisoners & Child WelfareWelfare

9090 150150

All prisonersAll prisoners(including adults)(including adults) 7070 150150

TENTATIVE TENTATIVE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE

SUMMARYSUMMARY””NORDIC COUNTRIES VS. THE UK”NORDIC COUNTRIES VS. THE UK”

Much less imprisonment in the Nordic Much less imprisonment in the Nordic CountriesCountries

More ”welfarist custodial care”More ”welfarist custodial care” Less ”crime based” custodial care in Less ”crime based” custodial care in

overall in the Nordic countriesoverall in the Nordic countries

Factors explaining Factors explaining the extent in the the extent in the use of juvenile use of juvenile imprisonmentimprisonment

Countries with small % of juveniles in Countries with small % of juveniles in prisons are also countries with low prisons are also countries with low

overall imprisonment ratesoverall imprisonment rates

0,1 0,1 0,2 0,30,9 1,1

1,7 1,8 1,72,6 3

9,7

68 6779 75 79

8593

108

72

142148

128

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FIN

DEN

SWE

NO

R

SWZ

FRA

GER

AU

S NL

IRE

SCO

T

ENG

&W

AL

Juve

nile

s %

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Pris

oner

rate

(/10

0 00

0)

Juveniles % (under 18 y) Prisoners (/100 000)

The extent in the use juvenile The extent in the use juvenile imprisonment is associated with imprisonment is associated with the same factors explaining the the same factors explaining the

overall use of imprisonmentoverall use of imprisonment

Welfare, social equalityWelfare, social equality Social & political trustSocial & political trust Political culture: consensus or conflictPolitical culture: consensus or conflict MediaMedia Crime fairly irreleventCrime fairly irrelevent

No association between No association between prisoner rates and prisoner rates and victimization ratesvictimization rates

Large income differences go Large income differences go together with increased together with increased

prisoner ratesprisoner rates

Investments in social Investments in social welfare welfare

associates with fewer associates with fewer prisonersprisoners

High institutional and social High institutional and social trust associates with low trust associates with low

prisoner ratesprisoner rates

Comparing Comparing trends in Crimetrends in Crime

Can the success of juvenile Can the success of juvenile criminal policy be criminal policy be

assessed on the basis of assessed on the basis of crime data?crime data?

Recording differences?Recording differences?Countries with welfare model Countries with welfare model

tend to report less juvenile tend to report less juvenile crime as % of all offensescrime as % of all offenses

The preventive potential of The preventive potential of imprisonment is questioned imprisonment is questioned

by further observations by further observations showing…showing…

Similar crime trends with countries with Similar crime trends with countries with radically differing prisoner ratesradically differing prisoner rates Finland and 3 Scandinavian countries 1950-Finland and 3 Scandinavian countries 1950-

20052005 Finland and Scotland 1950-2007Finland and Scotland 1950-2007 US and Canada 1980-2000US and Canada 1980-2000

Cross comparative zero-correlations Cross comparative zero-correlations between prisoner rates and crimebetween prisoner rates and crime

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

DENFIN NORSWE

Crime

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

DENFIN NORSWE

Prisoners

PRISON RATES AND CRIME PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATESRATES

Four Scandinavian Countries Four Scandinavian Countries 1950-20051950-2005

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

FIN

SCOT

Crime

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

FIN

SCOT

Prisoners

PRISON RATES AND CRIME PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATESRATES

Finland and Scotland 1950-Finland and Scotland 1950-20062006

Comparing the Comparing the Nordic Countries Nordic Countries

SIMILARITIESSIMILARITIES A very small number of juveniles under 18 A very small number of juveniles under 18

in prisons (5/ 100 000 pop)in prisons (5/ 100 000 pop) in practice for serious violent crime (homicide)in practice for serious violent crime (homicide)

Residential treatment for juveniles Residential treatment for juveniles provided mainly by child welfare provided mainly by child welfare authorities (100/pop)authorities (100/pop) punitive motives have no formal rolepunitive motives have no formal role still also behavioural restrictions and still also behavioural restrictions and

restrictions of movementrestrictions of movement

SOME DIFFERENCESSOME DIFFERENCES Sweden and Denmark vs. FinlandSweden and Denmark vs. Finland

children kept in same institutes both on children kept in same institutes both on child welfare and criminal justice groundschild welfare and criminal justice grounds

Sweden vs. Finland (and the others)Sweden vs. Finland (and the others) Social welfare interventions incorporated Social welfare interventions incorporated

into the criminal justice system as into the criminal justice system as independent sanctionsindependent sanctions

Benefits and risks in the Benefits and risks in the Nordic Model?Nordic Model?

BenefitsBenefits Avoidance of imprisonment, Avoidance of imprisonment, Education and the best interest of the child rules in the child-Education and the best interest of the child rules in the child-

welfare systemwelfare system Low crimeLow crimeRisks Risks Transparency (what is happening in the CWF)?Transparency (what is happening in the CWF)? Legal safeguards in the CWFLegal safeguards in the CWF Co-ordination between the systems Co-ordination between the systems No separate juvenile CJ: punitive trends in the adult CJ No separate juvenile CJ: punitive trends in the adult CJ

contaminating also the juvenile CJ? contaminating also the juvenile CJ?

COMMON TRENDS & SHARED COMMON TRENDS & SHARED PROBLEMS?PROBLEMS?

Increased number of involuntary Increased number of involuntary foster care orders?foster care orders?

Increased mental health problems Increased mental health problems among the juveniles?among the juveniles?

Blurring the borders between CJ and Blurring the borders between CJ and CWF – or keeping the roles and CWF – or keeping the roles and functions of different systems functions of different systems separated?separated?