1. INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF JUVENILES AND THE NORDIC MODEL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE High-risk Offenders under the Age of 18 European Conference in Oslo, Norway June 5-6, 2008. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä National Research Institute of Legal Policy Finland Tapio Lappi-Seppälä National Research Institute of Legal Policy Finland

2. “Nordic Model” of Juvenile Justice 1. Child protection legislation (early 1900s): Municipal authorities have the right to interfere behaviour of children 2. Main emphasis in dealing with juvenile crime on child welfare and social service 3. Fairly high age (15 y) of criminal responsibility 4. No juvenile courts or specific juvenile codes 5. Fairly few specific juvenile sanctions 6. ->The role of imprisonment quite restricted 7. ->The role of child welfare must be acknowledged

3. The diminishing role of imprisonment 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 age-groups Avoid the use of prison especially in younger age-groups Reduce the use of puntively motivated placements in reformatory schools Reduce the use of puntively motivated placements in reformatory schools Make a clear difference bewteen care and coercion: no punishments under the false label of ”treatment” Make a clear difference bewteen care and coercion: no punishments under the false label of ”treatment” Take care of legal safeguards Take care of legal safeguards

4. Court-imposed prison sentences for juvenils 1975-2006 15-17 y18-20 y 19757612204 19854441442 1995117827 200665724

5. Court-imposed prison sentences for juveniles 1985-2006 (15-17 years)

6. PRISONERS IN DIFFERENT AGE- GROUPS IN FINLAND 1975-2007 Total 18-20 y 15-17 y 19755300335117 1990340017533 2000300010010 20073500805

7. The number of juveniles (15-17 y) in Finnish prisons 1975-2007 (annual averages)

8. The number of juveniles (15-17 y) admitted Finnish prisons 1986-2007 (flow)

9. TRENDS AND CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL CHILD WELFARE From punitive responses (1960s) to … - Best interest of the child (70s/80s) - Family centerness (80s) - Rights of the child (90s) - Constitutional rights (2000s)

10. Long-term trends in child welfare institutions in Finland Places in Sate Reformatory Schools (31.12.) All ”offense based ”placements (31.12.) 19651000750 1975550600 1990200.. 2000300.. 2007300200-250

11. Best interest of the child Best interest of the child all interventions are supportive all interventions are supportive criminal acts have little or no formal role criminal acts have little or no formal role Counselling Counselling Open care interventions Open care interventions Foster care orders Foster care orders Institutional placements Institutional placements 1/5 non-consensual 1/5 non-consensual majority based on family-based reasons majority based on family-based reasons Child welfare interventions

12. CUSTODIAL CARE FOR JUVENILES AND YOUNG ADULTS

13. Enforcing prison sentences for juveniles and young adults No juvenile prisons: Not enough prisoners No juvenile prisons: Not enough prisoners All juveniles <18 separated from adults in own units All juveniles <18 separated from adults in own units Normality principle: Conditions, activities and arrangements should correspond to those of the civil society Normality principle: Conditions, activities and arrangements should correspond to those of the civil society Schooling & Education: In co-operation with local schools Schooling & Education: In co-operation with local schools Substance abuse programs: Core element in rehabilitation work in Finland Substance abuse programs: Core element in rehabilitation work in Finland Life-skills programs and group activities Life-skills programs and group activities Work activities Work activities Ensuring the ”rehabilitation continuum” Ensuring the ”rehabilitation continuum”

14. Work Out Project: Net-work model for rehabilitation continuum Individual enforcement plan covering both prison-term and post-release. Creating a supportive network in co-operation. Individual enforcement plan covering both prison-term and post-release. Creating a supportive network in co-operation. Prison term: Holistic rehabilitation and reinforcement of functional abilities Prison term: Holistic rehabilitation and reinforcement of functional abilities Structured substance abuse program, debt- economic counselling, education & work activities, family work, employment courses, creative activities, group activities. Administered by a multi- professional team. Structured substance abuse program, debt- economic counselling, education & work activities, family work, employment courses, creative activities, group activities. Administered by a multi- professional team. Post-release term: intensive guidance with educational & therapeutic elements Post-release term: intensive guidance with educational & therapeutic elements Professiuonal tutoring, housing support, guidance/work with substance abuse, family-work. 6+6 months, organized by WOP workers. Professiuonal tutoring, housing support, guidance/work with substance abuse, family-work. 6+6 months, organized by WOP workers. 35 started, 7 interrupted, in 1-3 years 1 returned to prison 35 started, 7 interrupted, in 1-3 years 1 returned to prison

15. THE ”HEAVY END” OF CHILD PROTECTION INTERVENTIONS 2900 children 15-17 placed outside home in Finland 2900 children 15-17 placed outside home in Finland Most placements are based on parent’s behaviour and family-conditions Most placements are based on parent’s behaviour and family-conditions The indirect role of crime: The indirect role of crime: Child is risking his/her own health and development by committing crimes Child is risking his/her own health and development by committing crimes Always more than reason for a foster care order Always more than reason for a foster care order Estimation: 150-200 children under 18 in involuntary residential care with ”delinquent” background Estimation: 150-200 children under 18 in involuntary residential care with ”delinquent” background No penal motives! No penal motives! Primary object: School and education Primary object: School and education Also behavioural restrictions: 20-30 children in ”Intensive Special Care” Also behavioural restrictions: 20-30 children in ”Intensive Special Care”

16. Children 12-17 as mental patients in 2006 Admissions in mental institutions 2295 Average duration of stay in days40 ”Involuntary” patients at any day 85 ”Criminal patients” Mental examination due to crime 3 Mental examination due to crime 3 Involuntary care order due to crime 1 Involuntary care order due to crime 1

17. ”ODD QUESTIONS” FOR THE CHILD WELFARE AUTHORITIES How do the child welfare institutions relate to juvenile prisons used elsewhere in the world? How do the child welfare institutions relate to 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 Crime recution? How effective is this treatment in terms of Crime recution? Different approach in CWF? Different approach in CWF? Providing a safe and secure home like environment for children for their social, emotional and personal development Providing a safe and secure home like environment for children for their social, emotional and personal development

18. Comparating Penal Severity?

19. Can juvenile justice systems be compared in terms of penal severity and in the extent of the deprivation of liberty? Court imposed sentences (% and /pop) Court imposed sentences (% and /pop) differences in ”filtering”? differences in ”filtering”? Prisoners Prisoners Involuntary recidential care based on the child’s offending behaviour Involuntary recidential care based on the child’s offending behaviour But: comparing different institutions (aims, conditions, principles etc)? But: comparing different institutions (aims, conditions, principles etc)?

20. Court practices

21. Imposed prison sentences for offenders of the age of 15-17 years / 100 000 pop (2006, excl. traffic) SWE: Incl. closed juvenile care DEN+NOR: Incl. combinations

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

23. Prisoners

24. Sentenced juveniles (15-17 y) on a certain day 2001-2005. N and % of all prisoners N% DEN80,2 FIN50,1 NOR70,2 SWE10,0

25. Young prisoners (15-20 y) including remand. Annual averages 2007 (except Sweden) N % DEN2586,9 FIN962,7 NOR1654,7 SWE2874,0

26. Young prisoners (15-17 years) Share of all prisoners 2005-2006 % FIN0,1 DEN0,1 SWE0,2 NOR0,3 GER1,7 SCOT2,6 ENGLAND & WALES 3,0 NETHERLANDS9,7

27. Prisoners in the age-group 15-17 in SWE, FIN and the UK (2000-2006)

28. Prisons and child welfare institutions

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

30. Age-group 15-17 in institutions: Finland & England (/100 000) Finland England % Wales Prisoners5125 ”Closed” child welfare 8525 Prisoners & Child Welfare 90150 All prisoners (including adults) 70150

31. TENTATIVE INTERMEDIATE SUMMARY ”NORDIC COUNTRIES VS. THE UK” Much less imprisonment in the Nordic Countries Much less imprisonment in the Nordic Countries More ”welfarist custodial care” More ”welfarist custodial care” Less ”crime based” custodial care in overall in the Nordic countries Less ”crime based” custodial care in overall in the Nordic countries

32. Factors explaining the extent in the use of juvenile imprisonment

33. Countries with small % of juveniles in prisons are also countries with low overall imprisonment rates

34. The extent in the use juvenile imprisonment is associated with the same factors explaining the overall use of imprisonment Welfare, social equality Welfare, social equality Social & political trust Social & political trust Political culture: consensus or conflict Political culture: consensus or conflict Media Media Crime fairly irrelevent Crime fairly irrelevent

35. No association between prisoner rates and victimization rates

36. Large income differences go together with increased prisoner rates

37. Investments in social welfare associates with fewer prisoners

38. High institutional and social trust associates with low prisoner rates

39. Comparing trends in Crime

40. Can the success of juvenile criminal policy be assessed on the basis of crime data? Recording differences? Recording differences? Countries with welfare model tend to report less juvenile crime as % of all offenses Countries with welfare model tend to report less juvenile crime as % of all offenses

41. The relative share of juveniles <18 y of all reported crime is lower in Finland and Sweden as compared to the UK (Sourcebook 2006)

42. The preventive potential of imprisonment is questioned by further observations showing… Similar crime trends with countries with radically differing prisoner rates Similar crime trends with countries with radically differing prisoner rates Finland and 3 Scandinavian countries 1950- 2005 Finland and 3 Scandinavian countries 1950- 2005 Finland and Scotland 1950-2007 Finland and Scotland 1950-2007 US and Canada 1980-2000 US and Canada 1980-2000 Cross comparative zero-correlations between prisoner rates and crime Cross comparative zero-correlations between prisoner rates and crime

43. PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATES Four Scandinavian Countries 1950-2005

44. PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATES Finland and Scotland 1950-2006

45. Comparing the Nordic Countries

46. SIMILARITIES A very small number of juveniles under 18 in prisons (5/ 100 000 pop) A very small number of juveniles under 18 in prisons (5/ 100 000 pop) in practice for serious violent crime (homicide) in practice for serious violent crime (homicide) Residential treatment for juveniles provided mainly by child welfare authorities (100/pop) Residential treatment for juveniles provided mainly by child welfare authorities (100/pop) punitive motives have no formal role punitive motives have no formal role still also behavioural restrictions and restrictions of movement still also behavioural restrictions and restrictions of movement

47. SOME DIFFERENCES Sweden and Denmark vs. Finland Sweden and Denmark vs. Finland children kept in same institutes both on child welfare and criminal justice grounds children kept in same institutes both on child welfare and criminal justice grounds Sweden vs. Finland (and the others) Sweden vs. Finland (and the others) Social welfare interventions incorporated into the criminal justice system as independent sanctions Social welfare interventions incorporated into the criminal justice system as independent sanctions

48. DIFFERENCES Finland vs. Denmark and Sweden Finland vs. Denmark and Sweden more fines, less community sanctions, more mediation more fines, less community sanctions, more mediation Sweden and Denmark vs. Finland Sweden and Denmark vs. Finland children kept in sama institutes both on child welfare and criminal justice grounds children kept in sama institutes both on child welfare and criminal justice grounds Sweden vs. Finland (and the others) Sweden vs. Finland (and the others) Social welfare interventions incorporated into the criminal justice system as independent sanctions Social welfare interventions incorporated into the criminal justice system as independent sanctions

49. Benefits and risks in the Nordic Model? Benefits Avoidance of imprisonment, Avoidance of imprisonment, Education and the best interest of the child rules in the child-welfare system Education and the best interest of the child rules in the child-welfare system Low crime Low crimeRisks Transparency (what is happening in the CWF)? Transparency (what is happening in the CWF)? Legal safeguards in the CWF Legal safeguards in the CWF Co-ordination between the systems Co-ordination between the systems No separate juvenile CJ: punitive trends in the adult CJ contaminating also the juvenile CJ? No separate juvenile CJ: punitive trends in the adult CJ contaminating also the juvenile CJ?

50. COMMON TRENDS & SHARED PROBLEMS? Increased number of involuntary foster care orders? Increased number of involuntary foster care orders? Increased mental health problems among the juveniles? Increased mental health problems among the juveniles? Blurring the borders between CJ and CWF – or keeping the roles and functions of different systems separated? Blurring the borders between CJ and CWF – or keeping the roles and functions of different systems separated?