In the past twenty-five years, a lot of attention is paid to a more victim-aware and restorative justice focused policy in prisons in Belgium and The Netherlands, striving for a restorative culture and climate in the institutions (among prisoners and staff) and for more restorative practices like victim-awareness programs and mediation. The focus is primarily on the prison structure and culture, striving to create a more restorative prison culture and climate in the institutions. In this article we argue for a shift from this system-focused pursuit of ‘estorative detention’ to the restorative reintegration of prisoners at the individual level, and by this supporting their desistance from crime. We present a conceptual framework for restorative reintegration in and outside prison as a strengths-based approach, with attention to the structural and individual elements that supports their desistance from crime.

In recent years, measures have been taken to involve victims in the Netherlands more in the criminal proceedings of their offenses. This development, has led the three Dutch probation organizations (together 3RO) to aim for a more victim focused and restorative oriented approach with their clients. Two reports have been written to aid this victim-oriented approach within probation services. This contribution reflects on these reports and provides additions based on scientific literature. Both reports offer a good overview of existing practices and approaches to work in a more victim focused and restorative way, which can help to increase awareness among probation workers. The additions concern research about the positive outcomes of organizing contact between offenders and victims from unrelated crimes and new research findings concerning the role of feelings of guilt and shame. In addition, consciously talking and acknowledging clients’ victimization is presented as an essential mechanism to create willingness among them to consider the experiences of (their) victims, especially for those who are initially unwilling to do so.

In this article the development of a restorative justice probation practice is discussed from the perspective of the restorative justice principle of the inclusive community and the contribution of probation volunteers to the reintegration of (ex-)offenders through specific restorative justice intervention strategies. It is shown that in penal policy of the past decades the penal welfare-model and the aim of reintegration of ex-offenders has been overshadowed by a more utilitarian, punitive and management logic of criminal justice. As a result, the reintegration and social inclusion of ex-offenders has become a rather neglected area and, in the current liberal-democratic state, offenders face social conditions in which it is very hard to turn their life around. In addition it is suggested that both in mainstream and in restorative justice interventions, achievement of the goal of reintegration is often problematic or absent. Moreover, this lack of opportunities for connection may undermine and reduce the effects of interventions, including those with a restorative justice approach. Probation services that use specific restorative justice intervention strategies guided by both professionals and probation volunteers might contribute to a more active, inclusive role of the community and society in the reintegration of ex-offenders.

The last years victim awareness has received special attention in the Dutch probation service. Three goals are central: respecting the rights and interests of the victim, mapping and increasing victim awareness of the probation client, and working towards the possibilities for recovery. Based on discussions with probation officers, this contribution sketches a picture of how this takes shape in practice. Experience shows that good results are achieved, but that more training and attention to the subject is needed to give it a full place in the probation work.

This article presents and critically discusses a new Recommendation on restorative justice (CM/Rec(2018)8) that was adopted on 3 October 2018 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This new regulation builds on the previous Recommendation No. R(99)19 on mediation in penal matters and recommends the governments of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe the adopt and implement the principles of restorative justice as described in the Appendix of the new Recommendation. These guidelines apply to national authorities and national agencies in general, and to judges, public prosecutors, police, prisons, probation, juvenile justice agencies, victim support services and restorative justice services in particular. The article presents the origins of the Recommendation, its contents and its meaning for restorative justice developments in Europe and beyond.

This article is based on research into the use of mediation in criminal cases at ZSM Midden-Nederland. It focusses on the question how referrals to mediation can be optimized. The research shows that there is much room for improvement and a broader deployment of mediation. Lack of knowledge of the criminal justice partners involved, leads to misconceptions about the mediation process, about which institution should be deployed, and about the (in)suitability of cases for mediation. This lack of knowledge seems to be greatest among the police, while they play an important role within ZSM. Moreover, Victim Support Netherlands has a dominant role in the choice whether or not to refer to mediation. The overall conclusion is that mediation is not yet sufficiently anchored in the criminal justice partners’ system.

How does the police deal with conflict resolution and (referrals to) mediation? Is this perceived as relevant within the new national police organization? This article elaborates on work processes within the National Police, including ZSM-settlements, the punitive aspects of police culture and the impoverishment of neighborhood-oriented police work. It is concluded that there is little room within the police for responsive approaches to crime and social unsafety. However, there are still police professionals who question ‘assembly line’-processing of criminal cases, support restorative justice strategies and try to improve the citizen-empowerment in neighbourhoods.