Across Europe, justice systems are reevaluating their approach to addressing young adults who come into conflict with the law. For those aged eighteen to twenty-five, this period represents a crucial stage of transition from dependence to autonomy, from impulsivity to reflection, from isolation to belonging. Yet traditional custodial institutions, designed primarily for control, often interrupt this process. Instead of promoting responsibility and reintegration, they can deepen exclusion, making the return to community life more difficult.1
A new vision is taking hold. Governments, researchers, and practitioners are moving away from large, punitive structures toward smaller, community-based environments built on education, trust, and participation. This emerging approach recognises that societies grow safer not through isolation, but through connection.2
The “Missing Middle”: Young Adults Between Systems
A persistent challenge across European justice systems is the so-called “missing middle”, those aged eighteen to twenty-five who are too old for juvenile measures yet not fully matured adults.
In Austria, the Jugendgerichtsgesetz (§§35–36) separates minors from adults, but many under twenty-two are still held in adult facilities.3 The Netherlands recognises that emotional and cognitive development continues into the mid-twenties; Articles 77h–77hh of its Criminal Code allow youth measures up to age twenty-three, contributing to a significant decline in detention rates.4 Switzerland applies a similar principle under Article 61 of its Criminal Code, enabling young adults to join educational and therapeutic programmes such as the Établissement des Léchaires, where growth and guidance replace control.5
In Belgium, the legal framework already provides for an extended approach toward young adults. Under the current law, individuals who committed an offence before the age of eighteen can remain in community institutions that traditionally serve minors until the age of twenty-five. These institutions, governed by the Juvenile Delinquency Decree, combine varying levels of security with strong educational and therapeutic support.6 In addition, the 2025 coalition agreement signals a political intention to adapt the system further. It explicitly states that Belgium aims to develop detention houses for specific target groups, including young adults. While this commitment has not yet been translated into concrete implementation, it indicates a clear policy direction toward more differentiated forms of detention.
By contrast, reforms such as Italy’s 2023 Caivano Decree, which expanded pre-trial confinement for young people, risk reinforcing outdated, punitive reflexes and overcrowded conditions.7 Across Europe, the difference between progress and regression is increasingly clear: one path invests in responsibility and belonging; the other perpetuates control and disconnection.
Why Focus on 18–25: The BRIDGE Perspective
The BRIDGE project, Building Responsibility & Inclusion through Detention houses for youngsters to support growth and education, places the eighteen-to-twenty-five age group at the heart of its mission. This stage of life is a turning point: the development of self-identity, decision-making, and social belonging is still underway. Yet justice systems often treat young adults as if they were fully mature, exposing them to environments that suppress development rather than support it.
BRIDGE proposes a different approach to small-scale, community-linked living environments that promote education, autonomy, and dignity. These are safe places where young adults can learn to take responsibility, build meaningful relationships, and develop the skills necessary for independent living.
Building on this foundation, Belgium’s loopplankhuizen (“bridge houses”) proposal provides an innovative framework for young adults aged eighteen to twenty-five who struggle to find a place within existing systems.8 Developed by vzw De Huizen, this initiative is designed as a literal and symbolic bridge a path between custody and full social participation. Grounded in the principles of small-scale, differentiation, and community integration, bridge houses reflect the same philosophy that guides BRIDGE.
Each house would accommodate no more than seven to ten residents, creating a small-scale environment where communication, autonomy, and responsibility can grow. Within these small groups, young adults also participate in daily collective processes, learning from one another, building social relationships, and taking shared responsibility for everyday activities.9 Support is personal and holistic: every young adult co-creates a “solution plan” to guide their path toward independence. The houses are also embedded within local communities, allowing residents to participate in nearby educational, employment, and volunteering opportunities. In essence, the facility becomes a bridge, increasing autonomy and promoting participation at a level suited to each young person and their circumstances, rather than excluding them from society.
Learning from Inspirational Facilities Across Europe
Across Europe, only a few facilities focus exclusively on young adults. One notable example is the Søndre Vestfold fengsel, Larvik Unit in Norway, which is specifically designed for individuals aged eighteen to twenty-five.10 Guided by the proximity principle, the unit places relationships at the centre of daily life. The correctional officers that work there, work without uniforms, and high staff-to-resident ratios enable personal follow-up and tailored guidance. Education, outdoor activities, and community volunteering are part of everyday life.11
Beyond such rare examples, several facilities across Europe embody similar values even though they primarily serve minors. Depending on national legislation, some of these institutions can extend their approach to young adults up to the age of eighteen to twenty-five. Even though the legal frameworks differ, as these facilities often fall under youth or minor legislation, the way they operate remains highly inspiring for how detention houses for young adults could and should function.
Seehaus Leonberg in Germany operates as a “school of life” for young men aged fourteen to twenty-three, built around a strong family-like atmosphere. The young people live in small “families” on the Seehaus estate, where everyday life is shaped by shared routines, mutual support, and a positive group culture. A tiered system further supports development by rewarding progress with increased responsibilities and opportunities.12 The Netherlands’ Small-Scale Judicial Youth Facilities (KVJJ) on the other hand maintain close ties to family, school, and community, ensuring that young people remain connected to ordinary life while in detention.13
These examples show that transformation is not merely theoretical but already happening. Across different systems, the most effective approaches share a common foundation rooted in proximity, dignity, and constructive human connection. Where large institutions isolate, small-scale environments empower; where rigid control suppresses growth, supportive structure enables it. This shift is evident not only in how we see and treat young adults in detention, but also in how we design the facilities and systems that shape their everyday lives.
Still, disparities remain. In some countries, young adults continue to be placed in adult prisons with limited access to education, psychosocial support, or meaningful work. Overcrowding, staff shortages, and rigid hierarchies continue to undermine reform. Yet evidence from Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany consistently shows that smaller, relationship-based environments achieve better results in reducing reoffending, improving well-being, and strengthening communities.
A new path forward for young adults
Europe’s justice systems are gradually converging around a shared understanding: safety and stability are built on dignity and support, not repression. The future of detention lies not in expanding institutions or tightening control, but in creating environments that encourages dignity and a sense of belonging.
The future of justice for young adults will be built on bridges—bridges that connect individuals to community, learning, and responsibility; bridges that lead away from exclusion and toward a life of inclusion and belonging.
- World Prison Brief. (2025). Country Profiles. https://www.prisonstudies.org/ ↩︎
- Butts, J. A., Mears, D. P., Justice Policy Center, & The Urban Institute. (2001). Reviving Juvenile Justice in a Get-Tough Era. Youth and Society, 33(2), 169–198. ↩︎
- Austrian Ministry of Justice. (2024). Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG) §§35–36. https://www.justiz.gv.at/ ↩︎
- Dutch Ministry of Justice. (2024). Criminal Code Articles 77h–77hh. https://wetten.overheid.nl/ ↩︎
- Swiss Federal Office of Justice. (2023). Criminal Code Article 61. https://www.skjv.ch/ ↩︎
- Aidealajeunesse. (2023). Les Institutions Publiques de Protection de la Jeunesse (IPPJ). https://www.aidealajeunesse.cfwb.be/ ↩︎
- Antigone. (2024). One Year After the Caivano Decree: Dossier ENG. https://www.antigone.it/upload/Dossier_Caivano_(ENG).pdf ↩︎
- De Huizen. (2019). Aanbevelingennota voor kwalitatieve en succesvolle loopplankhuizen. https://www.dehuizen.be/media/aanbevelingsnota-loopplankhuizen_03102019_web.pdf ↩︎
- ibid ↩︎
- Norwegian Correctional Service. (2025). Youth Punishment Act and KRUS Academy. https://kommunikasjon.ntb.no/ ↩︎
- Antonsen, K., & Sandvold, F. W. (2022). Punishment That Makes a Difference? RESCALED Principles Practiced in Norwegian Prisons. RESCALED Norway. ↩︎
- Seehaus Foundation. (2024). Seehaus Leonberg Youth Project. https://seehaus-ev.de/arbeitsbereiche/seehaus-leonberg/ ↩︎
- Dutch Ministry of Justice. (2024). Small-Scale Judicial Youth Facilities (KVJJ).. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ ↩︎
