SPEAK FOR CHANGE

Before presenting concrete messages or arguments, it is helpful to understand two things:

1. Most people instinctively associate punishment with retribution.
2. They assume the purpose of a detention facility is mainly to “make people pay” for what they have done.

People process new information through mental shortcuts, or “frames,” which operate automatically and often without awareness. These frames shape not only what seems credible or understandable, but also how people feel about it. Effective communication, therefore, is about both clarity and emotion: public attitudes toward detention houses are influenced as much by trust, empathy, and experience as by facts. Engaging residents’ feelings and building trust through dialogue and participation makes it more likely that messages will be understood, accepted, and acted upon constructively. When we work with these mental shortcuts rather than against them, communication becomes clearer, more effective, and more constructive.

Because of this, any communication about justice reform - including the introduction of detention houses for women - needs to take into account how people think about justice before we introduce what we want them to understand.

Justice reform is a systemic approach that seeks to address the root causes of crime, reduce reliance on incarceration, and promote fairness, safety, and well-being for all. It recognizes how social systems, such as health care, education, and housing, interact and influence people’s lives. For women in detention, justice reform supports alternatives like detention houses, which focus on safety, tailored support, family contact, and preparing individuals to participate successfully in society after their sentence. Public attitudes toward the justice system are shaped by long-standing beliefs, stereotypes, and emotions. Many people have limited direct experience with detention facilities or (formerly) incarcerated people, which means their opinions often come from media portrayals, political debates, or assumptions about crime and punishment. Because of this, any communication about justice reform, including the introduction of detention houses for women, needs to take into account how people think about justice before introducing what we want them to understand.

Research from the FrameWorks Institute identifies several framing strategies that help the public better understand the issue of incarceration and reduce resistance or prejudice. Keep them in mind when communicating the opening of a new detention house for women.

A powerful communication tool changing the existing mindset of people can be videos. NGO RUBIKON Centre produced a video showing the barriers faced by women after release from prison. The video “The punishment does not end with prison” was broadcasted by Czech Television. You can watch it here (with English subtitles).

The public often perceives punishment mainly as retribution rather than as an opportunity for change.

This view is rooted in deep-seated ideas about justice and responsibility.

Research shows that three core stereotypes persist in how people think about imprisonment:

• Punishment is meant primarily to repay or avenge the wrongdoing.
• Prisons are places of isolation, not reintegration.
• People with a criminal past are unlikely to change.

These beliefs strongly shape how people respond to any attempt at reform or to more open, rehabilitative approaches to imprisonment.

The role of communication, therefore, is to show that modern detention is about protecting society, supporting positive change, and promoting accountability, not just restricting liberty as punishment.

HOW: Use examples that show how context and systems channel crime and how changing those systems can prevent or redirect.

Videos can be also used as a tool to address the public. NGO RUBIKON Centre with director Jan Látal has produced a video focusing on how people from a small community perceive people with criminal pasts. The video “Prisoner, my neighbour” shows how stereotypes play a strong role in judging people, but it also sends a clear message: “People are people no matter their past.”

Even when the public acknowledges the value of a detention house, the reaction is often, “just not in our neighborhood” (NIMBY – Not In My BackYard). Studies show that this resistance is usually driven by misconceptions about prisons and the people inside them — especially fears about safety. These fears often stem from unfamiliarity and prejudice rather than real experience. Key findings:

• People tend to fear events that are, in reality, extremely rare (such as escapes or riots).
• A lack of information and dialogue leads to distrust and a sense of unfairness.
• When a project is communicated too late or inaccurately, resistance grows stronger and becomes harder to manage.

Once fears and narratives have taken hold, people interpret new information through that lens. This makes early, proactive communication critical. Experience from other countries shows that involving local residents early and proactively is key to overcoming NIMBY objections. Projects that invite neighbours to participate in planning meetings, observe facility operations, or share feedback during development reduce fear and increase understanding. Community engagement should aim to build relationships and trust, not just convey information. That’s why open, timely, and transparent communication is essential — giving community members the chance to ask questions, gain confidence, and feel included in the process.

Explanation: This is one of the most frequent concerns. People often fear an increase in crime or the presence of “dangerous individuals” nearby.

How to respond: While no system can eliminate risk entirely, research and practical experience consistently show that detention houses do not lead to higher crime rates in surrounding areas. Studies examining community-based detention and similar facilities have found no measurable increase in local crime following their establishment (e.g. Martin & Myers, 2005).

Recommendations:

• Explain the philosophy and functioning of the detention house, so that all the stakeholders in the area, including local residents, can understand the approach. 
• Provide local residents with clear, concrete information about the facility’s rules, routines, and security measures.
• Offer opportunities for locals to meet in person with representatives of the Prison Service or with officials from other municipalities where similar facilities already operate successfully.
• Involve neighbours of existing facilities to share their personal experiences, include women who have served their sentence in a detention house and are now participating in society — personal stories help break down prejudice.

Explanation: This question often arises because serious or violent offences evoke strong emotional responses, particularly concerns about safety and children. These reactions are understandable and are often shaped by the media and assumptions about prisons and risk.

How to respond: Yes, even in a detention house, there may be women who have committed more serious crimes. Placement is determined by a careful assessment of multiple criteria, not only the nature of the offense, but above all the woman’s behavior, progress, and motivation for change during their sentence. Thanks to thorough risk assessments, only women who have demonstrated genuine commitment and clear positive development are selected. It is essential to communicate clearly, truthfully, and transparently, and to explain how safety is ensured and how decisions are taken.

Recommendations

• Be honest and transparent about who may be placed in the facility
• Explain clearly how assessment and selection work
• Avoid downplaying or distorting the seriousness of crimes
• Focus communication on safeguards and outcomes

Explanation: This question reflects concerns about safety in the surrounding neighbourhood. Detention houses differ from traditional prisons, which can raise uncertainty about how incidents are managed and how the community is protected.

How to respond: Life in a detention house is governed by clear and strict rules, underpinned by mutual trust between residents, management, and staff. Accountability is central: residents are expected to take responsibility for their behaviour, while management and staff are accountable for responding to incidents in a fair, proportionate, and professional manner. Responses are determined by the facility itself, taking into account the individual and national context. Where relevant, the community is informed in a timely and transparent way. Detention houses also operate within a wider safety ecosystem, collaborating closely with prison services, probation services, local authorities, healthcare providers, and emergency services.

Recommendations

• Communicate clearly about rules, accountability, and incident response
• Highlight collaboration with police and local services
• Ensure transparency and timely communication with the community
• Provide accessible contact points for neighbours

Explanation: This reaction is understandable and reflects the belief that punishment should involve discomfort. When detention houses look different from traditional prisons, this can feel unfair.

How to respond: Experience and research show that poor conditions do not support reintegration and instead lead to frustration, aggression, and hopelessness. Detention houses provide a simple but dignified environment where women can work, study, and gradually take back responsibility for their own lives. Such conditions improve their chances of successful participation after release, which means less recidivism and a safer society.

Recommendations

• Explain the purpose of detention house conditions
• Emphasise reintegration and responsibility
• Link conditions to reduced reoffending and safety
• Highlight long-term benefits for society

Explanation: Concerns that a detention house might change the village’s atmosphere or landscape are very common. People often fear the loss of peace and quiet, increased traffic, noise, or visual disruption. When a new facility is associated with imprisonment, these concerns are often amplified by uncertainty about what daily life around the facility will actually look like.

How to respond: Such concerns are valid; no one wants their environment to lose its character or calm. In the case of detention houses, the impact on the surroundings is minimal. The facility’s design, location, and capacity are planned to blend into the local environment. The architecture is sensitive to its setting, without high walls or barbed wire. Construction and operation are planned with respect for residents, including limited working hours, strict noise and traffic control, and a designated contact person to address concerns. Open, early, and continuous communication with residents is essential.

Recommendations:

• Communicate clearly about design, scale, and location
• Share practical information on construction schedules and working hours
• Ensure a clear contact point for residents
• Maintain open and ongoing dialogue with the community

Explanation: Concerns about property values, tourism, and local businesses often arise, especially in smaller communities where economic balance can feel fragile. People worry about declining prices, loss of customers, or competition from the facility.

How to respond: Experience from other facilities does not show a decrease in property values near small detention facilities. When price changes occur, they are usually linked to broader economic trends. A detention house does not negatively affect tourism or local life and can bring new partners, projects, and employment opportunities. Its primary purpose is reintegration, not competition with local businesses. It can also provide services that are missing in the community and contribute to maintaining public spaces or community events.

Recommendations

• Be transparent about what the facility will and will not do economically
• Avoid overstating economic benefits
• Share examples from other municipalities
• Clarify how local businesses may be involved as partners or suppliers

Abstract reassurances are rarely effective. Local residents want clear, practical information about what the detention house will mean in everyday terms. It is equally important to be explicit about what has already been decided, what is still open for discussion, and what cannot be changed. This helps manage expectations and prevents disappointment or mistrust later in the process.

Develop a comprehensive communication strategy with a clear plan of actions and activities. A combination of communication channels should be used, including printed materials and notice boards, local radio, public meetings and smaller working sessions or community discussions, door-to-door outreach campaigns, local newspapers or newsletters, and the municipality’s website and social media, both official pages and community groups. For example, the city of Genk created a dedicated website providing information and answers to frequently asked questions about the newly opened detention house.

Many concerns arise from uncertainty about how detention houses function in practice. Communication should therefore focus on explaining processes, not merely defending decisions or offering reassurance. This includes how placement decisions are made, how supervision and accountability function on a daily basis, how risks are identified, assessed, and managed, and how the detention house cooperates with probation services, healthcare providers, and local authorities. This type of explanatory communication helps people move from fear-based reactions toward informed judgement and a more realistic understanding of the facility.

Communication is most effective when it combines clarity with relational engagement. Activities that bring residents and community members together help the facility be perceived as part of the community rather than a distant institution. Examples include open days or open houses, opportunities to meet staff and, where appropriate, residents, joint social or volunteer activities, and local initiatives led or supported by the facility. Even small gestures can reduce fear, build trust, and increase openness to change.

Before engaging with the local community, authorities should be prepared to clearly present the project and its objectives, explain the respective roles of the Prison Service and the municipality, and respond thoughtfully and consistently to questions and concerns. Building understanding and trust takes time, and patience is an essential part of the process.

Develop a comprehensive communication strategy with a clear plan of actions and activities. A combination of communication channels should be used, including printed materials and notice boards, local radio, public meetings and smaller working sessions or community discussions, door-to-door outreach campaigns, local newspapers or newsletters, and the municipality’s website and social media, both official pages and community groups. For example, the city of Genk created a dedicated website providing information and answers to frequently asked questions about the newly opened detention house.

Collaborate with local associations, business owners, and active residents who influence public opinion and can act as bridges between institutions and the community. Monitor local public sentiment, for example through social media reactions, and adapt communication flexibly to the evolving situation. Take into account the specific characteristics of the location where the detention house is being established. Similar facilities can generate very different reactions depending on local context. For example, the construction of two Community Custody Units in Scotland required different stakeholders, communication approaches, and locally tailored strategies.

1.Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
2. Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2024, June) . Council of Europe: ‘SPACE I’ Annual penal statistics: Prison Populations 2023. ↩︎
3.Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
4. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
5. Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules. ↩︎
6. RESCALED, FARAPEJ (2022): FROM NIMBY TO WIMBY PRACTICE BOOKLET, https://www.rescaled.org/2022/10/07/from-nimby-to-wimby-practice-booklet/
7. FrameWorks UK (2022). Bridges from Prison: A Communications Toolkit for Making the Case for Jobs and Relationships. FrameWorks UK, London. Available at: https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/publication/bridges-from-prison-making-the-case-for-jobs-and-relationships/
8. RUBIKON Centrum, CZ, (2025). Communication guide for the introduction of open prison for women in Velké Přílepy.
9. Randy Martin et David L. Myers (2005). “Public Response to Prison Siting: Perceptions of Impact on Crime and Safety”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 2, pp.143-171