The base for these cheesecakes is an Italian cake called "Caprese" which is not only totally delicious, but also traditionally gluten-free and Vegan: it's made with just a few ingredients and it only needs almond meal as flour. You can now read the precise recipe here! This is also the only step that requires baking (just 15 minutes in the oven).
For the cheesecake layer, I was about to go the ever-so-popular cashew route, but I got a surprise package from my parents that included some Valsoia Vegan cream cheese (that I don't find in stores in France) and this was the perfect opportunity to use it.
Start by melting dark chocolate in a water bath (or in the microwave if you prefer). As soon as it starts melting remove from the heat and add the plant-based milk, stirring gently.
Add the almond flour, the oil oil, brown sugar and cornstarch to the chocolate. Finally add the baking powder and vanilla essence. Mix gently until a creamy, smooth mixture is obtained.
Pour the mixture in 4 heart shaped silicon molds (or plain silicon muffin molds) and bake at 180°C/350°F degrees for about 15 minutes. Once baked, let them cool down and put in the freezer, covered.
Once the cake layer has cooled down, simply combine the plant-based cram cheese, the powdered sugar and the vanilla essence and mix well. Taste and adjust accordingly.
Delicately scoop the cream cheese mixture on top of the heart-shaped mini chocolate cakes, cover and put back in the freezer for the last step.
Mix the frozen berries with a little bit of water, heat up on the stove or in the microwave. The berries should quickly become soft and release all their juice. Strain it and pour it over the cold cheesecakes. Put back in the freezer.
Mix the dark chocolate squares with the coconut oil. Heat up for 30 second increments in the microwave until completely melted. Pour on top of the the cold cheesecakes. The chocolate layer will almost immediately become hard (this same technique can also be used for a hard shell chocolate ice cream topping). Put back in the freezer.
♥ And enjoy with the one you love!
These Triple-layer cheesecake hearts are to be kept in the freezer, but you'll want to let them thaw for 5 minutes before serving. That way, you get a perfectly luscious and creamy heart when you serve it. Slide a knife on the edges to help pop them out of the molds.
If you don't have a silicon heart shaped mold, you can achieve the same triple-layered result with plain silicon muffin molds.
I advice to make these the day before serving them, or at least the cake layer in order to have time to cool it down properly.
If you give this Triple-layer cheesecake hearts recipe a try, please let me know in the comments' section below!
You can also find me on social media. Be sure to tag @francesca_sevenroses on Instagram or @sevenrosesblog on Twitter and Facebook, and use #sevenroses so I'm sure to see it.
This looks so awesome! I've been trying to cut out dairy, so desserts are challenging. What brand of non-dairy cream cheese do you use? I'll have to look out for this.
These look simply delicious and love that its vegan. Would love to try these one day!
These look so good, cheesecake is my #1 weakness, and these look perfect for Valentine's Day!
These are so cute! Cheesecake is my favourite dessert and they're perfect for Valentine's.
This looks sooo delicious!!! I am going to have to try this, for sure!!! I'm always looking for alternative recipes. Glad I found your blog.
These look amazing!! So simple and elegant!
These Cheesecake Hearts look as lovely as they do delicious! I can't think of a more perfect treat for your special Valentine!
Wow these look amazing! Definitely going to try making these!
This is the cutest recipe! I'm so excited to try it on Valentines Day.
Ok this is hands down the cutest and possibly the most delicious Vegan dessert for Valentine's Day ♥ How did you even come up with such an idea?
Great recipe! I have been trying to cut out sugars and dairy so this recipe is a must try. Do you think I could substitute the brown sugar with honey?
Omg ! You had me at cheesecake! These are super cute!
Wow! These gorgeous cheesecake hearts look like something straight out of a magazine! I can hardly wait to tie on my apron and get started with this scrumptious recipe! Thanks so much for sharing it.


text:
Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823
Heinrich, J-P., 1995, s.n.. 246 p.
Heinrich, J-P. (1995). Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823. s.n.
Heinrich, Jean-Paul. / Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823. s.n., 1995. 246 p.
Heinrich, J-P 1995, 'Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823', Doctor of Philosophy.
Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823. / Heinrich, Jean-Paul.
s.n., 1995. 246 p.
Heinrich J-P. Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823. s.n., 1995. 246 p.
@phdthesis{4dc8dcbe71274135aed7c05818ce87a4,
title = "Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823",
abstract = "This study deals with the historical development of the relationship between the Dutch Government and the private after-care and rehabilitation organisations from 1823 until today. The first chapter covers the period that starts with the foundation of The Dutch Fellowship for Moral Reformation of Prisoners (Het Nederlandsch Genootschap tot Zedelijke Verbetering der Gevangenen, hereafter referred to as {\textquoteright}the Fellow-ship{\textquoteright}) in 1823, and ends with the introduction of the new Penal Code in 1886. The foundation of the Fellowship reflects the social and political climate of the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The Central Government played only a limited role in public life. Social care was primarily the responsibilty of private initiative and local authorities, who, throughout the nineteenth century were often one and the same people. This applied also to branch committees of the Fellowship and prison boards. Faith in the possibility of moral edification of the population in general and of the justitiable in particular, was a legacy of the {\textquoteright}Age of reason{\textquoteright}. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century the Central Government gave the Fellowship more or less carte blanche. In particular, the education of detainees became increasingly the responsibility of private initiative. As the Government became more and more convinced of the usefulness of the aims that the Fellowship pursued, its work became less discretionary. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, when the discussion over the introduction of solitary confinement was taking place, the Department of Justice and the Fellowship shared the same ideals. However, when it proved politically impossible to introduce solitary confinement on a large scale, the views of the Government and of the Fellowship gradually began to diverge. This divergence was increased as the Government became more interested in progressive systems of detention, whereas the Fellowship remained faithful to the principle of solitary confinement. Another factor that put a strain on the relations between the Fellowship and the Department was that from the middle of the nineteenth century, at the same time that solitary confinement was introduced, the Central Government wanted to centralize the control of the prison system. The independence of the prison boards and the Fellowships{\textquoteright} role in the prison system were reduced. By introducing experiments with solitary confinement, the Department of Justice had shown its interest in realizing other penitentiary aims than retaliation, aims that would also benefit from education, which was increasingly considered the State{\textquoteright}s duty. The Fellowship initially welcomed the Department{\textquoteright}s readiness to let the State bear the considerable costs of education, although it had great difficulty in giving up control of penitentiary policy. For the Fellowship all that remained, apart from keeping an eye on Governmental policy, was the care of the prisoners after their discharge. In the second chapter an outline is sketched of the social, political and penal changes that took place around the turn of the century, between 1886 and 1910. It was a transitional period in several ways. At this time a fundamental change took place in the governments{\textquoteright} relationship to the Rehabilitation. Three factors were instrumental to this change. Firstly, opinions were changing as to the extent of the role of Central Government. Due to socio-economic changes, Central Government had to intervene more firmly in the social sphere while political shifts that emerged out of the electoral reform led the Government into an unusual relationship with private initiative. The Government confined itself to imposing general rules while most of the actual work was left to private organisations. Almost at the same time both the objectives and the means of the Penal Code were about to change. Solitary confinement had proved to be an ineffective answer to recidivism. Gradually the Penal Code began to reflect a new vision of punishment, which replaced the {\textquoteright}classic{\textquoteright} nineteenth century point of view. Thus, the position of the Rehabilitation in relation to criminal jurisdiction changed. The task of Rehabilitation was now better adjusted to the Government{\textquoteright}s requirements. Both the Government and the Fellowship acknowledged that the Rehabilitation could play a meaningful role in the reduction of recidivism. Finally, a shift in the means and methods of the Fellowship became apparent. After a period in which it had no other choice than trying to influence the Government{\textquoteright}s policy, a return to practical action occurred from the middle of the 1880s onwards. The revival of activities that took place around the turn of the century increased expenses. The Fellowships{\textquoteright} agricultural colony and the maintenance of a Central Office for Information and Employment could hardly be supported from its own financial means. The Department of Justice was willing to provide some financial back-up, by which it also gave a sign of its{\textquoteright} approval of the Rehabilitation work. In spite of the objections that existed within the Fellowship against the Rehabilitation Regulations, an agreement was reached with the Department. From this we may conclude that it became apparent that Government involvement in the Rehabilitation would have a benefitial influence on its activities. The fact that the first Rehabilitation Regulations were partly analogous to the Child Protection Acts, also concerning their implementing orders, indicates that their constitutive ideas were similar. In the matter of rehabilitation the Government thus felt a similar need to regulate what was gradually coming to be considered a task of the Administration. The third chapter deals with the effects of the subsidization of Rehabilitation work, in the period leading up to World War Two. The image of Rehabilitation was drastically changed by the statutory decision to subsidize its activities. The aims of Rehabilitation Regulations of 1910 to further develop the Rehabilitation were partly realised before the Second World War. As a result of the subsidy scheme the opportunities for charitable organizations to play an active role in Rehabilitation increased. However, the State{\textquoteright}s intention to involve various private associations in Rehabilitation, brought along its own problems. These problems were increased by the economic situation during the interbellum period. As a considerable number of private associations became involved in Rehabilitation work, the need for a coordinating organisation soon developed. In 1913 the Association of Rehabilitation Societies (the Vereeniging van Reclasserings Instellingen, VvRI) was founded. As a result of denominational segregation, forces were joined in ideological sociopolitical groups. A conglomerate of Catholic and Protestant charitable societies united their activities in, respectively, the Roman Catholic Rehabilitation Society (the RKRV, 1917) and the Protestant Rehabilitation Society (the PCRV, 1929). Owing to the denominational organizations{\textquoteright} claims to autonomy, the extent of the VvRI{\textquoteright}s mandate remained severely restricted, so that its{\textquoteright} importance as a coordinating body particularly in relation to the Government remained small. As a result of the economic crisis, the organisational structure of the Rehabilitation became subject to criticism. The desparate financial situation confronted Rehabilitation with the high costs of ideological differentiation. The call for a more efficient organisation was increasing. The Fellowship in particular had tried hard to prevent the denominational segregation of the Rehabilitation and had often campaigned for a more efficient organisational structure. In secret consultations between the leaders of the segregated organisations, and the Fellowship, a new organisational structure was set up to overcome the disadvantages of ideological segregation on a district level by means of more powerful rehabilitation councils. The statutory status that the councils recieved in the 1947 Rehabilitation Regulations, was a legacy from the period of occupation that, nonetheless suited the post-war conception of the role of the Government in society. The basis of the post-war organisation of the Rehabilitation was nevertheless founded in the 1930s. In those years, A more authoritative Governmental regulation was proposed that fell in line with a general wish for the Government to take vigorous action during the time of crisis. The integration of rehabilitation into criminal jurisdiction characterized the period between 1910 and 1945. Despite denominational segregation, it was clear that the Government tried to expand its influence on private rehabilitation organisations in several ways. These efforts were understandable, since the involvement of the Rehabilitation in criminal jurisdiction had increased after the introduction of the possibility of sentence on probation, and the increased possibility of release on parole in 1915. With the introduction of pre-sentence reports made by the Rehabilitation organisations for the information of the court, the Rehabilitation was given a useful instrument with which it could increase its influence at several stages of a criminal procedure. The integration of the Rehabilitation within criminal jurisdiction developed successfully, in accordance to the wishes of both the Rehabilitation and the Government. Chapter four centres around the reorganisation and further development of the Rehabilitation after the Second World War. During the period between 1945 and 1968 two stages can be distinguished in the relationship between the Department and the Rehabilitation. Directly after the war, the Government played a leading role. In collaboration with various organisations the Department tried to improve the quality of the rehabilitation by stimulating expansion and professionalization. Throughout the reconstruction period, a consensus prevailed between the Department and the organisations. As a result of the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1947, the Rehabilitation became subject to unprecedented enlargement and professionalization. The ties between the Government and the private initiatives were strengthened. The first ten years after the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1947, were characterized by the deployment of officials in guidance and after-care. Gradually, the voluntary workers disappeared from the picture, while a change took place in the decision-making capacities of the managers and the implementing personnel. The workers acquired greater authority. The organisations strove for expansion by reducing the number of divisions. The Department stimulated the influx of paid workers, the promotion of expertise, and the scaling up of the rehabilitation work. The organisations accepted the Government{\textquoteright}s authority, whether directly or via the public rehabilitation councils. In the following period, starting at the end of the fifties when the professional development had reached its peak, the Rehabilitation gradually began to question the authoritative role of the Government. From that moment on, the relationship between the Department and the private rehabilitation organisations came under increasing pressure. The professional development was a necessary condition for the discussion about the position of the Rehabilitation in relation to criminal jurisdiction and the Department. This discussion had three major aspects. Firstly, new ideas about rehabilitation work developed. Social workers aimed at operating as much as possible according to their own professional insight. In short, they needed a relationship with their clients that was based upon trust, which was difficult to combine with the judicial tasks of the rehabilitation organisations. As a result, a re-evaluation became nescessary to consider the position of rehabilitation work within the whole of criminal jurisdiction. Another point of vital importance was that the initial individual-psychological orientation of the social scientists was exchanged for a more sociological perspective, whereby society itself becomes subject to critical analysis. As a result, the aims of the rehabilitation work were extended beyond the more confined goals of the Department. The Department endeavoured to keep the expansion within reasonable limits. Secondly, the changing of society as a whole had repercussions on the Rehabilitation. The fact that probation officers were educated at colleges for social work contributed to the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s receptiveness to the ideals of the sixties, bringing with it a critical attitude towards authoritative institutions. This led to the need for professional autonomy, at a time when the initial arguments in favour of the private character of the Rehabilitation had lost their validity. The private character of the Rehabilitation had to be redefined, now that the idea of the {\textquoteright}sovereignty of private circles{\textquoteright} was finally abandoned for a more professional attitude towards the task of Rehabilitation. Besides the three conditional aspects of the professional development, a high workload and a deteriorating relationship between informative and after-care services, served as concrete starting points for debate. Chapter five examines the impulses that led to a fusion of the Rehabilitation organisations. I describe the short, but eventful period between 1968 and 1976 as a phase in which a definite swing from an ideologically inspired rehabilitation towards a professional service took place. The new orientation of the Rehabilitation was consolidated along with numerous discussions. Guidance to discharged prisoners, and servitude to criminal jurisdiction were progressively looked upon as mutually exclusive categories. Because the guidance of the justitiable came first, a polarised relationship with criminal jurisdiction was created. The {\textquoteright}professional revolution{\textquoteright} also had its influence on the relationship between the Department and the private rehabilitation organisations. Between 1965 and 1969 it seemed that the Department gave in to the organisations, at least as far as having to acknowledge their professional identity is concerned. The opposition of the organisations to the Governmental interference dating from the end of the fifties, finally bore fruit. This can be seen in the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1970. The rehabilitation councils lost their guiding and controlling position; the responsibility of the organisations to public councils was exchanged for a system of internal communications. Because no new administrative system took its{\textquoteright} place, the Department gradually assumed a non-directive attitude towards the organisations. The end of the chapter five shows how the professional basis of the Rehabilitation again led to the scaling up of the rehabilitation organisation. The Departments{\textquoteright} call for closer cooperation and efficiency in 1968, was interpreted by the implementing workers as an encouragement towards fusion. The probation officers who were at the basis of the organisation deliberately acted as catalysts for this process. By pressing for a fusion they brought about the supremacy of the professional over the ideological attitude towards the rehabilitation work. At the time of the formulation of the objectives of the General Rehabilitation Society (the Algemene Reclasseringsvereniging, ARV), the most that the founders could achieve was a compromise between the rendering of services to Criminal Justice and support to the justitiable. Given the internal disagreements over the objectives of Rehabilitation it would not have been wise to include an explicit stand in the statutes. Within the Rehabilitation a new approach was sought from which the foundations of the work and the relationship with the Government had to be redefined. By 1976, when the ARV was founded, this reverification was nowhere near completion. The period discussed in chapter six covers 1976 to 1982, when the attitude of the Department changed again. Although it refrained from interfering in the implementation, its interest in planning and management was increased. The discussion around the position of the Rehabilitation with regard to criminal jurisdiction exercised the minds of many, even after the fusion. The Rehabilitation looked upon itself as a welfare organisation, operating on jurisdictional grounds. Instead of attempting to decrease the tension that was thus created, it elevated this point of view to its field of activity. The Rehabilitation wished to express its public welfare values at a certain distance from criminal jurisdiction. Initially, the Department did not participate in the discussion about the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s identity. However, during the late seventies it was the Department of Justice that accelerated the discussion. At the same time that the ARV completed its internal structure, a jurisdictional change of climate took place which left its marks on the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s tasks. An increase in criminality caused a capacity problem within the Penitential system. The Rehabilitation was responsible, in part, for the solution. The Department wanted the Rehabilitation to be clear about its readiness to be involved in experiments with alternative sanctions. Not only were the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s job responsibilities expanded for the first time since 1915, its attitude towards criminal jurisdiction also changed. As a result the idea gained ground that neither Criminal Law nor guidance were capable of providing an adequate answer to the increase in criminality. By acknowledging the relative value of both guidance and Penal Law, the tension that was raised after the discussion on aims, finally seemed to diminish in the early eighties. This was the first step towards solving the discrepancy between {\textquoteright}punishment{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteright}care{\textquoteright} that had grown within the Rehabilitation. Another important aspect of the period between 1976 and 1982 was the recurring division between decision-making and implementation within the Rehabilitation, which was supposed to be settled partly through the foundation of the ARV. There was an increasing inclination to include policy-making within the work structure in such a way that the top of the working organisation could set up the outlines, while the regional organisations would be free to fill in their alloted policy-making space. Finally, it was important that a turning point was reached in the policy of the Department of Justice towards the Rehabilitation. After a decade of {\textquoteright}unprecedented freedom{\textquoteright}, the Rehabilitation was confronted with a Department that showed an increasing interest in policy-making. The Department tried to guide the management of the Rehabilitation according to its own wishes. In this respect the non-directive attitude of the Department came to an end in the last quarter of the 1970s, even so it remained unwilling to trouble itself with the implementation. In the final chapter, I handle the period between 1982 and 1995. The reorganisation carried out between 1983 and 1986 was not so much a break with the previous developments, more an acceleration of them, partly dictated by the cutbacks considered nescessary. Natural developments were thus speeded up considerably, and sometimes even forced. Coupling the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s restructuring with severe cutbacks made the process hard to stomach, particularly since, under financial pressure, redefining the relation between Government and private initiative took place at high speed and left little room for compromise. Here I also try to indicate that reducing the cost of Rehabilitation was not the only role-playing factor. In the period refered to, the Government was reviewing the scope of its tasks. The size of the Governmental apparatus and the way government should operate in society, were under debate. For the Rehabilitation this meant that the Department of Justice took control of rehabilitation policy. One example of the pressurised alteration of the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s objectives was that service rendering ceased to be the primary aim of operational principle. Initially, this worsened the relationship between Government and Rehabilitation. The Ministerially required adjustment of the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s aims brought up sentiments that were rooted in the discussion about the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s identity. In this respect the reorganisation also marked the end of a period, now that in the early eighties the discussion about the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s identity finally appeared to be settled. The improved relations between the Government and the Rehabilitation were in my opinion at least partly due to changes in the Penal Code, which made the implementation of criminal jurisdiction much more accessible to the Rehabilitation{\textquoteright}s activities. The Dutch Federation of Rehabilitation Agencies (Nederlandse Federatie van Reclasseringsinstellingen, NFR), founded in 1986, served as an intermediary between the Department and nineteen autonomous Rehabilitation Foundations. This brought along a new problem because, particularly the larger organisations were not prepared to give up part of their autonomy to a coordinating organisation. In 1992, the disfunctioning of the NFR led to the latest reorganisation, eliminating the inadequacies of the rehabilitation organisation and clarifying the relation between the Government and the Rehabilitation.",
author = "Jean-Paul Heinrich",
note = "date_submitted:1996 Rights: University of Groningen",
T1 - Particuliere reclassering en overheid in Nederland sinds 1823
AU - Heinrich, Jean-Paul
N1 - date_submitted:1996 Rights: University of Groningen
N2 - This study deals with the historical development of the relationship between the Dutch Government and the private after-care and rehabilitation organisations from 1823 until today. The first chapter covers the period that starts with the foundation of The Dutch Fellowship for Moral Reformation of Prisoners (Het Nederlandsch Genootschap tot Zedelijke Verbetering der Gevangenen, hereafter referred to as 'the Fellow-ship') in 1823, and ends with the introduction of the new Penal Code in 1886. The foundation of the Fellowship reflects the social and political climate of the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The Central Government played only a limited role in public life. Social care was primarily the responsibilty of private initiative and local authorities, who, throughout the nineteenth century were often one and the same people. This applied also to branch committees of the Fellowship and prison boards. Faith in the possibility of moral edification of the population in general and of the justitiable in particular, was a legacy of the 'Age of reason'. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century the Central Government gave the Fellowship more or less carte blanche. In particular, the education of detainees became increasingly the responsibility of private initiative. As the Government became more and more convinced of the usefulness of the aims that the Fellowship pursued, its work became less discretionary. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, when the discussion over the introduction of solitary confinement was taking place, the Department of Justice and the Fellowship shared the same ideals. However, when it proved politically impossible to introduce solitary confinement on a large scale, the views of the Government and of the Fellowship gradually began to diverge. This divergence was increased as the Government became more interested in progressive systems of detention, whereas the Fellowship remained faithful to the principle of solitary confinement. Another factor that put a strain on the relations between the Fellowship and the Department was that from the middle of the nineteenth century, at the same time that solitary confinement was introduced, the Central Government wanted to centralize the control of the prison system. The independence of the prison boards and the Fellowships' role in the prison system were reduced. By introducing experiments with solitary confinement, the Department of Justice had shown its interest in realizing other penitentiary aims than retaliation, aims that would also benefit from education, which was increasingly considered the State's duty. The Fellowship initially welcomed the Department's readiness to let the State bear the considerable costs of education, although it had great difficulty in giving up control of penitentiary policy. For the Fellowship all that remained, apart from keeping an eye on Governmental policy, was the care of the prisoners after their discharge. In the second chapter an outline is sketched of the social, political and penal changes that took place around the turn of the century, between 1886 and 1910. It was a transitional period in several ways. At this time a fundamental change took place in the governments' relationship to the Rehabilitation. Three factors were instrumental to this change. Firstly, opinions were changing as to the extent of the role of Central Government. Due to socio-economic changes, Central Government had to intervene more firmly in the social sphere while political shifts that emerged out of the electoral reform led the Government into an unusual relationship with private initiative. The Government confined itself to imposing general rules while most of the actual work was left to private organisations. Almost at the same time both the objectives and the means of the Penal Code were about to change. Solitary confinement had proved to be an ineffective answer to recidivism. Gradually the Penal Code began to reflect a new vision of punishment, which replaced the 'classic' nineteenth century point of view. Thus, the position of the Rehabilitation in relation to criminal jurisdiction changed. The task of Rehabilitation was now better adjusted to the Government's requirements. Both the Government and the Fellowship acknowledged that the Rehabilitation could play a meaningful role in the reduction of recidivism. Finally, a shift in the means and methods of the Fellowship became apparent. After a period in which it had no other choice than trying to influence the Government's policy, a return to practical action occurred from the middle of the 1880s onwards. The revival of activities that took place around the turn of the century increased expenses. The Fellowships' agricultural colony and the maintenance of a Central Office for Information and Employment could hardly be supported from its own financial means. The Department of Justice was willing to provide some financial back-up, by which it also gave a sign of its' approval of the Rehabilitation work. In spite of the objections that existed within the Fellowship against the Rehabilitation Regulations, an agreement was reached with the Department. From this we may conclude that it became apparent that Government involvement in the Rehabilitation would have a benefitial influence on its activities. The fact that the first Rehabilitation Regulations were partly analogous to the Child Protection Acts, also concerning their implementing orders, indicates that their constitutive ideas were similar. In the matter of rehabilitation the Government thus felt a similar need to regulate what was gradually coming to be considered a task of the Administration. The third chapter deals with the effects of the subsidization of Rehabilitation work, in the period leading up to World War Two. The image of Rehabilitation was drastically changed by the statutory decision to subsidize its activities. The aims of Rehabilitation Regulations of 1910 to further develop the Rehabilitation were partly realised before the Second World War. As a result of the subsidy scheme the opportunities for charitable organizations to play an active role in Rehabilitation increased. However, the State's intention to involve various private associations in Rehabilitation, brought along its own problems. These problems were increased by the economic situation during the interbellum period. As a considerable number of private associations became involved in Rehabilitation work, the need for a coordinating organisation soon developed. In 1913 the Association of Rehabilitation Societies (the Vereeniging van Reclasserings Instellingen, VvRI) was founded. As a result of denominational segregation, forces were joined in ideological sociopolitical groups. A conglomerate of Catholic and Protestant charitable societies united their activities in, respectively, the Roman Catholic Rehabilitation Society (the RKRV, 1917) and the Protestant Rehabilitation Society (the PCRV, 1929). Owing to the denominational organizations' claims to autonomy, the extent of the VvRI's mandate remained severely restricted, so that its' importance as a coordinating body particularly in relation to the Government remained small. As a result of the economic crisis, the organisational structure of the Rehabilitation became subject to criticism. The desparate financial situation confronted Rehabilitation with the high costs of ideological differentiation. The call for a more efficient organisation was increasing. The Fellowship in particular had tried hard to prevent the denominational segregation of the Rehabilitation and had often campaigned for a more efficient organisational structure. In secret consultations between the leaders of the segregated organisations, and the Fellowship, a new organisational structure was set up to overcome the disadvantages of ideological segregation on a district level by means of more powerful rehabilitation councils. The statutory status that the councils recieved in the 1947 Rehabilitation Regulations, was a legacy from the period of occupation that, nonetheless suited the post-war conception of the role of the Government in society. The basis of the post-war organisation of the Rehabilitation was nevertheless founded in the 1930s. In those years, A more authoritative Governmental regulation was proposed that fell in line with a general wish for the Government to take vigorous action during the time of crisis. The integration of rehabilitation into criminal jurisdiction characterized the period between 1910 and 1945. Despite denominational segregation, it was clear that the Government tried to expand its influence on private rehabilitation organisations in several ways. These efforts were understandable, since the involvement of the Rehabilitation in criminal jurisdiction had increased after the introduction of the possibility of sentence on probation, and the increased possibility of release on parole in 1915. With the introduction of pre-sentence reports made by the Rehabilitation organisations for the information of the court, the Rehabilitation was given a useful instrument with which it could increase its influence at several stages of a criminal procedure. The integration of the Rehabilitation within criminal jurisdiction developed successfully, in accordance to the wishes of both the Rehabilitation and the Government. Chapter four centres around the reorganisation and further development of the Rehabilitation after the Second World War. During the period between 1945 and 1968 two stages can be distinguished in the relationship between the Department and the Rehabilitation. Directly after the war, the Government played a leading role. In collaboration with various organisations the Department tried to improve the quality of the rehabilitation by stimulating expansion and professionalization. Throughout the reconstruction period, a consensus prevailed between the Department and the organisations. As a result of the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1947, the Rehabilitation became subject to unprecedented enlargement and professionalization. The ties between the Government and the private initiatives were strengthened. The first ten years after the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1947, were characterized by the deployment of officials in guidance and after-care. Gradually, the voluntary workers disappeared from the picture, while a change took place in the decision-making capacities of the managers and the implementing personnel. The workers acquired greater authority. The organisations strove for expansion by reducing the number of divisions. The Department stimulated the influx of paid workers, the promotion of expertise, and the scaling up of the rehabilitation work. The organisations accepted the Government's authority, whether directly or via the public rehabilitation councils. In the following period, starting at the end of the fifties when the professional development had reached its peak, the Rehabilitation gradually began to question the authoritative role of the Government. From that moment on, the relationship between the Department and the private rehabilitation organisations came under increasing pressure. The professional development was a necessary condition for the discussion about the position of the Rehabilitation in relation to criminal jurisdiction and the Department. This discussion had three major aspects. Firstly, new ideas about rehabilitation work developed. Social workers aimed at operating as much as possible according to their own professional insight. In short, they needed a relationship with their clients that was based upon trust, which was difficult to combine with the judicial tasks of the rehabilitation organisations. As a result, a re-evaluation became nescessary to consider the position of rehabilitation work within the whole of criminal jurisdiction. Another point of vital importance was that the initial individual-psychological orientation of the social scientists was exchanged for a more sociological perspective, whereby society itself becomes subject to critical analysis. As a result, the aims of the rehabilitation work were extended beyond the more confined goals of the Department. The Department endeavoured to keep the expansion within reasonable limits. Secondly, the changing of society as a whole had repercussions on the Rehabilitation. The fact that probation officers were educated at colleges for social work contributed to the Rehabilitation's receptiveness to the ideals of the sixties, bringing with it a critical attitude towards authoritative institutions. This led to the need for professional autonomy, at a time when the initial arguments in favour of the private character of the Rehabilitation had lost their validity. The private character of the Rehabilitation had to be redefined, now that the idea of the 'sovereignty of private circles' was finally abandoned for a more professional attitude towards the task of Rehabilitation. Besides the three conditional aspects of the professional development, a high workload and a deteriorating relationship between informative and after-care services, served as concrete starting points for debate. Chapter five examines the impulses that led to a fusion of the Rehabilitation organisations. I describe the short, but eventful period between 1968 and 1976 as a phase in which a definite swing from an ideologically inspired rehabilitation towards a professional service took place. The new orientation of the Rehabilitation was consolidated along with numerous discussions. Guidance to discharged prisoners, and servitude to criminal jurisdiction were progressively looked upon as mutually exclusive categories. Because the guidance of the justitiable came first, a polarised relationship with criminal jurisdiction was created. The 'professional revolution' also had its influence on the relationship between the Department and the private rehabilitation organisations. Between 1965 and 1969 it seemed that the Department gave in to the organisations, at least as far as having to acknowledge their professional identity is concerned. The opposition of the organisations to the Governmental interference dating from the end of the fifties, finally bore fruit. This can be seen in the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1970. The rehabilitation councils lost their guiding and controlling position; the responsibility of the organisations to public councils was exchanged for a system of internal communications. Because no new administrative system took its' place, the Department gradually assumed a non-directive attitude towards the organisations. The end of the chapter five shows how the professional basis of the Rehabilitation again led to the scaling up of the rehabilitation organisation. The Departments' call for closer cooperation and efficiency in 1968, was interpreted by the implementing workers as an encouragement towards fusion. The probation officers who were at the basis of the organisation deliberately acted as catalysts for this process. By pressing for a fusion they brought about the supremacy of the professional over the ideological attitude towards the rehabilitation work. At the time of the formulation of the objectives of the General Rehabilitation Society (the Algemene Reclasseringsvereniging, ARV), the most that the founders could achieve was a compromise between the rendering of services to Criminal Justice and support to the justitiable. Given the internal disagreements over the objectives of Rehabilitation it would not have been wise to include an explicit stand in the statutes. Within the Rehabilitation a new approach was sought from which the foundations of the work and the relationship with the Government had to be redefined. By 1976, when the ARV was founded, this reverification was nowhere near completion. The period discussed in chapter six covers 1976 to 1982, when the attitude of the Department changed again. Although it refrained from interfering in the implementation, its interest in planning and management was increased. The discussion around the position of the Rehabilitation with regard to criminal jurisdiction exercised the minds of many, even after the fusion. The Rehabilitation looked upon itself as a welfare organisation, operating on jurisdictional grounds. Instead of attempting to decrease the tension that was thus created, it elevated this point of view to its field of activity. The Rehabilitation wished to express its public welfare values at a certain distance from criminal jurisdiction. Initially, the Department did not participate in the discussion about the Rehabilitation's identity. However, during the late seventies it was the Department of Justice that accelerated the discussion. At the same time that the ARV completed its internal structure, a jurisdictional change of climate took place which left its marks on the Rehabilitation's tasks. An increase in criminality caused a capacity problem within the Penitential system. The Rehabilitation was responsible, in part, for the solution. The Department wanted the Rehabilitation to be clear about its readiness to be involved in experiments with alternative sanctions. Not only were the Rehabilitation's job responsibilities expanded for the first time since 1915, its attitude towards criminal jurisdiction also changed. As a result the idea gained ground that neither Criminal Law nor guidance were capable of providing an adequate answer to the increase in criminality. By acknowledging the relative value of both guidance and Penal Law, the tension that was raised after the discussion on aims, finally seemed to diminish in the early eighties. This was the first step towards solving the discrepancy between 'punishment' and 'care' that had grown within the Rehabilitation. Another important aspect of the period between 1976 and 1982 was the recurring division between decision-making and implementation within the Rehabilitation, which was supposed to be settled partly through the foundation of the ARV. There was an increasing inclination to include policy-making within the work structure in such a way that the top of the working organisation could set up the outlines, while the regional organisations would be free to fill in their alloted policy-making space. Finally, it was important that a turning point was reached in the policy of the Department of Justice towards the Rehabilitation. After a decade of 'unprecedented freedom', the Rehabilitation was confronted with a Department that showed an increasing interest in policy-making. The Department tried to guide the management of the Rehabilitation according to its own wishes. In this respect the non-directive attitude of the Department came to an end in the last quarter of the 1970s, even so it remained unwilling to trouble itself with the implementation. In the final chapter, I handle the period between 1982 and 1995. The reorganisation carried out between 1983 and 1986 was not so much a break with the previous developments, more an acceleration of them, partly dictated by the cutbacks considered nescessary. Natural developments were thus speeded up considerably, and sometimes even forced. Coupling the Rehabilitation's restructuring with severe cutbacks made the process hard to stomach, particularly since, under financial pressure, redefining the relation between Government and private initiative took place at high speed and left little room for compromise. Here I also try to indicate that reducing the cost of Rehabilitation was not the only role-playing factor. In the period refered to, the Government was reviewing the scope of its tasks. The size of the Governmental apparatus and the way government should operate in society, were under debate. For the Rehabilitation this meant that the Department of Justice took control of rehabilitation policy. One example of the pressurised alteration of the Rehabilitation's objectives was that service rendering ceased to be the primary aim of operational principle. Initially, this worsened the relationship between Government and Rehabilitation. The Ministerially required adjustment of the Rehabilitation's aims brought up sentiments that were rooted in the discussion about the Rehabilitation's identity. In this respect the reorganisation also marked the end of a period, now that in the early eighties the discussion about the Rehabilitation's identity finally appeared to be settled. The improved relations between the Government and the Rehabilitation were in my opinion at least partly due to changes in the Penal Code, which made the implementation of criminal jurisdiction much more accessible to the Rehabilitation's activities. The Dutch Federation of Rehabilitation Agencies (Nederlandse Federatie van Reclasseringsinstellingen, NFR), founded in 1986, served as an intermediary between the Department and nineteen autonomous Rehabilitation Foundations. This brought along a new problem because, particularly the larger organisations were not prepared to give up part of their autonomy to a coordinating organisation. In 1992, the disfunctioning of the NFR led to the latest reorganisation, eliminating the inadequacies of the rehabilitation organisation and clarifying the relation between the Government and the Rehabilitation.
AB - This study deals with the historical development of the relationship between the Dutch Government and the private after-care and rehabilitation organisations from 1823 until today. The first chapter covers the period that starts with the foundation of The Dutch Fellowship for Moral Reformation of Prisoners (Het Nederlandsch Genootschap tot Zedelijke Verbetering der Gevangenen, hereafter referred to as 'the Fellow-ship') in 1823, and ends with the introduction of the new Penal Code in 1886. The foundation of the Fellowship reflects the social and political climate of the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The Central Government played only a limited role in public life. Social care was primarily the responsibilty of private initiative and local authorities, who, throughout the nineteenth century were often one and the same people. This applied also to branch committees of the Fellowship and prison boards. Faith in the possibility of moral edification of the population in general and of the justitiable in particular, was a legacy of the 'Age of reason'. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century the Central Government gave the Fellowship more or less carte blanche. In particular, the education of detainees became increasingly the responsibility of private initiative. As the Government became more and more convinced of the usefulness of the aims that the Fellowship pursued, its work became less discretionary. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, when the discussion over the introduction of solitary confinement was taking place, the Department of Justice and the Fellowship shared the same ideals. However, when it proved politically impossible to introduce solitary confinement on a large scale, the views of the Government and of the Fellowship gradually began to diverge. This divergence was increased as the Government became more interested in progressive systems of detention, whereas the Fellowship remained faithful to the principle of solitary confinement. Another factor that put a strain on the relations between the Fellowship and the Department was that from the middle of the nineteenth century, at the same time that solitary confinement was introduced, the Central Government wanted to centralize the control of the prison system. The independence of the prison boards and the Fellowships' role in the prison system were reduced. By introducing experiments with solitary confinement, the Department of Justice had shown its interest in realizing other penitentiary aims than retaliation, aims that would also benefit from education, which was increasingly considered the State's duty. The Fellowship initially welcomed the Department's readiness to let the State bear the considerable costs of education, although it had great difficulty in giving up control of penitentiary policy. For the Fellowship all that remained, apart from keeping an eye on Governmental policy, was the care of the prisoners after their discharge. In the second chapter an outline is sketched of the social, political and penal changes that took place around the turn of the century, between 1886 and 1910. It was a transitional period in several ways. At this time a fundamental change took place in the governments' relationship to the Rehabilitation. Three factors were instrumental to this change. Firstly, opinions were changing as to the extent of the role of Central Government. Due to socio-economic changes, Central Government had to intervene more firmly in the social sphere while political shifts that emerged out of the electoral reform led the Government into an unusual relationship with private initiative. The Government confined itself to imposing general rules while most of the actual work was left to private organisations. Almost at the same time both the objectives and the means of the Penal Code were about to change. Solitary confinement had proved to be an ineffective answer to recidivism. Gradually the Penal Code began to reflect a new vision of punishment, which replaced the 'classic' nineteenth century point of view. Thus, the position of the Rehabilitation in relation to criminal jurisdiction changed. The task of Rehabilitation was now better adjusted to the Government's requirements. Both the Government and the Fellowship acknowledged that the Rehabilitation could play a meaningful role in the reduction of recidivism. Finally, a shift in the means and methods of the Fellowship became apparent. After a period in which it had no other choice than trying to influence the Government's policy, a return to practical action occurred from the middle of the 1880s onwards. The revival of activities that took place around the turn of the century increased expenses. The Fellowships' agricultural colony and the maintenance of a Central Office for Information and Employment could hardly be supported from its own financial means. The Department of Justice was willing to provide some financial back-up, by which it also gave a sign of its' approval of the Rehabilitation work. In spite of the objections that existed within the Fellowship against the Rehabilitation Regulations, an agreement was reached with the Department. From this we may conclude that it became apparent that Government involvement in the Rehabilitation would have a benefitial influence on its activities. The fact that the first Rehabilitation Regulations were partly analogous to the Child Protection Acts, also concerning their implementing orders, indicates that their constitutive ideas were similar. In the matter of rehabilitation the Government thus felt a similar need to regulate what was gradually coming to be considered a task of the Administration. The third chapter deals with the effects of the subsidization of Rehabilitation work, in the period leading up to World War Two. The image of Rehabilitation was drastically changed by the statutory decision to subsidize its activities. The aims of Rehabilitation Regulations of 1910 to further develop the Rehabilitation were partly realised before the Second World War. As a result of the subsidy scheme the opportunities for charitable organizations to play an active role in Rehabilitation increased. However, the State's intention to involve various private associations in Rehabilitation, brought along its own problems. These problems were increased by the economic situation during the interbellum period. As a considerable number of private associations became involved in Rehabilitation work, the need for a coordinating organisation soon developed. In 1913 the Association of Rehabilitation Societies (the Vereeniging van Reclasserings Instellingen, VvRI) was founded. As a result of denominational segregation, forces were joined in ideological sociopolitical groups. A conglomerate of Catholic and Protestant charitable societies united their activities in, respectively, the Roman Catholic Rehabilitation Society (the RKRV, 1917) and the Protestant Rehabilitation Society (the PCRV, 1929). Owing to the denominational organizations' claims to autonomy, the extent of the VvRI's mandate remained severely restricted, so that its' importance as a coordinating body particularly in relation to the Government remained small. As a result of the economic crisis, the organisational structure of the Rehabilitation became subject to criticism. The desparate financial situation confronted Rehabilitation with the high costs of ideological differentiation. The call for a more efficient organisation was increasing. The Fellowship in particular had tried hard to prevent the denominational segregation of the Rehabilitation and had often campaigned for a more efficient organisational structure. In secret consultations between the leaders of the segregated organisations, and the Fellowship, a new organisational structure was set up to overcome the disadvantages of ideological segregation on a district level by means of more powerful rehabilitation councils. The statutory status that the councils recieved in the 1947 Rehabilitation Regulations, was a legacy from the period of occupation that, nonetheless suited the post-war conception of the role of the Government in society. The basis of the post-war organisation of the Rehabilitation was nevertheless founded in the 1930s. In those years, A more authoritative Governmental regulation was proposed that fell in line with a general wish for the Government to take vigorous action during the time of crisis. The integration of rehabilitation into criminal jurisdiction characterized the period between 1910 and 1945. Despite denominational segregation, it was clear that the Government tried to expand its influence on private rehabilitation organisations in several ways. These efforts were understandable, since the involvement of the Rehabilitation in criminal jurisdiction had increased after the introduction of the possibility of sentence on probation, and the increased possibility of release on parole in 1915. With the introduction of pre-sentence reports made by the Rehabilitation organisations for the information of the court, the Rehabilitation was given a useful instrument with which it could increase its influence at several stages of a criminal procedure. The integration of the Rehabilitation within criminal jurisdiction developed successfully, in accordance to the wishes of both the Rehabilitation and the Government. Chapter four centres around the reorganisation and further development of the Rehabilitation after the Second World War. During the period between 1945 and 1968 two stages can be distinguished in the relationship between the Department and the Rehabilitation. Directly after the war, the Government played a leading role. In collaboration with various organisations the Department tried to improve the quality of the rehabilitation by stimulating expansion and professionalization. Throughout the reconstruction period, a consensus prevailed between the Department and the organisations. As a result of the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1947, the Rehabilitation became subject to unprecedented enlargement and professionalization. The ties between the Government and the private initiatives were strengthened. The first ten years after the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1947, were characterized by the deployment of officials in guidance and after-care. Gradually, the voluntary workers disappeared from the picture, while a change took place in the decision-making capacities of the managers and the implementing personnel. The workers acquired greater authority. The organisations strove for expansion by reducing the number of divisions. The Department stimulated the influx of paid workers, the promotion of expertise, and the scaling up of the rehabilitation work. The organisations accepted the Government's authority, whether directly or via the public rehabilitation councils. In the following period, starting at the end of the fifties when the professional development had reached its peak, the Rehabilitation gradually began to question the authoritative role of the Government. From that moment on, the relationship between the Department and the private rehabilitation organisations came under increasing pressure. The professional development was a necessary condition for the discussion about the position of the Rehabilitation in relation to criminal jurisdiction and the Department. This discussion had three major aspects. Firstly, new ideas about rehabilitation work developed. Social workers aimed at operating as much as possible according to their own professional insight. In short, they needed a relationship with their clients that was based upon trust, which was difficult to combine with the judicial tasks of the rehabilitation organisations. As a result, a re-evaluation became nescessary to consider the position of rehabilitation work within the whole of criminal jurisdiction. Another point of vital importance was that the initial individual-psychological orientation of the social scientists was exchanged for a more sociological perspective, whereby society itself becomes subject to critical analysis. As a result, the aims of the rehabilitation work were extended beyond the more confined goals of the Department. The Department endeavoured to keep the expansion within reasonable limits. Secondly, the changing of society as a whole had repercussions on the Rehabilitation. The fact that probation officers were educated at colleges for social work contributed to the Rehabilitation's receptiveness to the ideals of the sixties, bringing with it a critical attitude towards authoritative institutions. This led to the need for professional autonomy, at a time when the initial arguments in favour of the private character of the Rehabilitation had lost their validity. The private character of the Rehabilitation had to be redefined, now that the idea of the 'sovereignty of private circles' was finally abandoned for a more professional attitude towards the task of Rehabilitation. Besides the three conditional aspects of the professional development, a high workload and a deteriorating relationship between informative and after-care services, served as concrete starting points for debate. Chapter five examines the impulses that led to a fusion of the Rehabilitation organisations. I describe the short, but eventful period between 1968 and 1976 as a phase in which a definite swing from an ideologically inspired rehabilitation towards a professional service took place. The new orientation of the Rehabilitation was consolidated along with numerous discussions. Guidance to discharged prisoners, and servitude to criminal jurisdiction were progressively looked upon as mutually exclusive categories. Because the guidance of the justitiable came first, a polarised relationship with criminal jurisdiction was created. The 'professional revolution' also had its influence on the relationship between the Department and the private rehabilitation organisations. Between 1965 and 1969 it seemed that the Department gave in to the organisations, at least as far as having to acknowledge their professional identity is concerned. The opposition of the organisations to the Governmental interference dating from the end of the fifties, finally bore fruit. This can be seen in the Rehabilitation Regulations of 1970. The rehabilitation councils lost their guiding and controlling position; the responsibility of the organisations to public councils was exchanged for a system of internal communications. Because no new administrative system took its' place, the Department gradually assumed a non-directive attitude towards the organisations. The end of the chapter five shows how the professional basis of the Rehabilitation again led to the scaling up of the rehabilitation organisation. The Departments' call for closer cooperation and efficiency in 1968, was interpreted by the implementing workers as an encouragement towards fusion. The probation officers who were at the basis of the organisation deliberately acted as catalysts for this process. By pressing for a fusion they brought about the supremacy of the professional over the ideological attitude towards the rehabilitation work. At the time of the formulation of the objectives of the General Rehabilitation Society (the Algemene Reclasseringsvereniging, ARV), the most that the founders could achieve was a compromise between the rendering of services to Criminal Justice and support to the justitiable. Given the internal disagreements over the objectives of Rehabilitation it would not have been wise to include an explicit stand in the statutes. Within the Rehabilitation a new approach was sought from which the foundations of the work and the relationship with the Government had to be redefined. By 1976, when the ARV was founded, this reverification was nowhere near completion. The period discussed in chapter six covers 1976 to 1982, when the attitude of the Department changed again. Although it refrained from interfering in the implementation, its interest in planning and management was increased. The discussion around the position of the Rehabilitation with regard to criminal jurisdiction exercised the minds of many, even after the fusion. The Rehabilitation looked upon itself as a welfare organisation, operating on jurisdictional grounds. Instead of attempting to decrease the tension that was thus created, it elevated this point of view to its field of activity. The Rehabilitation wished to express its public welfare values at a certain distance from criminal jurisdiction. Initially, the Department did not participate in the discussion about the Rehabilitation's identity. However, during the late seventies it was the Department of Justice that accelerated the discussion. At the same time that the ARV completed its internal structure, a jurisdictional change of climate took place which left its marks on the Rehabilitation's tasks. An increase in criminality caused a capacity problem within the Penitential system. The Rehabilitation was responsible, in part, for the solution. The Department wanted the Rehabilitation to be clear about its readiness to be involved in experiments with alternative sanctions. Not only were the Rehabilitation's job responsibilities expanded for the first time since 1915, its attitude towards criminal jurisdiction also changed. As a result the idea gained ground that neither Criminal Law nor guidance were capable of providing an adequate answer to the increase in criminality. By acknowledging the relative value of both guidance and Penal Law, the tension that was raised after the discussion on aims, finally seemed to diminish in the early eighties. This was the first step towards solving the discrepancy between 'punishment' and 'care' that had grown within the Rehabilitation. Another important aspect of the period between 1976 and 1982 was the recurring division between decision-making and implementation within the Rehabilitation, which was supposed to be settled partly through the foundation of the ARV. There was an increasing inclination to include policy-making within the work structure in such a way that the top of the working organisation could set up the outlines, while the regional organisations would be free to fill in their alloted policy-making space. Finally, it was important that a turning point was reached in the policy of the Department of Justice towards the Rehabilitation. After a decade of 'unprecedented freedom', the Rehabilitation was confronted with a Department that showed an increasing interest in policy-making. The Department tried to guide the management of the Rehabilitation according to its own wishes. In this respect the non-directive attitude of the Department came to an end in the last quarter of the 1970s, even so it remained unwilling to trouble itself with the implementation. In the final chapter, I handle the period between 1982 and 1995. The reorganisation carried out between 1983 and 1986 was not so much a break with the previous developments, more an acceleration of them, partly dictated by the cutbacks considered nescessary. Natural developments were thus speeded up considerably, and sometimes even forced. Coupling the Rehabilitation's restructuring with severe cutbacks made the process hard to stomach, particularly since, under financial pressure, redefining the relation between Government and private initiative took place at high speed and left little room for compromise. Here I also try to indicate that reducing the cost of Rehabilitation was not the only role-playing factor. In the period refered to, the Government was reviewing the scope of its tasks. The size of the Governmental apparatus and the way government should operate in society, were under debate. For the Rehabilitation this meant that the Department of Justice took control of rehabilitation policy. One example of the pressurised alteration of the Rehabilitation's objectives was that service rendering ceased to be the primary aim of operational principle. Initially, this worsened the relationship between Government and Rehabilitation. The Ministerially required adjustment of the Rehabilitation's aims brought up sentiments that were rooted in the discussion about the Rehabilitation's identity. In this respect the reorganisation also marked the end of a period, now that in the early eighties the discussion about the Rehabilitation's identity finally appeared to be settled. The improved relations between the Government and the Rehabilitation were in my opinion at least partly due to changes in the Penal Code, which made the implementation of criminal jurisdiction much more accessible to the Rehabilitation's activities. The Dutch Federation of Rehabilitation Agencies (Nederlandse Federatie van Reclasseringsinstellingen, NFR), founded in 1986, served as an intermediary between the Department and nineteen autonomous Rehabilitation Foundations. This brought along a new problem because, particularly the larger organisations were not prepared to give up part of their autonomy to a coordinating organisation. In 1992, the disfunctioning of the NFR led to the latest reorganisation, eliminating the inadequacies of the rehabilitation organisation and clarifying the relation between the Government and the Rehabilitation.
M3 - Thesis fully internal (DIV)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College & Hospital, Sirajgonj (KYAMC) is for the tomorrow's health care leaders. Its aim is to create leadership in areas of medical science, education, research, patient care for participation, development and promotion of Healthy community. KYAMC provides a structure to enhance and facilitate clinical care, teaching, research and community service to the student.
The teaching hospital of the college Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College & Hospital (KYAMC) is registered under Society Act of Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Enayetpur is the holy birthplace of the great Saint of this sub-continent Hazrat Khwaja Yunus Ali (R). Millions of followers visit Enayetpur, Sirajgonj, throughout the year to pay their respect. Enayetpur is situated 147 Kms from Capital Dhaka and 22.5 Kms from Jamuna Bridge linking Northern and Southern part of the country.
First year MBBS Admission for Indian students (except J&K) in Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College contact Smile Education Consultancy. Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College prospectus and brochures available in Kolkata office.
KYAMCH represents the physicians who care for patients at the Center.
KYAMC has full-time faculty at the college campus. It intends to provide a structure to enhance and facilitate clinical care, teaching, research and community service for the student of the KYAMC.
KYAMC Trustee Board defines standards of care and sets strategy for the clinical practices, defines new program opportunities. To facilitate the delivery of health care services in a quality, cost-effective, coordinated and patient-friendly manner. To facilitate KYAMC's ability to maintain its academic and clinical programs in support of the faculty and medical college, it intends to provide a unified structure for clinical departments to participate in programs for clinical services by facilitating through Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College and Hospital the teaching hospital of the college. To develop and enter into alliances and affiliations with other internationally reputed medical schools and health care providers to support the mission of the KYAMCH and its medical college. To contribute in improving health conditions, increase access to effective, affordable world class standard health care service Ensure compliance with regulatory agency requirements and quality standards.
Above all to materialize the wish of the great Saint Hazrat Khwaja Yunus Ali (R).
• To educate the students to enhance the clinical services in order set quality standards for clinical practices to deliver to the satisfaction of the patient.
• Optimize primary and specialty health care in community.
• Shape students to adapt with future science and health care development.
• To train in inter disciplinary method to enhance their skill and acquire broad base knowledge as to how the medical science is flourishing.
• To create leadership in areas of medical science, education, research, patient care for participation, development and promotion of Healthy community.
• To motivate for prioritizing the services community outreach.
Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College (KYAMC) campus in particular is the only private Medical College where the Teaching hospital, college premise, student hostels and teachers and doctor's residence are located in the same complex.
The college offers five year MBBS course and one year internship training at the concerned hospital as approved by Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council leading to MBBS degree of the university to Rajshahi. The academic session will be from July to June each year. During the five years course the University of Rajshahi will conduct three professional examinations namely.
All students passing the final Prof. MBBS Examination shall be required to undergo one year compulsory internship training as prescribed by Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council. The training is mainly designed to develop necessary skills and attitudes to deal with common health problems generally encountered in hospital and in community. This is structured and strictly supervised. The trainees will be entitled to appropriate subsistence allowance/honorarium. The internship training is compulsory and a prerequisite for obtaining registration with Bangladesh Medical & Dental Council.
Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College (KYAMC) offers 5 years MBBS course as approved by BMDC leading to MBBS Professional degree of the University of Rajshahi . The college has been accorded permission by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of the Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh and affiliated with the University of Rajshahi .
Modern and secured separate hostel with world-class accommodation facilities for both male and female students is available inside the college campus this is the only private institution that hostel for students, faculties and teaching hospital is in the same complex.
This is the only private institution of college and university level that big play grounds are available for sports like hockey, cricket, football, tennis etc.
A good canteen is located within the college campus. A snack/pastry shop and a Fair Price Medicine shop are also available in the same arena.


text:
Enviroment (3)
Home / Child Abuse / Crime / News / World / Former Pro Wrestler Admits Killing Child Molester When He Was 13
Former Pro Wrestler Admits Killing Child Molester When He Was 13
Child Abuse, Crime, News, World
A former WWE profesional wrestler has admitted he killed his pedophile abuser when he was 13-years-old and dumped his body in the Chattahoochie River — and liberals and LGBT media outlets are outraged, accusing him of homophobia.
Former WWE superstar and Shawn Michaels "The Rockers" Tag Team partner Marty Jannetty shocked the wrestling community with a now-deleted Facebook post where he admits to killing a drug dealer that tried to molest him when he was 13-years-old.
Following the revelation, liberals in the LGBT media ran outraged headlines accusing Jannetty of simply killing a "gay man" and omitting parts of his post that explained the child abuse.
TMZ recovered a now-deleted Facebook post where the former superstar confessed to killing a man who used to sell him marijuana, triggering a police investigation into the claims.
NationalFile report: Jannetty, 60, wrote about how a bowling alley employee attempted to abuse him at thirteen years old, putting the year of the incident around 1973.
The former WWE star begins the post by saying: "I never told no one this, even my brother Geno… cause Geno would've killed him, and I didn't want my brother gone, hell he'd only recently came home from Viet Nam [sic]."
"I was 13, working at Victory Lanes bowling alley buying weed from a f** that worked there … and he put his hands on me," Jannetty explained. "He dragged me around the back of the building … you already know what he was gonna try to do."
"That was the very first time I made a man disappear. They never found him. They shoulda looked in the Chattahoochie River," Jannetty added.
The post became subject of investigation, although, given the length of time to elapse between the alleged murder and now, police have graded the investigation as a low priority.
Since the post became a media sensation, the LGBT media ran headlines such as 'Ex-WWE star Marty Jannetty confesses to murdering a gay man,' 'Former WWE Wrestler Confesses To Murdering A Gay Man,' 'Former WWE pro-wrestler confesses to murdering a gay man,' and 'Former WWE wrestler confesses to murdering a gay man.'
The 60 year old said when he was 13 an adult man tried to molest him and he killed the man and dumped his body.
LGBT media ⤵
Former WWE wrestler confesses to murdering a gay manhttps://t.co/34eWwZqsvo
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) August 7, 2020
The former Tag Team champion, who was kayfabe superkicked in the face to break up his partnership with Shawn Michaels–giving Michaels one of the most successful singles career in history–has a history of making politically incorrect remarks on social media.
Source By Baxter Dmitry
Former Pro Wrestler Admits Killing Child Molester When He Was 13 Reviewed by Net-News on August 12, 2020 Rating: 5
Fact Check: YES The Rothschild Family, Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, Anthony Fauci, Christine Grady, Tedros Adhanom, National Governors Association, CDC, WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are going on trial
Brazil overtakes Russia to become No 2 in world for virus cases
Navy Makes Important Narco Submarine Capture
Find an article by date
Find an article by date Nov 24 (6) Jun 22 (9) Jun 08 (15) May 26 (7) May 20 (9) May 14 (9) May 10 (5) May 03 (8) Apr 27 (6) Apr 24 (6) Apr 20 (3) Apr 19 (5) Apr 18 (3) Apr 15 (9) Apr 13 (7) Apr 11 (9) Apr 08 (8) Apr 05 (8) Apr 02 (11) Apr 01 (8) Mar 29 (9) Mar 25 (8) Mar 22 (8) Mar 20 (7) Mar 17 (10) Mar 15 (7) Mar 12 (10) Mar 10 (8) Mar 08 (7) Mar 06 (8) Mar 04 (17) Mar 02 (12) Mar 01 (9) Feb 26 (8) Feb 25 (17) Feb 24 (10) Feb 23 (11) Feb 21 (9) Feb 20 (12) Feb 18 (13) Feb 16 (15) Feb 14 (12) Feb 13 (6) Feb 10 (20) Feb 07 (15) Feb 05 (11) Feb 03 (10) Feb 02 (10) Feb 01 (9) Jan 31 (11) Jan 28 (10) Jan 27 (9) Jan 25 (8) Jan 24 (9) Jan 23 (7) Jan 21 (7) Jan 20 (12) Jan 18 (9) Jan 17 (11) Jan 16 (9) Jan 13 (13) Jan 12 (5) Jan 11 (8) Jan 10 (8) Jan 09 (13) Jan 08 (7) Jan 07 (10) Jan 06 (6) Jan 04 (14) Jan 02 (6) Jan 01 (5) Dec 30 (12) Dec 29 (12) Dec 26 (10) Dec 25 (8) Dec 23 (11) Dec 22 (5) Dec 21 (11) Dec 20 (5) Dec 19 (8) Dec 18 (9) Dec 17 (8) Dec 16 (7) Dec 15 (7) Dec 14 (5) Dec 13 (10) Dec 12 (8) Dec 11 (11) Dec 10 (9) Dec 09 (8) Dec 08 (3) Dec 07 (9) Dec 06 (7) Dec 05 (8) Dec 04 (10) Dec 03 (6) Dec 02 (9) Dec 01 (4) Nov 30 (6) Nov 29 (5) Nov 28 (8) Nov 27 (5) Nov 26 (8) Nov 25 (9) Nov 24 (4) Nov 23 (7) Nov 22 (7) Nov 21 (5) Nov 19 (7) Nov 18 (7) Nov 16 (6) Nov 15 (11) Nov 13 (9) Nov 12 (9) Nov 11 (6) Nov 09 (5) Nov 08 (6) Nov 07 (6) Nov 05 (5) Nov 04 (5) Oct 31 (6) Oct 30 (5) Oct 29 (6) Oct 28 (5) Oct 25 (7) Oct 24 (7) Oct 22 (8) Oct 20 (4) Oct 19 (4) Oct 18 (2) Oct 16 (3) Oct 13 (7) Oct 12 (5) Oct 08 (6) Oct 07 (1) Oct 05 (5) Oct 03 (5) Oct 01 (3) Sep 27 (2) Sep 23 (3) Sep 21 (6) Sep 20 (3) Sep 18 (3) Sep 16 (2) Sep 15 (2) Sep 13 (3) Sep 12 (4) Sep 11 (4) Sep 10 (7) Sep 09 (5) Sep 07 (8) Sep 06 (3) Sep 05 (7) Sep 04 (10) Sep 03 (6) Sep 02 (9) Sep 01 (3) Aug 31 (9) Aug 30 (6) Aug 29 (10) Aug 28 (10) Aug 27 (7) Aug 26 (8) Aug 25 (10) Aug 24 (7) Aug 23 (8) Aug 22 (10) Aug 21 (8) Aug 20 (8) Aug 19 (8) Aug 18 (7) Aug 17 (7) Aug 15 (7) Aug 14 (8) Aug 13 (9) Aug 12 (7) Aug 11 (10) Aug 10 (9) Aug 09 (9) Aug 08 (9) Aug 07 (9) Aug 06 (10) Aug 05 (10) Aug 04 (9) Aug 03 (8) Aug 02 (10) Aug 01 (12) Jul 31 (8) Jul 30 (9) Jul 29 (8) Jul 28 (10) Jul 27 (9) Jul 26 (7) Jul 25 (10) Jul 24 (10) Jul 23 (10) Jul 22 (10) Jul 21 (12) Jul 20 (12) Jul 19 (12) Jul 18 (10) Jul 17 (10) Jul 16 (10) Jul 15 (9) Jul 14 (8) Jul 13 (8) Jul 12 (10) Jul 11 (10) Jul 10 (11) Jul 09 (10) Jul 08 (8) Jul 07 (9) Jul 06 (7) Jul 05 (9) Jul 04 (8) Jul 03 (10) Jul 02 (7) Jul 01 (7) Jun 30 (7) Jun 29 (9) Jun 28 (8) Jun 27 (9) Jun 26 (7) Jun 25 (9) Jun 24 (8) Jun 23 (7) Jun 22 (7) Jun 21 (7) Jun 20 (7) Jun 19 (7) Jun 18 (7) Jun 17 (9) Jun 16 (11) Jun 15 (8) Jun 14 (9) Jun 13 (5) Jun 11 (9) Jun 10 (7) Jun 09 (7) Jun 08 (8) Jun 06 (7) Jun 05 (10) Jun 04 (10) Jun 03 (10) Jun 02 (10) Jun 01 (6) May 31 (5) May 30 (9) May 29 (12) May 28 (10) May 27 (11) May 26 (11) May 25 (12) May 24 (10) May 23 (15) May 22 (12) May 21 (12) May 20 (11) May 19 (15) May 18 (10) May 17 (13) May 16 (15) May 15 (13) May 14 (16) May 13 (16) May 12 (17) May 11 (17) May 10 (16) May 09 (17) May 08 (16) May 07 (17) May 06 (20) May 05 (16) May 04 (16) May 03 (20) May 02 (22) May 01 (14) Apr 30 (16) Apr 29 (18) Apr 28 (17) Apr 27 (18) Apr 26 (18) Apr 25 (20) Apr 24 (23) Apr 23 (22) Apr 22 (24) Apr 21 (18) Apr 20 (20) Apr 19 (21) Apr 18 (1) Apr 17 (25) Apr 16 (13) Apr 15 (11) Apr 14 (6) Apr 13 (8) Apr 12 (4) Apr 11 (10) Apr 10 (10) Apr 09 (9) Apr 08 (7)
Created By ThemeXpose | Copy Blogger Themes


This Jilbab is composed of two parts: a long cape very wide which guarantees a maximum of flexibility at the level of the arm ans a flared skirt including an elastic and a cord that allow you to adjust it. It has been crafted with a high quality fabrics said "Caviary" very lightweight and opaque which do not rumpled. In addition this extra wide hence its nickname "butterfly jilbab" which ensures ease of movement.


ELDERLY and disabled people fear a fire would spell disaster if their tower block lift is not repaired.
Residents of Joseph Groome Towers in Ellesmere Port are angry their main elevator has been broken for a fortnight, and can't be repaired until the end of March.
The Block 3 residents – many of them disabled and housebound – fear they could become trapped if a fire ever broke out there.
The borough council apologises for the delay, caused by having to order hard-to-get parts.
It is also to carry out an inspection of the lift to try and minimise any problems in the future.
A man living in the block contacted the Pioneer to tell us that the lift breaking down was a regular occurrence for them.
He said: "The lift here has been down for a fortnight or so. It keeps breaking down every year.
"It is so antique the council has to keep sending off for parts. But they will not put a new lift in.
"What if there was a fire here? It would be a disaster if we couldn't get out.
"This is a special needs block where you have to be aged over 50 to live here.
Peter Jones, the council's housing repairs and maintenance unit manager, said: "The current problem with the lift in Block 3 has been identified.
"An order has now been issued for the replacement of obsolete parts.
"Unfortunately, due to problems in securing the materials, work cannot start onsite until the week beginning March 24.
He added: "We have also asked a specialist engineering company to carry out a detailed inspection of the lifts in Joseph Groome Towers.


The heat from a suspicious Bronx inferno early Thursday caused a stairwell to buckle and collapse - sending a firefighter and the man he was trying to save plunging two stories.
The firefighter and elderly man crashed hard onto the building's concrete lobby, with flaming debris landing on top of them.
But, remarkably, both only suffered minor injuries from the terrifying fall.
"It's a miracle [the firefighter] fell two flights, with all the heavy stuff they wear, plus someone falling on top of you," said FDNY Division 7 Deputy Chief Kevin Scanlon, "and you come out with minor injuries.
"He's pretty lucky," said Scanlon.
The firefighter, who broke a wrist in the fall, was taken to St. Barnabas Hospital in stable condition.
The other victim, a homeless man neighbors knew just as "Pop," was taken to Bronx Lebanon Hospital in critical condition due to burns he suffered in the blaze, which investigators believe was intentionally set.
Pop, an elderly man often spotted in the Morris Heights neighborhood, was sleeping on a discarded couch left in the third-floor hallway of the Sedgwick Ave. building, residents said.
FDNY investigators believe someone set the couch ablaze at while Pop was sleeping on it at 4 a.m.
"I saw the old man out here, he was all burnt up," said resident Charlene Brown, 24. "He looked terrible. I can't believe someone did this, it's so inhumane."
The flames ignited the paint in the hallway, sending the flames racing up the stairs and spreading the blaze throughout several floors, Scanlon said.
"It ignited the paint [and] it super-heated the marble treads in the stairwell," said Scanlon. "The [victims] fell through the landing."
Firefighters quickly dug Pop and the injured firefighter out from the debris and raced them to waiting ambulances.
No one else was injured in the blaze, but several residents said the building's smoke alarms failed to go off - and that they barely escaped with their lives.
"We were sleeping but the dog started barking like really loud and she wouldn't stop barking until I can down to see," said Brandon Curley, 17, praising his 2-year-old pit bull and Jack Russell mix, Munchie. "We had to climb down the fire escape and if it weren't for her, I don't know how we would have gotten out."
"But she's still up there with her three new puppies," said Curley, staring at the charred building. "They're only two weeks old. They're too young to survive all that smoke."
The cause of the fire remains under investigations, FDNY officials said.
The American Red Cross is assisting many of the families forced out of their homes because of the fires. It said 74 people asked for help after the Sedgwick Ave. fire. Another 16 people were receiving help after the Courtlandt Ave. blaze.