Detainees, staff, and health care services in immigration detention centres: a descriptive comparison of detention systems in Sweden and in the Benelux countries

Abstract

BackgroundImmigration detention has been shown to negatively affect the health and well-being of detainees. The aim of the study was to describe and compare policies and practices that could affect the health and well-being of immigrant detainees in the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) to those in Sweden.DesignThis was a case study. Data were collected in two phases using a questionnaire developed particularly for this study. In the first phase, authorities in the Benelux countries responded to the questionnaire via email. During the second phase, a research team visited detention centres in the Benelux countries to observe and further explore, strengthening findings through triangulation. Data on Swedish detention centres were collected in previous studies.ResultsCompared to the Benelux countries, Sweden has limited health care provision available in the detention centres. Swedish detention centres did not have mental health care professionals working at the centres and had fewer restrictions within the centres with regard to access to mobile phone, internet, and various recreational activities. Compared to Sweden, the detention centres in the Benelux countries have more staff categories providing services to the detainees that are provided with relevant and timely on-the-job training. All the countries, except Belgium, provide subsistence allowances to detainees.ConclusionDespite the Common European Asylum System framework, differences exist among the four European Union member states in providing services to immigrant detainees. This study highlights these differences, thereby providing a window on how these diverse approaches may serve as a learning tool for improving services offered to immigrant detainees. In Sweden, the health care available to detainees and training and recruitment of staff should be improved, while the Benelux countries should strive to reduce restrictions within detention centres.

Contemporary Migrant Health Experience and Unique Health Care Needs in European Prisons and Immigration Detention Settings

“…The majority of the literature referred to the UK (n=7) (Arshad et al, 2018;Dexter & Katona, 2018;Hollis, 2019;Sen et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2014;Smith, 2017;Till et al, 2019). Of the eight remaining: three were based in Sweden (Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015a, 2015bPuthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015) one in Spain (Ruiz-García & Castillo-Algarra, 2014); one in Portugal (Santos et al, 2018); one at a Greek-Turkish border (Eonomopoulou et al, 2017); one in the Benelux countries Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016) and one referred to the EU as a whole (Mulgrew, 2016). There were five qualitative studies using interviews (Arshad et al, 2018;Hollis, 2019;Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015a, 2015bRuiz-García & Castillo-Algarra, 2014); three review articles (Mulgrew, 2016;Sen et al, 2014;Till et al, 2019); two case studies (Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016;Santos et al, 2018); one feasibility study (Sen et al, 2018); one prospective study (Eonomopoulou et al, 2017); one correspondence (Smith, 2017); one cross-sectional study using a questionnaire (Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015) and one editorial (Dexter & Katona, 2018).…”

“…Included records represented different populations with either direct experience as a detained migrant or as staff: foreign female prisoners (Ruiz-García & Castillo-Algarra, 2014); detainees in immigration removal centres (IRC) (Dexter & Katona, 2018;Hollis, 2019;Sen et al, 2018;Smith, 2017); pregnant migrant women in detention centres (Arshad et al, 2018); detention staff (Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015a); FNPs (Mulgrew, 2016;Sen et al, 2014;Till et al, 2019); undocumented migrants in detention centre (Santos et al, 2018); newly arrived migrants in holding centres (Eonomopoulou et al, 2017); immigrant detainees, mostly refused asylum seekers, in immigration detention centres (Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015b;Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016;Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015) and staff and immigrant detainees in detention centre (Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016). Records were also diverse in terms of combinations of perspectives and focus; with four addressing experiences, conditions and health care access (Arshad et al, 2018;Hollis, 2019;Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015b;Ruiz-García & Castillo-Algarra, 2014); five focusing on conditions and health care access (Dexter & Katona, 2018;Eonomopoulou et al, 2017;Santos et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2014;Till et al, 2019); five focusing solely on health care access (Mulgrew, 2016;Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016;Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015;Sen et al, 2018;Smith, 2017); and one solely on experiences (Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015a). The diversity of included records and subsequent findings illustrate how the vas...…”

“…High levels of mental health problems experienced amongst migrants were reported in thirteen studies (Arshad et al, 2018;Dexter & Katona, 2018;Eonomopoulou et al, 2017;Hollis, 2019;Mulgrew, 2016;Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015a;Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015;Ruiz-García & Castillo-Algarra, 2014;Santos et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2014;Smith, 2017;Till et al, 2019). Ten clearly acknowledged the severity of mental health needs of migrants, which were often undiagnosed prior to intake/committal, and unmet thereafter (Dexter & Katona, 2018;Eonomopoulou et al, 2017;Mulgrew, 2016;Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016;Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015;Santos et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2014;Smith, 2017;Till et al, 2019). In six papers, unique mental health challenges relating to PTSD, depression, anxiety and other mental health problems resulting from past experiences were reported (Eonomopoulou et al, 2017;Hollis, 2019;Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015;Santos et al, 2018;Sen et al, 2014;Till et al, 2019).…”

“…Migrants' experiences were predominantly characterised by lack of sufficient communication and clarity around their situation, professional negligence of their health and wellbeing, and challenges accessing suitable health care all contributing to isolation, poor mental health and the exacerbation of mental health conditions (Arshad et al, 2018;Dexter & Katona, 2018;Eonomopoulou et al, 2017;Hollis, 2019;Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015b;Puthoopparambil & Bjerneld, 2016;Puthoopparambil, Bjerneld, et al, 2015;Santos et al, 2018;Smith, 2017;Till et al, 2019). Only one record explored the experiences of migrant inmates and detainees indirectly by reporting on staff perspectives (Puthoopparambil, Ahlberg, et al, 2015a).. Across three qualitative studies, it was observed that migrants generally entered prison/immigration detention centres in good physical health (Arshad et al, 2018;Hollis, 2019;Ruiz-García & Castillo-Algarra, 2014).…”

Across the Sloping Meadow Floor: An Empirical Analysis of Preremoval Detention of Noncitizens

“…While in recent years pre‐removal detention is mostly executed in specially designated facilities and not in penitentiary ones, it still crucially involves the sanctioning of ones' fundamental right for the freedom of movement. As such, the legal decision to detain a potential deportable non‐citizen calls for much prudence, not least because of the very serious social, economic and medical consequences for detainees and potentially also for their families (Puthoopparambil and Bjerneld ; Robjant et al ; Storm and Engberg ).…”