Romania’s Prisons at a Turning Point: Reform, Reintegration, and the Road to 2030
_______________________________________________________________
In recent years, the system has been shaped as much by practical constraints, aging buildings, limited space, and staffing pressuresas by growing expectations that detention conditions, healthcare, and oversight must be consistent with European norms.
This brief sets out how the system is organised today, what the National Administration of Penitentiaries (NAP) is prioritising, and where the most consequential reforms are taking shape. It looks at the foundational issues of accommodation and infrastructure, but also at the less visible work of digitalisation, professionalisation, and building programmes that support rehabilitation and readiness for release.
The focus is deliberately practical. Rather than an abstract policy paper, it highlights the initiatives currently underway, the measurable developments referenced in official materials, and the delivery risks that typically determine whether reforms translate into daily reality inside facilities.
Romania’s prison system is under pressure and in transition. With overcrowding, staffing gaps, and court-driven standards to meet, the country’s National Administration of Penitentiaries is racing to modernise facilities, expand capacity, and strengthen rehabilitation, while keeping public safety at the centre of the agenda. At the same time, there is a growing recognition that long-term outcomes depend on what happens both during detention and after release, including continuity of support, employment pathways, and coordinated community involvement.
What follows is a clear look at how the system works today, where investment and policy are headed, and which reforms could shape Romanian corrections through 2030.
Could you provide a brief overview of Romania’s correctional system today, including its key priorities and current areas of reform or development?
Romania’s correctional system is centrally coordinated by the National Administration of Penitentiaries (NAP), under the Ministry of Justice. A core priority today is aligning the supervision and treatment of people in custody with European standards and the rule of law, while using time in detention to help individuals prepare for life after release.
In practical terms, the system includes four types of detention facilities: 34 penitentiaries (including one for women), 2 educational centres, 2 detention centres, and 6 penitentiary hospitals.
The most visible reform and development efforts are currently tied to infrastructure and compliance-related action planning. These include relocating 11 penitentiary units outside urban areas (approved through Government memoranda) and developing a new 2026–2030 action plan linked to the Rezmiveș pilot judgment and the Bragadireanu group of cases. The planned direction is to carry forward unfinished investments and alternative capacity-expansion measures, with an estimate—by 2030—of 7,878 new accommodation places and 707 modernised places, provided that the minimum required funding is allocated fully, predictably, and on time. Alongside this, the system is also pursuing new construction, modernisation to meet the minimum standard of 4 m² per person, and operational digitalisation (including electronic monitoring and digitisation of custodial files) to improve efficiency and transparency.
What initiatives or programmes are in place to support rehabilitation, education, vocational training, and wellbeing of people in custody, and how are their outcomes assessed?
Rehabilitation, education, vocational training, and wellbeing are supported through a national offer of reintegration activities and programmes. At present, that offer includes 119 programmes in total: 72 in education (including dedicated programmes for minors/young people and for women), 30 in psychological assistance (specific, general, and therapeutic-community type), and 12 in social assistance, plus 5 types of social treatment groups. The offer is updated nationally and then adapted locally in each facility based on the needs identified among people in custody.
On the education side, people in custody can access primary, lower secondary, upper secondary, and university education through partnerships with accredited institutions, under the legal framework. There are also non-formal activities such as pre-literacy and literacy, personal development, civic education, health education, and financial education.
Vocational training is delivered through qualification and re-qualification courses aligned to labour market needs, as well as certification of skills gained outside formal pathways. There is also support for identifying employment opportunities after release, including participation in job fair events.
Wellbeing is addressed through psychological and social assistance. Social work focuses on strengthening social skills, mediating relationships with family and the community, developing parenting skills and decision-making in criminogenic risk situations, building financial independence skills, supporting behavioural rehabilitation, promoting compassion and tolerance, preventing domestic violence, preparing for release, and reducing reoffending risk. Psychological assistance aims to provide qualified support for psychological difficulties, develop pro-social attitudes and problem-solving skills, and reinforce behaviours that support reintegration.
In terms of outcomes, the sources indicate several assessment methods: tracking participation and completion rates, periodic specialist evaluations, and reviewing progress against individualised intervention plans. These are complemented by internal reporting and external evaluations to ensure effectiveness, transparency, and continuous improvement. A further indicator referenced is the reduction of the recidivism rate among the custodial population from around 46% to under 37% over the last three years (the lowest level recorded in the past 15 years).
How does the National Administration of Penitentiaries approach reintegration and post-release support to help reduce reoffending and support community safety?
Reintegration: The materials describe reintegration as the central aim of the Romanian penitentiary system: facilitating social reintegration in order to reduce recidivism. This starts during detention, where the penitentiary institution is expected to ensure access to education, vocational training, psychosocial support, and work-related activities.
At the same time, the sources emphasise that reducing recidivism cannot be achieved by the justice sector alone. It requires broader societal involvement and sustained investment in partnerships, proximity interventions, training, and measures that support long-term sustainability.
A key development highlighted is the shift toward continuity of support after detention. An evaluation conducted at the beginning of 2025 underlined the importance of moving from a model focused mainly on detention-time interventions to an integrated social-action model that ensures post-detention support. In 2025, under the Ministry of Justice, the National Strategy for the Prevention of Recidivism 2025–2029 and its Action Plan were developed and approved (Government Decision no. 447/2025). The strategy targets a set of primary, secondary, and tertiary measures, seeks to reduce risk factors and strengthen protective factors, and is designed as an interdisciplinary, multi-level approach, including stronger community involvement.
In concrete terms, NAP’s stated direction includes facilitating post-detention assistance through community engagement and supporting practical steps such as identifying employment opportunities after release (including job fairs), alongside social assistance work that helps with family/community links and release preparation.
What challenges and opportunities do you see shaping the future of corrections in Romania over the next 5–10 years?
Looking ahead 5–10 years, the sources point to a mix of structural pressures and real opportunities for modernisation. On the challenge side, overcrowding is described as the most pressing issue, directly linked to the ongoing need to modernise custodial spaces (both detention areas and staff working areas). Another major constraint is staff shortages, especially in the operational sector. Funding is also presented as a decisive factor: infrastructure targets are explicitly dependent on full, predictable, and timely allocation of the minimum necessary budget, and limitations have already caused delays through financial recalibration, extended timelines, and prioritisation of advanced-stage projects to avoid contractual blockages and complete critical investments.
On the opportunity side, the sources highlight several levers for progress: expanding capacity (including new construction and relocation of units outside urban areas), modernising older facilities to meet the 4 m² per person standard, and moving further into digitalisation—by integrating procedures into digital systems, digitising custodial files, and introducing electronic monitoring. They also point to inter-institutional collaborations (domestic and international), continued professionalization, and a broader move toward practices that support efficiency and sustainability. Overall, the picture is of a gradual transformation shaped by both internal and external drivers.
From your perspective, what are the main benefits of being part of the ICPA network, and why would you encourage others to join?
NAP’s membership in ICPA is highly valuable because it connects the Romanian penitentiary system to international expertise and best practices. It creates practical opportunities to learn from other jurisdictions, exchange experience and information, and identify workable solutions to common challenges.
Another concrete benefit is staff development: membership facilitates access to conferences, seminars, courses, working groups, and specialised resources. The sources also link professional improvement to raising service standards and increasing visibility, which can help attract additional resources for system development.
ICPA is also portrayed as a platform for building international cooperation—opening doors to partnerships and joint projects in areas such as social reintegration, prevention of radicalisation, and risk management.
The argument for encouraging others to join is straightforward in the texts: it is not just formal affiliation, but an active space for cooperation and professional influence. The sources also stress that institutional isolation leads to stagnation, and that in a globalised context—where crime can be trans-border—correctional and reintegration approaches should also be connected and aligned with international trends and standards.