1. Strategic Targeting of Recidivism through Evaluation And Monitoring (STREAM) Rob Canton

2. STREAM: Four Workstreams 1.Evaluation 2.Introducing and Evaluating Skills for Effective Engagement and Development (SEED) 3.Literature Review of 1:1 supervision 4.Impact of European Probation Rules

3. 1: Evaluation (Jean Hine, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK) Follows STARR – some impressive probation work I many countries, but rarely rigorously evaluated Evaluation can show that projects and agencies are achieving their aims and highlight how they may be able to improve their practice Examples of experience and good practice will be gathered and compiled as a web-based ‘tool kit’ of evaluation methods which could be used to develop policy and practice across Europe Not just reconviction studies

4. 2: SEED (Joanna Shapland, University of Sheffield, UK and Sue Rex, NOMS) Skills for Effective Engagement and Development (SEED) To enhance practitioners’ skills in engaging with offenders (based on UK Offender Engagement Model) How can the model be adapted for use in Romania and can the approach developed by Sheffield University to evaluate the model be applied in another country?

5. 3: Literature Review 1:1 (Ioan Durnescu, University of Bucharest) 1:1 work remains the most common form of supervision But much research has looked at group programmes (e.g. STARR) Review is looking also at probation more generally Recognises that probation systems may (probably do) have several objectives which do not always fit easily together Ioan is keen to hear about literature!

6. 4: Impact of European Probation Rules (Rob Canton, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK) Are the Rules being used? How – and what difference do they make to policy and practice? What evidence of this? If not, what are the reasons for this: can any obstacles be identified … and overcome?

7. 4: Impact of European Probation Rules (Rob Canton, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK) To ascertain if EPR have influenced policy and practice in member states To discover how EPR have been used To identify any difficulties that have hindered implementation To determine the strengths and the shortcomings of EPR in light of experiences of implementation

8. European Probation Rules Part I: Scope, application, definitions and basic principles Part II: Organisation and staff Part III: Accountability and relations with other agencies Parts IV - VI: Probation work (tasks and responsibilities), the processes of supervision, work with victims of crime Part VII: Complaint procedures, inspection and monitoring Part VIII: Research, evaluation, work with the media and the public Glossary Memorandum / Commentary

9. What impact might the European Probation Rules have? A resource to countries developing new probation agencies A benchmark against which agencies can assess their own policies and practices A basis for legal challenge by clients

10. New agencies Inspiration Detailed guidance Literature and ‘transfer’ often attends to ‘what works’, but context is everything

11. Benchmark An agency may find that it conforms with EPR in most or all respects – or even go beyond these standards An agency may find that some of its practices do not conform and decide to change them in line with EPR An agency may find that some of its practices do not conform and decide that EPR should change

12. “It is possible to assume too readily that a set of moral principles simply needs to be ‘applied’. The result can be the mechanical application of some form of utilitarianism, or list of precepts about justice, autonomy, benevolence and so on. When this happens, the direction of thought is all one way. The principles are taken for granted, or "derived" in a perfunctory way, and practical conclusions are deduced from them. What is missing is the sense of two-way interaction. The principles themselves may need modifying if their practical conclusions are too Procrustean, if they require us to ignore or deny things we find we care about when faced with the practical dilemmas.”

13. Basis for legal challenge Community sanctions involve requirements and restrictions May impinge on family rights, privacy, liberty (threats of ‘preventive justice’) When the European Court is asked to rule it can draw on the Recommendations of the Council Not legally binding, but authoritative (‘soft law’) The Prison Rules have been used in this way

14. Workstream 4: Process Skype not questionnaire Workstream 1 and 4 together Using known contacts Identifying ‘door openers’, then … (Skype) Interviews with:  Policy makers (e.g. Ministry of Justice)  Probation agency staff (managers? Practitioners?)  Academics Researcher for each country (Workstreams 1 and 4)

15. Challenges Language Question schedule Questions like:  ‘Have the EPR influenced practice in your country?)’ and / or  (e.g.) ‘Is consent required for community penalties?’, ‘Is there a complaints procedure?’ Rules-in-general or specific rules?

16. Impact or compliance – A Council of Europe View “I think that both the impact of the Rules is important to measure as well as the compliance with these. The impact is important as it allows us to know whether legislative or structural changes have been initiated after their adoption … and in line with their standards and whether they have been included in the training of staff. Compliance is important as it shows whether practices and mentalities change over time because of being influenced by the Rules or because society or legislation change.”

17. Ruritania High prison population Fairly new probation service Probation tradition not yet well established Keen to be European and to welcome policy guidance from Brussels and Strasbourg Used rules to develop organisation, policy and practice

18. Narnia Well-established probation system Not necessarily very “European” Not much interested in Council of Europe Recommendations in this area But in fact quite a high level of compliance

19. “Why do the UK and Denmark complain most about the imposition of EU law but then turn out to be the countries which have the best records of obedience? Conversely, why does Italy, whose public opinion is most in favour of Europe, have such a high rate of non compliance?” (David Nelken)

20. Where next? To use the findings of the research to improve implementation and effective organisational practice To provide recommendations to assist European-wide Probation agencies to further develop their organisations and services as the basis for working more effectively with offenders To scope the possibility of developing a 'centre of excellence' for European probation