Our Athens conference is ongoing and much is being learned from the insights of our guests (especially Prof Stef Decoene) and rom our own working groups. In due course, I’ll post the PowerPoints so those that unable to attend can nonetheless get a sense of our discussions.
But, as often happens, in the informal discussions around the fringes of the conference, one interesting practical idea has already emerged. With the Action now nearing the end of its third year, some of us have identified a need to hear and amplify the voices of researchers who might be relatively new to the field, or early in their research careers, or who haven’t been involved (yet) in the books and special issues we have already generated. In fact, this idea also links to a similar recognition from our Barcelona Training School of the need to try to hear more from a new generation of scholars.
So, I’m writing this post to encourage anyone who might be considered an early stage researcher (which means up to eight years post PhD) or indeed anyone at any career stage who feels that they have something new or different to say about offender supervision in Europe to get in touch. We don’t yet have a clear agenda as to what might come of this — perhaps a book, perhaps a journal special issue, perhaps a series of blog posts — but we’d like to hear your views and your ideas. The only rule I’d suggest is that we extend this invitation only to those who have not already contributed to one of our publications… which of course rules me out!
So, Aline Bauwens of the Free University of Brussels has kindly agreed to coordinate this work, so please comment here or send Aline an email at aline.bauwens@vub.ac.be
This post comes from Jake Phillips of Sheffield Hallam University…
From 23rd to 26th March 2015 the Department of Law and Criminology at Sheffield Hallam University hosted its first annual Social Justice Week. One of the events that took place was an extended seminar on how institutions can support the process of desistance and recovery. We heard from several commissioners of drug services about how the recovery movement (which bears many similarities to the ‘desistance movement’ in terms of its aims and focus on the service user over and above predetermined outputs) has manifested in policy and practice. Alongside this seminar some of the photos that have been generated via the Supervisible and Picturing Probation projects were exhibited. The seminar itself focused on ways in which policy can be devised and services can be commissioned in a way which meets the needs of service users. In the context of these policy focused discussions, the photos provided a useful reminder that we are dealing with real people who have their own unique experiences and views on supervision and the process of desistance.
Moreover, the photos generated by the Picturing Probation project reminded us that whilst good policy and commissioning can support desistance, policy rarely translates neatly into practice. For example, the photos made it clear that the places in which supervision occurs can affect the ways in which offenders both perceive and receive their period of supervision and this is crucial for future policy development. Moreover, the Supervisible photos reminded us that the people who find themselves under supervision have lives outside the probation office and that these are often hugely different environments to those in which practitioners work.
It was great to see the photos from the two different projects side by side for the first time. The most striking observation that we made was that the Supervisible photos were emotive and organic, portraying a sense of a lived experience. This was in stark contrast to the more structured and non-organic photos in the Picturing Probation series. This may, of course, be a product of the different methodologies adopted by the two projects (Picturing Probation was, by necessity, more directive in terms of what photos participants took) but it will be interesting to see whether these immediate differences persist as we generate more photos from around Europe. These are, of course, snapshot impressions which need more structured scrutiny but there seemed to be an immediate benefit in terms of thinking about offender supervision in this way.
The technique itself clearly engaged participants in the seminar and the photos presented an opportunity to put probation on the map and communicate its contradictions and positives to the public and other academics. They certainly made an impact with attendees at the seminar, with comments serving to reinforce the value of utilising visual methods to provide an additional lens through which to examine both the practice and experience of probation supervision:
“The photographic images presented in Supervisible provide powerful insight into the lived experience of probation supervision across Europe. For me, the images both individually and collectively intimate a variety of emotions that underpin the complex stories of those ‘on probation’.”
“I had not previously come across photo-voice techniques within my discipline, but one would imagine that given their ability to convey experiences of ‘crime and justice’ such creative visual methods are likely to become more widespread in criminological research. I look forward to seeing how this project develops. (Seminar attendee)”
Returning to the seminar itself and its relevance for the Offender Supervision in Europe network, we heard from several commissioners of recovery services (both local and national) who made strong arguments in favour of localised commissioning, which brings the needs of local community in line with the services offered, and the need to be flexible and adaptable to changes in the local community. Moreover, we heard how this approach has been used to great effect in the world of recovery. There seemed to be a great disparity between how commissioning works in the field of recovery and how it is working now in the context of the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda in England and Wales where commissioning has been conducted at the national level with 10 year contracts being signed with private providers.
On a related note, the drug services commissioners were clearly great believers in the power of relationships between service users and professionals to empower service users during their recovery. This immediately raises questions about the proposals by the newly privatised CRCs (that provide services to low and medium risk offenders) to reduce their workforce by 30% and replace professionals with biometric kiosks.
The seminar was not wholly depressing in terms of how the criminal justice system can support desistance. We heard from several policymakers and academics about projects which do just that. However, there were regular reminders that the ‘best’ way to go about supporting desistance is through flexible, individualised and supportive environments for both service users and staff. Whether that becomes possible in the world of probation in England and Wales post-TR remains to be seen.
Here are some thoughts on release, retribution and risk, stimulated by my participation over the last few days in a symposium on ‘Prisoner Resettlement in Europe’ at the University of Greifswald by our very own Ineke Pruin…
Early release schemes cause controversy in many jurisdictions. Critics often suggest that they are an affront to justice (and to victims) and that the bring the criminal justice system into disrepute because they mean that the sentences passed by the court — typically expressed in terms of years of imprisonment — are very rarely served as stated. For example, in Scotland, someone serving a 12 year sentence of imprisonment might be released on parole at 6 years and will be released on a non-parole licence no later than 8 years. In such circumstances, early release violates the need for ‘truth in sentencing’ or so it is argued.
How then might early release be justified? The problem is perhaps most acute for retributivists, since they justify punishment retrospectively — with regard to the severity of the crime — and that retrospective judgment of deserts can’t be changed by anything that happens during imprisonment, for example to reduce risk. If 12 years is the proportionate, parsimonious and just penalty — all things considered — then 12 years it should be.
But what things should be considered in determining proportionality? Typically, in deliberations about sentencing, we allow a number of factors to diminish the proportionate severity of the sanction. Some of these factors relate to the degree of culpability for the criminal act (for example, maturity or provocation or mental distress), some serve somehow to mitigate the gravity of the offence (for example, evidence of remorse). But whatever the proper ambit of such considerations, they are applied at the time of the sentence, so we might argue again that imprisonment cannot change them. Nothing here should alter the sentence once it is passed.
Among the considerations that might alter the effect of the sentence post-hoc, we might consider the types of circumstances that invoke pleas for mercy, clemency or compassion (for example, terminal illness on the part of the prisoner). But again, these are exceptional grounds of early release — detached from a retributive logic — and they are not the same as the sorts of more ‘routine’ early release systems that are our concern here.
Nonetheless, I argue that early release (for non-exceptional reasons) can be justified through retributive theory. My reasoning is this: the calculation of the proportionate, parsimonious and just penalty must take account of the foreseeable but unintended collateral consequences of imprisonment. Although retributivism looks back at the offence, it must (and it does) also look forward at the severity of the penalty. Without looking forward in this sense, I suggest, retibutivism can’t make an accurate judgment of proportionality.
If we accept — as is now commonplace — that the punishment of imprisonment should rest solely in the deprivation of liberty (and not in the harsh conditions of confinement), then surely some account must be taken of other de facto sufferings that arise from imprisonment. To neglect these sufferings, it seems to me, is to violate the principle of nulla poena sine lege (no punishment beyond the law). The precise nature of these sufferings will vary in each and every case but they will commonly include (but are by no means limited to) loss of employment and earnings, loss of (public) housing, damage to personal relationships and the stigma of conviction and of having been imprisoned. Criminological and sociological research suggests that these sufferings are real and enduring, even if none of them is pronounced as a part of the court imposed sanction.
From a retributivist perspective therefore, early release might be justified as a sentence discount that compensates the prisoner for these unintended consequences of imprisonment; it is a mechanism not for violating or traducing proportionality but rather for securing it.
The argument might be extended further to suggest a resettlement duty falls on the state (and on civil society) to take all possible steps to reintegrate the released prisoner to a situation as close as possible to his or her social position and standing before imprisonment, so as to minimize these unintended and illegitimate sufferings. On this logic, the less that a state is prepared to sanction early release, the more it must to do to support and guarantee reintegration.
Notably this duty creates an imperative to support the released prisoner but not to supervise (or seek to constrain or control) him or her. If post-release supervision is considered necessary, this would perhaps need to be justified with respect to public safety. Post-release supervision would then be seen as a preventive measure and not a criminal sanction. In other words, it would fall outside the ambit of retributivism.
However, there is an alternative available to retributivists. This is to pass proportionate and parsimonious sentences that explicitly combine imprisonment and supervision. The determination of how much of that sentence should be served in prison, and of what conditions should apply to the period of supervision in the community, might fall to the sentencing court (of first instance), to an implementation court, or to a parole board. But whatever the mechanism, the decision-makers would, in deciding the timing and conditions of release, have to balance both the duty to resettle and the duty to protect the public… but, crucially, it would have to do so within (and not beyond) the envelope of proportionality fixed in a calculus of duration of liberty deprivation and restriction. And duration would need to be balanced with a parallel calculus of the precise conditions of liberty deprivation and restriction (through imprisonment and supervision). To borrow Ben Crewe’s terms, we would need to think about proportionality not just in relation to the length of the sentence, but also in relation to its ‘depth, weight and tightness’.
I have compiled a number of reflections from trainees who atttended our recent Training School. They make for interesting and encouraging reading. I think the trainers also felt that we learned a lot, not just about each others’ work and our own, but about each other!
“For me, the training school was a very interesting, inspiring and enjoyable event in every sense. I mostly appreciated the intimate setting (small groups), the personal approach and the constructive way of giving and receiving ‘friendly feedback’ during the pannel sessions. This approach made me feel comfortable to share thoughts and step out of my comfort zone.
I also very much appreciated the career advise session on the last day; it was very helpful, comforting and motivating to hear about the experiences of ‘senior researchers’. I am very thankful for being able to join this training school and meet all these interesting researchers and I left Barcelona with a buzzing head, full of new insights, inspiration and warm feelings. Thank you very much for this great opportunity.” (Anonymous Trainee)
“My experience of the COST Training School surpassed my expectations, as there were numerous ways in which I was able to benefit greatly from the three-day event.
Firstly, although I am an early-career researcher, I enjoyed the opportunity to deliver a presentation of my PhD thesis to date and receive friendly yet constructive feedback similar to that of a viva. This experience has afforded me the ability to address any potential issues that were highlighted by both the Trainers and Trainees prior to my actual viva in the near future, and to obtain a greater sense of what to anticipate upon that day when I have to defend my thesis.
Secondly, at stages over the three days I was afforded the opportunity to listen to the Trainers describe the research they are currently conducting for COST upon offender supervision in the E.U. This enabled me to gain an understanding of the methodological and ethical issues they encountered, and how they were able to overcome these problems to conduct their research. Therefore, not only was I able to be illuminated by new research methodologies, notably visual research methods, I also gained insight in how best to avoid potential political and ethical issues that I myself may encounter.
Finally, the COST Training School allowed me to meet and speak with my fellow Trainees, especially from other jurisdictions. I was able to share knowledge and personal experiences with them which will have a positive influence upon my PhD thesis and future work.” (Wayne Campbell, Liverpool John Moores University).
“The training school was a good event and I am pleased that I was able to attend. I thought that it was well run – in an atmosphere that was a blend of real work and good fun. I came away with a number of specific learning points, including:
“The training school was a good event and I am pleased that I was able to attend. I thought that it was well run – in an atmosphere that was a blend of real work and good fun. I came away with a number of specific learning points, including:
1) The feedback that I received on my presentation was encouraging. I used the time to talk about the way I am trying to analyse and interpret interview data – and the comments from trainers and students were positive and helpful. I am also following up some ideas from other people’s presentations – for example, ideas about probation and punishment.
2) It was good to hear about the various strands of the COST project – in more detail than is possible in the short presentations at ESC conferences. I would like a greater involvement in COST over the coming
18 months – but am still not sure it will be possible to achieve this.
I know there are issues about UK dominance of the work.
3) I thought that the trainers were generous with their time and ideas – both in formal sessions and during breaks and mealtimes. I was reminded again of the importance of colleagues and teamwork in academia.
What would I have liked to have been different? I already knew the background to the COST action – so some of the input covered familiar ground. But I realise that I’ve had previous opportunities to attend conferences and talk to people. And I would have been happy for my presentation to have been subject to more stringent assessment – but I realise this would probably have required me to submit it in advance and certainly would have made extra work for the trainers.” (Jane Dominey, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge).
“Attending the COST training school provided a fantastic opportunity for me to receive feedback on my research from leading experts in my field. There isn’t much of a focus on offender supervision at my current university so being able to meet with colleagues who share similar research interests to me was hugely beneficial. The plenary session with the trainers on career development strategies was, for me, one of the most useful (and stress relieving) sessions as, not only did it give me the opportunity to ask questions about how to survive in the world of academia, it also made me realise that the pressures that I am currently experiencing as a final year PhD student, had been experienced by everyone and are not as insurmountable as they seem. I returned home from the school with renewed confidence and enthusiasm for my field.” (Chris Kay, University of Manchester)
“My experience during the training school could perhaps be more adequately reflected on three different levels: educational, interpersonal and personal. The Training School was a unique experience to learn from the fascinating studies, methodologies and research findings presented. As well as a significant opportunity to interact with and gain insights form established researchers and respected academics with diverse perspectives and approaches on the field. Additionally, for those of us working on European research programs, gaining inside to the reality of other countries is always interesting and extremely valuable in order to achieve a better understanding of our own work.
What distinguishes, however, the Cost Training School from other similar event was its very positive, friendly and cooperative nature, in an otherwise rather competitive and antagonistic field. Meeting and most importantly connecting with other young as well as established researchers reminds us and helps realize that we all share the same problems, difficulties and challenges in our work.
Finally, I think that the most rewarding and important aspect was the opportunity to receive valuable feedback and focus on our own research, as opposed to all the diverse and different obligations and projects that consume the better part of our working time. I felt inspired from all the diverse speeches and perspectives presented during those 3 days and got many fresh ideas for my research. Most importantly, I left Barcelona with renewed passion in my own PhD research”. (Alexandra Koufouli, Athens)
“Some reflections on the Training school experience:
I have spent three days at the COST on Offender Supervision training school, presenting my research and receiving priceless feedback. I have learned new methodological developments and received great pieces of advice on academic life, while having a great time. Here I will share some anecdotes and reflections to illustrate my experience.
Friendly critics: If this would have been twitter #friendlycritics would have been trending. People didn’t just say it, they meant it. I was quite nervous because it was my first presentation in English, but everyone was so supportive – both about the English issue, and also about the research. Kristel Beyens was so kind not just to give me valuable observations on my work, but also to point out the good things about it (as the other trainers and my early staged peers did). I am so glad that my “debut” was in such a friendly environment.
Humility: On day three, trainees had to “peer review” the trainers’ presentations from the day before. We took that duty very seriously and prepared in groups our friendly critiques, even though it was unclear to us how this could help. Firstly, we learned a lot looking more deeply at methodology, and how originality, rigour and significance are measured. Secondly, it was amazing to watch trainers diligently taking notes while group delegates were giving their reviews! That made me think that the only way to achieve excellence is always being open to critics and new approaches to your research.
Renewal: It can sound quite obvious that I learnt a lot… It is true, but it is also true that my own research and motivation were renewed. During all three days, my mind was on fire… I think our researchers minds are quite self centred: every time I was enjoying a presentation or, in general, listening to someone’s research and learning from them, my mind went immediately to my own research issues with new approaches to cope with them.
Collegiality: This isn’t something new: “scholars get each other” and after few minutes, different cultural backgrounds meant nothing considering our shared passions and pains! Lunches, coffee breaks and a fancy dinner were moments of cheerful comradeship hard to explain between people who had met just few hours before. Collegiality was also quite evident in the career development panels, where experienced researchers gave us an insight into their careers and lives, sharing things they struggled with at our stage and things that still worried them were raised in an almost therapeutic session. Another example is this small reflection, which was kindly edited by two of my newest friends: Nicola Edwards and Jean Anne Kennedy.
Good work: Everybody gave their best, trainers and trainees, the COST team and specially Ester Blay, who ensured we had the perfect conditions to have this amazing experience.” (Consuelo Murillo, PhD student at Pompeu Fabra University)
“My experience at Cost Action on Offender Supervision Training School far exceeded my best expectations: it was really inspiring in several ways.
First, because it allowed me to get to know and talk on several occasions with people whose work I admire and that were very open to get to know about my interests and field of research. In this regard, I want to sincerely acknowledge all the trainers due to the openness, interest and encouragement they all showed. I also want to highlight that trainers’ feedback and the friendly criticism on my presentation was great, and it will be of great value to incorporate those reflections on my research. This training school was also a great opportunity to get to know other early-stage researchers that share interests and experiences with me. We ended up creating a really good network to engage in further collaboration.
Secondly, being able to gain insight into the current research that is being conducted within the COST Action on Offender Supervision fostered my creative thinking and promoted the input of a variety of ideas that I might now apply in subsequent research projects focused on offender supervision. It was very interesting to observe, for example, how the use of visual methods in research can be so fruitful. Regarding conceptual tools, since offender supervision is a recent research area for me, during the Training School I was able to learn a lot, to understand the main trends in this field and apprehend which challenges and difficulties are associated with this kind of research. Furthermore, the presentations of both trainees and trainers were also really useful for understand how different methodologies might be used in this area, comprising what are the main advantages and disadvantages of each one of them.
Thirdly, in the last day, being offered the possibility to reflect and give some feedback on what is being done in this COST Action was an incredible experience in terms of critical thinking. While thinking together on the work that is being done, trainees were able to reflect more clearly about our own work. The presentation of the “friendly criticism” and debate that followed also created a sharing environment that is very good because it really showed how senior researchers are open to our suggestions and reflections, which creates a lot of confidence to early-stage researchers.
Connected to this, finally, I also want to highlight that it was really inspiring to be able to hear from senior academics about their past and present challenges in their professional paths. The discussion opened to trainees’ questions was really a good way to get involved in themes that are usually not discussed in this type of events but that, in fact, very prominently affect our academic careers. For a researcher like me who is, at this stage, analyzing which should be my future steps to build a successful career in academia this was a wonderful opportunity to reflect.
To finish, I would also emphasize, how not being an English native speaker, I happily noticed how everyone involved – both trainers and trainees – proved so sympathetic to some expression’ difficulties, creating an environment where all, regardless of academic status or nationality, could openly participate.
Thank you for this opportunity!” (Rafaela Granja Goncalves, Minho University, Portugal)
“I found it was a great event and am really glad I went. It boosted my confidence in my abilities and in what I had learned in the past few weeks.
I wasn’t 100% sure my research (nor myself) would be in any way “on par” with others because I only started my studies in October 2014, and doing a PhD can be so isolating and so often (physically) lonesome.
Also, my interest had previously been focused on family, gender and child rights so this study was a slight side-step for me.
It was really useful to put the study in the wider context of offender supervision (in Europe), to learn about other approaches and methodologies and I’m sure that’ll be reflected in my thought process and how my studies develop.
Indeed, I’m finding that my thought process has already been informed by this event through either reinforcing what approach or research or thoughts I had before the event, or contributing towards structure or deign of any new or future approach I may take to this project.
This training was a real “turning point” and landed me smack into the epicentre of my own research! It’s like finally realising my own identity as a criminology researcher! I know who I am!!
I was also invigorated by meeting the trainers and other early stage researchers.
There is a lot to be said for supporting the “younger generation” (younger in studies or in career or in age) of researchers and indeed, in giving them a chance not only to present but to critically review current European research and contribute towards shaping it.
It was a real community and I hope to attend more COST events or indeed, consider hosting a PhD training school myself in later years. I look forward to being part of the (potential) post-grad movement of COST and look forward also to hearing more about it.
Logistically, it was well planned and executed. My only criticism would be to offer the daily programme times (if not the content) more in advance. I booked a Saturday flight nervous that I might miss something if I caught a Friday flight and knowing that it finished at 3pm on the final day would have better informed that decision I think. I hope also that COST would consider committing some small resources to making sure the early stage researchers can follow up after the event and potentially create a forum. Overall though, as a “conference junky” and having been to a lot of European and international events, this one will stick out as one of my favourites and the most successful. Thanks again!” (Jean Anne Kennedy, Ireland)
We are delighted to publish today the conference programme and registration details (for non-COST funded delegates) for our forthcoming conference in Athens on 17th and 18th April. The themes of compliance, enforcement and breach are critically important to the work of the Action — and all of its working groups. As well as exploring compliance theory, we’ll be examining these issues from the perspectives of each of the groups; that is, examining the supervisee’s experience of enforcement, how practitioners approach these challenges, and how decision-making processes operate in these key areas.
We have an excellent line-up of speakers — Prof Sir Anthony Bottoms, Dr Gwen Robinson and Prof Fergus McNeill will speak in the opening plenary, before each of the working groups takes the lead in subsequent sessions. Our closing plenary will include contributions from Dr Stef Decoene Prof Anthea Hucklesby. You can find further details of the programme and of how to register here: OSE Athens Conference flyer
Please share this widely.
Information about registration for members of the Action will be circulated shortly via the e-COST system.
Like the others who have reported below, the Experiencing Supervision working group also had a great meeting in Belfast, and we also want to pass on our thanks to Nicola Carr for being such an excellent host.
Our group spent the first day together, so that the two sub-groups could contribute to and comment on each others work. One group is working on the ‘Eurobarometer’ — seeking to develop a survey instrument about the experience of supervision that can be used in different jurisdictions — both to help explore those experiences within jurisdictions and to compare results across jurisdictions. The project is led by Ioan Durnescu at the University of Bucharest, though the leaders on this meeting were Jelena Djoric and Gabriel Oancea. Prior to the meeting colleagues in Croatia, Italy and Romania had piloted tested the first version of the instrument and so they were able to update us on the strengths and weaknesses of the tool. We spent some time together working through it, seeking to improve items, and struggling with some tough issues, especially whether to not to try to develop the instrument for use across all forms of supervision, or to limit it to one or two. For the moment, we are sticking with the more ambitious route (of trying to cover all forms of supervision), but are trying to organise the instrument in modules or pathways, so that it doesn’t ask irrelevant questions of respondents. On the second day, the subgroup met in order to develop plans to test version two of the survey in a larger number of countries — probably adding Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Serbia, England and Wales and the Netherlands to the existing three.
Our second group is working on the ‘Supervisible’ project. This is a ‘photovoice’ research project — seeking to collect and analyse images taken by supervises to represent their experiences of supervision; but it is also about directly addressing supervision’s invisibility in cultural terms. We hope to be able to curate an exhibition of the images at our final conference in Brussels on 10-11 March 2016. The project is led by Wendy Fitzgibbon at London Metropolitan University. Wendy was pleased to report that we have secured a small award from the Howard League for Penal Reform (in England and Wales) to cover the costs of a pilot in the UK (with me and Marguerite Schinkel handling the Scottish part of that). Both in England and in Scotland, ethical approval has been secured, and some complex access issues (in England) are being addressed. We are just about ready to start work with people with current or previous experience of supervision — and also with an art therapist (in England) and an artist (in Scotland). Progress had been more difficult to make in Germany, but colleagues from there and in Austria, England and Wales and Malta were able to make plans to try to extend the pilot to their countries.
We also had a lot of fun — and learned a lot (!) — by testing the process on ourselves. Basically, on the first day, we gave members of the working group about 45 minutes to go out and take one or two photos that represented the experience of supervision as they understand it. The image above is one of the photos that resulted. On the second day, the subgroup analysed the images we had taken before presenting them to the whole Action at the end of the meeting. We’d love to share more of them (and our analysis), but we don’t want to risk influencing the sorts of images that others who become involved in the project may take. Indeed, we found the whole process so fascinating that we are considering setting up a page on this blog and initiating a process via Twitter where anyone can post a picture and a caption, so that we can perhaps compare how people with different perspectives on supervision (practitioners, supervisees, judges, members of the general public, etc.) seek to represent it. So watch this space!
Overall, we had an excellent meeting, and left full of energy and ideas for the next stage of our work.
This post summarizes the progress made by the working group on decision making during the meeting we had in Belfast during the 23rd and 24th of October.
15 members of the decision making group made it to Belfast, and met in the Youth Action building, a very convenient and comfortable place for the COST meeting facilitated by our attentive host Nicola Carr. This meant that 12 jurisdictions were represented (Belgium, England, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Scotland Spain and Sweden). We have been working together for some time now and we are starting to know each others’ jurisdictions better. However, one always feels a sense of awe and excitement at being able to contrast the different legal, probation and parole cultures which make for rich and diverse European traditions.
In previous meetings we had decided to focus on decision making around breach because it is a situation which has not received much research attention and it is important in the three relevant decision making phases: pre-trial, sentencing and early release. Much work had been done in previous meetings discussing various available and workable methodologies in the different jurisdictions and finally deciding to explore the possibilities of vignette methodology for doing comparative research.
In order to do so, the group had previously created two common vignettes with John as a main character. We had one vignette with a 22 year-old unemployed John sentenced to community service and another with a slightly older John who had been released on parole. We had created various situations for John: John not attending work, John not attending an appointment with his supervisor, John getting a positive result in a drugs test, among others, and formulated various questions for the relevant decision makers about these.
So before we met in Belfast John had travelled to 12 jurisdictions and his situation had been presented by members of our group to judges, probation officers, immediate supervisors, parole board members and other parties involved in deciding his fate.
We had all done our homework before and we all brought to the meeting “process maps” with the relevant actors, norms, requirements and decisions, so we could all share an idea about how breach works in the different jurisdictions. And besides the maps, we had done pilots, most of us 3 or 4 interviews with the relevant decision makers using John’s community service and parole vignettes.
We used the first hours to present our findings and experiences using vignette methodology in the nine community service cases; after each two cases presented, we stopped for some discussion. Later on the same was done with the parole pilots in the five jurisdictions where it was tested.
Thanks to the great leading team made up of Miranda Boone and Niamh Maguire we managed to respect allotted time limits which allowed the group to hear presentations by all the members, clarify doubts and to engage in discussion.
As it was soon clear that we were going to work intensely, some members were kind enough to take advantage of one of the breaks and bring back wonderfully caloric pastries to keep us going during our passionate discussions.
The focus on previous meetings had been on methodology. In Belfast it was obvious that some more methodological discussion had to go on if we were to further our field work in the future, but results in the different jurisdictions were rich enough to start working on them.
Perhaps the main point around methodology was that vignettes had proved for most of us to be great conversation starters: they made decision makers talk and allowed researchers a good understanding of the decision making process, the roles of the actors involved and the criteria used, both at a formal and at an informal level. If we are to expand research beyond the pilots, however, it is clear that we shall have to revise the various situations we put John in, since not all made sense in all jurisdictions (eg. in Spain it is irrelevant if John arrives late to his work placement because he is taking his mother to hospital); we should add more information on context and we should revise the questions we posed, because some of them were too detailed and perhaps some of them were unnecessary.
Most of our discussion, however, went beyond methodology. We went through a social sciences equivalent to soul searching questioning, asking ourselves ‘what do we really want to know?’ and ‘what it is exactly we want to compare?’, ‘are our rich results comparable?’, ‘should we try to somehow quantify them to make them more so?’. It was clear that we had to make a decision on decision making, and this allowed us to clarify our research questions.
It is difficult to sum up all the points of discussion, but after some time it was clear that the results of the pilot were rich enough to show both expected variation and striking similarities amongst jurisdictions and amongst the two phases analyzed (sentencing: community service; and early release: parole). At the end of the last day, we managed to produce a list of the most relevant topics/research questions around which we could already compare our results. As well as a framework of analysis for comparison of our results we also agreed that we needed to develop a way to translate our qualitative data into quantitative data to allow for comparison across and within jurisdictions on a more abstract level. So for example, if we wanted to compare the level of discretion exercised at each stage of the decision-making process by different actors we could adopt a simple 3-point scale that might look like this: a lot, some, not at all. Applied across all the different measures we are interested in, this approach could help us to examine how breach works on a more abstract level and even allow us to develop models of the different types of breach systems in Europe. As Anders Persson and Alfredos Laurinavisius had already begun this work the group decided to delegate the job of further developing a way to quantify our data to them. Good luck Anders and Alfredos!
Lastly, I would like to highlight two very interesting themes that emerged in the pilots I conducted in Spain and that later emerged with even greater force in our discussions in Belfast. The first one is the observation that professionals at the various levels have developed the ability to circumvent sometimes rigid norms and often retain an important level of discretion. This level of discretion exists in spite of, or perhaps because of, the existence of protocols and guidelines. This raised an ethical question: what impact could this result have? If we say there is great room for discretion could this be used as an argument to justify the introduction of tougher legislation, aiming at restricting practitioners’ professional discretion?
Interestingly and in connection with the previous idea, the second theme was the existence of strong narratives of giving second chances, using Kristel Beyens’ expression, that emerged in many, if not most, of the jurisdictions. These narratives were based on the idea that if offenders had the right attitude, if they tried, they could fail, but their failures to comply could be interpreted as difficulties rather than as a cause for breach.
Many things were clear (again!) at the end of the meeting: that we were dealing with very exciting ideas we would like to keep working on, that it is possible to work hard and have fun at the same time and that ours is a very comfortable and fun group to work with, capable of orderly, and disorderly, but always fruitful and interesting discussion.
Ester Blay
Universitat Pompeu Fabra (with the careful editing of Miranda Boone and Niamh Maguire)
This post comes from Johan Boxstaens, one of the Belgian members of the Action. In it, he reflects on visiting Belfast, and on the work we did there at out recent meeting.
Belfast International Airport – Wednesday October 22th, 8PM
A special moment: thanks to the COST action I finally set foot on Northern-Irish soil for the first time. Although I’ve visited the nearby Republic of Ireland numerous times, for some reason I never made it to Belfast. If I think about it now, that is kind of strange. To me, Northern Ireland, the ‘Troubles’ and especially the city of Belfast have always had some kind of mythical aura thanks to music from U2 & Rory Gallagher, but especially because of Tom. When I was a teenager, Tom – who lived in Belfast – would come over to Belgium every year for the summer holidays. He used to stay at my best friend’s house and for a few years we spent most of the summer together. Every year, Tom had new stories on what was happening in the Conflict between Republicans and Loyalists in the whole of Northern-Ireland but especially in his hometown. He was the first to introduce me to the concept of ‘the Troubles’. Tom was a very passionate storyteller. Of course he only told us his side of the story: Tom was Catholic and to him all Protestants were the enemy. He spoke about the IRA, the UVF and how they fought their war on the streets of Belfast. At first I thought it was pretty exciting. In the small Belgian village where I grew up in nothing ever happened and, as a 14-year old, I was attracted to the romantic idea of ‘fighting for a just cause’. But all that changed abruptly on a sunny day in the summer of 1991…
My best friend Hans, Tom and myself were out riding our bikes when all of the sudden we heard a very loud bang. When I looked behind me to see what was going on, I only saw Hans on his bike. A few moments later, we realized that Tom had dived instinctively into a ditch on the side of the road as soon as he heard the noise. We found him shaking all over, terrified and not able to speak for several minutes. That’s when it hit me: there was (and still is) nothing ‘romantic’ about the Troubles at all…
West Belfast – Thursday October 23th, 5PM
After a productive meeting in our working group on practicing supervision and the three subgroups, Nicola Carr arranged a visit to West Belfast, an area of the city most profoundly affected by the Conflict. Sixteen years after the signing of the peace agreement, Coiste, an organization of former political prisoners is giving guided tours through what used to be their battlefield. More than twenty years after the ‘Tom-incident’, I hear both sides of the story: the first guide gives us the Republican insight on the Troubles, the second one tells us the Loyalist version. Different style, different story but also shared emotions, a shared ‘peace wall’ and similar memorial sites. When we step out of the bus for a short stop at an IRA memorial, kids who are playing in the street don’t greet us with the traditional request for sweets or a penny, but by shouting ‘peace, peace’… After a short tour, the bus takes us back to the city centre with plenty of things to think about. Back in my hotel room I struggle with an ambivalent feeling: apparently the Troubles as we knew them really are history, but on the other hand the physical environment of West Belfast (the gates, the ‘peace wall’, the cages to protect people’s houses, the murals, …) very much keeps the history alive even after sixteen years of peace. My goodness folks…
Belfast – Youth Action – October 24th, second day of the meeting
After the traditional dinner of the night before, the start of the second day of the meeting is a little slower than the first one. Before lunch, every working group works hard to finish what they planned to do and new plans for the future are made. In the plenary session after lunch every group presents the progress they’ve made. In my opinion, all presentations show that the COST action really begins to bear fruits: special issues of journals are being planned, methodological issues are being addressed, abstracts are written, tools are constructed, questions are starting to get answered and we could even applaud the fact that the first funds have been found to do (small scale) research. In the next weeks and months researchers and practitioners in the 22 participating jurisdictions will be very busy following up on what we achieved so far. So the COST-story continues and although it seems relatively far away and a lot of work has to be done in the meantime, I’m already looking forward to our next meeting and the conference in Athens in April 2015. I hope to see you all again there and then!
I published a post a couple of weeks ago from our colleagues at the Robina Institute on a developing US-based research programme on probation and parole not unlike our own. This seems to be the season for European-US dialogue on these issues.
My recent post here on ‘Probation: Myths, Realities and Challenges’ (the text of a speech I delivered at a conference of European Directors of Prisons and Probation that took place in Helsinki in June) has been re-published in the current edition of ‘Executive Exchange’. This is a US journal for probation and parole executives. The editors have given us permission to make the whole edition available here: Executive Exchange FALL 2014-final It’s an interesting read for the insight it gives into the issues that preoccupy senior managers in the USA.
I was also asked — along with Shadd Maruna (now Dean of Criminal Justice at Rugers University) — to write a short piece on penal reform for the newsletter of the International Division of the American Society of Criminology. As you’ll see, I took the opportunity to tell them a little about the COST Action, and in particular about the problems that supervision’s ‘invisibility’ creates for penal reform. I briefly describe the development of our ‘Supervisible’ pilot project as a response to this problem. You can find the very short paper here: McNeill and Maruna ASC Newsletter
If nothing else, these two approaches from across the Atlantic are encouraging in that they suggest growing interest in the subject matter of the Action. It may even be that the Action has helped get ‘ahead of the game’; certainly I’m looking forward to finding out more at our Belfast meeting tomorrow and Friday about how all of our innovative pilot projects are evolving. It seems as if we are getting down to the ‘real business’ of the Action: developing new conceptual and methodological approaches — but also already thinking about how we can co-produce and exchange new knowlwedge in creative and effective ways.
We are delighted to announce the programme for our first Training School (aimed at PhD and post-doctoral researchers up to 8 years post PhD) which takes place in Barcelona in January 2015. The event is free of charge and some support is available to cover travel and accommodation costs, but places are limited to please apply soon! You can find all the details here: COST Training School
This post comes from Gwen Robinson, co-leader of the Working Group on Practising Supervision…. In our first year, Working Group 3 (Practising Supervision) attracted members from 16 countries…
The Bratislava meeting was an opportunity for the Experiencing Supervision Working Group to review what has been done so far and look for a creative way of doing…
Last week in France I passed a beautiful but dilapidated old manor, in front of it a sign ‘Réhabilitation d’un chateau’, with the names of all those responsible:…
On Tuesday of this week, I faced my biggest public-speaking challenge for a while — I had agreed to go into my daughter’s school to speak to two…
COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020
Offender Supervision in Europe - COST Action IS1106
Recent Comments