We are Europe… more precisely we are the Working Group on European Policy and Practice of Offender Supervision but since this is a long name, somebody said that she preferred to think of our group as “Europe”. So I somehow felt directly affected when I heard last Friday that the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I was not sure, however, how to react. Obviously, I think Europe is interesting and important – but the EU? Peace? What about fortress Europe, the financial crisis, mass unemployment, increasing income inequalities? What about the rest of Europe? And the world? Is this Nobel Prize, as dubbed in a German blog, a “western prize for a western audience”; the EU an achievement “of white men for white men”? The Norwegian Nobel committee justified its decision by stating that “the union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” Our colleague Martine Herzog-Evans put it that way: “We older EU countries tend to ‘complain with ease’ as we say in French as we’ve comfortably enjoyed peace and hardly ever notice any more. We should remember and enjoy. This is a very important day.” True, and worth raising glasses… Nevertheless there is no reason to lean back; much has to be done to live up to this prize in the future.
And it has to be done not only by governments or institutions; it has to be done by the EU citizens, by us. Which leads me – finally – to the small contribution we, as European researchers, might be able to make to that process and which we discussed on our first meeting in Brussels two weeks ago. Our working group is concerned with the role of European institutions for offender supervision, as well as with questions of policy transfer. In Brussels, we had WG members from five countries present – Belgium, Italy Malta, Spain and Germany. During the meeting the discussions focused on three main themes: The obvious starting point with regard to the EU level was the Framework Decision 947 of 2008 on the transfer of probation decisions and, to a lesser extent, the FD 829 of 2009 on the transfer of pre-trial supervision measures, because Member States have to transpose them into national legislation and implement them into national practice. The second focus was on the European human rights framework for offender supervision, provided mainly by recommendations by the Council of Europe (European Probation Rules and the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures). Thirdly we discussed methods to study the question of policy transfer.
The general idea of the COST activities in the first year to establish an inventory of research only partly works for our WG 4 – in many European countries our topics are simply not covered by research (yet – exceptions are mentioned in our draft reports). We also have (for the moment at least) too few countries represented in the WG to be able to compile something comprehensive. We will, however, try to recruit more people, particularly from the Baltic and CEE countries – please do get in touch if you are interested.
We agreed on concentrating first on the instruments by the Council of Europe. The task is threefold: We need to answer the question if and why it is necessary for national authorities/practice to use them (the legitimacy aspect). We need to take a European view – how do they fit in the general European framework (that means to keep in mind other instruments and policies). And, most important, we must look at how the ideas of the Council of Europe instruments are implemented in national practice.
To provide an in-depth analysis, we will focus on two points: First, the issue of breach (with all connected features: who decides – in theory and in practice – ; what are the consequences – mandatory or not; how are the possibilities of review; procedural guarantees etc.). Second, offender involvement in very general terms (with the question of legal requirements of consent, voluntary co-operation in practice, information etc. – here also the national developments over time are interesting). Secondly, we will provide a follow-up on all research and practice activities connected to the 2008/947 FD; mainly relying on ISTEP (Implementation Support for the Transfer of European Probation Sentences; see http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/ISTEP-Project-Overview-Letter.pdf) material. The FD obviously is the trigger for the current manifold European activities, we certainly do not want to duplicate these – here we will probably come closest to establishing an inventory of ongoing projects and research relating to the FD on probation. Thirdly – and most difficult – we will deal with the question of policy transfer. Here again, important voices are missing from Baltic and CEE countries that were importing all sorts of normative/legislative concepts and supervision programmes. We were thinking of restricting the question of policy transfer to certain buzzwords (or buzz-concepts) such as RNR (Risk-Need-Responsivity) or CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapies). Also, we could concentrate on sex-offender programmes. However, reports should not be restricted if other examples of policy transfer (or transplants) are worth discussing as well.
To come back to my initial thoughts: Our aim is to explore not only common problems but also common European standards of offender supervision – only if we identify such an European view, the intensified collaboration in that field will work. The “European idea” is based on some set of common values, the catalogue of human rights laid down in the European Convention of Human Rights being the most visible. I do not only say that as a notoriously optimistic (naïve?) human rights lawyer, but also because this is what European citizens say (at least those surveyed in the Eurobarometer 69 and 74). Both to the question which values represent best the European Union and to the question which values are the most important for them personally, the most frequent answer was “human rights”. Probably not many of them have thought of the situation and rights of offenders, but we will.
For those of you in (or interested) in the Experiencing Supervision group, here is the structure that we agreed in Brussels for the country reports on this topic (which are due at the end of November). If you are struggling with composing your report, this might help.
Experiencing supervision
Detailed structure for the country report
When completing your country report, please pay attention to this structure. You should include empirical studies, articles, books, dissertation papers, case studies, etc, where available. Although the Cost action does not cover juveniles, you should refer to existing literature/research where it supports and informs our understanding of working with adult offenders. It is recognised that different jurisdictions will have different understandings of what is covered by the term ‘supervision’. For the purpose of this action we refer to it as ‘any control or/and assistance provided for offenders in the community under the authority of the state’.
Introduction
In this section you should include a short and concise description of the supervision system in your country including the organizational structure, educational background of probation staff, the main roles and activities undertaken, judicial and governmental statistics and probation caseload statistics (2006-2011).
2. Offenders under supervision
This section should include a discussion of the demographics of the offender populations in your jurisdiction including age, gender, type of offences etc, (at least for 2011). Please provide statistics according to the sentences received (e.g. how many received community service, electronic monitoring etc.).
3. Experiencing supervision – the offender’s account
Please refer to the studies that present the experience of supervision from the offender’s point of view. Are there studies describing offender perceptions depending on the type of sentences they received (e.g. community service, electronic monitoring etc.)? if yes, please describe these studies in separate paragraphs. Also include those studies that consider the perception of offenders towards probation partners (e.g. social services, drug treatment, community service providers etc.). Please also look for observational studies that capture the experience of supervision. Special attention should be paid to: conclusions and methodology (sample, data collection instrument, data analysis, interpretation, limits). Please summarize the findings from your point of view.
4. Experiencing supervision – third parties
Where available summarize those studies that describe reactions or perceptions of the family or other relatives or employers or neighbors on the supervision. How are they affected? How do they consider supervision? Please pay attention to conclusions and methodologies (as above) and summarize and reflect on the findings. Perceptions of probation officers regarding supervision are not necessary as these will be covered by the ‘Practicing Supervision’ Working Group.
5. Victim engagement with probation
Please provide a summary of the available studies that describe how supervision or other probation interventions (e.g. mediation etc.) are perceived by victims. As above pay special attention to conclusions and methodology. Please summarize the findings and provide your own opinion on this category of studies.
6. Public/politicians/judiciary/media/service providers view on supervision
Please summarize the studies that discuss public attitudes/ political opinion/the role of the mass media/ and other service providers (drug treatment, social services etc.) or views of sentencers and prosecutors. Please include also their perceptions or opinions on pre-sentence reports/social inquiry reports. Special attention should be paid to conclusions and methodology. Summarize the findings and provide your own reflections on this subject as it is derived from the studies.
7. General conclusions
What is the state of art of research on experiencing supervision in your jurisdictions? What are the main findings? What are the gaps? What are the limits of the research ? provide suggestions for future research.
References
Please ensure that your report is referenced using the Harvard referencing system.
In a few hours, I head off to Brussels for the first meeting of the working groups of ‘Offender supervision in Europe’. About 40 leading scholars from around Europe (representing 19 countries) will be sharing their reviews of existing research in four key areas: experiencing supervision, practising supervision, decision-making and supervision, and European policy and practice. Needless to say, I’m intrigued to find out what these reviews of research will reveal.
Admittedly a little late, I put the finishing touches to my own review of ‘Experiencing supervision in Scotland’ about half an hour ago… I have already uploaded it to out website, so if you are interested in what 50 years of research can and can’t tell us about the experience of supervision in one small country, click on the link below…
Experiencing Supervision in Scotland
For those of you too busy to read the whole paper (it’s 5,000 words), here’s the punchline:
“Looking at the substantive findings from these studies across 50 years of offender supervision in Scotland, the main message would seem to be that the experience of supervision is a highly variable and contingent one. The meaning, substance and impact of supervision is constructed somewhere in the interplay between the offender’s characteristics, attitudes, disposition and situation, and the characteristics, attitudes, disposition and situation of the officer. But both of these key actors are themselves influenced by multiple social systems. For the offender these systems may be personal, familial, peer group related and environmental; for the officer they are personal-professional, team-related and organisational. The wider social context of penality also influences both the construction of the practice and experience of supervision (McNeill, forthcoming; Robinson, McNeill and Maruna, forthcoming). Given that the experience of supervision is nested within these various systemic and personal influences, it is perhaps no surprise that it is so contingent in its forms and so vulnerable to personal and social interactions. In consequence, the experience of supervision emerges as a dynamic and fluid one.
However, our grasp to date of these interacting influences upon supervision – and of the complexities of supervision as a lived experience – is seriously constrained by methodological limitations of three main sorts. Firstly, there is a probable selection bias in many (but not all) of the studies reviewed above, in that they often rely on self-selection of respondents and/or are affected by low response rates. There is reason to believe that the picture of supervision that they present is likely to be skewed towards those with favourable supervision experiences, who are more likely to be in contact with services, to be traced easily by researchers and to respond favourably to research access requests. Secondly, the studies reported above (Malloch and McIvor’s aside) are relatively insensitive to issues of diversity and how they impact on supervision, tending to treat offenders as a relatively homogeneous group. Thirdly, these studies rely on accounts of supervision rather than on observations of supervision. These accounts may be influenced by social desirability biases (e.g. anticipating that the researcher expects positive responses, or wishing the interview to reflect favourably on the supervisor) and perhaps by anxiety about reporting adverse experiences (i.e. where to do so might be perceived as risking negative reactions and adverse consequences from supervisors). Both limitations may tend to produce an artificially or at least unrepresentatively positive account of supervision.
By implication, a richer (and more accurate) grasp of the lived experience of supervision seems to require the development of more fully ethnographic studies of probation – studies which take diversity seriously and which are specifically prospective in nature, observing and engaging with the experience as it happens, rather than relying on retrospective accounts of it. Only such an approach seems capable of generating a properly cultural account of supervision as a lived experience in its inter-personal, social and organisational contexts.”
After the meeting, I’m hoping we’ll be able to post a lot more about the findings of other people’s reviews, and about opur discussions.
‘Offender Supervision in Europe‘ has developed rapidly in scale, distribution and intensity in recent years. However, the emergence of ‘mass supervision’ (i.e. in the community) has largely escaped the attention of legal scholars and social scientists more concerned with the ‘mass incarceration’ reflected in prison growth. As well as representing an important analytical lacuna for penology in general and comparative criminal justice in particular, the neglect of supervision means that research has not delivered the knowledge that is urgently required to engage with political, policy and practice communities grappling with delivering justice efficiently and effectively in fiscally straitened times, and with the challenges of communicating the meaning, legitimacy and utility of supervision to an insecure public.
This COST Action aims to remedy these problems by facilitating cooperation between institutions and individuals in different European states (and with different disciplinary perspectives) who are already carrying out research on offender supervision or, in the case of early stage researchers, are attracted to that field. It will review and synthesize existing knowledge and then enrich it through interdisciplinary and comparative work and capacity building. The Action will thus provide a European forum on offender supervision for academics, policymakers, practitioners and interested citizens.
The Action commenced in March 2012 and runs for four years. Currently, it extends to 19 European countries. We will be organising conferences, working group meetings, short-term scientific missions and training schools for early stage researchers. If you want to be kept up to date about our activities, please subscribe to the RSS feed so as to receive regular information or email us at enquiries@offendersupervision.eu
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is Europe’s longest-running intergovernmental framework for cooperation in science and technology funding cooperative scientific projects called ‘COST Actions’. With a successful history of implementing scientific networking projects for over 40 years, COST offers scientists the opportunity to embark upon bottom-up, multidisciplinary and collaborative networks across all science and technology domains. For more information about COST, please visit www.cost.eu
COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020
Offender Supervision in Europe - COST Action IS1106
Recent Comments