ofício com cabeçalho do núcleo de informática

Direção‐Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais Centro de Competências para a Gestão de Programas e Projetos

Travessa da Cruz do Torel, n.º 1 – 1150‐122 Lisboa – Tel. 218812200 – Fax. 218853653 – E‐mail: [email protected] Apartado 21207 – 1131‐001 Lisboa

XVI European Prison Regime Forum

Lisbon, 20‐21 March 2014

SUMMARY

OF

THE MEETING

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐





TABLE OF CONTENTS • Apresentação EPRF (in portuguese)

• EPRF Presentation and Final Report • EPRF Agenda

• Rui Sá Gomes Speech – General Director of DGRSP • Seamus Sisk Speech – Chair of the EPRF Steering Group and Deputy Director of the Irish

Prison Service

• EPRF Workshop Overview • EPRF Participants List

• EPRF Participants Evaluation

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐




Lisboa, 20‐21 Março 2014

APRESENTAÇÃO E RELATÓRIO FINAL

Realizou‐se em Lisboa, nos dias 20 e 21 de Março, o encontro anual da rede europeia European

Prison Regime Forum (EPRF), o qual contou com a participação de mais de 50 conferencistas de 18

nacionalidades, entre as quais, para além dos profissionais da DGRSP (que coordenou a organização),

representantes dos serviços dos Ministérios da Justiça da Alemanha, Bélgica, Espanha, Finlândia,

Irlanda, Itália, Montenegro, Noruega, Suécia e Suíça. Este ano o evento contou ainda com a

participação especial de uma delegação da América Latina, tendo tido a maior audiência da história

das Conferências organizadas por esta rede.

O EPRF é uma organização não‐governamental que congrega profissionais com cargos dirigentes dos

Serviços Prisionais de diversos países da Europa, constituindo‐se como uma plataforma de discussão

e de divulgação de boas práticas na área da gestão dos sistemas prisionais e de partilha de modelos

de eficácia no tratamento e reabilitação de pessoas privadas da liberdade.

A agenda de trabalhos foi diversificada, tendo havido a oportunidade de conhecer, discutir e divulgar

Boas Práticas implementadas nos diversos contextos europeus, promovendo‐se desta forma a

reflexão sobre quais as estratégias mais eficazes de intervenção no âmbito da reabilitação e

reinserção de reclusos, tendo sido apresentado pela DGRSP o Plano Nacional de Reabilitação e

Reinserção (PNRR) – 2013/2015.

Direção‐Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais

Centro de Competências para a Gestão de Programas e Projetos Travessa da Cruz do Torel, n.º 1 – 1150‐122 Lisboa – Tel. 218812200 – Fax. 218853653 – E‐mail: [email protected]

Apartado 21207 – 1131‐001 Lisboa

Das conclusões e das recomendações resultantes do debate, destaca‐se:

1. A falta de enquadramento profissional como uma das principais causas associadas aos

comportamentos delinquentes;

2. As baixas competências profissionais e de empregabilidade das populações mais

desfavorecidas, como são o caso dos reclusos e ex‐reclusos, são um dos principais factores

de risco de delinquência, sendo igualmente uma das principais necessidades criminógenas

para a qual se deve orientar a intervenção;

3. O elevado número de desempregados, associado à actual situação social e económica de

alguns países da Europa, coloca novos desafios às políticas sociais e de inclusão social.

Deste complexo quadro, resultaram as seguintes recomendações para todos os Estados Membros da

Europa:

1. Aumentar o investimento nas áreas do treino das competências laborais e de

empregabilidade da população reclusa, entre outras;

2. Promover oportunidades de formação em contexto real de trabalho, aproximando‐as o mais

possível das condições laborais no exterior;

3. Criar e dinamizar oficinas de trabalho inseridas nas instalações dos estabelecimentos

prisionais e aumentar o número de reclusos com ocupação laboral produtiva e estruturada

durante o cumprimento das penas privativas de liberdade;

4. Investir na modernização das oficinas inseridas no interior dos estabelecimentos prisionais,

permitindo que a população reclusa tenha acesso a equipamentos e experiências de trabalho

que a capacite para a integração no mercado laboral, nomeadamente através do

envolvimento de empresas do sector privado;

5. Desenvolver modelos de gestão empresarial das indústrias prisionais, privilegiando o

investimento das receitas geradas pelo resultado do trabalho prisional na manutenção,

conservação e modernização das instalações e equipamentos, tornando assim este sector

auto‐suficiente.




O coordenador da rede destacou, em apontamento final, a qualidade e pertinência do debate gerado

no âmbito da agenda preparada pela DGRSP, sublinhando ainda que o Ministério da Justiça de

Portugal se destaca, no panorama europeu, pela adopção de um plano ‐ o PNRR, enquanto

instrumento estratégico e de política institucional, o qual apresenta medidas alinhadas em standards

europeus de Boas Práticas na área da reabilitação e reinserção de pessoas privadas de liberdade.

O próximo evento desta rede será organizado, em 2015, pelos serviços do Ministério da Justiça de

Montenegro e no ano seguinte pelo serviço homólogo da Suécia.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐





PRESENTATION AND FINAL REPORT

The annual meeting of the European Network ‐ European Prison Regime Forum (EPRF), held in

Lisbon on 20 and 21 March, had the participation of over 50 speakers from 18 countries, including

representatives from various departments of Ministries of Justice from Germany, Belgium, Finland,

Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, in addition to DGRSP professionals ‐

who coordinated the organization of this event.

This year's Forum also included the special participation of a delegation from Latin America, having

had the largest audience in the history of conferences organized by this network.

The EPRF is a nongovernmental organization that brings together professionals with managerial

duties of Prison Services in various countries of Europe, establishing itself as a platform for discussion

and dissemination of good practices in the management of prison systems and sharing efficacy

models in the supervision, monitoring and rehabilitation of persons deprived of liberty.

The agenda was diverse and there was opportunity to meet, discuss and disseminate good practices

implemented in different European contexts, promoting a wide‐thinking and debate on what can be

the most effective intervention strategies in the context of rehabilitation and reintegration of

prisoners. DGRSP also presented the National Plan for Rehabilitation and Reintegration (PNRR) ‐

2013/2015.




From the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the debate, we highlight:

• The lack of professional framing of young offenders is one of the main causes associated with

delinquent behaviour;

• Low professional skills and employability of the most disadvantaged populations, as in the

case of prisoners and ex‐prisoners, are one of the main risk factors for delinquency and also a

major criminogenic need for which should be guided the intervention ;

• The high number of unemployed, associated with the current social and economic situation

of some countries in Europe, poses new challenges to social policies and social inclusion.

From this complex framework, emerged the following recommendations to all European Member

States:

1. Increase investment in the areas of training of labour skills and employability of the prison

population;

2. Promote training opportunities in a real work environment, approaching them, as much as

possible, to the work conditions outside prison;

3. Create and stimulate workshops inside prisons and increase the number of inmates with

structured and productive labour occupation during the compliance of the prison sentence;

4. Invest in the modernization of the different workshops facilities inside prisons, allowing the inmate

population to have access to the equipment and to work experiences that enable them the

integration in the labour market, including through the involvement of private sector companies;

5. Develop corporate management models of prison industries, giving priority to the investment of

the revenues generated by the result of prison labour in the maintenance, conservation and

upgrading of the facilities and equipments, making this sector a self‐sufficient industry.




The network coordinator pointed out, in the final presentation, the quality and relevance of the

debate raised within the agenda prepared by DGRSP, underlining that the Portuguese Ministry of

Justice stands out on the European scene, for the creation of the National Plan for Rehabilitation

and Reintegration (PNRR). This Plan is a strategic and institutional politics tool, which presents

specific actions lined up wit European standards of Good Practices on Rehabilitation and

Reintegration of persons deprived of liberty.

The next event of this network will be organized in 2015 by Montenegro Ministry of Justice and in

the following year by the homologous service of Sweden.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐





AGENDA 19th March 2014

♦ Arrival of participants ♦ Welcome drinks (Hotel Turim)

20th March 2014 ♦ Auditorium – Sintra Prison 21st March 2014

♦ Auditorium – Lisbon Prison

‐ The Forum is hosted by Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison Services, Ministry of

Justice, Portugal ‐




Thursday, 20th March 2014 Auditorium – Sintra Prison

09:00 Registration of Participants/Attendees 09:15 Opening Session Rui Sá Gomes, General Director of DGRSP

Seamus Sisk, Deputy Director of the Irish Prison Service and Chair of the EPRF Steering Group

09:30 Brief Overview of the Portuguese Prison Service and the National Rehabilitation and Reintegration Plan Jorge Monteiro, Head of Programs Division, DGRSP 10:00 Coffee Break 10:15 Tour de table: Member updates (Seamus Sisk)

(Pre‐submitted) updates and items of national legislative, policy and innovative strategic changes within prison and rehabilitation

11:30 Introduction to parallel workshop sessions – Cláudia Baptista, DGRSP Training Division

11:45 Workshop I – Introduced by Peter Larsen, Danish Prison and Probation Service ‐ Sustainable

models of Prison Work/Prison Industries and employability skills Workshop II – Introduced by Jurgen Hillmer, EPRF ‐ Involvement of prisoners in community/charitable projects in and for the community 13:00 Lunch 14h30 Visit to Sintra Prison facilities, aimed to speakers and foreigner guests 15:30 Workshop III – Introduced by Tiago Leitão (Innovative Prison Systems) ‐ Engagement of

Employers

Workshop IV – Introduced by Daniel Rijo, PhD‐ Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra,‐ New trends in User‐Centred Rehabilitation Programmes

16h45 Coffee Break 17h00 Open floor ‐ Developing effectiveness in the scope of ETE, VET and other Rehabilitation

approaches within prison: impacts on recidivism – (Cláudia Resende – DGRSP) Introduce by Prof. Hugo Morales Cordova (Global Centre for Criminal Justice and Offender Reintegration, Porto University)

18:00 End of the day




Friday, 21st March 2014 Auditorium – Lisbon Prison 09.15 Reception of Participants 09:30 Visit to Lisbon Prison facilities, aimed to speakers and foreigner guests 10h30 Workshops feedback session (Cláudia Baptista, DGRSP) Participant 1‐ to be named by the I Workshop group Participant 2‐ to be named by the II Workshop group Participant 3‐ to be named by the III Workshop group Participant 4 – to be named by the IV Workshop group 11:00 Final panel (José Ricardo Nunes ‐ DGRSP)

11:05 Network of institutions: Synergies and Cooperation – Jurgen Hillmer (EPRF) and Pedro das Neves (Innovative Prison Systems)

11:35 EUROSOCIAL II Work group presentation and discussion

‐Rebeka Berruti, General Secretary COMJIB ‐Cristina Goñi, International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) ‐Oscar Ayzanoa, Perú National Penitentiary Institute ‐Viena Velazco de Centella, Panamá Interdisciplinary Studies Institute ‐ Herman Santos, Guatemala Prison School Studies

12:05 Europris Work programme update and discussion – Kirsten Hawlitschek, Europris Executive

Director 12:35 Conclusions and final remarks

Seamus Sisk, Deputy Director of the Irish Prison Service and Chair of the EPRF Steering Group Jorge Monteiro – Head of Programs Division, DGRSP

13:00 Farewell lunch 14:30 EPRF Board Meeting





OPENING REMARKS RUI SÁ GOMES

Honourable Mr. Seamus Sisks and Juergen Hilmer, representatives of the Ibero‐American Ministers

of Justice and Eurosocial Project, General Directors, Managers of Central Services in DGRSP, Head of

Sintra Prison, Organizing Committee, distinguished speakers and other guests, ladies and gentlemen,

It is an honour for the Portuguese Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison Services to have

been chosen to host the 16th Forum of the prestigious European network "European Prison Regime

Forum".

It was with all the dedication and commitment that we have prepared an intensive agenda, which

hopefully meets the expectations of all who came to Portugal for this meeting in order to learn about

practices and outcomes of the work that is made in the context of rehabilitation of persons deprived

of liberty.

The significant presence of about four dozen speakers from more than 18 countries in Europe and

Latin America is for us a sign of encouragement and incentive to share with you our experience and

also constitutes for us, a unique opportunity to learn from the experience and practices of all of you.




The Portuguese Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison Services, although in terms of

organization has been recently established by virtue of the merger between the Directorate‐General

of Prison Services and the Directorate‐General of Probation Services, has already a long history and

experience in the areas of security, rehabilitation and social reintegration and rehabilitation of

prisoners and ex‐offenders.

This journey has been marked by great challenges, great achievements but also by periods of

hardship and even some instability, resulting from social, political and economic fluctuations that

Portuguese society has faced in recent decades.

At present, the Portuguese Prison System houses a total of 14.392 prisoners, of whom 81.4% are

sentenced to an effective prison sentence, and 17.5% are still on remand. In the course of the year

2013 a total of 26.000 prisoners were in contact with the Prison System.

Given that the official capacity of the Prison system is 12.167 places, the current situation shows a

slight overcrowding of about 17%, which is a reality that concerns me, and for which we have all

worked to reverse.

To do so, were presented to the Government, legislative proposals for the adoption of an

enforcement measure using Electronic Surveillance to prisoners sentenced to short sentences (up to

1 year prison sentence), as well as to prisoners sentenced to Weekend Detention ‐ this type of

sentence is an effective prison sentence, discontinuous in its execution and is an originality of the

Portuguese legal system.

Effectively, this proposal alone would represent the releasing of more than 1000 prisoners of the

system, reliving healthily (about 10%) the existing pressure and helping to make the system more

efficient, without jeopardizing the safety and the recidivism prevention that the national system of

Electronic Surveillance already offers to the more than 700 convicts who are currently monitored

using this technology.

Alongside this decompression measures system, we are also undertaking a significant investment

towards improving the prison conditions, through the recovery of living spaces and the creation of

new accommodations, with decent and dignified health and living conditions.




I would like to highlight on this measure, that the construction and rehabilitation works taking place

in Portuguese prisons are being carried out mostly by hand labour of inmates, to whom is paid a

salary proportional to their work effort, and witch contributes also to their skills training so needed in

a disadvantage population as this one. But the effort and investment we are conducting to make a

more efficient and modern Portuguese prison system is not exhausted in these measures.

The DGRP is responsible for the execution of one of the most ambitious sustainability plans of the

Portuguese prison system in decades ‐ the National Plan for Rehabilitation and Social

Reintegration, strategic document of the execution of sentences and approved by the Council of

Ministers recently, which clearly states the vision of this Directorate‐General on the process of

rehabilitation and social reintegration of the population for which it is responsible for.

This plan is based on three fundamental operating principles: the principle of rehabilitation of

criminal behaviour; the principle of rehabilitation and social responsibility and the principle of

sustainability of the enforcement of sentences or measures, and also provides the adoption of a set

of 96 measures structured around 12 key areas.

This plan is based on the guidelines inherent to the enforcement of sentences and measures in

Portugal, whose matrix focuses on a humanistic and re‐socialization ideal, teleologically connected to

the objectives of general and specific prevention, that is, protection of society and social

reintegration of the offender. This Plan seeks in its programmatic line of work, to increase

opportunities of change and social reintegration for the individual, intervening with its

environment/social background, and prior to imprisonment, during the execution of a sentence and

after the release.

At this level it should be noted that this effort does not start from scratch, that is, much has already

been done in the context of rehabilitation of inmates in recent years and the numbers are clear.

At year‐end 2013 were attending school education courses, a total of 2986 inmates in all levels of

education, given by teachers belonging to the Ministry of Education, including 57 inmates currently

enrolled in higher education.




Attending vocational training courses were 1317 inmates and taking part in work activities were 4506

prisoners. In addition to these activities, the system also have a diverse range of specific

rehabilitation programs directed at specific criminal issues, in which were involved a total of 3342

inmates, to which we add 1280 prisoners with drug and alcohol consumption problems that take part

in therapeutic treatment programs related to their addiction.

Therefore, all in all, a total of 75.4% of the prison population is daily attending/participating on social

rehabilitation/reintegration structured activities and conducted by our professionals in close

conjunction with various actors in society, especially with those who demonstrate a high sense of

social responsibility.

Honourable Speakers,

It is with meetings such as this, which brings together outstanding professional experience and

knowledge, that we all endorse the sharing of ideas and best practices and encourages discussion

and mutual learning in common strategies for common problems, regardless of the European

country we are in.

What direction we want to give to Prison and Probation Services in Europe?

What models should be adopted in order to better use our resources (often scarce)?

What are the most effective strategies in the rehabilitation of inmates and how effective are the

efforts of our actions?

What impacts have rehabilitative interventions in preventing recidivism?

These are just some questions and ideas to start the debate that will evolve in the coming days,

which I hope to be productive and whose conclusions could be the basis for a synthesis document

that I personally would like to see published as a result of this Forum.

On behalf of the Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison Services, I wish you all a good work

and a pleasant stay in Lisbon

Thank you all for your kind attention.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐





OPENING REMARKS SEAMUS SISK

On behalf of the EPRF steering committee, I would like to echo the welcome of the directorate

general to this – the 16th European Prison Regime Forum. It is good to see so many familiar and, indeed, some new faces at this year’s forum. I would especially like to welcome our Non‐European representatives from South America.

I would also like to express our sincere appreciation to our Portuguese colleagues for hosting the

gathering this year.

The EPRF has met regularly since its establishment in 1997 to consider, in an informal and open

environment, the core issues and trends affecting industrial workshops, vocational training activities,

and through care initiatives – with a particular emphasis on employability.

As always we have an interesting and full programme of presentations, workshop discussions, and

social networking opportunities to enjoy and participate in over the coming days.

We meet at a time of continuing economic difficulties across Europe. Many of our countries have

suffered a devastating economic and financial storm in recent years and continue to be buffeted by

the ongoing negative situation. Eurostat estimates that there are now over 26 million men and




women unemployed in EU 28 – that’s over 10 million more than were unemployed in the first

quarter of 2008 – just before the economic dam burst on so many of our countries. Over 5 and a half

million of the unemployed are in the under 25 age category and unemployment is still rising in many

countries with 13 of the 28 EU members recording increases in the last year. Even as some

economies stabilise, and the green shoots of growth begin to emerge, high levels of unemployment

will persist in many countries for the foreseeable future

The consequences of these dismal economic times for our prison regime services and in particular,

for our prisoner customers, are challenging indeed. In this age of austerity, prison systems are

continuing to experience significant budgetary pressures and cutbacks in staffing and financial

resources for work training, through care an employability initiatives and services.

And we are dealing with increasingly overcrowded prison systems. According to the council of

Europe, in 2011 – the most recent year for which full statistics are available – the average European

prison population grew from 149 to 154 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants. In addition, there has been

an increase in prison density of a further 1% ‐ to 99, 5 inmates per 100 places – between 2009 and

2011.

It is not an easy job working within the operational requirements of a prison environment at the best

of times. Overcrowding exacerbates the level of disruption, delays and difficulties associated with the

operation of workshops and the delivery of vocational training within our systems.

Our target group of workers and trainees are a further challenge given their typically low esteem,

addiction issues, behavioural problems, limited literacy and numeracy skills, and largely limited work

experinece and qualifications.

Despite the obstacles and challenges, our work training services continue to deliver constructive

activities and hard and soft qualifications to our prisoners to help them towards opportunities for

employability and successful settlement on their return to society.




Employment has been shown to be the single most important factor in preventing re‐offending.

British research in 2002 found that being in employment reduced the risk by between a third and a

half.

Norway statistics concluded, even more recently, that recidivism among prisoners is 63% lower for

those accessing employments on release than for those who remain unemployed.

And we also know, from research studies, that prisoners want to develop their vocational skills whilst

in prison and that they prioritise employment and skills deficiencies over other problems such as

health and family matters.

It is essential, therefore, that we accentuate our efforts, despite the contraction of resources, to

assist prisoners develop the skills and competencies necessary for employability and that we

maximise our support for them as they pass through the prison gate back into society. And we can

save huge amounts of criminal and non‐criminal financial and human costs, if we succeed in enabling

them to lead constructive crime free lives on their return to the community.

In the employability area, i believe we have to increasingly focus on identifying niche labour market

opportunities to replace dependencies on traditional occupations. We also need to continue to

strengthen the delivery of soft skills and certified training in our prison systems. And we need to

support ex‐prisoners into further training and education and into voluntary work and other

constructive activities, as positive alternatives to direct employment placements.

Forums like this are very important in these critical times – as practitioners we need to come

together to share good practice and innovative solutions to the challenges facing us all. We also need

to tap into the mutual support of fellow specialists across Europe – and beyond – to reaffirm that

what we are doing is worthwhile, that what we do works for both prisoners and society.

I am sure that through our informal contacts and our conference sessions, we will renew our

energies and our commitment to our most important task of trying to ensure that our customers do

not return, through helping them to successfully complete their journey from outlaw to citizen.

Thank you

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐





WORKSHOP OVERVIEW

Workshop 1 – Sustainable Models of Prison Work/Prison Industries and employability skills,

introduced by Peter Larson, Danish Prison and Probation Service.

Feedback presented by Kirsten Hawlitschek from Europris. Overview prepared by Peter Larson.

Kirsten referred to Nuno Oliveira’s presentation about Parques de Sintra, a company that employs

inmates after imprisonment (and during).

Regarding this thematic, several points were focused, namely: ‐ Why using inmates? ‐ Advantages and disadvantages of using labour force from prison (work opportunities inside the

prison, employability skills, profits, costs). ‐ Ideally, developing skills and earning money should and can be combined. This means that it is

possible for inmates to develop new competencies inside/outside the prison for benefit after release,

rather than just getting some working habits.

The different meaning of the word “sustainable” was giving a lot of angels to the discussions.

Sustainable in the way of long living activities/products, developing life skills and competencies for




managing a life after release as self supporting citizen, activities with less harming of environment –

ecologic farming and recycling projects, designing of new product etc.

Kirsten referred to Peter Larsen´s presentation of the film about the fact that Prison Industry in the

Danish Prison and Probation Services are now commemorating 100 years of existence. Indeed a

sustainable activity with a wide diversity.

The film was in one and the same way marketing addressed to society and potential business

partners and as acclaim addressed to the staff – the key figures in all activities.

Leif Waage, Norwegian Prison and Probation, presented some work done with wood (common in

Europe) and lamps which are designed in cooperation between external designers, staff and inmates

and then manufactured by the inmates. The participants in the workshop then discussed about the

kind of work that can be offered to prisoners.

‐ It is absolutely necessary, in order of developing and creating employability skills inside the prison

and to build prison work programmes, to establish the requirements and needs of the prison

industries and prisoner’s work.

‐ It is clear that companies need more qualified employers and that sometimes the prisoners are a

non‐qualified work force.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Workshop 2 – Involvement of prisoners in community/charitable projects in and for the community,

introduced by Jurgen Hillmer, EPRF. Feedback presented by Jurgen Hillmer.

Overview prepared by Claudia Baptista from Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison

Services (DGRSP)

Jurgen mentioned that they did 2 or 3 presentations focusing the prison industries issue and that the

discussions and conclusions were a little bit confuse.

‐ He referred to Nicola’s approach to develop “social enterprises” and discussed the return of

investment issues. Nicola’s presentation was based on long term data analysis, which in he’s view




showed the positive effect of hiring offenders with the same salary as any other person in the labour

market. Also he highlighted the importance on focus in quality products and strong marketing.

‐ The Portuguese Food Bank provides food to ONG to companies in the surrounding prison area.

Was also mentioned that in other countries is being discussed and implemented a “Target System”

that aims to exchange and commercialize several products.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Workshop 3 – Engagement of employers, introduced by Tiago Leitão, Innovative Prison Systems.

Feedback presented by Barry Owens.

Overview prepared by Tiago Leitão.

The workshop was based on National Youth Entrepreneurs Association (anje.pt) employer’s

engagement case study under the Equal project “Rumos de Futuro – da Prisão para a Inclusão”. This

project is focus on employer’s engagement to provide work and labour market reintegration to (ex)

offenders.

Different examples/case studies were presented in this workshop, one from an Employer association

(Portuguese) and another from an employer ‐ St Giles Trust (stgilestrust.org.uk) which is an

Association that hires prisoners.

Has ANJE presented the case study, questions/challenges were asked to the participants, which

presented their views, synthesized below:

Q1: What role can an Employer Association have in offender’s reintegration?

C1: The starting point should be on the person but there are no homogeny procedures in different

countries. There is also a wide diversity of actions in prison work and after release job integration.

The Employer Association can have an important role in information, scouting “business”

opportunities, reduce “stigma” both in offenders and prison services and other were mentioned.

Q2: What are the required employability skills and how to assess them?

C2: Soft skills are as much important as hard practical ones. Employers should be engaged in defining

what they expect from a worker. One of the main aspects highlighted was that there is a great need

to clarify what employability means.

http://www.anje.pt/

http://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/




Q3: What kind of role companies have in the process of skills and qualification assessment? What

profiled skills do they need?

C3: Companies focus normally on technical requirements, focus on the production process. This can

be very helpful to prepare offenders training. In case of offenders there is also de need to assess soft

skills. We have to engage employers and keep insisting on that.

Q4: What benefits should be given to companies that hire offenders? What are the ethical

boundaries in doing this?

The range of benefits can vary from a wide range of incentives: grants, internships, workshops and

workstations in the Prisons and other. There is also the behaviour and profiling performed by

Education/Reintegration prison services departments (here we have to take in consideration

information disclosure legal framework. The one that seems to work more effectively, highlighted by

the Italian delegate, was salary equal to labour market standards. There were concerns raised, focus

on the overcoming the “stigma” created by being an (ex) offender, but also by having companies

taking advantage of incentives. The balance could be in assessing the benefits results and impacts

both by employers and prison services.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Workshop 4 – New Trends in User‐Centred Rehabilitation Programmes, presented by Daniel Rijo,

PhD, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra.

Feedback presented by Claudia Resende.

Overview by Cláudia Resende from Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison Services

(DGRSP)

Workshop 4 aimed at a technical‐scientific and technical‐practical debate regarding the subject

under discussion: Application of cognitive‐behavioural programs in the prison context.

At this workgroup attended institutional representatives from a spectrum of various countries in

Europe, with prevalence of the Portuguese experience. A participant coming from Peru, who will be

in Portugal to make a PhD in the context of a Portuguese University, was also present.




According to the testimonies shared, Ireland, Norway and Portugal choose, within the framework of

criminal practices, to adopt programs with cognitive‐behavioural orientation as a strategy to reverse

criminal trajectories. According to the statement of the Peruvian participant, such rehabilitative

solution is not articulated along the lines of the penitentiary intervention in Peru.

The guest moderator, Lecturer in a Portuguese University, presented the following rationale:

Programs (with cognitive‐behavioural intervention) will be an appropriate solution to tackle crime. As

part of his presentation, he identified, in general terms, a program of cognitive‐behavioural

orientation, called "Managing Social Paths" of its own co‐authorship, which is being evaluated by its

University, both in the context of educational centres, and in the prison context.

Notwithstanding the interest of this presentation and by virtue of having also been given as evaluator

of this program, he occupied much of the time of the Workshop. By consequence, the technical and

practical presentation regarding the cognitive‐behavioural oriented Program: "Sexual Offenders",

which would be represented by two senior staff of the Carregueira Prison, was not possible to be

performed.

On this point, no time was assured to discuss criteria for the design of a Program, having been

privileged the perspective of Implementation, through the presentation of case studies as in

Portugal.

From this perspective and in contrast to the case study presented by the Portuguese University, the

Irish participant alerted that, as relevant as it may be a specific Program, in his technical

understanding, no program can be observed without being contextualized in a circumstantial

environment, thus requiring additional focus to contingent aspects that can not be overlooked.

By virtue of the lack of scheduled time and the discursive space engaged by the University of

Coimbra, there was no time to discuss, in cross terms, foundations of a strategy aiming to

compromise the various latitudes of prison treatment. By derivation, there was no time to build a

technical debate that compromised the participants to submit a proposal for technical‐scientific and

technical‐practical guidance in this area.




Nevertheless in cross‐sectional terms, it was found that any of the European countries where there is

recourse to the implementation of such programs, does not tend to occupy a very significant number

of people in prison, which once again calls a constant need for coordination with other sub‐areas of

the Prison Treatment.

For time constraints, could not be used curriculum valences of the participants nor, in this case, the

in‐depth discussion of each national practice, or the lines of understanding and collision between the

different national experiences gathered in this Workshop. Rather, rose up an operational question

regarding prison management, and participants were asked if there are usually transfers of inmates

attending a Program, to specific prisons, in order to meet the rehabilitative and resocializing

principle. Was also underestimated the opportunity to convene the critical and practical contribution

of organizations contiguous or adjacent to the "traditional" prison treatment.

Regarding the need for the evaluation component, when it comes to the implementation of

Programs, the debate was negligent, in form and content, not dealing on such important aspects as:

1. Timeliness of review;

2. Geographical dimension to be involved;

3. Discussion of other variables to consider;

4. Level of independence between evaluated Program and evaluator;

5. Other proposals resulting from internal debate that had been constituted for that purpose.

Still in relation to the present evaluation, has been voiced by a representative of the Portuguese

experience, the observation that this evaluation rarely follows the application component of

cognitive‐behavioural Programs in the light of the Portuguese prison practical experience.

Note that there appeared to be a conflict of roles between the moderator and the GPS Program

applicator and evaluator, and when asked by a Portuguese participant, if in a perspective of the

evaluation of the Programs, should be adopted an Anglo‐Saxon stand, in it most purist logic, as

recommended by McGuire, it was observed that the moderator evaded to provide a complete

answer.




Finally, was found an internal disorganization regarding the priori definition of rapporteur, which

skewed the possibility of collecting inputs, with the analytical objectiveness necessary for that role.

The choice of the rapporteur was taken by the moderator himself, with unanimous complicity of the

participants.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐





PARTICIPANTS LIST

Nº NAME COUNTRY Workshop Speaker ORGANIZATION/

INSTITUTION

1 Jurgen Hillmer Germany 2 and 3 Yes Senate of Justice and Constitution

2 Dragoljub Bulatovic Montenegro 1 and 3 Institute for Execution of Criminal Sanctions

3 Sladjan Raicevic Montenegro 1 and 3 Institute for Execution of Criminal Sanctions

4 Peter Larsen Denmark 1 and 3 Yes Prison and Probation Service

5 Lena Strandqvist Sweden 1 and 3 Prison and Probation Service

6 Bertil Gronberg Sweden 1 and 3 Prison and Probation Service

7 Barbara Ludwig Switzerland 1 and 4 Canton Lucerne ‐ Justice and Security

8 Jan‐Erik Sandlie Norway 2 and 3 Directorate of Correctional Service

9 Leif Waage

Norway 1 and 3 Directorate of Correctional Service

10 Ils Milis Belgium

1 and 3 Yes Directorate General of Penitentiary Institutions

11 Eila Lempiainen Finland 1 and 3 Yes Criminal Sanctions Agency

12 Kirsten Hawlitschek Netherlands 2 and 3 Yes EuroPris

13 Hugo Cordova USA 1 and 4 Yes Global Centre for Criminal Justice and

Offender Reintegration





INSTITUTION

14 Seamus Sisk Ireland 2 and 4 Yes

Irish Prison Service

15 Barry Owens Ireland 1 and 3 Irish Association for the Social Integration of

Offenders

16 Patricia Peralta Uruguay 1 and 3

Yes National Patronage of Incarcerated and Released People

17 Viena V. de Centella Panama 1 and 3

Yes Interdisciplinary Studies Institute

18 Oscar Ayzanoa Peru 1 and 3 Yes National Penitentiary Institute

19 Cristina Goñi Belgium 1 and 3

Yes International Juvenile Justice Observatory

20 Herman Santos Guatemala 1 and 3

Yes Prison School Studies

21 Rebeka Berruti Spain 1 and 3 Yes Conference of Ministers of Justice of Ibero‐

American Countries ‐ COMJIB

22 Nicola Boscoletto Italy

1 and 3 Yes Giotto

23 Pedro das Neves Portugal 1 and 3

Yes Innovative Prison Systems

24 Tiago Leitão Portugal 3 Yes Innovative Prison Systems

25 Bernardo Centeno

Portugal 2 and 4 Innovative Prison Systems

26 Susana Reis

Portugal 1 and 3 Innovative Prison Systems

27 Nuno Oliveira

Portugal 1 Yes Parques Sintra – Monte da Lua

28 Ana C. Rodrigues

Portugal 3 Yes Associação Nacional de Jovens Empresários

29 Hernâni Banha

Portugal 2 Yes Banco Alimentar

30 Daniel Rijo Portugal 4 Yes

Coimbra University

31 Ed van Leusden Holland

1 and 3 Ministry of Safety and Justice

32 Rashid Chand Ali Holland

1 and 3 Ministry of Safety and Justice





INSTITUTION

32 Sofia Sá Lima Portugal

Vale D’Acor

33 Rui Sá Gomes Portugal Yes

DGRSP

34 Licínio Lima Portugal DGRSP

35 Jorge Monteiro Portugal

Yes DGRSP

36 Carlos Guímaro Portugal

DGRSP

37 Regina Branco Portugal

DGRSP

38 José Ricardo Nunes Portugal

DGRSP

39 Cláudia Resende Portugal

DGRSP

40 Florbela Ferreira Portugal

DGRSP

41 M.ª Lurdes Wahnon Portugal

DGRSP

42 Cláudia Baptista Portugal

DGRSP

43 Fernanda Silva Portugal

DGRSP

44 Vitor Vieira Portugal DGRSP

45 Eva Fernandes Portugal DGRSP

46 Maria M. Caseiro Portugal DGRSP

47 Isabel Antunes Portugal DGRSP

48 Nuno Caiado Portugal DGRSP

49 Teresa Melo Portugal DGRSP





INSTITUTION

50 Cláudia Poeta Portugal DGRSP

51 Daniela Marques Portugal

DGRSP

52 Raquel Lopes Portugal

DGRSP





PARTICIPANTS EVALUATION The XVI European Prison Regime Forum 2014 had recently place in Lisbon. This event included a

total of 52 participants from different countries in Europe and Latin America and also Portuguese

professionals of the Directorate‐General of Reintegration and Prison Services.

Here we present a short analysis of the participants' assessment, suggestions and comments

regarding the Forum.

We wish to emphasize that from a total of these 45 participants, we received only 10 questionnaires,

and from those, not all the questions were answered. Thereby here we present the information that

was possible to gather regarding the success of the event, in a question by question analysis system.

Has this Forum fulfilled your general expectations?

Regarding this question the participant’s choice show a positive evaluation of the Forum concerning

the expectations of the participants. Having the rating scale very much, fairly, hardly, not at all, 60%

of the 10 returned Forms, answered that the Forum fulfilled very much their expectations and 40%

answered that their expectations were fairly fulfilled.




A few aspects regarding this Forum/Workshop are listed below. Express your degree of satisfaction

for each one of them.

Very satisfied

Sufficiently satisfied

Poorly satisfied

Not at all satisfied

Pre‐event organisation 80% 20% Participants’ preparation 40% 60% Choice of the issues dealt with 60% 40% Logistical organization 70% 20% 10% Capability of actively involving participants 40% 50% Possibility of exchanging ideas and experiences 60% 30% 10% Regarding this items we can observe that 80% were very satisfied with the pre‐event organization.

Concerning the choice of the issues developed and the exchanging ideas and experiences 60%

considered being very satisfied.

Only 10% were poorly satisfied with the logistical organization and with the possibility of exchanging

ideas and experiences. From the 10 questionnaires, 70% were very satisfied with the 4th item –

Logistical Organization.

What aspects of the Forum have you found most interesting and useful for you?

According to the answers, the most interesting aspects were the visit to prison facilities, labour

programs and the sharing experiences with Latin American colleagues and from other countries. The

participants who answered this Evaluation Forms also highlighted the importance of learning about

special approaches to labour policies and sustainable models for prison work, as well as meeting and

learning from the Portuguese colleagues. Was also emphasized the importance of Networking,

Methodology workshops and the Chapitô and Parques Sintra Projects.




What aspects of the Forum have you found least interesting? Please indicate the reason.

As to this question, 20% of the Evaluation Forms didn’t answer and 40% answered that there were

no less interesting aspects of the Forum.

The remaining 40% pointed out some least interesting aspects such as “The program was to short to

further discuss certain topics regarding the management of prison systems”; the DGRSP Strategic

Plan; topics dealt and contents; the field trip inside prison and the relevance of Latin America

projects.

In your opinion, what other aspects should be further examined?

As to this question, 80% answered and gave suggestions on matters that should be further developed

which are presented bellow:

• Marketing of prison work, both internal and external

• Production methods in Prison and how to maintain a modern machine park and increase the

ability of prisoners to get jobs after release

• Quality issues

• The profiling of attitude and ideas about work in prison and with ex‐offenders

• The privatization of prison systems and other private solutions for overcrowded prisons;

• Community sanctions and electronic monitoring

• European directives, guidelines or recommendations in order to ensure a regional legal

framework

Regarding the participants preparation, was made a suggestion to improve and help a deeper

discussion in future events ‐ that the speakers could send previously information about

developments in their countries before the Forum and regarding the workshops as well, so that the

participants could be better prepared and have in advance, more knowledge on those issues.




To what extent will the information shared in this Forum improve your work?

Regarding this question and having the rating scale very much, fairly, hardly, not at all, all the

participants who returned the questionnaires answered to this question. 40% answered that the

information shared in the Forum improved very much their work; while 60% answered that the

sharing of information improved fairly their work.

Do you have any comments or suggestions?

As to this question, 50% didn’t have any comments or suggestions to present and 50% submitted the

following suggestions:

• Better discipline among participants

• Better adherence of the schedule

• A three day agenda

• More depth and focus to each theme, instead of broad scoop presentation

In most of the questionnaires, the participants cherished the EPRF hosting and organization.

Thank you for the suggestions, ideas and comments!

Much success in the EPRF next editions!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

ofício com cabeçalho do núcleo de informática

Documents