'What works' in reducing reoffending? A European perspective

A version of this article was originally published in Around Europe on 28 May 2010.

At the end of April, as part of QCEA’s ongoing research into the social reintegration of ex-prisoners in Council of Europe member states, I attended the first conference of the EU-funded STARR project, held over three days in the neo-classical splendour of Downing College, Cambridge. The (almost obligatory) acronym stands for Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Re-offending, and the conference was the first opportunity for the project to feed back to both academics and practitioners alike. The title of the conference – ‘What Works in Reducing Re-offending’ – unsurprisingly captures only a small part of the diversity of discussion that ensued. It is not possible within the confines of such a short article to provide a thorough review, and thus I will attempt to keep my enthusiasm in check and instead simply offer a flavour of the debates. Suffice it to say, the addition of a question mark to the title at the opening of the conference was an appropriate point of departure.

The talks and workshops covered a whole range of topics and countries: from global perspectives on promising practices to micro-studies on restorative justice programmes in Roma communities in Bulgaria. The transfer of successful programmes from one jurisdiction to another do not always transfer well, and sometimes the stumbling blocks are unexpected: Professor Martine Herzog-Evans of the University of Reims raised a laugh as she noted the particular difficulties Electronic Monitoring schemes are facing from the beaches of Cannes during the summer months. In Sweden, the frequent mention of the word ‘pub’ during situational role plays in British programmes was always one of the first adaptations necessary.

As the conference unfolded, however, it became increasingly clear that the questions we should be asking are even more fundamental than ‘What Works?’. Professor Fergus McNeil of Glasgow University provoked significant discussion as he questioned whether reducing re-offending is a suitable mission statement at all. If probation is a justice agency we need to look at how justice is best served and the differing priorities reflected in the term. A concept of community justice looks beyond the confines of the criminal justice system to look at how the collective interest is best served: in the interest of the victims, communities, as well as the offender. Change is crucially important to the process of ‘justice’, and Professor McNeil concluded, ‘one of the best ways of paying back [society] is turning your life around’.

QCEA’s current research recognises that the social reintegration of ex-prisoners is not directly synonymous with target-driven reductions in reoffending. If the conference confirmed nothing else, there is no single ‘magic bullet’ or gold-standard programme. For that reason, further opportunities for pan-European discussion can only be a good thing. The STARR project is a great opportunity for academics and practitioners from across the continent to pool their ideas and talents. For my part, I hope Friends and Quaker organisations will continue to contribute significantly to this dialogue.