ANNUAL REPORT - CEP, the European Organisation for Probation

ANNUAL REPORT

Index 

3 Preface 

Marc Cerón i Riera, CEP President 

11 Strategic objective: Raise the profile of probation 

in European Union 

4 Activities 

11 Focus: CEP and the EU - interview with 

Patrick Madigou 

5 Strategic objective: Unite organisations and 

individuals who share similar principles 

5 Focus: Slovenia joins CEP - interview with 

Slava Novak 

6 Focus: University of Edinburgh joins 

CEP network - interview with Bill Whyte 

12 Focus: CEP Probation values versus 

Recommendation on Probation of the Council 

of Europe - interview with Ilina Taneva 

14 Reviewing future options for CEP 

15 Income and expenditure 

7 Strategic objective: Enhance the professionalisation 

of the sector of probation in Europe 

8 Focus: CEP and the European Union’s 

Framework Decision on probation - interview 

with Leo Tigges 

9 Focus: The Conference on Recruitment and 

Training of Probation Practitioners in Agen - 

interview with Brian Stout 

CEP ANNUAL REPORT 2009 2

Preface 

On an annual basis, CEP presents 

an account of our activities for the 

previous year. In this document, 

which is our first Annual Report, 

we outline our achievements for 

2009. 2009 was a challenging and 

exciting year for CEP mainly due to 

three interlinked issues: 

Firstly, the mandate from Tallinn’s 

General Assembly in 2007 was an 

extensive one and this meant that 

we had much to do; participating 

in a lot of activities across a range 

of diverse areas. We organised five 

conferences and expert meetings 

which had been identified as topics 

of interest by our members: 

• Best practices in capacity building; 

• Funding innovation and collaboration 

in probation; 

• Electronic Monitoring; 

• Implementation of the Framework 

Decision on Probation; 

• Recruitment and Training of Probation 

Practitioners. 

We were also active, both in Brussels 

and Strasbourg, forging closer 

links at a European level and we 

believe that CEP is increasingly 

well placed to play a strong role in 

the developments in probation at a 

European level. 

We focused on improving our communication 

tools, investing more 

resources on our communication 

and IT infrastructure, especially our 

website and electronic newsletter. 

We also continued to progress the 

Register of Experts and facilitated 

the distribution of the book Probation 

in Europe funded by the Dutch 

foundation Stichting Nationale 

Reclasseringsactie and the Ministry 

of Justice of the Netherlands. 

Much of our efforts are spent on 

enhancing the professionalisation 

of the probation sector and we 

were active in working as partners 

in the establishment of a number of 

special European projects. We participated 

in several conferences and 

expert meetings held across Europe. 

Secondly, the Board was faced 

with a number of challenges driven 

by the expansion of its activity, the 

increasing importance of the CEP 

role in the sector of probation, and 

the relevance of probation as a valued 

option in the field of justice. 

The work to ensure the CEP organisation 

is able to adapt effectively 

was undertaken during the regular 

Board meetings under the vigilant 

leadership of then president Patrick 

Madigou. 

Thirdly, during the year the effects 

of the economic crisis, beginning 

in 2008, impacted on probation 

services across Europe and on all 

our members as a consequence. 

CEP was sensitive to this context 

and has taken all possible measures 

to reduce costs and increase efficiency. 

This economic reality underpinned 

the proposals that would be 

considered by the General Assembly 

in Malaga in 2010. 

I hope that in the following chapters 

you will find information of interest 

to you and at the same time that 

you get a sense of the enthusiasm 

and commitment of CEP’s staff, the 

Board chaired by president Patrick 

Madigou, and the General Secretary, 

Leo Tigges, all of whom worked tirelessly 

to achieve our mission: to be 

useful to our members in the task of 

promoting and implementing probation 

across Europe. 

Marc Cerón i Riera 

CEP President 


Activities 

CEP is the European organisation for probation. It believes that a society built 

on the principles of social inclusion provides the best protection for communities 

from the harm and distress caused by crime. Committed to unite organisations 

and individual persons all over Europe sharing these same principles, CEP aims 

to enhance the professionalisation of the probation sector and to raise the 

profile of probation at a national and a European level. 

This Annual Report 2009 provides an overview of the activities of CEP in 2009, 

classified by the three main strategic objectives. The report is published digitally. 

Clickable links refer to relevant web pages. 


Strategic objective: 

Unite organisations and individuals who share similar principles 

Specific objective 

Increase and widen the range of 

membership 

CEP worked not only towards 

obtaining the membership of European 

countries not yet represented 

in the CEP network, but also of 

more European universities. This 

resulted in the memberships of Ministry 

of Justice of Slovenia, Epanodos 

(Greece), University for Applied 

Sciences Utrecht (The Netherlands), 

University of Edinburgh (Scotland) 

and two individual members. 


Organisation of the General 

Assembly 2010 

In late 2009 the CEP office began 

the preparations for the General 

Assembly 2010, to be held 

in Malaga, Spain. A decision was 

taken to bring forward the General 

Assembly and Conference from 

October to May 2010 so that the 

events would be held during the 

Spanish presidency of the EU. This 

shortened the preparation period 

considerably. The Spanish Ministry 

of Interior, the Autonomous Government 

of Catalonia and The Ministry 

of Justice of Portugal provided 

funds which allowed for the appointment 

of a project assistant to aid in 

the preparations for the event which 

were organised in close collaboration 

with CEP. 


Create and support networks of 

Special Target Groups 

The preparations for an action plan 

for the Special Iinterest Group Foreign 

National Prisoners were started 

John Walters (Prisoners Abroad), 

Rolf Streng (Reclassering Nederland), 

Nick Hammond (London Probation 

Trust) and Leo Tigges (CEP 

Secretary General) to place the 

issue of foreign national prisoners 

firmly on the agenda of probation in 

Europe. One working group met in 

London to design the action plan. 

Focus: Slovenia joins CEP 

The Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice of Slovenia was added to the CEP network 

in October 2009. The Prison Administration attended conferences of the CEP in 2003 and 2004, 

so becoming a member was the next step. 

“The Prison Administration was 

founded in 1995, but community 

services as an alternative for defined 

prison sentences only began after 

2000”, tells Slava Novak, Secretary 

at the Head Office, International 

Cooperation Prison Administration. 

“Slovenia does not have a single 

organized Probation Service like 

elsewhere in Europe. Probation 

activities and measures are executed 

by a number of organisations. 

Most activities however are carried 

out by social work centers, which 

are organized as local community 

public services in the field of social 

assistance,” says Novak. 

“So there are two Ministries closely 

involved in the sector of probation 

in our country. One of the important 

tasks for us at the moment is how 

to streamline the organization of 

probation between the two ministries. 

In this regard we would hope 

to draw on the knowledge, experiences 

and best practices of other 

probation services abroad. Therefore 

we highly value the inclusion in 

the international network of CEP.” 



Unite organisations and individuals who share similar principles 

Focus: The University of Edinburgh joins the CEP network 

For Bill Whyte, Professor of Social Work Studies in Criminal and Youth Justice, it was a logical 

step for the University of Edinburgh to join the CEP network. CEP and the University’s Criminal 

Justice Social Work Development Centre (CJSW) had been connected through events and 

conferences; the University was welcomed as a member in 2009. 

Bill Whyte 

Locally, the CJSW Centre has played 

a key role in advising the Scottish 

government on the shape and direction 

of social work services in youth 

and criminal justice (probation) in 

Scotland. “Scotland has a distinctive 

approach to probation and 

youth justice compared to England 

and Wales,” says Professor Whyte. 

“In the early ‘90’s I had suggested 

to the Assistant Chief Inspector of 

Social Work that I might be a Scottish 

representative to the CEP, but 

it was considered a UK jurisdiction 

responsibility. While the government 

of Scotland was not involved 

in CEP I kept my interest and when 

CEP sought academic members, 

we were delighted to join.” 

Through its CEP membership, the 

Centre hopes to contribute on a 

European level to research and 

practice related developments. 

“The CEP is beginning to show 

its potential to influence policy 

and practice. With the link to academic 

research, its clout will also 

be rooted in the academic world,” 

states Professor Whyte. Professor 

Whyte describes the task of CJSW 

as ‘action research’: the implementation 

of knowledge to practice. “We 

support probation practice in Scotland 

but also support the evaluation 

of this practice since it has become 

clear that effective practitioners 

evaluate themselves regularly. This 

way they generate their own data 

and contribute to improvements in 

practice.” 

Furthermore, says Professor Whyte, 

governments are looking for information 

on the methods and effectiveness 

of probation. Academic 

analysis can provide some of this 

empirical evidence. A government 

can work in partnership with an 

independent organisation like the 

University of Edinburgh by funding 

relevant research. 

Probation has increasingly become 

a priority of the EU and the work of 

probation has been given a higher 

profile. In Professor Whyte’s opinion, 

now is the time for the CEP and the 

academic world to support the probation 

sector. Scholars can do so by 

producing more sophisticated evidence, 

comparative data and contribute 

to the exchange and transfer 

of knowledge. “Probation needs 

a strong sense of where it stands 

based on evidence and values,” says 

Professor Whyte. In the partnership 

with CEP, the CJSW Centre and the 

University of Edinburgh hope to contribute 

to this process. 



Enhance the professionalisation of the sector of probation in Europe 


Enhance innovation in probation 

In 2009 CEP participated in the following 

projects. 

European Union projects: 

• RIRP: Reducing Influences that 

Radicalize Prisoners Project to 

counter radicalisation of prisoners 

and offenders under probation 

supervision. 

Project steerage, co-organisation, 

participation at the expert meeting 

London in October 2009 and preparations 

for expert meeting in January 

2010 in Segovia, Spain. 

• STARR: Strengthening Transnational 

Approaches to Reduce reoffending. 

Project on the “What works”- 

approach in probation. Project steerage, 

co-organisation and preparation 

conference in Cambridge, which 

took place in April 2010. 

• DOMICE: Developing Offender Management 

In Corrections in Europe. 

Development of common European 

case management. Project steerage. 

Supported European Union project 

bids: 

• CEP participated in projects of 

which the applications were submitted 

in 2009, but were to be decided 

upon in 2010. 

• Circles Europe: Together for Safety: 

implementing a new approach to 

supervise sex offenders and identify 

the conditions under which the programme 

can be implemented successfully 

in other jurisdictions. 

• Statistics on Sanctions and Measures 

within the criminal justice 

process (STATSAM): developing a 

common European methodology 

for statistics in probation. 

• Preparation of the practical implementation 

of the framework decision 

on the mutual recognition of 

probation measures: Implementation 

of the EU Framework Decision 

2008/947/JHA. 

• Improving knowledge in practice of 

restorative justice (in criminal matters) 

by international comparative 

research – identifying and promoting 

best practices in Restorative Justice. 

• Electronic Monitoring and House 

Arrest as an Effective Instrument of 

Crime Prevention. Implementation 

of Electronic Monitoring in Czech 

Republic. 

Council of Europe Actions: 

• SPACE II: the collection of statistical 

data on community sanctions 

and measures in Council of 

Europe member states. Supporting, 

formulating and disseminating 

a questionnaire on statistical data 

collection by national probation 

services . 

Academic research: 

• Membership Editorial Board European 

Journal of Probation: Preparation 

and follow up. 

• ESC network: Facilitation of academic 

research to support the European 

Society of Criminology (ESC) 

working group on Community Sanctions 

in Europe. 


Enhance knowledge exchange 

between members 

The CEP website is an important 

means of communication and a 

vehicle for the exchange of information. 

In 2009 the website was 

renewed and underwent several 

changes. New sections were added, 

such as the funding programs section 

and the Register of Experts 

online registration form. 

The CEP newsletter was published 

five times in 2009, containing interviews 

and articles on developments 

in probation in Europe. 

The Register of Experts was further 

developed in 2009 and one meeting 

of the panel took place in London. 

This is an initiative in which 

CEP facilitates the matching of 

probation specialists with countries 

looking to develop their probation 

practice. 

CEP further promoted the dissemination 

of the book Probation 

in Europe. In addition it started the 

preparations to publish summaries 




of the country chapters of the book 

on the CEP website. 

CEP and the University of Birmingham 

jointly prepared the publication 

of a journal on probation in 

Europe, called EuroVista, journal 

on probation and community justice. 

CEP attended the Editorial 

board meeting in Birmingham. It 

provided articles and maintained 

contact with authors. 

CEP provided bursaries to representatives 

of five organisations to 

attend CEP events and connect 

with colleagues in probation form all 

around Europe. 

During the year 2009, CEP organised 

five conferences in cooperation 

with its local partner organisations: 

Sofia (BG) in January 

Topic: Capacity building 

Cambridge (GB) in March 

Topic: Funding Opportunities for 

Probation 

Egmont aan Zee (NL) in May 

Topic: Electronic Monitoring 

Dublin (IRL) in October 

Topic: EU Framework Decision 

Agen (F) in December 

Topic: Recruitment and Training of 

Probation Officers 

Focus: CEP and the European Union Framework Decision 

on probation 

Late 2008, the Framework Decision on probation (2008/947/JHA) was adopted by the EU. CEP 

Secretary General, Leo Tigges, worked on the communication of the implications of these 

policies to European Union member states, in particular to CEP members. The EU Framework 

Decision promotes the implementation of a system where offenders can undergo their sentence 

in their European home country when they been sentenced abroad to a non-custodial sanction. 

This mechanism can help to avoid 

unnecessary prison terms of foreigners 

which may currently be considered 

unavoidable because the 

person has no residence in the state 

of conviction. “The Framework Decision 

is a sign of the EU’s commitment 

to probation activities, especially 

in the form of alternatives to 

custodial sentences; CEP applauds 

this development,” says Leo Tigges. 

It is CEP’s goal to bring its members 

together in their attempts to 

implement this Framework Decision. 

“On the one hand we aim to raise 

awareness among members of the 

upcoming changes, on the other 

hand CEP provides a platform to 

share information,” says Tigges. A 

specific example of such a meeting 

is the conference held in Dublin, Ireland, 

in October 2009. “At the Dublin 

conference on the implementation of 

the Framework Decision on Probation, 

CEP became aware of a Belgian 

initiative to start a project which 

would support the implementation 

process of the new probation regulations. 

1 Immediately we wanted to 

work together in this plan.” 

The needs of legislators in Europe 

to communicate about the Framework 

Decision and its consequences 

proved to be significant. CEP’s website 

is used to facilitate discussion 




and the dissemination of knowledge. 

The presentations and results of the 

Dublin meeting can be accessed on 

the website. The forum on the website 

offers an opportunity for members 

to meet and discuss issues 

concering the Framework Decision 

implementation in the virtual world. 

Some EU member states have 

already begun to address the 

upcoming changes, and have 

grasped the implications more easily 

than others. According to Tigges, 

hosting country Ireland is in many 

respects ahead in the preparation 

of the implementation of the Framework 

Decision, as a result of David 

O’Donovan’s efforts (former Board 

Member of CEP). “Some national 

governments have not even begun 

the legislative process and I fear that 

some of them might not meet the 

deadline of December 2011,” says 

Tigges. The Framework Decision 

is an complicated document and 

CEP aims to help these members 

by exchanging information and participating 

in or organising projects to 

achieve a timely and well prepared 

system of transfer of probation 

supervision. Based on the reactions 

of the delegates, the activities undertaken 

in 2009 proved to be a good 

starting point for probation services 

in relation to European developments. 

“What is exciting is that this 

Framework Decision gives a totally 

different dimension to the European 

cooperation in CEP. In the future 

we will really cooperate in transferring 

individual cases. Acquiring a 

true and detailed understanding of 

each other’s probation system will 

no longer be something voluntarily 

but imperative for all CEP member 

Leo Tigges 

organisations. As such CEP will also 

need to change its view on ‘mutual 

exchange of information’ as it was 

developed over the last thirty years. 

There’s no doubt that this process 

will result in a new approach of professionalising 

the sector of probation 

in Europe in the years to come.” 

1 

The project is entitled “Preparation of the practical implementation of the framework decision on the mutual recognition of probation 

measures” of the Federal Public Service Justice of Belgium, formerly known as the Ministry of Justice. The partnership resulted in the 

conference in Durbuy, Belgium, in July 2010 and a map of European legislation and practices. 

Focus: The Conference on Recruitment and Training of 

Probation Practitioners in Agen 

“Harmonize probation training in Europe, share good practice and highlight new initiatives.” 

This was the goal of the CEP conference held in Agen, France, in December 2009, organized in 

conjunction with the École Nationale d’Administration Pénitentiaire. 

Throughout the conference there 

were presentations and discussions 

about the training and selection of 

probation practitioners in Europe. 

Dr Brian Stout, Associate Head of 

School of Applied Social Sciences 

at De Montfort University (DMU), 

provided the concluding presentation 

at the end conference and is 

looking back at these two days. 

Since the recent developments in 

Europe, such as the implementa- 




Brian Stout 

tion of the Framework Decision on 

probation and the implementation 

of the Bachelor/Master structure at 

higher education level, the possibilities 

for working in the probation 

sector in another European country 

are increasing. Therefore there 

was a need for CEP members, to 

join together to discuss and learn 

more about training across Europe. 

According to Dr. Stout, who through 

his work is involved in the teaching 

of probation students and the shaping 

of the probation curriculum in the 

UK, it is of great importance to create 

a common training framework. 

“The framework could contribute 

to the achievement of a consolidating, 

effective and humane probation 

service in Europe. It would also be 

of great benefit to those countries 

where probation work is in an early 

stage of development, providing a 

strong foundation for developing a 

common training programme, an 

opportunity for the sharing of learning 

and best practice.” 

The presentations during the conference 

made clear that probation is 

delivered in a wide variety of ways 

in EU member states. In some countries 

probation training is located in 

social work, in others it is located 

in the prison service, and in others 

it is stand-alone. There are national, 

political reasons for these differences 

and it is difficult to imagine 

those changing. “In my view, greater 

unity is the correct aim, rather than 

standardisation,” says Dr. Stout. 

In the main the discussions 

focussed on debate as to how 

greater unity could be achieved 

and how complex standardisation 

might be. Dr. Stout thinks there are 

three potential obstacles in obtaining 

a European Curriculum: “One 

obstacle is that national training 

providers will tend to develop curricula 

with a view to national considerations. 

Another obstacle might 

be a temptation to focus on points 

of difficulty or difference, rather 

than to look positively at what 

could be achieved together and the 

benefits of a European Curriculum. 

A third obstacle is that change is 

always difficult; countries where a 

curriculum is already established 

may be disinclined to reflect on its 

content. Nonetheless greater unity 

is achievable through setting some 

clear principles and benchmarks, 

and by promoting best practice.” 

Dr. Stout concludes that the general 

conclusion of the conference 

was that a European Curriculum is a 

significant goal and one that would 

be possible to achieve. In addition 

everyone left the conference with a 

greater sense of what is happening 

in other European countries. Some 

participants met towards the end 

of the conference and agreed on 

the need to start a project group 

with several clearly defined tasks. 

“It is important to build upon the 

successes of the conference and 

strengthen an enduring network. In 

continuation, CEP could be driving 

the agenda of curriculum development, 

and reminding all of us of the 

importance of the European element 

of probation training.” 



Raise the profile of probation in Europe 


Supporting members and nonmembers 

to raise the profile of 

probation on a national level 

CEP Board Members and Secretary 

General paid several visits to 

European countries with the aim of 

raising the profile of probation at a 

national level: 

Portugal in March 

Contribution: Speaking at a conference 

on the place of probation in 

the penal system. 

Germany in March 


on the Market Reform of Probation 

Services. 

Isle of Man in April 


on integrating community 

justice. 

Germany in April 


on the management of offenders 

in resettlement programmes. 

Slovenia in September 


of the European Society of 

Criminology; visit to the Ministry of 

Justice; interview with the press. 

Macedonia in September 

Contribution: Speaking at a workshop 

on the procedures for implementation 

of alternative measures 

to imprisonment. 

Russia in October 


on promoting penal system 

reforms in the Russian Federation. 

Italy in December 

Contribution: Speaking at a Conference 

on different Probation Systems 

in Europe. 


Raise the profile of probation at 

a European level 

CEP attended two meetings of 

the Council for Penological Cooperation 

(PC-CP) of the Council 

of Europe in Strasbourg. During 

these meetings the formulation of 

the new European Probation Rules 

were discussed. CEP stimulated its 

members to respond to the draft of 

these rules. 

CEP also represented the probation 

sector at the European Union in 

Brussels. CEP had regular contact 

with the EU Directorate General for 

Jusitice, Freedom & Security, including 

a meeting with EU Vice-President 

and Commissioner for Justice, 

Freedom & Security Mr. Jacques 

Barrot, providing input for the 

execution of the Stockholm programme 

on the basis of consultation 

round CEP members. 

Focus: Briefing ‘Brussels’ 

In many aspects of the present-day society ‘Brussels’ plays an increasingly important role. In 

probation that is no different. “The most evident example is Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, 

on the transfer of Alternative sanctions and Probation Measures”, recalls Patrick Madigou, 

CEP President from 2007-2010. 

“But also in all the EU initiatives to 

create a European Area of Justice, 

there are many regulations which 

apply directly or indirectly to the 

sector of probation. Therefore, in 

2009, we logically decided to step 

up our contacts with the EU.” 

After the Framework Decision on 

probation was issued in December 

2008, it seemed obvious for CEP to 

meet with Mr. Jacques Barrot, EU 

Commissioner for Justice, Freedom 

& Security and Vice-President of the 

EU. “We would like to present our 




Leo Tigges, Jacques Barrot and 

Patrick Madigou 

organisation at the highest European 

level”, explains Patrick Madigou. 

“Moreover, we also would like 

to discuss the priorities that our 

member organisations had identified 

in a consultation round that we 

had held in the autumn of 2008.” 

In January 2009 CEP met with Mr. 

Barrot and his cabinet at the Commission’s 

headquarter. “Mr. Barrot 

indicated that he was particularly 

interested in further developing the 

harmonisation of sanctions and 

alternative sanctions in the EU”, 

tells Patrick Madigou. “This would 

be one of the guiding principles of 

the EU Action plan for cooperation 

on judicial matters and home affairs 

in the period 2010-2014, known as 

the Stockholm programme. As such 

he invited CEP to give input for the 

Stockholm programme.” 

In September CEP sent a letter to 

the Swedish Minister of Justice 

Ms. Beatrice Ask, who presided the 

EU Council of Ministers of Justice, 

which prepared the Stockholm programme. 

“We brought the priorities 

of the sector of probation to her 

attention. Of course we don’t know 

to which extend we have managed 

to put the priorities on the agenda. 

However, we are very delighted 

that ‘alternative sanctions’ were 

explicitly mentioned twice in the 

programme, and that many more 

stipulations directly relate to our 

contribution!” 

Most of CEP’s contacts with the 

EU, however, take place at the 

level of policy makers at unit level. 

“Please let me stress that we have 

had most valuable exchanges with 

EU policy makers too”, says Patrick 

Madigou. “For example in 2009 the 

EU has helped us to develop plans 

to initiate a project to design a 

single European methodology for 

the collection of statistical material 

on probation. It also greatly supported 

us to promote EU funding 

among the sector of probation in 

Europe. I am sure we will see the 

results of this in 2010.” 

Focus: CEP Probation values and the Recommendation on Probation 

of the Council of Europe, two complementary documents 

In 2009 the CEP Board developed a document on the 18 values of probation work which were 

adopted at the General Assembly of 2010. The CEP values are in line with the Recommendation 

on Probation of the Council of Europe (CoE) which was adopted in January 2010. These values 

are useful in the cooperation with the European Union and the CoE. 

“The CEP values are aimed specifically 

at bringing probation staff 

closer to the most important principles 

contained in the Council 

of Europe Probation Rules on the 

one hand,” explains Ilina Taneva, 

Deputy Head of the Division of 

Crime Problems and Secretary of 

the Council for Penological Cooperation 

of the CoE, which prepared 

the Recommendation (PC- 

CP). “On the other hand they have 




Ilina Taneva 

the objective of assisting the staff 

in understanding and implementing 

those rules.” 

The Recommendation on Probation 

CM/Rec (2010)1 came into effect 

on 20 January 2010 after it was 

adopted by the Committee of Ministers 

of the CoE. “The recommendation 

addresses the national 

authorities who should ensure the 

legal and practical basis needed for 

high quality probation work,” says 

Ilina Taneva. “The level of cooperation 

with CEP has always been very 

good even before the work of drafting 

the Recommendation began. 

CEP is also among the organisations 

which have an observer 

status with the PC-CP,” tells Ms. 

Taneva regarding the cooperation 

between the PC-CP and the 

CEP during the development of the 

Recommendation on Probation. 

The Probation values on the other 

hand, are meant to be a collective 

vision and set of basic values that 

are shared by all members. They 

are an attempt to create common 

ground between European Probation 

Services, reflecting the core elements 

which bind them together. According 

to Taneva the 18 CEP values are to 

identify and elaborate on the most 

important standards contained in 

the Recommendation on Probation. 

The values of Probation document 

from CEP can be used as an aid to 

assist Probation Agencies to raise 

the profile of probation amongst the 

public. Moreover, how can Probation 

Agencies implement the CoE 

Recommendation if they are not 

supporting the Probation values 

and principles? “The practical relevance 

of the recommendations 

depends on the way their principles 

are reflected in the national legislation 

and practice, as well as on the 

national legal systems,” Taneva 

continues. “A recommendation 

leaves more liberty and flexibility to 

the states regarding how to implement 

it than a convention does. A 

recommendation is much easier to 

replace or update than a convention. 

A good example in this respect 

are the European Prison Rules which 

have been updated three times 

so far and which are taken very 

seriously by the national authorities 

and have led to amendments 

in the legislation and practices of 

most countries,” explains Taneva. 

The development of the recommendations 

and the values document of 

CEP the Probation sector has been 

enhanced. According to Taneva 

“probation services in many countries 

have recently undergone or are 

undergoing currently restructuring 

and re-definition of their tasks and 

guidance in this respect is sought 

internationally. The increased international 

cooperation in the penal 

field is an important factor enhancing 

these developments. But it is 

also for the probation services themselves 

to prove their efficiency and 

to gain the needed trust and respect 

of the authorities in order to show 

that the vast majority of offenders 

can be dealt with more effectively 

and humanely outside prisons.” 

Regarding the differences and similarities 

of the recommendations and 

values, Taneva says: “The 18 values 

of the CEP correlate with the rules 

and standards contained in the CoE 

Probation Rules. They certainly do 

not have the ambition to comprise 

all aspects of probation as the term 

probation has differing meanings 

and scope throughout Europe. The 

values are addressing the practitioners 

who work with offenders, while 

the Recommendation is addressing 

also the national authorities which 

should ensure the legal and practical 

basis needed for a high quality 

probation work.” Summarising, 

Taneva concludes: “What these values 

aim at, in my opinion, is to highlight 

some of the most important 

aspects of probation which despite 

the differences are accepted by all 

services responsible for the execution 

of community sanctions and 

measures.” 


Reviewing future options for CEP 

Increasingly CEP has been implementing 

a challenging programme 

set by the General Assembly in 

Tallinn and increased interest in 

probation matters in Europe; all 

underpinned by the current economic 

crisis. In response to these 

factors and in order to ensure 

that CEP is best placed to serve 

its members, the Board commissioned 

a review of CEP to allow for 

informed decisions to be taken on 

options for the future. 

David Perry, PointFive Consulting 

Limited undertook the review 

which was based on interviews 

with Board Members, Secretary 

General, staff of the secretariat and 

the Director of Reclassering Nederland, 

as the CEP organisation 

strongly draws on the facilities provided 

by Reclassering Nederland. 

The report outlined a number of 

recommendations including those 

at strategic and operational levels, 

as well as identifying the potential 

for and implications of organisational 

independence. 

This report prompted the Board to 

examine the options for the future 

direction of CEP and many of the 

recommendations will be incorporated 

into future CEP plans. 


Income and expenditure 

Annual Account 2009 

Expenses 2009 Receipts 2009 

Salary € 178.586 Subscriptions € 259.296 

Travel costs € 27.529 Leger des Heils for IGA Bulgaria € 500 

Expenses of the secretariat € 21.362 Subscriptions 2008 € 150 

Electronic Monitoring 2009 € 3.975 Interest € 4.302 

Projects € 5.837 Workshops and seminars € 5.228 

Communication € 29.059 Publication ‘Probation in Europe’ € 4.174 

Bursaries € 4.000 

Surplus € 3.302 

Total € 273.650 Total € 273.650 


Income and expenditure 

The financial statements have been 

prepared in accordance with the 

Guideline for annual reporting 640 

‘Not-for-profit organisations’ of the 

Dutch Accounting Standards Board. 

The receipts and the expenses of 

the CEP, as well as the related documents 

for the year 2009 have been 

audited by independent auditors: 

Mr. Jean Detienne (Belgium) and 

Mr. François Kimmel, (Luxembourg). 

The audit did not present any discrepancy 

that would prevent the 

Board discharging its responsibility 

with regard to the finances. 

In addition, as part of the ongoing 

professionalization of CEP, the 

annual account 2009 was audited 

by a certified accountant from 

Ernst&Young Accountants LLP. On 

25 March 2010 CEP annual account 

2009 was approved. 

Income 

The income was ca e 35.000 higher 

than what was expected from the 

approved budget by the GA in September 

2007 in Tallinn. The main 

reasons were: 

• Subscriptions were higher, due to 

the admission of 6 new members 

after the GA. These new members 

provided, together with the new 

members already admitted in 2008, 

the voluntary additional payment of 

two members (Probation Department 

of the Salvation Army and 

Drugs Addiction Care, the Netherlands) 

and 3 cancellations (Maposz, 

SPJ and Plymouth University/Jill 

Annisson) in an increase in subscription 

fees of approximately e 24.000. 

• The Bank interest was around 

e 4.300 (In budget GA Tallinn 2007 

the expected interest for 2009 was 

e 3.500). 

• Other income resulted from sponsoring 

fees received for the organisation 

of the Electronic Monitoring 

conference in Egmond aan Zee, 

e 5.229, which will be reserved 

for the organisation of the next 

EM conference. CEP also received 

income from the book Probation 

in Europe which was around 

e 4.200. 

• Not included in the increase of 

income is a subsidy of e 47.500 

received in 2009 from the Dutch Ministry 

of Justice for the new update of 

Probation in Europe. This income is 

reserved for 2010 and 2011. 

Expenditure 

• Staff costs were approximately 

e 23.000 higher than what was 

expected from the approved 

budget by the GA in September in 

Tallinn, due to the need to replace 

the Executive Officer who is on long 

term sick leave. These replacement 

cost were borne half by Reclassering 

Nederland. 

The need for hiring external advice 

led to an increase of the salary 

costs as well. 

• Travel costs were approximately 

e 2.000 lower than expected form 

the approved budget by the GA in 

September in Tallinn. 

• Office costs, in which translation 

costs should also be included for 

comparison, were approximately 

the same as in the approved budget 

by the GA in September in Tallinn as 

well. 

• Bursaries were also approximately 

the same as the approved budget. 

• Communication costs were approximately 

e 13.000, not taking the 

translation costs into account, 

higher due to an increase of Newsletter 

issues and the development of 

the CEP website. 

• The expected update of Probation 

in Europe will take place in 2010. 

The year closed with a surplus of 

e 3.302. Taking into account the 

increase in activities and higher 

staff costs due to the replacement 

of the Executive Officer, this is a 

good result. This brought the contingency 

fund to e 149.741 on 1st 

January 2010. 


Postal address: P.O. Box 8215, 3503 RE Utrecht, The Netherlands 

Offices: Vivaldiplantsoen 200, 3533 JE Utrecht, The Netherlands 

Tel: +31-(0)30-232 4900 Fax: +31-(0)30-232 4950 

Email: secr@cep-probation.org Website: www.cep-probation.org 

With the financial support from the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union 

European Commission – Directorate-General Justice

ANNUAL REPORT - CEP, the European Organisation for Probation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?