Restorative Justice Templates by gzn80895

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 22

More Info
									                                                                                       1




           EUROPEAN COMMISSION
           RESEARCH DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
           Directorate B: European Research Area: structural aspects
           COST




                                         COST


                         COST Action A21


 Restorative Justice Developments in Europe



            PROGRESS REPORT
        Period: from Nov. 2002 to Jan 2004
                              (Start date of the Action)               (last update)



  This Report is prepared by the Management Committee of the Action and
presented to the relevant Technical Committee or directly to the Committee of
                               Senior Officials.
The report is a "cumulative" report, i.e. it is updated annually and covers the
              period beginning from the start date of the Action.
                                                                                        2




                COST Action A21

Title: "Restorative Justice Developments in Europe"

Domain: Social Sciences and Humanities

MoU: 261/02
Entry Into Force: 11/09/2002
CSO Approval: 13/05/2002
End of Action or Prolongation: 28/11/2006
1st MC: 29/11/2002

Total Number of Signatories: 16 (18)
Austria 3/12/2002   Belgium       11/09/2002 Bulgaria        16/09/2002
Cyprus 11/09/2002 Finland                11/09/2002 France           5/05/2003
Germany 7/11/2002 Hungary         16/10/2002 Ireland         2/12/2002
Italy 26/09/2002 Netherlands 23/05/2003 Norway                       27/11/2002
Portugal 20/10/2003 Slovenia      4/10/2002     Spain        11/09/200
United Kingdom11/09/2002 Poland and Switzerland requested signatures

Non Cost Institutions participating:
None

Working Groups:
Working Group 1: Evaluative research on restorative justice practices – Co-ordinator:
Kieran O´Dwyer , IRL
Working Group 2: Policy oriented research on restorative justice developments –Co-
ordinator: Vania Patane, I
Working Group 3: Theoretical Research – Co-ordinator : Robert Mackay , UK

Scientific Officer & Management Committee Chair:
Ms Björg OFSTAD Secretariat (Scientific Officer)
Pr Ivo AERTSEN       Management Committee (Chair)
 K.U. Leuven
 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology
 Hooverplein 10
 3000 Leuven
 Belgium

Publications:
None (one in preparation)

Website: in preparation for dissemination of results and external communication; in
use internally for MC and WGs (htpp://www.euforumrj.org).
                                                                                        3



                                     CONTENTS



1.   OVERVIEW: ACTION IDENTIFICATION DATA

See above.

It should be underlined that the end date of Action or Prolongation is 28 November
2006, and not 20 November 2006 as is mentioned in some official documents.


2.   OBJECTIVES

According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the main objective of the Action is
to enhance and to deeping knowledge on theoretical and practical aspects of restorative
justice in Europe, with a view to supporting implementation strategies in a scientifically
sound way.

In the technical annex, it is defined that, in order to reach this general objective, a
network of researchers will be created to:
     1. exchange and discuss research needs, methods and results;
     2. co-ordinate research projects in the respective countries as far as possible and
        desirable;
     3. stimulate or support further (common) research projects.

More precisely, the Action is focused on analysing:
           the process and the effects of victim-offender mediation and
              conferencing;
           national recording systems;
           national legislation in relation to victim-offender mediation;
           the relation between criminal justice and restorative justice practices and
              agencies;
           training models and the experience of training legal professionals in the
              restorative justice area;
           new restorative justice models and applications;
           theoretical concepts, approaches and frameworks on restorative justice.

So far, no modifications to these objectives and tasks have been proposed. The main
philosophy, the objectives and the topics proposed in the initial project seem to be
adopted by those involved during the first year of the Action.
                                                                                          4



3.   TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

3.1. Domains and sub-domains

The scientific programme of the Action relates to three domains, of which two are split
up in several sub-domains. Each domain is covered by one Working Group (WG).

1. Evaluative research on restorative justice practices

1.1. Study of the process and the effects of victim-offender mediation and conferencing
     Different models of victim-offender mediation or conferencing processes can be
     analysed. The effects to be studied relate to the psychological, material and legal
     consequences for the victim, the psychological and social impact on the offender
     (e.g. on re-offending), the financial cost of particular practices, the impact on the
     functioning of the criminal justice system and the influence on the perception of
     crime and criminal justice by persons involved and others.
     The analysis and discussion of research carried out in this respect in different
     countries should result in:
     a) a better understanding of the kind of research being carried out in Europe;
     b) a better understanding of the mainly qualitative methodologies being used for
         such research, and their respective strengths and weaknesses;
     c) an objective overview of the results of these evaluative research projects, from
         which conclusions could be drawn to support policy development in the
         restorative justice field;
     d) discerning gaps in the scientific research in this field for Europe, and setting up
         a research agenda for the future;
     e) achieving agreement on the methodological framework best suited to carry out
         specific types of research projects.

1.2. Study of national (annual) recording systems of data
    This rather quantitatively oriented research has to be seen in the perspective of a
    better comparison of national recording systems and data. This part of the research
    will allow to:
    a) get an idea about what data collection system is being used in which country;
    b) get an idea about what information can be and is collected in the different
        countries;
    c) set up common criteria to stimulate all countries to collect comparable
        information, which will - in the long run - allow for interpretation and further
        research in a comparable and reliable way;
    d) compare data once common criteria are used.

1.3. Study of organisational features, job evaluation and satisfaction
    This study includes the legal status of restorative justice organisations and the legal
    position of facilitators and mediators; the internal organisation of restorative justice
    services; the task perception and the educational and professional background of
    practitioners. The creation of such an overview will allow to get a better view on
    the organisation of restorative justice services, the strengths and weaknesses of the
                                                                                          5



   different organisation types, the content of the work of facilitators, their view on
   and satisfaction with their work.

2. Policy oriented research on restorative justice developments

2.1. Comparative study of national legislation in relation to victim-offender mediation
    National regulation can be found in criminal law, criminal procedure or specific
    statutes, and in executive rules, guidelines and instructions.
    This research domain must allow to:
     a) study the different kinds of legislation used;
     b) make a common framework for analysis, to be able to compare legislation in
        the broad sense;
     c) compare the presence of legislation in general on restorative justice;
     d) study the lacunas in the legislative framework supporting restorative justice;
     e) study the effect of the introduction of legislation on restorative justice practice;
     f) put national legislation against international standards of juridical or practical
        nature.

2.2. Study of the relation between criminal justice and restorative justice practices and
    agencies
    Action to be undertaken in this sub-domain:
    a) study the types of relationship between restorative justice programmes and
        criminal justice;
    b) draw conclusions on how co-operation agreements can best be set up to
        improve the use of restorative justice practices;
    c) analyse what types of referral procedures work best and why;
    d) analyse whether agreements reached in a restorative justice scheme are referred
        back to the criminal justice system;
    e) analyse which effect the agreements reached in a restorative justice scheme
        have on the further criminal justice procedure;
    f) study how criminal justice practitioners and restorative justice practitioners
        experience the relation they have, and how they feel this relation can be
        improved.

2.3. Study of training models and experiences of training legal professionals in the
    restorative justice area
    This sub-domain focuses on the training of judges, prosecutors and lawyers in
    connection to restorative justice practices. This study should allow to:
    a) get a view on whether training for criminal justice practitioners exists, in what
        form and on what level;
    b) get a view on whether criminal justice practitioners are motivated to follow
        such training.

2.4. Study on new restorative justice models and applications
    New models, such as family group or community conferences, have to be studied in
    relation to their objectives, concepts, processes and first results. Moreover, the
    application of restorative justice methods in particular settings, such as prisons,
                                                                                                     6



    police services, schools and within the family context will be integrated. This study
    must allow to:
    a) get a better view of new methods being applied in the restorative justice field in
        Europe and on when to use them;
    b) get a better view on the possibility of implementing restorative justice in other
        domains.

3. Theoretical research

Looking at the (sub-)domains mentioned above, it is clear that practice and policy
development influence theory and vice versa. All these domains cannot be studied
loose from the theoretical conceptualisation of restorative justice. A need is felt to
clarify and further theoretical concepts, approaches and frameworks on restorative
justice. The key questions concern the relation of restorative justice to criminal law and
punishment, to crime prevention and rehabilitation, and to societal developments. This
domain is to be studied from the perspectives of legal theory and philosophy, ethics,
sociology of the law, pedagogy and social psychology and criminology.


3.2. Working Groups

For each of the domains, a Working Group has been established and a co-ordinator
chosen.1 These decisions were made during the first meeting of the Management
Committee (Brussels, November 2002) and further elaborated at a meeting of the WG
co-ordinators, the Chair and the Vice-Chair (the so-called Co-ordinating Group)
(Dublin, February 2003).

The three WGs met two times in the course of 2003 (September and December). WG1
(Evaluative research) started working on sub-domain 1.1. effectively, whereas on sub-
domain 1.2. first ideas have been exchanged; action on sub-domain 1.3. is not yet
started. WG2 (Policy oriented research) started working on sub-domains 2.1., 2.3. and
2.4. effectively, whereas action on sub-domain 2.2. has still to be started. WG3
(Theoretical research) as a whole has started effectively too.

The number of members of the three Working Groups at the end of 2003 was
respectively 10, 17 and 16 (see the lists in annex; more researchers entered in
February/March 2004). No Working Group has been split up in sub-WGs until now.
However, WG2 nominated for each sub-domain one or two responsible persons
(‘reporters’). It must be mentioned that sub-domain 2.1. also benefitted from a co-
operative effort in the context of a European conference in Lisbon, September 2003
(organised by the Portuguese Association for Victim Support – APAV – and co-
sponsored by a Grotius grant and by the Information Committee of the European
Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice). This work already
resulted in a comparative review on victim-offender mediation in a number of
European countries. The report contains comparative data on legislation, which will be

1
 WG3 had two co-ordinators in the first year, which has been reduced to one at the end of 2003 because
of clarity.
                                                                                     7



analysed more in detail in WG2. Moreover, in a general way it should be mentioned
that the work in WG1 and WG2 has been supported by the results of a preparatory
seminar on empirical research on restorative justice in 9 European countries, organised
at the Catholic University in Leuven in June 2002 and sponsored by the Belgian
Federal Science Policy Office.

3.3. Secretarial services

Secretarial services were mainly organised in a close co-operation between the MC
Chair and the COST Scientific Officer. For some administrative actions, the Chair
could rely on the help from the secretariat of the Department of Criminal Law and
Criminology at the K.U.Leuven. Besides, the Action could benefit in a practical way
from the Discussion Forum on the website of the European Forum for Victim-Offender
Mediation and Restorative Justice (http://www.euforumrj.org). Both the MC and each
WG has a discussion room at its disposal, on which announcements, minutes of
meetings and other documents are posted and arguments are exchanged. It must be
underlined, however, that familiarising with this electronic device for many implies a
certain (initial) effort.


4.   PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 Management Committee

Chairperson
Dr. Ivo AERTSEN
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Hooverplein 10
B-3000 Leuven
Tel.: +32 16 32 53 02
Fax: +32 16 32 54 63
E-mail: ivo.aertsen@law.kuleuven.ac.be

Vice Chairperson
Mr. Robert E MACKAY
7 Juniper Place
Perth
PHI IEZ
Scottland - UK
Tel.: +44 1738 626 971
Fax: /
E-mail: r.e.mackay@amicalis.fsnet.co.uk ; remackay@pkc.gov.uk

No Secretary
                                                      8



Members

Austria

Dr. Christa PELIKAN
Institut für Rechts- und Kriminalsoziologie
A-1016 Wien

Belgium

Mr. Johan DEKLERCK
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
B-3000 Leuven

Ms. Anne LEMONNE
Université Libre de Bruxelles
B-1050 Bruxelles

Bulgaria

Dr. Dobrinka CHANKOVA
Institute for Conflict Resolution
1700 Sofia

Ms. Bozhana NEDELCHEVA
Free University of Varna
Varna

Cyprus

Ms. Olga GEORGIADES van der POL
Lellos P. Demetriades Law Office
CY-1096 Nicosia

Finland

Dr. Juhani IIVARI
STAKES The National Research and Development Centre
for Welfare and Health
FIN-00531 Helsinki

France

Ms. Evelyne SERVERIN
IDHE, UMR, ENS-Cachan
94235 Cachan Cedex

Dr. Jacques FAGET
                                                                       9



Institut d'études politiques de Bordeaux
33604 Pessac

Germany

Dr. Michael KILCHLING
Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht
D-79100 Freiburg

Dr. Dieter RÖSSNER
Phillipps-Universitât Marburg
Institut für Kriminalwissenshaften
35037 Marburg

Hungary

Dr. Klára KEREZSI
National Institute of Criminology
H-1122 Budapest

Ms. Borba’la FELLEGI
Family, Child, Youth Association
H-1027 Budapest

Ireland

Dr. Kieran O'DWYER
Garda Research Unit
Co. Tipperary

Italy

Dr. Anna MESTITZ
IRSIG – CNR
Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council
I – 40126 Bologna

Dr. Vania PATANE
University of Catania
Law Faculty
I – 95 124 Catania

Netherlands

Dr. John BLAD
Erasmus University Rotterdam
NL-3000 DR Rotterdam
                                                 10



Ms. Katrien LAUWAERT
University of Maastricht
Dept. of Criminal Law and Criminology
NL-6200 MD Maastricht

Norway

Dr. Ida HYDLE
Agder Universiy College
Dept. of health and sports
N – 4838 Arendal

Poland

Dr. Beata CZARNECKA-DZIALUK
Institute of Justice
00-071 Warsaw

Portugal

Mr. Joao LAZARO
Associação de Apoio à Vitima (APAV)
Lisboa

Mr Manuel Antonio FERREIRA ANTUNES
Associação de Apoio à Vitima (APAV)
Lisboa

Slovenia

Dr. Marko BOSNJAK
University of Ljubljana
Institute of Criminology of the Faculty of Law
SI-1000 Ljubljana

Spain

Dr. Esther GIMENEZ-SALINAS I COLOMER
Universitat Ramon Llull
Facultad de Derecho. Dpto Derecho Penal
S-08034 Barcelona

Mr. Jesus TRUJILLO MATIAS
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Escuela Superior de ciencias Criminologicas
S- 35016 Las Palmas

Switzerland
                                                                                   11




Ms. Joséphine CONTU
Universitaet Bern
Institut für Strafrecht und Kriminologie

United Kingdom

Dr. David MIERS
Cardiff Law School
Cardiff University
UK-Cardiff


4.2 Participating Institutions

No formally participating institutions.


4.3 Meetings of the Management Committee

29 November 2002, Brussels
5 December 2003, Freiburg


4.4 Meetings of the Working Groups

CO-ORDINATING GROUP: 7-8 February 2003, Dublin

WG1
   15-16 September 2003, Lisbon
   6 December 2003, Freiburg

WG2
   15-16 September 2003, Lisbon
   4 December 2003, Freiburg

WG3
   15-16 September 2003, Lisbon
   4 December 2003, Freiburg


4.5 Short-term scientific missions

One STSM has been granted, spread over three short-distance visits:

9-11 December 2003; 20-23 January 2004; 8 March 2004
Host: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology
Nationality of scientist: Dutch
                                                                                       12



Topic: Restorative justice for juveniles


5.   RESULTS


In its first year, the Action was seriously handicapped by budgetary restrictions, due to
the transition period of the COST organisation. The Action started with the first
meeting of the MC in November 2002, where the scientific programme, as presented in
the Technical Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding, was discussed. Domains
and sub-domains were confirmed, reporters appointed and concrete work arrangements
made. From the very beginning, much weight was given to the functioning of the
Working Groups. These WGs, however, could not start working until September 2003.

In this period the budget nevertheless allowed to organise a meeting with a limited
group of participants. It was decided to organise a meeting with the three WG co-
ordinators, the Chair and the Vice Chair (the Co-ordinating Group). This meeting, held
in the beginning of February in Dublin, proved to be successful. The general aim of the
Action was re-defined in operational terms and was summarised as ‘collecting data on
basic information and research, analysing the information, identifying the gaps and
setting a research agenda’. In the philosophy of the Action, it was suggested that co-
operation between policy-makers and scientists in the field of criminal justice should
constitute a prominent perspective. For the first stage (and year) of the Action –
collecting data – it was proposed that the WGs, for each sub-domain where appropriate,
would develop templates. Using templates would allow not only to collect information
from the different countries in a comparative way, but also to analyse the collected
materials at different levels (after a first analysis, allowing for more in-depth analysis
and the identification of new research topics and questions).

By September, when the WGs met for the first time, draft templates were developed in
each of the WGs. During the September meeting WG1 (evaluative research), in a first
part of the meeting, focused mainly on sub-domain 1.1. (study of the process and the
effects of victim-offender mediation and restorative justice). Findings from a
preliminary seminar on empirical research in 9 European countries (Leuven, June 2002)
were presented and discussed, resulting in the identification of a number of issues in
respect to both the content of the findings and (comparative) research methodology. In
addition findings on a specific part of the above mentioned Grotius study were
presented and discussed, more precisely on the structure and functioning of mediation
centres in Europe. This overview was commented on by the WG members in relation to
issues such as victim sensitiveness, the victim-offender dialectic and the
professionalisation of mediation, and in relation to broader societal developments.
Finally, a particular research from a social linguistic perspective on mediation in cases
of serious crimes was presented. The second part of the meeting was devoted to the
discussion and amendment of the draft template designed to collect information on
completed and ongoing evaluative research in the European countries. Through further
exchange via electronic means, the draft template was discussed again in the December
meeting, which in January resulted in a final draft and a concrete planning.
Arrangements were made to create a template for sub-domain 1.2. as well (study of
                                                                                                           13



national data recording systems). Moreover, the WG, in its December meeting,
discussed the outcome of some recently organised international conferences on
restorative justice. Finally, evaluative research methodology was debated, with
attention for, amongst others, ethical questions.

For two sub-domains of WG2 (policy oriented research), draft templates were made by
September (2.3. and 2.4.: training of legal professionals and the study of new
restorative justice models and applications). These drafts were discussed and re-shaped
in the following months. Another discussion of the re-worked drafts took place during
the second meeting of the WG (December 2003). After a subsequent final consultation
amongst the WG members by e-mail and in the discussion room of the website, the
templates were approved and both were tried out in two countries. The results hereof
will be dealt with during the WG meeting in March 2004. In the same WG, sub-domain
2.1. (comparative study of national legislation on victim-offender mediation) was dealt
with in the September meeting too. Based on a broader preliminary research done in the
context of a Grotius project and by the European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation
and Restorative Justice, the collected data on legislation were identified and discussed.
It was decided that updated information would be collected further in the coming
period. Moreover, new entries (new countries) were identified, and also possible
national and international sources for information. WG members discussed the
repartition of the work, in terms of information collection, translation of legal texts and
the elaboration of a scheme for comparative analysis (template). The WG meeting in
December did not provide the opportunity for further discussion and planning of the
work in this sub-domain, since the keynote players were not able to attend. Finally, as
already mentioned, sub-domain 2.2. has not yet started, but a proposal has been
formulated and will be discussed during the WG meeting in March.

WG3 (theoretical research) discussed a first draft template on the classification of
theoretical research in restorative justice at its September meeting. An extensive
working paper on theoretical research was prepared as well, and an alternative, topic-
based template was presented. The discussion resulted in two options: amending the
template to classify theoretical research, and creating a template or structure to identify
critical issues in theoretical research. During the following months, further discussion
took place via electronic way. Papers on theoretical themes related to restorative justice
from countries such as Slovenia, Bulgaria and Germany were exchanged in the
meantime. In the December meeting, a new direction for the work was adopted. This
new direction stemmed from the vision that the purpose of the WG was not to write
theoretical papers or to list theoretical work, but that a WG meeting should in itself be
‘an exercise in theoretical development’. Therefore, it was decided not to continue to
work on the already discussed papers or on draft templates, but to focus on identifying
key issues for restorative justice theory. The purpose of the WG was re-defined as to
‘clarify the theoretical ground of restorative justice with the aim of stimulating further
developments in the field’. In order to realise this, the WG decided to strive for
highlighting the core theoretical themes and controversies.2 Identified themes will be
elaborated in the form of controversies. When a balanced view of these controversies is

2
 ‘Our work will have been successful if we have contributed to a process whereby theoretical debates
about restorative justice have credibility within the field of legal theory at the end of the life of the COST
Action.’ (from the minutes of the December 2004 meeting)
                                                                                                    14



achieved, several theoretical experts will be invited to put these issues into theoretical
frameworks. The following step is to review progress, and to set further objectives. For
this all, a working plan until October 2005 had been decided on.

To conclude, the main scientific results reached in the COST Action so far should be
reflected in the summary of activities of the three WGs in this still initial stage of the
Action, taking into account that effective work only could start in September 2003.
WGs have more or less passed now the phase of exploring and searching for their own
direction and working method. Furthermore, new countries are still entering the Action
(Poland and Switzerland), and within the countries already involved, more researchers
working in this field should be identified and invited to participate.3 For several sub-
domains, a good connection has been established with internationally oriented research
projects and other initiatives in the field of restorative justice. This not only facilitates
the collection of data, but should also enhance the probability that the Action is
building as good as possible on research results and insights already obtained and on
real issues in practice and policy development. Some of the sub-domains in this Action
are focusing clearly on unknown fields (for example the role of legal professionals, or
new models and applications), and it can be expected that the current exploration with
the help of templates will result in more elaborated research proposals soon. Other sub-
domains, such as on legislation or on the process and the effects of mediation, can rely
on already existing materials, which will orientate the work mainly to more in-depth
analysis. Remaining sub-domains, such as on national data recording systems, are
waiting for the very first steps internationally, and they will require thorough technical
work. Finally, original theoretical work, following a specific method, can be expected,
showing an effort which is not yet done scientifically in a collective and continuing
way.

The Action is reaching, on the one hand, a considerable number of young researchers,
of which several are preparing a Ph.D. on a restorative justice related topic. On the
other hand, the Action benefits from the participation of many senior researchers and
well known scholars in this field.


6.   DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS

6.1 Publications and Reports

Several (internal) working papers have been prepared, mainly in WG3 on theoretical
research. In WG2 the research set up now in sub-domains 2.3. and 2.4. should result in
a concrete outcome in the course of 2004, to be presented in reports; and most probably
publications on this two research topics will follow.

One book publication is in process. This is based on the results of the preliminary
seminar in June 2002 on empirical research in the field of victim-offender mediation
and conferencing in 9 European countries (see above), completed with a comparative
analysis. A COST financial support of 3752 € has been granted for this publication.

3
  In this respect, the maximum number of participants per country caused considerable confusion during
the first year of the Action (2 instead of 6).
                                                                                      15



References of the book: I. Aertsen, I. Vanfraechem and J. Willemsens (eds.),
‘Restorative Justice in Europe: Empirical Research’, Leuven University Press. Editors
and authors are nearly all actively involved in the COST Action.


6.2 Conferences and Workshops

No conferences or workshops organised at present. Concrete proposals exist and are to
be discussed by the MC in March 2004.

6.3 Website

The European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice has made
available its website for the COST Action. This is done in two ways:
             COST participants have access (for free) to the discussion room of the
                website, where 4 discussion groups were created for the Action. This is
                done respectively for the MC and for each of the three WGs. Members
                can communicate in these discussion groups and internal documents can
                be posted in attachment. Because these are protected discussion groups,
                participants have to apply for a password.
             A new webpage within the website (under ‘projects’) has been made
                available very recently for more general information on the Action, to be
                consulted by (external) visitors. Documents on the Action will be placed
                there very soon.
To visit the website: http://www.euforumrj.org

6.4 Scientific and Technical Co-operation

The Action has not (yet) established formal contacts with scientific institutions or
research programmes. Many Action participants have contacts with institutions at the
individual level. A contact was established with the Max-Planck-Institut für
ausländisches und Internationals Strafrecht in Freiburg, which acted as local organiser
for the MC and WG meetings of December 2004. This offered for many the
opportunity to learn about the Institute as well, and to visit its impressive library on
criminology and criminal law. Finally, a call was made amongst the members of the
Action to present papers on restorative justice research at the Annual Conference of the
European Society of Criminology, August 2004 in Amsterdam. Probably two panels on
this theme will be formed.

6.5 Transfer of results

No initiative taken so far.

7.   ECONOMIC DIMENSION

An estimate of total manpower expressed in person-year dedicated to the activities of
the Action is difficult to make for the first year, taking into account the irregular and
                                                                                       16



restricted way in which the Action had to function. Nevertheless, one could roughly
estimate:
     the manpower in person-day directly related to the meetings of the Co-
         ordinating Group, MC and WGs in the course of 2003, on 160 days;
     the manpower in person-day dedicated to work for the Action in between by all
         involved, on 220 days.

COST Expenditures:

     €                  2002   2003   2004             2005      2006     Total
     Meetings            8.860 32.100
     STSMs
     Workshops
     Publications                   3.752

     Total               8.860     35.852    75.000


8.   (SELF) EVALUATION

Although the information already given might provide a quite complete picture of the
way the Action started, its problems and small successes, and although a final self
evaluation is not required at this moment, we should at the end of this progress report
ask special attention for an important and problematic topic. This relates to the
reimbursement of costs, made for the meetings of MC and WGs. The reimbursement
procedure takes 5 to 6 months, which is absolutely not acceptable. Many of the COST
participants advance these expenses from their private budget, and in particular for
researchers in Eastern European countries the situation is problematic (but not only for
them). If this situation is not changing rapidly, we can expect that several of our most
active participants will resign. For the others, this situation is highly de-motivating as
well.
                                                                                                                                                    1



ANNEX


COST A21 ‘Restorative Justice Developments in Europe’                                                             Updated: 3 December 2003
WG 1 – Evaluative Research
Co-ordinator: Kieran O’Dwyer



Name           Address                Institute                        e-mail                               Fax                  Tel.
HONKATUKIA     POB 157, FIN-          National Research Institute of   paivi.honkatukia@omu.fi              ++358/9.1606.7866    ++358+/9.1606.7871
Päivi          00121 Helsinki,        Legal Policy
               Finland
HYDLE Ida      Sykehusvn. 4, N-       Agder University College         ida.hydle@hia.no                     ++47/3700.4001       ++47/3700.4053
               4838 Arendal,
               Norway
LAZARO Joao    Rua do Sol Ao Rato                                      jlazaro@iol.pt                       Mobile:
               53-2°, 1250-305                                                                              ++351/93.504.77.26
               Lisboa, Portugal
LEMONNE        Université Libre de    Université Libre de Bruxelles,   alemonne@ulb.ac.be                   ++32/2.650.46.36     ++32/2.650.45.28
Anne           Bruxelles, av. F.D.    Faculté de Droit, Centre de
               Roosevelt 50 (c.p.     Recherches Criminologiques
               137), B-1050
               Bruxelles, Belgium
MALSCH         NSCR                                                    malsch@nscr.nl
Marijke        Netherlands
MESTITZ Anna   Via Zamboni 26, I-     IRSIG-CNR, Research              mestitz@irsig.cnr.it                 ++39/51.260250       ++39/51.265349
               40126 Bologna, Italy   Institute on Judicial Systems,
                                      National Research Council
O’DWYER        Templemore, Co.        Garda Research Unit, Garda       odwyerk@iol.ie                       ++353/504.35455      ++353/504.35427
Kieran         Tipperary, Ireland     Siochana College
VANSPAUWEN     Hooverplein 10, B-     K.U.Leuven, Dept. Criminal       Kris.Vanspauwen@law.kuleuven.ac.be   ++32/16.32.54.78     ++32/16.32.53.08
Kris           3000 Leuven,           Law and Criminology                                                                        Mobile:
               Belgium                                                                                                           ++32/494.173.089
                                                                                                                               2



VLADIMIROV      Studentki Grad Bl.   Institute for Conflict   gvladimirov@abv.bg or    ++359/2.687.449     ++359/888.795522
Grigor Radkov   7A/10/95, Sofia      Resolution               gvladimirov@medicom.bg
                1700, Bulgaria
WILLIAMS        Scraptoft Campus     De Montfort University   bwilliam@dmu.ac.uk       ++44/116.257.7708   ++44/116.257.7898
Brian           Scraptoft            Faculty of Health and
                Leicester LE7 9SU    Community Studies
                U.K.
                                                                                                                                                 3




COST A21 ‘Restorative Justice Developments in Europe’                                                 Updated: 9 February 2004
WG 2 – Policy Oriented Research
Co-ordinator: Vania Patané
Reporters:
       - Sub-domain 2.1. (national legislations): David Miers and Olga Georgiades
       - Sub-domain 2.2. (relation RJ practices and agencies with criminal justice): Michael Kilchling
       - Sub-domain 2.3. (training of legal professionals): Borbala Fellegi
       - Sub-domain 2.4 (new RJ models and applications): Dobrinka Chankova

Name              Address                   Institute                           e-mail                           Tel.                Fax
AERTSEN Ivo       Hooverplein 10, B-        K.U.Leuven, Dept. Criminal Law      ivo.aertsen@law.kuleuven.ac.be   ++32/16.32.53.02    ++32/16.32.54.63
                  3000 Leuven, Belgium      and Criminology
BARABAS Tünde     Maros St. 6/a, 1122       National Institute of Criminology   barabas@okri.hu                  ++36/1.356.7566     ++36/1.356.7219
                  Budapest, Hungary
CHANKOVA          Studentski grad bl. 7A,   Institute for Conflict Resolution   chankova@techno-link.com         ++359/2.687449      ++359/2.687449
Dobrinka          ap. 95, 1700 Sofia,
                  Bulgaria
DE SOUTER         Federal Public Service    Department of Legislation and       vicky.deSouter@just.fgov.be      ++32/2.542.68.37    ++32/2.542.70.72
Vicky             Justice, Boulevard de     Fundamental Rights
                  Waterloo 115, B-1000
                  Bruxelles, Belgium
FELLEGI Borbala   Baka’ts Ter 3, 1092       Family, Child, Youth Association    fellegi@szochalo.hu              ++36/20.346.9040    /
                  Budapest, Hungary                                             bf227@cam.ac.uk                  ++447/906705266
                                                                                fellegi.borbala@kla.hu           (until June 2004)
GEORGIADES        The Chanteclair House     Lellos P. Demetriades Law Office    Olgag@ldlaw.com.cy               ++357/2267.6060     ++357/2266.5535
Olga              – 2 Souphoulis Str. 9th
                  flr, 1096 Cyprus,
                  Cyprus
GROENHUIJSEN      Netherlands               Katholieke Universiteit Brabant     M.S.Groenhuijsen@kub.nl
Marc
IIVARI Juhani     Lintulahdenkuja 4 – PO    STAKES - National Research and      juhani.iivari@stakes.fi          ++358/1.39672208    ++358/9.761307
                                                                                                                                                       4



                Box 220, 00531             Development Centre for Welfare and                                          Mobile:
                Helsinki, Finland          Health                                                                      ++358/40.5567.302
KEREZSI Klara   Maros u. 6/a, H-1122       National Institute of Criminology      kerezsi@okri.hu                      ++36/1.3567566      ++36/1.3567219
                Budapest, Hungary
KILCHLING       Günterstalstrasse 73, D-   Max-Planck-Institut für                m.kilchling@iuscrim.mpg.de           ++49/761.7081.230   ++49/791.7081.294
Michael         79100 Freiburg,            ausländisches und internationales
                Germany                    Strafrecht
LAUWAERT        P.O. Box 616, 6200         University of Maastricht, Faculty of   katrien.Lauwaert@strafr.unimaas.nl   ++31/43.388.30.37   /
Katrien         MD Maastricht, The         Law                                                                         (3377 secr.)
                Netherlands
MARQUES         Rva do Comércio 56-        Associaçao Portuguesa de Apoio a       frederico.moyano@clix.pt             ++351/21.885.4095   /
Frederico       5°, 1100-150 Lisboa,       Vitima (APAV) – Victim Support
                Portugal
MIERS David     Museum Avenue – P.O.       Cardiff University, Cardiff Law        miers@cf.ac.uk                       ++44/29.2087.4964   ++44/29.2087.4984
                Box 427, CF10 3XJ          School
                Cardiff, United
                Kingdom
PATANE Vania    Via Gallo, 24, I-95124     University of Catania, Law Faculty     vpatane@lex.unict.it                 ++39/095.230.363    ++39/095.321.654
                Catania, Italy
VAN CAMP        Hooverplein 10, B-         K.U.Leuven, Dept. Criminal Law         Tinneke.VanCamp@law.kuleuven.a       ++32/16.32.55.40    ++32/16.32.54.63
Tinneke         3000 Leuven, Belgium       and Criminology                        c.be
WEITEKAMP       Hooverplein 10, B-         K.U.Leuven, Dept. Criminal Law         Elmar.Weitekamp@law.kuleuven.ac      ++32/16.32.55.58    ++32/16.32.54.63
Elmar           3000 Leuven, Belgium       and Criminology                        .be
WILLEMSENS      Hooverplein 10, B-         K.U.Leuven, Dept. Criminal Law         Jolien.Willemsens@law.kuleuven.ac    ++32/16.32.54.29    ++32/16.32.54.74
Jolien          3000 Leuven, Belgium       and Criminology                        .be
                                                                                                                                               5




COST A21 ‘Restorative Justice Developments in Europe’                                                           Updated:9 February 2004
WG3 – Theoretical Research
Co-ordinator: Rob Mackay
Deputy: Johan Deklerck

Last Name    Address                      Institute                  e-mail                       Tel.                     Fax
ANTUNES      R. Vasco Santana 7 – 8 E,    APAV                       mafantunes@netcabo.pt        ++351/96.400.6060
FERREIRA     2685-246 Portela LRS –
Manuel       Portugal
BLAD                                                                 blad@frg.eur.nl
John

BOSNJAK      Poljanski Nasip 2, 1000      University of Ljubljana,   marko.bosnjak@pf.uni-Lj.si   ++386/1.42.03.243        ++386/1.42.03.245
Marko        Ljubljana, Slovenia          Faculty of Law,
                                          Institute of
                                          Criminology
CONTU        Hochschulstrasse 4, 3012     Institut fur Strafrecht    josephine.contu@krim.unib    ++41 31 631 39 77        ++41 31 631 82 05
Josephine    Bern, Switzerland            und Kriminologie,          e.ch
                                          Universitaet Bern
DEKLERCK     Hooverplein 10, B-3000       K.U.Leuven, Dept.          Johan.Deklerck@law.kuleu     ++32/16.32.54.63         ++32/16.32.54.67
Johan        Leuven, Belgium              Criminal Law and           ven.ac.be
                                          Criminology
FAGET        11, Allée Ausone, FR-33604   CNRS, Institut d’études    j.faget@iep.u-bordeaux.fr    ++33/5.568.44.181        ++33/5.568.44.329
Jacques      Pessac, France               politiques de Bordeaux
LANGLEV-                                                             george_bakalov@lex.bg        ++359/888.571.249
BAKALOV
Georg
MACKAY       Perth and Kinross Council    Education and              remackay@pkc.gov.uk          ++44/1738.477.869        ++44/1738.476.210
Robert       PH1 5LU Perth, U.K.          Children’s Service &
                                          Perth College, UHI
                                          Millenium Institute
PELIKAN      Museumstrasse 5, A-1016      Institut für Rechts- und   christa.pelikan@irks.at      ++43/1.526.1516          ++43/1.526.1516
Christa      Wien, Austria                Kriminalsoziologie
                                                                                                                                               6



ROESSNER                                 Criminal Law and         roessner@staff.uni-
Dieter                                   Criminology,             marburg.de
                                         University of Marburg

SOUSA       Av. Fontes Pereira de Melo   APAV                     Sonia.pereira-656@clix.pt    ++351/21.315.0779
PEREIRA     35-4E, 1050-118 Lisboa,                                                            Mobile: ++351/93.640.3848
Sonia       Portugal
Van den     postbox 616                  Department of Criminal   grat.vandenheuvel@strafr.u   tel: ++ 31/43.388.3377      ++41 31 631 82 05
HEUVEL      6200 MD Maastricht           Law and Criminology,     nimaas.nl
Grat        The Netherlands              University of
                                         Maastricht

Van                                                               b.v.stokkom@cekun.kun.nl
STOKKOM
Bas
VANFRAECH   Hooverplein 10, B-3000       K.U.Leuven, Dept.        Inge.Vanfraechem@law.kul     ++32/16.32.55.06            ++32/16.32.54.63
EM Inge     Leuven, Belgium              Criminal Law and         euven.ac.be
                                         Criminology
WALGRAVE    Hooverplein 10, B-3000       K.U.Leuven, Dept.        Lode.Walgrave@law.kuleu      ++32/16.32.52.74            ++32/16.32.54.63
Lode        Leuven, Belgium              Criminal Law and         ven.ac.be
                                         Criminology
WRIGHT      19 Hillside Road             Senior Research Fellow   m-w@dircon.co.uk             ++44 (0) 20 8671 8037
Martin      London SW2 3HL               University of Sussex
            UK

								
To top