3.3. the framework decision on probation and alternative sanctions Alternatives to detention at the post-conviction phase are contained within the FD on Probation measures and alternative sanctions (FD PAS). Just as FD TOP on the transfer of prisoners, the FD PAS aims to facilitate social reintegration.227 Recital 9 provides that “the aim of mutual recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, conditional sentences, alternative sanctions and decisions on conditional release is to enhance the prospects of the sentenced person’s being reintegrated into society, by enabling that person to preserve family, linguistic, cultural and other ties, but also to improve monitoring of compliance with probation measures and alternative sanctions, with a view to preventing recidivism, thus paying due regard to the protection of victims and the general public.” It provides for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment from an issuing member state in relation to a non-custodial sentence by the executing member state. Article 4 sets out the measures that may be adopted in line with the FD PAS which can for example include community service measures, therapeutic treatment requirements or compensation payments. Current challenges that exist in relation to the FD PAS is the lack of awareness of its existence by authorities, which has led to its very limited use. In cooperation with the European Commission, the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) is working to raise awareness in this regard and for example organised an expert meeting in Brussels to discuss what steps would be required to support the implementation of the FD on Probation and Alternative Sanctions. One of the outcomes of that meeting was that there is a need for greater contact between the practitioners that work with the Framework Decisions so that they can discuss the practical issues arising from actual cases, in order to enhance a more efficient implementation. CEP’s work programme therefore also foresees greater cooperation with other network organisations that involve judges, prosecutors and professionals, as well as the development of e-learning programmes. Another challenge is the lack of evaluation data available – CEP is therefore tasked by the Commission to carry out a needs based analysis.228 In addition CEP plans to update the FD related website and further develop the system map tool, as well as to add contact points for each jurisdiction. The organisation will continue to work with the European Commission and others to develop a model for the evaluation of FD PAS and FD ESO in practice. One of the suggested plans for CEP moving forward, is to develop a network with the aim of enabling transfers and discussing FD PAS and FD ESO practice.229 Other suggestions that came up throughout this project to foster the use of the FD PAS and the FD ESO, include further training for lawyers and judges, the preparation of a handbook on its use, increased coordination between probation services across the EU and generally, greater incentives for prosecutors to encourage their use. As a member of FRA indicated in the context of this Study, the incentives must form part of the solutions, and could be financial or otherwise, including provision of electronic tagging.230 227 See Recital 24, and article 1 FD PAS. 228 Final conference, presentation of CEP representative 16 November 2017. 229 Reference from http://cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/Notes-Expert-Meeting-15-16-september-20161.pdf. Suggested actions 2017-2018. 230 Interview with Jonas Grimheden, FRA, 24.10.2016. 58