During the final session of the Seminar, an evaluation questionnaire,

adapted to the event, was distributed and filled out by participants.

Replies by Slovenian participants ("hosts"), those by participants from the

other Phare partner countries ("guests") and the questionnaires completed

by the so-called "external" experts (from western European countries) were

earmarked to allow a separate analysis of the three groups, where

necessary. A total number of 44 experts participated in the evaluation.

In the first part of the questionnaire, participants were asked to

give their feedback on organisational issues of the event. Questions

included an overall rating of the quality of organisation, and separate

ratings of the preparation of the Seminar through background documentation,

hotel accommodation, social events, and of the technical equipment used.

Scales ranged from 1 = "insufficient" to 6 = "very good".

Participants from all three groups rated the organisation of the TS

as "good" (average rating of each of the three groups above 5; mean value:

5,3). Highest satisfaction (5,4) was expressed with the preparation of the

TS (distribution of background documentation). Participants were also

content with the quality of the technical equipment (5.2) as well as with

the hotel accommodation (5,1). The least favourable evaluation by all

participants (4,7) was given to the social events.

The group of western European experts was less satisfied with the

quality of preparation and with the hotel accommodation, but more satisfied

than the other two groups with the technical equipment. Experts from the

host-country criticised in particular hotel accommodation and social

events, whereas their guests from central and eastern Europe gave a better

feedback on each aspect of the organisation of the TS.

The second part of the questionnaire included question on the overall

quality of the TS, its achievement of objectives and its usefulness.

Separate ratings of each session of the seminar were also requested.

The quality of the TS was rated as good (mean value: 5,1; scale

between 1= insufficient and 6= very good). Feedback showed also that the

Seminar had provided a good opportunity to present own experiences and

opinions (5,0) and that it was seen as useful for the future work of the

participants (4,8). The extent to which the Seminar was perceived as having

achieved its objectives "information dissemination" (4,6) and "initiation

of a regional discussion" (4,3; scales between 1= not at all and 6=

completely) was rated slightly lower.

Participants from the 12 invited Phare partner countries were more

content about each aspect then the participants from the host-country and

external experts. As nearly all presentations at the Seminar were given by

experts from Slovenia or by external experts it is not surprising that

these two groups thought they had had a good opportunity to present own

experiences and opinions (5,1 and 5,0 respectively). Phare participants

rated this aspect lower (4,8), but -despite of this - gave a more

favourable evaluation of the usefulness of the Seminar for their future

work (5,2) than the other two groups (Slovenian experts: 4,7; external

experts: 3,8).

Looking at the evaluation of the different sessions of the Seminar,

interesting similarities and differences become apparent. Scales ranged

again between 1 = insufficient and 6 = very good. With a mean value of

5,5, the prison visit received by far the best evaluation (between 5.0 by

external experts and 5,7 by "guests"), and session 4 on "Psychological,

criminal and legal aspects" the worst average with 4,1.

Ranging the sessions (S 1 to S 6) and the prison visit according to

their evaluation results, "hosts" and "guests" showed similar preferences:

Priority "guests" "hosts"

1st Prison Visit Prison Visit

2nd S 2: Slovenian Experiences S 2: Slovenian

Experiences

3rd - 4th S 1: Sub-regional / S 3: West. Europe

S1:Sub-regional/S5:Workshops

5th S 5: Workshops S 6: Management

6th S 6: Management S 3: West. Europe

last S 4: Psych/crim/legal Aspects S 4:

Psych/crim/legal Aspects

The Seminar evaluation by the western European experts can (because

of the limited size of the group, their different role during the seminar

and their professional background), not be directly compared with the other

two groups. It is nevertheless interesting to see that they, like the

central and eastern European experts, evaluated the prison visit better

than any of the sessions of the Seminar, but had a very different profile

in their evaluation the sessions. They rated the Sub-regional and the

Slovenian Experiences lowest and the sessions on Management and on Western

Europe highest.

In summary it can be said that the organisation and the contents of

the seminar were both evaluated by participants in favourable terms.

Comments on how to improve further events included: more small workshops

that give opportunity for discussion and less plenary sessions; more

concrete and practical and less theoretical and general information; more

time for informal contacts and a less dense programme. The good choice and

diversity of topics, as well as the open discussions during the event were

both highlighted as strong points. More seminars on the theme, and the

involvement of experts from the "grass-root" level were recommended. As

further topics to be addressed were proposed: training for prison staff,

treatment approaches to drug users within a prison context, and information

exchange on practical aspects of the Harm Reduction in prison.