An exploratory study of understandings and experiences of implementing restorative practice in three UK prisons
| Author | Charlotte Calkin |
| Position | Practitioner |
| Pages | 92-111 |
92
British Journal of Community Justice
©2021 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 17(1) 92–111
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF UNDERSTANDINGS AND
EXPERIENCES OF IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE
PRACTICE IN THREE UK PRISONS
Charlotte Calkin, Practitioner, Contact details: charlotte@restorativeengagementforum.com
Abstract
The aim of this research is to examine the meanings and impact of implementing restorative
practice (RP) within three prisons from the perspectives of prisoners and staff. The prisons
were selected as they demonstrate outwardly a commitment to RP and also are indicative
of good cultures, according to recent MoJ data. T he methodology is qualitative, using a
variety of research techniques including semi-structured interviews and observation. The
paper also studies the available literature on restorative justice (RJ) in prisons and compares
it to the literature on embedding RP in schools which has received more empirical research
attention. The paper illustrates that the school’s literature could benefit custodial settings.
The key findings demonstrate benefits experienced by both residents and staff when RP is
implemented; implemented well, RP delivers and supports a culture of fairness, avoiding or
defusing confrontation and contributing to constructive approaches to prison and post-
release life and relationships. However, there is widespread confusion as to the definition
of RP and what constitutes RP. Few staff are trained and assumptions about restorative
justice hamper the possibilities of RP. RP does not sit at the heart of the prisons’ philosophy,
as in schools identifying as ‘restorative’. Instead, they use RP as a form of social 'lubricant',
managing challenges as they arise through the discretion of those capable of employing RP.
In conclusion, the paper makes recommendations based on the findings for f urther
embedding RP across the secure estate.
Keywords
Restorative, restorative justice, restorative practice, rehabilitation, culture change
Introduction
This paper explores how Restorative Practice (RP) is understood and operationalised
currently within three (Category C and Category D) UK prisons in the secure adult male
estate; HMP Warren Hill, HMP Buckley Hall and HMP Thorn Cross. Drawing a clear
distinction between Restorative Justice (RJ) and Restorative Practice (RP), the author chose
to work with three prisons, all of which have a demonstrated commitment to RP both in
An Exploratory Study Of Understandings And Experiences Of Implementing Restorative Practice In
Three UK Prisons
93
outward communication and practical application and have embraced versions of a
rehabilitative culture. Whilst working in c ustodial settings as a facilitator, trainer and
consultant in RJ and RP, the author observed that broader RP techniques were being
implemented sporadically in prisons by some Governors. This ignited some questions: What
do those who work or live within the prison environment understand RP to be? What are
the ways in which prisons are implementing RP? How far is it possible to integrate RP within
UK prisons, and what are the obstacles? And what examples are there of the benefits of RP
interventions in prisons?
The findings are compared to those of the research into traditional victim/perpetrator RJ
dialogue in prisons to the research on RP in education to explore whether prisons using RP
might perform better, as has been evidenced in some schools.
If the benefits of RP are as demonstrable within prisons as they are within schools, could RP
be applied more broadly across prisons, as has the national implementation of the Five-
Minute Intervention c oncept after its pilot at HMP Portland. Finally, the paper considers
possible next steps as a result of the findings.
The difference between RP and RJ
Currently, in the UK, RJ is more broadly understood within the CJS as victim/perpetrator
dialogue. The Restorative Justice Council website however demonstrates that
contemporary RJ practitioners include RJ as part of a toolkit of interventions under the title
Restorative Practice; tools that are proactive rather than reactive by reducing conflict and
building relationships, looking at consequences of actions rather than punishments.
Wachtel, from the International Institute of Restorative Practice (IIRP), explains that what
makes a practice specifically restorative is in the use of the restorative questions:
In the normal system the response is: What happened? Who is to blame? How
can we punish them? In restorative we ask: What happened? What was the
impact? What needs to happen to make it better? (Wachtel, 2013:12).
When RP is used, it is posing these restorative questions in a wide range of situations, and
these questions have far broader application and possibilities than victim/perpetrator
dialogue alone. A simple definition of RP therefore is the application of these questions
through different methods in different situations. For example, creating RP cultures within
restorative schools involves using the restorative questions in the following ways: how I
restoratively express myself, hold one to one conversations, hold group meetings and
finally, the most known, how I facilitate conversations between parties who are in conflict
using the restorative questions (Vaandering, 2014). Restorative ways of working are shown
to minimise shame. For example, Braithwaite’s work on R J and shame, demonstrates that
RJ offers re-integrative shaming rather than stigmatising shaming (Braithwaite, 2003). This
is relevant to prison life, an environment that is frequently triggered by trauma and shame
(Hohfeler, 2018). Nathanson’s work states that the ‘adaptive’ way to move beyond shame
is to acknowledge it, look at the impact and then show remorse if necessary; a process
echoed in the restorative questions (Nathanson, 1994). Therefore, the restorative questions
To continue reading
Request your trial