Restorative practice in prisons: assessing the work of the Inside Out … · Restorative practice...

Restorative practice in prisons: assessing

the work of the Inside Out Trust

Final Report

Submitted to The Atlantic Philanthropies by ARCS (UK) Ltd

Contents Executive summary.............................................................................................i 1 Introduction.................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ...............................................................................................1 1.2 The evaluation of the Inside Out Trust...........................................................1 1.3 Structure of this report................................................................................2

2 Restorative practice in prisons: highlights from the literature review..........3 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................3 2.2 Restorative practice in prisons......................................................................3

2.2.1 Impact of victim awareness programmes .............................................4 2.2.2 Work, reparation and resettlement......................................................4 2.2.3 Restorative work projects ..................................................................6 2.2.4 Dispute resolution by restorative methods ...........................................7 2.2.5 Community links ..............................................................................7 2.2.6 Restoration, rehabilitation, resettlement ..............................................8

2.3 Conclusions ...............................................................................................9 3 Views of the Inside Out Trust: results from the consultation exercise .........1

3.1 Design and implementation issues ................................................................1 3.1.1 Sampling considerations....................................................................1 3.1.2 Implementation................................................................................2 3.1.3 Analysing consultation feedback - some initial caveats...........................4

3.2 Views of prisoners about IOT projects ...........................................................5 3.3 Views of prison staff about IOT projects....................................................... 10 3.4 Views of Inside Out Trust staff about IOT projects......................................... 15 3.5 The relationship between IOT projects and the prisons .................................. 24 3.6 Perceptions of the Inside Out Trust as an organisation................................... 29 3.7 Views on monitoring and evaluation............................................................ 31 3.8 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 36

4 Assessing the work of the IOT: designing and implementing a monitoring system .............................................................................................................39

4.1 Components of the monitoring system ........................................................ 39 4.2 The pilot exercise ..................................................................................... 40

4.2.1 Issues raised by the pilot study ........................................................ 41 4.3 Roll out of the monitoring system ............................................................... 43

5 Inside Out Trust participants: results from the monitoring system ............45 5.1 IOT participants ....................................................................................... 45

5.1.1 Inside Out Trust projects ................................................................. 45 5.1.2 Working hours ............................................................................... 47 5.1.3 Participant achievements ................................................................. 47 5.1.4 Characteristics of IOT participants .................................................... 49

5.2 Results from the Inmate Information System ............................................... 50 5.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 52

6 Views of Inside Out Trust participants: feedback from self-completion questionnaires .................................................................................................55

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 55 6.1.1 Sample size and representativeness.................................................. 55

6.2 Feedback from self-completion questionnaires.............................................. 56 6.3 Further views about IOT project involvement ............................................... 58 6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 66

7 The impact of the demise of the Inside Out Trust ......................................69 7.1 Research design ....................................................................................... 69

7.2 The impact on IOT workshops .................................................................... 70 7.3 Impact on prison service staff .................................................................... 72 7.4 Impact on prison regimes .......................................................................... 78 7.5 Impact on prisoners.................................................................................. 82 7.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 88

8 Conclusions................................................................................................91 9 References.............................................................................................. xciii

i

Executive summary

Introduction

The Inside Out Trust (IOT) was founded as a charitable organisation in 1994 and ceased operating in the summer of 2007 due to financial difficulties. The Inside Out Trust developed prison projects based on restorative justice principles and at one stage delivered more than 100 projects in a wide range of prison establishments. Prisoners were involved in such activities as repairing bicycles, refurbishing wheelchairs, upgrading computers and producing Braille and large print books for charities, both in the UK and in poorer countries. Inside Out Trust projects aimed to provide prisoners with an opportunity not only to learn new skills, which can improve their resettlement prospects, but to learn about the needs of other people and to contribute actively to society. In 2004, the Inside Out Trust commissioned the design of a comprehensive monitoring system to underpin a subsequent full evaluation of their project activities within a range of Prison Service establishments. A wide-ranging consultation exercise preceded design of the monitoring system, and feedback was collected from a range of project and prison staff, project participants, and other experts in the field. The monitoring system itself was carefully piloted so that key instruments could be amended in the light of feedback from key stakeholders and of the range of information generated by the monitoring system itself. A comprehensive second phase of the evaluation was planned but could only be partly implemented as the demise of the Inside Out Trust in the summer of 2007 forced a halt to the work. Further funding was subsequently secured to tie off that evaluation work, and also to find out what effect the demise of the Inside Out Trust has had on prison staff, regimes and prisoners. Restorative practice in prisons: highlights from the literature review

The literature review discusses the components of restorative practice in prisons; the impact and implications of key practice elements; the identification of project themes (reparation, resettlement and rehabilitation) and themes and choices in monitoring in order to identify some ‘must-have’ elements in the design of the Inside Out Trust monitoring system. The Inside Out Trust prison projects incorporate two key aspects of restorative practice in prisons: prisoners’ work to benefit others, and reconciliation with the community. They do not involve victim awareness programmes or restorative methods for dispute resolution, although evidence for the success of these is limited anyway as they have been rarely used in prisons. Work projects that encourage skill-learning and team-working competences are associated with some improvement to resettlement outcomes and in principle, restorative elements are not essential to produce these outcomes. The evidence for the success of restorative work projects in prison is also mainly small-scale and qualitative in nature and so the evaluation of the Inside Out Trust is an important contribution to this area.

ii

Views of the Inside Out Trust: results from the consultation exercise

During 2005, 32 interviews and four focus groups were undertaken with prisoners, prison staff and IOT staff as part of a consultation exercise to explore views of the Inside Out Trust and its project work. The views about Inside Out Trust projects expressed by participant prisoners were predominantly positive. Many prisoners had actively chosen to work on an IOT project despite this work being not as financially rewarding as other prison jobs. Inside Out Trust work was seen as more interesting than other prison work and they appreciated the opportunities for varied work and to develop skills. They also valued the ‘good cause’ aspect of Trust activities. In many cases, there appeared to be a sense of altruism towards people in need and prisoners were often moved by the plight of beneficiaries. Prisoners frequently made reference to the ‘different’ social atmosphere in the Inside Out Trust workshop with its relative lack of pressure, and to the way the prisoners supported each other. The skills learned on a project were also one of the sources of pride in the job that helped to motivate and enthuse the prisoners. The perspectives of workshop staff echoed these themes. Staff noted that the workshops were popular with the prisoners, and that they found the work engrossing. The level of skill in the work was often extremely high and there was a commitment to teach skills in a way that other prison work did not. The prisoners’ motivation to work on behalf of a good cause was also acknowledged. Apart from the benefits for others, there were felt to be personal benefits that the prisoner might gain in terms of being better able to handle the period of their sentence, and in terms of increases in their self-esteem and confidence. Prison staff also referred to a “lack of pressure” in the workshops in the same way that prisoners had described and the atmosphere in the workshops was also perceived to be cooperative and helpful. Prison staff also made reference to some of the benefits that a supportive and relaxed workshop atmosphere could have for specific groups of prisoners, such as those with mental health needs. Inside Out Trust staff also believed that IOT projects provided prisoners with opportunities for altruistic expression; to develop self-esteem and confidence; and to build skills necessary for future employability. The Trust attempted to ensure that prisoners were thanked for their involvement and given tangible recognition of their efforts. The growth of self-esteem and confidence was perceived to be linked to prisoners’ sense of achievement and the recognition of their skills. There was a consensus among Inside Out Trust staff that feedback from beneficiaries was of great importance, especially to prisoners who became involved in IOT projects, but also to prison staff and instructors. IOT staff believed that the role of workshop staff was vital in generating positive outcomes for prisoners. Staff attitudes to prisoners were perceived as underpinning the development of the atmosphere in Inside Out Trust projects and the high standards of instructors were instrumental in passing on skills. Almost without exception, respondents expressed high personal regard for Inside Out Trust staff characterising them as friendly, flexible and

iii

knowledgeable. The Trust was widely considered to be well respected and well known. Providing activity and skills learning were basic attractions for the prisons and the scale of the Trust’s work gave it visibility, which increased the chances of its being invited in. The setting up of a project was assisted by previous contacts with IOT and because similar project models could be examined in other prisons. In addition, an Inside Out Trust project was perceived as having some public relations value to a prison. There was some agreement that taking part in restorative work could help to reintegrate offenders with communities. However, concerns were expressed that the Inside Out Trust needed to be more focussed on demonstrating that the projects could have an impact on reducing re-offending. The priority accorded to evidence like this meant that in future, projects would have to be able to show that they were analysing the needs of prisoners and focusing on reducing re-offending. Prison serviced staff also made reference to a necessity for a clearer focus on targets and business plans. Prior to the evaluation the current record-keeping for Inside Out Trust projects had been quite rudimentary, although sufficient to cover requisite details for prisoner payment. Induction procedures for new project participants tended to cover key areas such as safety and schedules, and were not designed to gather baseline information about the participants. Similarly, records concerning project outputs tended to be aggregate, and arrangements for gathering feedback from prisoners were not usually in place. In terms of the evaluation and the introduction of a monitoring system, prison staff often commented on the value of learning more about how projects impact on prisoners but they also expressed uncertainty or scepticism about how some of these impacts could actually be measured. Understandably, some Inside Out Trust staff were also concerned about what the monitoring and evaluation work might mean for them in terms of their own workloads. Assessing the work of the IOT: designing and implementing a monitoring system

The literature review and consultation exercise informed the design and implementation of the IOT monitoring system. The final monitoring system consisted of five documents:

• Form 1: Participant Monitoring Form • Form 2: Individual Hours of Activity and Achievement Form • Form 3: Information Sheet for Project Participants • Form 4: Agreement to Participate/Consent Form • Form 5: Self-completion Feedback Questionnaire

After the monitoring system had been designed, a pilot exercise was conducted in five project areas over a period of three months (from July to October 2005). Overall, the pilot work generated a wide range of useful feedback and implementation experience, which led to a number of changes in the design of the monitoring system. The monitoring system was finalized in February 2006 and rolled out to the first tranche of IOT prisons in early March 2006.

iv

Inside Out Trust participants: highlights from the monitoring data

Monitoring data was collected on the working hours of 1,290 IOT participants from 29 Inside Out Trust projects in 19 prisons between January 2006 and July 2007. The most common type of IOT project was wheelchair repair projects (37% of the 29 projects). Bicycle repair projects accounted for another 26% with Braille projects making up 10% of the total and computer repair projects totalling 5%. Some projects (11%) combined more than one type of activity and another 11% were of a different type such as welding, woodwork or sewing machine repairs. Overall, IOT participants averaged 17 working hours a week although this varied between 1.5 and 32.5 hours per week. On average, they spent 12 weeks working on the project (although this varied between 1 week and 64 weeks as it was influenced by sentence length). In total, participants averaged 217 hours of work on the Inside Out Trust project with some participants clocking up more than 1,200 hours over the 18 month observation period. As well as recording hours of activity, there was an opportunity for Instructors to record any achievements that each participant has made. Examples of these achievements included qualifications obtained, progress in developing work skills, team-working skills and general improvements in attitude. Data on the characteristics of IOT participants was not collected for all project participants but only for those who joined or left the project during the data collection period (n=885). Like the overall prison population, most IOT participants were young: over two-thirds were aged under 40 (69%). Data on IOT participants was requested from the central Inmate Information System (IIS) held by the Home Office. However, there were substantial practical difficulties in getting data for all participants and so results should be treated with caution. IIS data suggests that around 85% of IOT participants were of white ethnicity with around 9% of black ethnicity. Many Inside Out Trust participants were on lengthy sentences: two-thirds were serving a sentence of longer than 12 months. One in ten IOT participants was serving a life sentence. The most common type of offence resulting in their conviction was a violent crime (36% of participants). Another 16% had been convicted of a theft-like offence, 12% were convicted of motoring offences, 11% for sexual offences and 9% for drug offences. Comparisons with the total prison population suggest that IOT participants had typically been convicted of more serious crimes (such as violent crime and sexual offences) and were serving longer than average sentences. Views of Inside Out Trust participants: feedback from self-completion questionnaires

Results from the self-completion questionnaires by project participants echoed the positive views of project workers and IOT staff (discussed in Chapter 3) and conformed to the more general ethos of the Inside Out Trust in terms of an emphasis on skill-building and restorative justice principles. IOT participants seemed to enjoy working on IOT projects. They had a generally positive view of the IOT project worker and felt that they were treated fairly.

v

Nearly all IOT participants (93%) got on well with the other prisoners they worked with and similar numbers agreed that the prisoners helped each other out in the workshop (87%). Most IOT participants appeared to get job satisfaction from their work. Eight out of ten said they mostly or always felt pleased with what they had done after the workshop was over. Almost all (96%) agreed that people outside the prison who needed help had benefited from the work and most participants (88%) said they got to hear about people who benefited from the IOT work. Seven in ten participants agreed that working on the project had helped pay back for any harm they had caused. Overall, 90% of respondents agreed that they had achieved the things they had wanted from the IOT project. In addition, working on the project seemed to have got participants more interested in other areas too. Almost eight out of ten (78%) agreed that because of the project they had got more interested in skills training or learning a trade. The questionnaire finished with some open-ended questions that gave participants the opportunity to share their views more generally. These included subjects such as how the workshop could be improved; whether the project helped prepare them for release; whether the project made their time in prison more positive; and any other comments they wished to make. These responses were again overwhelmingly positive about IOT and many respondents spoke powerfully about how much they valued working on the project and how grateful they were to the IOT. In terms of improving the IOT workshop, around a third (34%) wanted to improve the workshop facilities in some way (a larger workshop, more tools etc). Some respondents wanted their own situation to be improved (for example, 6% wanted more pay). Around 8% of responses were related to a wish for more training and qualifications to provide evidence of a skill or trade that they could use outside of prison. Around 16% of respondents said thought that the workshop did not need improving. Overall, 60% of respondents thought the IOT project helped prepare them for release in some way. The most common reason given was that it provided experience, skills and qualifications that would be useful outside (48%). Many respondents also mentioned psychological benefits that helped prepare them for release (14%). These included improving self-confidence, encouraging motivation, increasing self-discipline, and fostering a sense of community spirit. The vast majority of respondents (87%) agreed that the IOT project helped make their time in prison more positive. Around 7% simply thought it was better than the alternative (being stuck in their cell). But other respondents typically gave more than one reason in their explanation. These reasons included helping others less fortunate than themselves (25%); that the project was a productive use of their time (22%); gaining new skills, qualifications or work experience (11%); and enjoying the experience in that it gave them a sense of purpose or achievement and increased their confidence (15%).

vi

The impact of the demise of the Inside Out Trust

The sudden demise of the Inside Out Trust had an immediate impact on the prison workshops. Some workshops closed straight away, some continued for a while and then ended, and some were taken over by the prison or by another charity. For most prison service staff, the sudden demise of IOT was shocking and caused immediate disruption to their work and regimes. However, some IOT instructors were so committed and enthusiastic that they were willing to seize the initiative and put in the extra effort necessary to either adapt or continue with similar provision by recruiting new partners, often through old IOT contacts. Some workshops were continued by the prisons or other charities with success often directly related to the instructors’ initiative and determination to make their workshop flourish. However, despite the commitment from staff, not all workshops could be sustained over the longer term resulting in many community organisations and charities losing out. Most prison staff were sad to see the end of the Inside Out Trust. Overwhelmingly, prison staff had enjoyed working with the IOT and felt that their work was valued and valuable. They commonly expressed the view that their IOT workshops had provided a relatively pleasant ‘oasis’ in the otherwise stressful prison environment. In addition, instructors involved in the IOT workshops were typically allowed to develop their own workshop according to their interests albeit with welcome support provided by IOT staff. Thus, IOT provided a lot of informal support to prison staff and encouraged staff to communicate horizontally and with different prisons. In terms of its effect on prison regimes, the loss of IOT did lead to a reduction in capacity to deliver purposeful activities within some prisons, particularly in the short term before alternatives could be developed. The sudden withdrawal from numerous prison establishments caused immediate problems creating gaps in their regimes as well as leaving behind disappointment and, in some cases, bad feeling within the Prison Service. Charity workshops tend to be in the minority in prisons because production-based workshops are favoured in order to be profitable. Now that the IOT has gone, there are even fewer charity workshops within the prison service and many respondents expressed concern more generally about the longevity of charity workshops within prisons. However, there was evidence that despite its non-profitability, elements of the Prison Service do still strongly value charity work and the positive publicity that it attracts. Prisons are known to be complex organisations and in particular, the prison environment does present challenges for outside organisations that hope to operate effectively within them. So the extent to which IOT had established itself as a valued contributor to a number of prisons is a substantial achievement in itself. The IOT may also be credited for supporting the long-term development of charitable activity within many prisons and the value of their work can be seen in the number of charitable workshops that continue within the prison system. Their knowledge-base and networks were invaluable to getting

vii

charitable work off the ground, and proved beneficial for those prisons that sought to continue charitable work after the Trust’s demise. The irony is that as the ‘Reducing Re-offending’ policy agenda develops, encouraging other partners (such as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and local authorities, and more recently, consortia-funded sources anchored in social impact bonds) to contribute to initiatives, there may be opportunities for broadening the potential pool of resources for such approaches. Tight constraints on public authority budgets have also sharpened interest in the costs and benefits of effective programme work within prisons, and rather than being seen as an interesting but dispensable way of keeping prisoners occupied, IOT-style programmes are seen by some as having a key role to play in an overall fabric of provision whose main aim is to generate more positive resettlement outcomes. It is interesting to speculate whether the impact of IOT (and indeed, its very existence) would have continued if it had focused on making introductions and establishing networks; if it had stepped back once projects were established (leaving responsibility for the long-term running of the workshop with the prison) in order to introduce charity workshops into other prisons. Lastly, prisoners were also affected by the demise of IOT. Respondents reported that prisoners involved with IOT projects were disappointed by the closure of the organisation and many IOT and prison staff believed that it was the prisoners who were most disadvantaged. The rapidity of IOT’s workshop closure caused a substantial amount of uncertainty and disruption for prisoners, particularly in the first few weeks following the demise of IOT. Some prisoners had been involved with IOT projects for several years and were left with no similar activity. IOT charity workshops had been very popular with participants. They generally created a more relaxed and supportive atmosphere than production-based workshops, and the content of their work was less repetitive and more challenging for participants. The IOT had been a fundamental source of pastoral care, psychological support and informal counselling for many prisoners. The calm and supportive atmosphere encouraged prisoners to communicate with staff and among themselves. They were able to build positive relationships, learn team-working skills, and develop both support networks and social skills. Staff reported that they found the projects beneficial for all types of prisoner, but in particular, IOT helped those serving life sentences and vulnerable prisoners. IOT workshops had also been found valuable for prisoners who were difficult or violent and this often meant that their behaviour was more stable when they returned to the wings. The IOT charity workshops had also offered substantial potential for increasing prisoner engagement in education recognising the contribution that qualifications and accredited skills could make to prisoners’ employability once back in the community. In addition to educational qualifications, IOT staff also understood the importance of building prisoners’ self-esteem and gave out certificates in recognition of their efforts. Both prisoners and staff emphasised the restorative aspects of IOT workshops as being especially important. Participating prisoners could express care and

viii

concern and make a positive contribution to society. Whilst this did not involve direct restoration to the individual victim, it did encourage reflection about other people’s situations and promote the development of empathy. The IOT workshops ensured that personal feedback from recipients of the goods was delivered to the prisoners, thereby completing the restorative loop. This feedback was one of the many valuable contributions that IOT was able to make to prison life in terms of maintaining contact with, and consideration of, the world outside the prison gate. Overall, there is no doubt that the cessation of IOT resulted in the loss of an extremely valuable service that would be very difficult to replicate.

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Inside Out Trust (IOT) was founded as a charitable organisation in 1994 and ceased operating in the summer of 2007 due to financial difficulties. The Inside Out Trust developed prison projects based on restorative justice principles and at one stage delivered more than 100 projects in a wide range of prison establishments. Prisoners were involved in such activities as repairing bicycles, refurbishing wheelchairs and upgrading computers. Finished items from many projects were donated to charities that help some of the most disadvantaged people in poorer countries. The Trust also worked with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the National Library for the Blind to produce materials in Braille, Moon, and Large Print for visually impaired people. Other projects, such as the creation of art for community spaces, horticultural work and the restoration of heritage sites, benefited local communities. Inside Out Trust projects aimed to provide prisoners with an opportunity not only to learn new skills which can improve their resettlement prospects, but to learn about the needs of other people and to contribute actively to society. 1.2 The evaluation of the Inside Out Trust

ARCS (UK) Limited is a national team of professional research and evaluation consultants with long experience and training in criminology, community safety, and related fields. In partnership with the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, we were commissioned by the Inside Out Trust in 2004 to undertake the design of a comprehensive monitoring system, to underpin a subsequent full evaluation of their project activities within a range of HM Prison Service establishments. The work was also delivered with the support of an Expert Panel, whose members are drawn from the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and the Howard League for Penal Reform. The wider evaluation was designed to address a number of key questions including:

What impact does involvement with Inside Out Trust projects have on the lives of participants, and on their short, medium and longer term progress?

What are the key factors in project success or failure? In successful projects, what are the characteristics of the prisoners, the prison staff, the project, and the overall regime, and what are relationships like between participants, staff, the Inside Out Trust and other key players?

What impact does the work of the Inside Out Trust have on prison staff and prison regimes more generally, and on “beneficiary” groups and individuals?

The main aim of the first phase of the evaluation was to design and implement a project monitoring system to provide the information necessary to answer some of these questions. The monitoring system was designed to provide:

2

a clear picture of which prisoners become involved with which projects,

an overview of the forms, intensity and duration of individual involvement,

comprehensive routine feedback collected directly from IOT project participants, concerning their experience of IOT projects and their perceptions of the work and its value, and finally,

some details concerning intermediate outputs and outcomes.

The design of this system involved a number of other key strands, including:

consultation work to gather feedback from prisoners, Prison Service staff, Inside Out Trust staff, and other key stakeholders (this began in December 2004, and was followed by a more formal consultation exercise during the early months of 2005, involving a mix of focus groups, face-to-face and telephone interviews, and attendance at relevant group meetings), and

a pilot exercise to test the monitoring system and procedures for its administration (undertaken at a sample of prisons during July-October 2005).

The results of both the consultation work and the pilot exercise in turn informed the final design of the monitoring system which was rolled out across the country during the first half of 2006. A comprehensive second phase of the evaluation was planned to measure project impact (using a large-scale impact evaluation design with multivariate statistical analysis) and to provide an understanding of key causal mechanisms or processes (using a qualitative case-study approach). However, the demise of the Inside Out Trust in the summer of 2007 halted this second phase and instead, final steps were taken to find out what effect the demise of the Inside Out Trust has had on prison staff, regimes and prisoners. 1.3 Structure of this report

The report summarises some of the early stages of the evaluation in terms of the literature review (Chapter 2), the consultation exercise (Chapter 3) and the design and implementation of the monitoring system (including the pilot exercise) (Chapter 4). These aspects have been reported on previously but are included again here (in summary form) for reasons of context and completeness. Details of IOT participants (drawn from the monitoring data and from official prison data sources) are described in Chapter 5 while the views and experiences of IOT participants (collected from self-completion questionnaires) are explored in Chapter 6. The final work to explore what effect the demise of the Inside Out Trust has had on prison staff, regimes and prisoners is reported in Chapter 7.

3

2 Restorative practice in prisons: highlights from the literature review

2.1 Introduction

In an effort to place the Inside Out Trust programmes in a wider framework of context, mechanism and outcomes, we examined literature on restorative prisons and on the rehabilitation and resettlement of prisoners. This section discusses several linked topics:

the components of restorative practice in prisons;

impact and implications of key practice elements;

identification of project themes - reparation, resettlement and rehabilitation; and

themes and choices in monitoring.

The aim of this section is to summarise how that review identified some ‘must-have’ elements for the design of the monitoring system. It is assumed within the discussion that monitoring should be a process, ideally self-managed by an organisation, of internal and external information collection and self-assessment; that it helps projects to discover what they are doing, with whom and with what broad outcomes. It is also assumed that it can deliver information useful – indeed essential – for an independent evaluation but that it is not itself designed to give any definitive answers to questions about the extent or causes of the project’s possible impact. 2.2 Restorative practice in prisons

The concept of a ‘restorative prison’ is broader than simply activity projects: it includes work with victims, prisoners’ work to benefit others, new forms of dispute resolution, and reconciliation with the community. The application of restorative justice principles in prison is seen as having four elements:

1. Work done in the prison to create more awareness amongst convicted prisoners of the impact of crime on victims and programmes of direct mediation between victims and offenders

2. The establishment of a new direction for activities within prisons so that prisoners spend some of their time working for the benefit of others

3. Remodelling the way disputes are settled within the prison and incorporating restorative principles into grievance and disciplinary procedures.

4. Building a new relationship with the community outside the prison to emphasise the need for prisoners to be reconciled with the wider society and received back into it.’ (Francis 2001)

4

The report on ‘Restorative Justice in Prisons’ by Tim Newell (2002a) found that prisons were being excluded as places of restoration. According to the report, a wide range of measures were needed before prisons could be said to embody the principle and practice of restorative justice. This paper will draw out implications of the evidence relating to the different elements identified above, before setting out some principles and themes of monitoring restorative practice. 2.2.1 Impact of victim awareness programmes Owing to a lack of suitable evidence, it is not yet clear that victim awareness programmes have a demonstrable impact on re-offending (Harper and Chitty 2004 p35). The impacts of offender-victim mediation in prisons have been identified more in terms of increasing understanding while generating new and positive feelings of awareness and responsibility (Francis 2001). There is potential to affect the whole prison climate (Liebmann and Braithwaite 1999). The ICPS review of the literature for the same project suggested that victim-related courses were being run in very few prisons (Francis 2001). According to the 2001 Resettlement Survey, almost 9% of those surveyed had undergone a victim awareness course. This figure was far below the number of those who had undertaken vocational training (Niven and Olagundoye 2002). Dinsdale’s (2002) study of prisoner attitudes at HMP Holme House found that those with most time left to serve were the most motivated to be involved in restorative justice and the most aware of victims. The study sample was drawn from as many offender groups in the prison as possible. Intriguingly, victim awareness has been associated with success in finding work or training at release. The national Resettlement Survey showed that attending a victim awareness course was associated with a similar rate of obtaining work or training at release as attending a prison job club (Niven and Olagundoye 2002). What we do not fully understand is how these factors might interrelate. Would motivation to seek work follow from completing a victim awareness course, and might this explain the association? There are some important questions yet to resolve in assessing the role of victim awareness. Implications Among the implications of the evidence on victim awareness projects are that the individual’s previous experience of victim awareness programmes should be monitored at intake, and that subsequent willingness to undertake victim-related work should be seen as a potential outcome of IOT programme participation. A short scale of victim awareness, perhaps following Dinsdale’s, should be developed and incorporated in the exit questionnaire. In the future evaluation, attitudes to victims should be measured after the prisoners’ release. Dinsdale‘s work highlights the importance of collecting information on previous offending and on static risk factors more generally. 2.2.2 Work, reparation and resettlement Impact of work projects in general It is assumed that work projects can encourage skill-learning and team-working competences. In principle, restorative elements should not be essential to produce these outcomes. In fact, the evidence on the impact of prison–based

5

employment programmes on re-offending paints a brighter picture of their potential impact than of their actual influence upon prisoners in the current prison system. The literature endorses the broad contention that employment-related initiatives can have positive effects (Elliott-Marshall et al 2004). Lipsey’s (1995) meta-analysis of studies on juvenile offender programmes concluded that employment–focused programmes have a greater impact on recidivism than other types of intervention. A study using a matched comparison group found that prison work and training had a positive impact on post-prison employment and involvement in offending (Saylor and Gaes 1997). Nonetheless, the current contribution of prisoners’ work involvement to preventing re-offending is decidedly limited, since they experience entrenched problems in accessing work in prisons and in securing help in finding work at release. Recent evidence collected by the Home Affairs Select Committee suggests that in one week 31% of prisoners surveyed in six establishments spent no time in prison work (Home Affairs Select Committee 2005). In an official survey in 2001, only 38% of prisoners accessed a workshop in prison; rates were higher for those on longer sentences (Niven and Olagundoye 2002). Furthermore, the largest group (39%) of those who obtained arrangements for jobs or training at release did so through contacts, such as friends or family. Prison job clubs, prison pre-release programmes and prison education departments helped 6% to do so, while the Employment Service accounted for just 3%. Better chances of finding employment at release were found to be linked to having stable accommodation, having qualifications, not having a drug problem, and receiving help and advice with finding work (Niven and Olagundoye 2002). Where new skills are acquired in prison, it is not by any means always possible to make sure that these are translated into jobs after release (Hamlyn and Lewis 2000). The empirical findings tend to support the theoretical view that teaching work discipline and preparing prisoners for a labour market has not been a central function of the prison system (Hudson 2003), and suggest that research on prison work projects should be aware of the limitations of what is normally provided as well as recognising that very good individual projects can be effective if they are capable of targeting key niches in the labour market in a way that families and friends presumably do. Implications An implication of the evidence on work projects is that employment-related backgrounds and project outcomes (certificates, etc) should be monitored inside the prison and as soon as possible. Because of the barriers to work involvement on the inside as well as on the outside, it would be futile to wait for release before identifying outcomes. Some participants may have already developed skills to offer IOT; also, there may be a process of skill learning that means some IOT participants graduate to other work projects. Furthermore, those prisoners with better work backgrounds and outcomes should be seen as better ‘bets’ in terms of overcoming the obstacles to attaining work at release. In the evaluation, it may be advisable to make sure that the study can follow a subsample of the higher ‘achievers’ assisted by IOT.

6

2.2.3 Restorative work projects Despite the fact that charitable activity of some kind is widespread across prisons (Farrant and Levenson 2002), the evidence from previous studies is largely qualitative (Restorative Prison Project 2002; Moore et al 2003). A number of themes emerge from the studies: induction and targeting; personal benefits of participation; teamwork and partnership; reparative impact; business plans; and the importance of communication and feedback to participants. Induction and targeting It has been pointed out that the meaning of programmes was different for those who had been formally selected or allocated a place, compared with those for whom it was an ad hoc process, a sideline from other work, or an escape from boredom (Restorative Prison Project 2002; Moore et al 2003). Personal benefits of participation Those who appreciated the purpose of such programmes have expressed their involvement positively, in terms of pride and ownership, skills learned, confidence, achievement, thinking of others, and so on. However, routine and menial tasks are less well regarded by prison staff, and they refer more hopefully to the ways in which certificates can be gained through work on the project (Restorative Prison Project 2002; Moore et al 2003). Teamwork and partnership Among the distinctive impacts of working for a good cause that have been reported are to improve motivation, reduce absenteeism, and build up improved relationships among prisoners and with staff (Restorative Prison Project 2002). The importance of communication and feedback Lack of information about the project was an obstacle to appreciation by prisoners of its meaning and purpose (Moore et al 2003). Feedback was welcomed by participants and more of it was called for. In addition, family relationships were enhanced when the prisoners talked with other members about the projects (Restorative Prison Project 2002). Interestingly, victim awareness was not an evident outcome of at least one project of this kind (Moore et al 2003) and there was sparse evidence of links with victim awareness programmes in the broader study of IOT (Restorative Prison Project 2002). Reparative impact Prisoners were found to be ready to ‘pay back’ for their crimes (Restorative Prison Project 2002). A key issue is the visibility of the reparation. While the refurbishment of a park was noticeable and welcome to local users, most had no awareness of the involvement of prisoners (Moore et al 2003). Business plans It is clear that the formal recognition of a restorative project in the business plans of prisons marks a more substantial commitment, and a more effective one, than simply agreeing to host project activities. The work components of the Inside Out Trust programme may be appealing to managers preoccupied with current performance targets but there are also benefits to be openly

7

acknowledged in terms of resettlement and reparation (Restorative Prison Project 2002). Implications If there are different ways in which prisoners respond to programmes, then targeting is a significant element of the design of effective programmes. Are there prisoners who gain a great deal and others who gain little? And does the programme have a way of promoting or assessing readiness to take part? Such features need to be part of the monitoring. Skills and attitudes personally valued by prisoners are formed through working on a restorative project. The atmosphere of togetherness and group work appears to produces positive effects on individuals that should be monitored routinely. If the programme is seeking to change prisoners in some way, it needs to be able to ensure that it can sustain their involvement and help them produce the results required to show a difference has been made. It should seek to give them systematic feedback on what progress has been achieved. Reparative work can be viewed as something personal to the offender, but to achieve impact on recipients there should be a communication process that demonstrates to all concerned what has been ‘put back’ by the prisoner. The business plans of prisons should be monitored to ensure that they reflect a commitment to the maintenance and development of the Inside Out Trust project. 2.2.4 Dispute resolution by restorative methods The introduction of restorative methods of addressing grievances and discipline in prisons remains limited to notable examples (Newell 2002a and b). The idea that the prison is itself a community within which disputes between members can be addressed and resolved is challenging, especially if the authority of staff is being questioned. The spread of restorative methods within prison is therefore about changing a culture and system of authority, as Newell (2002b) points out. Implications The diffusion of restorative dispute resolution, especially by means of reparation, is an interesting indicator that the concept of restoration is becoming embedded in the minds of staff- and perhaps among prisoners too. 2.2.5 Community links Community involvement has been seen as an integral part of a truly restorative prison. Communities form the context for reparation and reconciliation as well as resettlement (Restorative Prison Project 2003). The community implications of a restorative programme can be hard-won and somewhat fragile; indeed the Albert Park project was felt to have been better known nationally than locally (Moore et al 2003). It is clearly difficult to signal publicly the achievements of prison-based restorative practice without a communications strategy that brings together all the agencies -including the beneficiaries. Opportunities to highlight achievements and share appreciation of success can form part of the

8

communication process with communities, but, owing to the sensitivity of links between prisoners and people outside the gate, communications require careful management (Burnett and Maruna 2004). Implications Monitoring should register the involvement of individual participants in project communications, including promotional activity around the projects, as well as individual and collective feedback. 2.2.6 Restoration, rehabilitation, resettlement Amidst the multidimensional realities of actual projects, a model of potential impact is proposed, summarised in the table below. Table 2-1 A model of impact on prisoners

Indicators of possible impact In prison After prison Assists some prisoners

Perceives the work as meaningful. Moves towards greater recognition of interests of others. Takes responsibility. Learns skills. Motivated to access other courses.

Accepts importance of recognising interests of others. Seeks meaningful work. Accepts responsibility. Feels encouraged to rise up skills ladder. Motivated to access and maintain contact with resettlement services.

Fails to assist some prisoners

‘Token’ meaning. No moves towards greater recognition of interests of others. No responsibility taken. No skills learned. Unmotivated to access other courses.

Unwilling to accept importance of recognising interests of others. Does not seek meaningful work. Does not accept responsibility. Does not feel encouraged to rise up skills ladder. Unmotivated to access or maintain contact with resettlement services.

Moore et al (2003) suggest that careful distinctions need be made between rehabilitation, resettlement and restoration. A restorative work project in prison is primarily reparative, but it can contribute to rehabilitation and resettlement. It is likely that restorative projects can work effectively to secure reparation, address rehabilitation, and promote resettlement when they:

• Recruit individuals with known sets of risk factors. • Ascertain their willingness to engage in the programme. • Present pro-social models of behaviour that highlight the needs of others. • Motivate and engage offenders to help them function in active ways and

take responsibility. • Give feedback and praise to individual participants. • Monitor outputs in terms of involvement and results for all concerned. • Monitor any impacts on prisoners at the end of the programme. • Monitor impact on beneficiaries and communities. • Learn lessons from controlled, in-depth evaluations of programme

functioning and outcome. The combination of rehabilitation, reparation and resettlement is a complex one and there are choices to be made about priorities for monitoring and evaluation.

9

Reparation, for example, is itself a valuable objective, but should its monitoring be given the same priority as that of resettlement? Similarly, there are interesting challenges in developing understanding of change in prisoners through monitoring. Should we encourage the organisation to monitor attitude change, when we know that prisoners could give independent evaluators a different story from the one they give to the organisation that is effectively paying their wages? The extent to which these choices influenced the design of the IOT monitoring system are discussed further in Chapter 4. 2.3 Conclusions

The Inside Out Trust prison projects incorporated two key aspects of restorative practice in prisons: prisoners’ work to benefit others and reconciliation with the community. They did not involve victim awareness programmes or restorative methods for dispute resolution, although evidence for the success of these is limited anyway as they have been rarely used in prisons. Work projects that encourage skill-learning and team-working competences are associated with some improvement to resettlement outcomes and, in principle, restorative elements are not essential to produce these outcomes. The evidence for the success of restorative work projects in prison is also mainly small-scale and qualitative in nature and so the evaluation of the Inside Out Trust is a major contribution to this area. In summary, certain ‘ideal’ monitoring requirements were fed into the design of the monitoring system:

• A profile of individuals’ previous offending, work experience, and participation in victim awareness programmes should be accessible.

• Individuals’ initial interest in the programme should be recorded. • Information about the project’s purpose and scope is effectively delivered

to individual participants. • Individual outputs in terms of work and results are recorded. • Prisoner outcomes (in terms of certificates, relevant programmes and

courses) are monitored wherever possible. • Beneficiary outcomes are monitored as an aspect of individual reparation

to the community. • Community outcomes in terms of recognition are monitored. • The system allows for feedback to be given to individuals. • Individuals give feedback at exit about any impacts on them. • Changes in the prison that inhibit or promote restorative practice of any

kind (including business plans, community links and dispute resolution) are monitored.

• Further work should be carried out to explore a model of impact using monitoring indicators.

1

3 Views of the Inside Out Trust: results from the consultation exercise

This part of the report explores views of the Inside Out Trust and summarises results from the extensive consultation exercise undertaken during 2005 with project and prison staff, volunteers, and prisoners. This was done via focus groups and some individual interviews in a sample of prisons. This consultation was a crucial aspect of the evaluation. Consultation with stakeholders is of key importance to the design of an effective and implementable monitoring system, not only because feedback from key stakeholders can help evaluators to articulate and measure causal mechanisms, but because systems that are informed by stakeholder interests and that fit the working practices of project data-gatherers are more likely to generate good quality data, and to be sustainable over the longer term. 3.1 Design and implementation issues

This section outlines the design and implementations issues of the consultation exercise. 3.1.1 Sampling considerations In choosing areas and prisons for the required focus groups and interviews, it was important to ensure that the sample of areas reflected a range of relevant contrasts in terms of:

• number of project places, • project throughputs, • project types, • types of establishment, • location/area, and (related to the above) • prisoner groups.

Consideration of project throughputs and the number of project places was important for practical issues such as ensuring that there would be large enough numbers for selecting prisoners for focus groups. However, levels of throughput also raised various issues for the different Inside Out Trust projects and could result in different prisoner experiences of projects, so some contrasts in terms of throughput were thought to be important. Differences in throughput are related both to differences in establishment and in prisoner groups (for example, throughputs tend to be lower in high security prisons) and feedback from prisoners with longer sentences would provide a useful contrast with feedback from prisoners in Category C prisons. On the basis of considerations such as those above, a sample of eight prisons was drawn up, to allow for delivery of:

1. Focus groups with prisoners in Category C prisons, one in a Category B prison, and one in a Category A prison. The prisons are also in different regions of the country and have a range of IOT project types between them.

2

2. Focus groups with project/prison staff from Category C prisons, and one in a Category B prison. Again, the prisons are in different regions of the country and have a range of IOT project types between them.

3. Three interviews in each of five different establishments from a range of regions with a spread of IOT project types, including: • a local female establishment • a local male establishment • a Category B establishment • a Young Offender Institution.

Concerning the split between prisons for focus group and interview work, it was decided that conducting each strand of consultation in separate areas would both increase the geographical (and project) spread, and eliminate the problem of deciding whether specific “key people” in a chosen area should be interviewed, included in the relevant focus group, or both (the latter usually not being a very good idea when access and staff time are issues of such significance). During February 2005 it was also decided that consultation with Inside Out Trust staff should be somewhat wider than first envisaged, and extended to include individual interviews with IOT regional co-ordinators, regional administrators, and other staff members, and a separate focus group with all of the IOT regional co-ordinators. Instruments were designed for each strand of the consultation work (individual interviews, focus groups, and consultation by post), and in general these were designed to gather feedback from key stakeholders concerning:

• experiences, perceptions of Inside Out Trust projects, their implementation and impacts,

• views on the evaluation, what it should focus on, and what respondents might want from it, and

• monitoring/data-collection implications for different respondent groups (e.g. concerning consent, staff time, current practice, etc.)

3.1.2 Implementation In total 32 interviews and four focus groups (each involving six to eight participants) were undertaken with prisoners, prison staff and Inside Out Trust staff. Relevant details are summarised below. Table 3-1 Consultation exercise: data-collection from Inside Out Trust staff

Focus Groups Interviews Regional Administrators 6 Regional Coordinators 1 6 Head Office, other staff 6 TOTALS 1 18

3

Table 3-2 Consultation exercise: data-collection in sample prisons

Prison Description Current IOT projects Focus Groups Interviews Bronzefield Local, female Craft (plant pots) 2 (civilian

workshop staff) Deerbolt YOI,

Training, male, Cat. C

Carpentry; textiles 3 (1 x manager; 2 x civilian workshop staff)

Frankland High security, male, Cat. A

Artificial limbs; bicycles; Braille; hearing aids; sewing machines; spectacles; textiles; Wheelchairs

1 (with prisoners)

Liverpool Local, male Bicycles; wheelchairs 3 (1 x manager; 2 x uniformed workshop staff)

Moorland (closed)

YOI, male, Cat. C

Bicycles; Braille; computers; large print; textiles

3 (uniformed workshop staff)

Stafford Male, Cat. C Braille; computers 2 (one with prisoners, one with staff)

Wandsworth Local, male Bicycles; Braille 3 (uniformed workshop staff)

TOTALS 3 14 Concerning data-collection in prisons, between December 2004 and June 2005 researchers visited seven of the sample prisons on 12 separate occasions to collect data, either singly (for interviews) or in pairs (for focus groups). One of the sample prisons was withdrawn due to difficulties in arranging meetings (these difficulties were apparently related to staff shortages). Access to prisoners and staff was gained via direct negotiation with relatively senior prison staff (typically Industries/Workshop Managers). As a result of normal project liaison, these staff were known to the Inside Out Trust Regional staff and were suggested as ‘prime contacts’ by the latter. Once identified, individual prison staff (typically Workshop Instructors) were then approached directly by members of the research team. Prison staff selected prisoner focus group participants with prior guidance from the researchers. The team therefore did not have full control over the composition of the groups, and there was some initial concern that prison service staff might have a tendency to provide us with ‘well behaved’ and communicative respondents. However, the focus group feedback includes a range of both praise and criticism from prisoners, and we have no reason to believe that participants were chosen for their compliance. During the introduction phase of prisoner focus groups researchers asked how participants had been selected for inclusion and no untoward selection processes were reported. No participants were under any obligation to become involved in the work and although some were more keen than others, none of the individuals approached refused to help. The typical duration of focus groups and interviews was between 45 and 90 minutes.

4

Barring some delays at specific prisons (mostly concerning issues around access and scheduling), the research team found levels of co-operation and interest to be fairly high among Prison Service and other key contacts. Inside Out Trust staff were widely consulted during this phase of research work. All six Inside Out Trust regional coordinators were invited to participate in a focus group, and all of these staff members agreed to participate in this way. All coordinators were also interviewed individually later on (by telephone), as were the six regional administrators. The Director and Deputy Director were also interviewed by telephone, as were the Project Support Coordinator, Braille/Moon Training Coordinator, Braille/Moon Projects Coordinator, and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator. These interviews took place between March and May 2005. In addition, the regional offices corresponding to the five chosen pilot sites were visited, where researchers met the administrators and coordinators face-to-face. Questions concerning individual projects in each prison and existing data-collection arrangements were also asked of IOT regional co-ordinators before the focus groups and/or interviews took place. All focus groups and most of the interviews were recorded for subsequent (full or partial) transcription and qualitative analysis (using NUD*IST 6 software). Most telephone interviews were recorded (either digitally, or using telephone tape recorders), although some were also partially transcribed directly (using telephone headsets). 3.1.3 Analysing consultation feedback - some initial caveats Before summarising some of the highlights from the consultation feedback, it is worth pointing out some of the difficulties involved in analysing and interpreting data yielded by an exercise of this kind. First, although every effort was made to ensure that views were collected from as wide a range of respondents as resources would allow, the final samples are necessarily both small and selective. It is therefore important not to assume that such feedback can be generalised to larger respondent groups nationally without qualification, although it is likely that similar issues would have been raised if the team had been able to consult across a wider range of prisons and groups. Second, although exercises of the kind reported on here are useful for highlighting key issues concerning impact, project implementation, and so on, it is difficult to prioritise the various views expressed, and say how typical they might be in terms of their weighting across different groups of respondents. Third, it is important to remember that when respondents are asked to comment about projects and their impact, or about various aspects of the organisations they work for or deal with, they sometimes tend to “feel their way” to a position in the answering of particular questions, and there is an element of what has been called the “off the top of the head” problem with such feedback.

5

3.2 Views of prisoners about IOT projects

The views about Inside Out Trust projects expressed by participant prisoners were predominantly positive. Many prisoners had actively chosen to work on an IOT project while in prison although there were some limitations on their choices. Sentenced prisoners are obliged to undertake activity such as work or education during their imprisonment, and usually, they are given a choice of what they would like to get involved with. For various reasons however, prisons cannot currently provide all of the prisoners in their care with occupation, and waiting lists are common. Prisoners are ‘allocated’ as space allows, ideally to their first choice of activity. In terms of “preferred activities”, frequent comments were made that suggested that Inside Out Trust workshops were popular:

People aren’t pressured to come to this shop. People request to come and work in this shop... People queue to get in this shop... When I applied to come in this workshop I got told may be a three to four week waiting list to come into this shop.

Trust projects were reportedly so popular in fact that prisoners sometimes resorted to less than ‘above board’ methods to get involved:

I was only in [another workshop] for two days and then I came straight in here... I heard about this when I first came here. I met with [another prisoner]... I had a word with him and the next thing I knew, I was in straight away. I only did two days on the other workshop. And after the induction week I was straight in here.

It was not uncommon for prisoners to identify Inside Out Trust workshops, and charity workshops in general, as pockets of good practice.

I think this workshop in this prison is quite important because the prison itself doesn’t have a lot going for it. And to some people this is the best part of prison in here. For example, the person who I worked with in the stores, he looks forward to coming in here. Now the other workshops... You know there is a tremendous difference.

Once placed, prisoners are entitled to change their choice of activity. Most however, seem to elect to remain in the Inside Out Trust workshops.

I like being in the shop. I’ve been in here four years. I won’t go in another shop.

One thing that quickly became apparent was that prisoners were not gaining financially from their involvement in Inside Out Trust projects. All of the prisoner respondents reported that their charity work was not as well financially rewarded as other prison jobs.

Well, we get something like seven pound, eight pound, and in the other workshop it is about twelve pounds. So there is about four/five pound difference.

6

To pay for items from prison canteen such as stamps, snacks and toiletries, prisoners can either draw from their ‘private cash’ or earn pay from work or education. Wages paid differ between prisons, but usually educational activities pay less well than contract piecework. Despite this, contract work was not popular.

[The workshop I used to be in was like a] production line and it was just like brain dead stuff. You know?

Clearly, some prisoners elect to take lower paid jobs, such as Inside Out Trust work, because they regard it as being more interesting than contract work. So whereas, lower financial rewards might be expected to reduce the motivation of prisoners to be involved, the comments of prisoners suggest that there is something about Trust workshops that provided motivation enough.

I’ve worked in [a different workshop] and people said ‘Don’t go in [the Inside Out Trust] workshop... One: it is boring. Two: there is no money. It is less money’. That is the biggest drive. They say it is boring and it is less money, you know? Then I came in here. I ain’t bothered about the money, but it is not boring. I don’t find it boring whatsoever like.

You’re not like on an assembly line. You’ve got to use your brains... And it’s a challenge because for all you might be working on a wheelchair all the time, every time you get a wheelchair there’s something that needs doing different; different from the last one. When they are all stripped down you get different problems which keeps you active and keeps you interested in the job. It’s not just. You don’t get stale.

Comparing the Inside Out Trust projects with other prison work, prisoners not only appreciated the variety and opportunities of the work, but also the ‘good cause’ aspect of Trust activities.

I think normal workshops i.e. industrial, is mundane… In here you are allowed to do it for yourself, on the repair side of it. You feel you are accomplishing things in this workshop. It is nice to know that you are working for a charity and whatever you are doing, it is going somewhere for the good.

I used to work in another workshop, but when I heard about the Braille work I said, ‘Right, I want to change to Braille work’. It feels like I am doing something... Giving something back you know. I am helping a blind person out [by] typing out a book. That is what it makes me feel like.

I work on Braille and to actually do my job you basically have to learn a completely new language and then actually be able to produce the work, you have to take an outside exam. Now, there isn’t a lot of people who actually went on a shop where you have to learn a completely separate language to be able to do your job. So the people I actually work with are in there because they want to do the job. We’re not as well paid as anywhere else in the workshop. We actually take a pay cut to do the job and we do that because we enjoy it.

7

Researchers endeavoured to discover the specifics of what motivated the prisoners. Again the complexity of motivations became apparent.

I think... there’s in a sense a reward. An achievement. You come in and at the end of the day you know that your work that you actually do is being appreciated by people, unfortunate people all over the world in a sense. And it’s also giving yourself, er, like you’re doing summat good with your time, you know, and you are helping other people at the same time. And it’s achievement for yourself.

This in many cases appeared to be altruism towards people in need.

The third world states have nothing and we can give them something. That has got to be a plus, not a minus thing.

I don’t do the [wheelchair] job just to make me feel better... What we’re doing is for charity.

The prisoners were often moved by the plight of beneficiaries:

We put a lot of graft... to the benefit of people that’s really in a plight that’s horrible. And it would be a shame to [lose] that effort and that possibility of supplying them with hope for the future. Because we’ve seen photographs. You know I’ve read a lot on the different [circulars] that’s come from these countries. You know where you’ve got little bairns walked into minefields and had their limbs blown off and all the rest of that.

I’ve seen, like I’ve seen one the other day, and it’s like a porcelain limb. It was only about six, seven inches long. It was only that long. And when I looked at it, it, it’s. You know what I mean? It gives you more of an insight, you know, into what you are actually doing and why you’re doing it. When you see things like that.

Another motivation was a wish to protect the environment.

…it is nice to know that what comes in the prison which could be dumped at a landfill, can be turned and made useful for those less fortunate than ourselves... So it is a positive thing... So it is the green aspect. The recycling aspect and also the less well off than we are.

When I ran my own [computer] business the machines, [like] the ones we are now sending to the third world... they went straight down the tip. [He’d like to continue this kind of work when he gets out too]... before I leave this establishment... I will have to find out how to go about it.

One thing that prisoners frequently pointed out concerned the ‘different’ social atmosphere in the Inside Out Trust workshop with which they were involved.

I tend to talk to everyone on the repair side and go round and say, ‘we’ve got this little problem’... I am allowed to do that. And [my colleague here]

8

is the same. You run round and help a few every now and again... Whereas in other workshops, your movement is controlled a lot more.

It is like coming into an outside office more, coming to this workshop, because it is done like an outside workshop.

The [instructors] are much easier going. More pleasant atmosphere. People are more polite, and generally there is no trouble. [Why do you think that is?] There is no pressure.

A relative lack of pressure was mentioned on more than one occasion.

There’s not pressure. You’re not put under pressure you know. That wheelchair doesn’t have to be done in three and a half days type of thing. You know you could take weeks, it can take a fortnight. They’d rather that they done a good job at the end of the day as a rushed job. You know so there’s no pressure in that respect.

In prison you’re used to pressure. You get pressure from all sides. Do this course, do that course, do that course and it’s nice to be able to work without somebody breathing down your neck.

It was common for the researchers to hear from prisoners that they supported each other to what they characterised as a greater degree than in other workshops.

I’ve been in this [for ages]... but I always forget how to do summat and that’s one good thing that’s in this shop as well. You can go to any lad, any of the guys that make the stuff and they are willing to come over and give you a hand. I mean me first [product] - I think it must of took me about three month and the whole shop floor must have been [working] on it nearly. Now I’m on me third... an’ the lads in here they are a good bunch you know what I mean? Better than, like, the other workshop.

This view was echoed in another establishment:

You see not everybody is the same intellectual level of learning. Some people really, really struggle. Some people find it very easy. So it tends to be between ourselves. We help each other.

Quite often, this more friendly approach extended to the staff who were supervising the work, although this was not uniform.

I find it a lot friendlier in the shop. You can mill around and ask people questions and queries, amongst inmates and the instructors.

Things that those with freedom would take for granted were mentioned as having great impact for prisoners:

9

As I say you come in here, you bring your coffee cup. You make a cup of coffee, you sit and have your cup of coffee... The other shops allow you to have a tea break and take it over. But in here... If you bring enough for a couple of cups of tea, you can go and have two cups of tea in a day.

It was stated that because the atmosphere of the Inside Out Trust workshops was less stressful, more than one prisoner reported feeling safer than they did during other activities. This perception of increased security applied to their belongings as well as their persons.

[This workshop] gives you that extra bit of freedom... You come in here, you put your coat on the back of the chair. It will still be there at the end of the day when you go home.

The benefits of a calm atmosphere were also perceived by those with social or psychological difficulties.

I hate being in a group but I’ve stuck it out because it’s like being in the charity shop has helped me to come out [of] me… And it’s kept me on a key level... I mean I’ve been able to just get me point through to. On a one to one basis with another prisoner. ‘Cos I used to do the checking. Check each wheelchair. If it was wrong they took it back and explained exactly what was wrong. But that. Using. My side of it, it’s getting me on a key level.

We work in quite a nice atmosphere... Nice and peaceful... It is peaceful compared to the other workshops. The other workshops are quite noisy, drilling and that. But our workshop is quite peaceful and quite relaxed. It is nice... I suffer from depression, quite severely, and when I come in here, I feel really quite relaxed. I sit down and I am relaxed... You know it does help.

The skills learned on a project were one of the sources of pride in the job that helped to motivate and enthuse the prisoners.

It’s not as if you’re actually to be stuck on one individual job. I mean, I’ve been in the shop for, minus one year, but basically I’ve been in six years and I’ve worked from the bottom right up to the top now I’m fully trained on anything in the shop.

…once actually word of mouth gets round about the Braille unit being here [and] the quality of work that’s actually produced from it, a lot of the blind people actually tell their friends where they’re getting their stuff done. [“Is it individuals that approach you?”] We have individuals. We have schools, colleges. I mean I spent the last three-year doing GCSE science books. Including the diagrams.

However, it was noted by some prisoners that it would be more beneficial to them in the longer term if the acquisition of more formal accreditation would be part of their project experience.

10

I think the pat on the back of a certificate is quite important to some people... Yes, it is. There’s no argument there... No, I wouldn’t argue with that, but a recognised one would mean more than a pat on the back. (Discussion between two prisoners)

It would be nice if people could get an accredited qualification… qualifications for doing what they are doing... Rather than a certificate from an organisation that clearly... With no disrespect to the certificates that are produced... certificates to know that you have got to a certain level with certain things. Those who haven’t done computers before it is so hard for them... I wasn’t knocking that... They should value the certificate outside in the real world. Unless you are going to work for the Inside Out Trust... But like you are saying when you compare it to a NVQ or something it is not going to help you get a job.

3.3 Views of prison staff about IOT projects

The perspectives of prison staff echoed several themes that have emerged from the other stakeholders. Staff noted that the workshops were popular with the prisoners, and that few were reluctant to take part.

I get a load of requests you know, ‘my mate wants to come and work in the bike shop from the other shop. Can you move him to the bike shop’? Because they think it’s more interesting work as well. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

Thinking along similar lines as the Inside Out Trust staff and prisoners, prison staff had a complex view of its attractions:

Well, I’ve had no bad reports of that shop. In fact I’ve said to you earlier they all seem to quite enjoy it... I don’t know whether its more interesting than doing a menial task or whether it’s their way of putting something back into the community like you know it’s supposed to be. Or whether they can see a bike come in as an old rust bucket and see it go out nice and shiny. Yeah, it looks good. Or again, whether it’s that they’re doing good for somebody that’s got relatively nothing at all. (Civilian Industries Manager)

Again, specific examples of achievement were described, such as the following:

…she always knew she could draw, but I don’t think she realised how good she was, because maybe she wasn’t surrounded by people telling her. I don’t know. I know a bit about her life but that was between me and her obviously. But the girls. The encouragement they used to give her and what we used to give her and everyone going ‘Do this on my pot I’m gonna buy that for my family’. I think that boosted her. And when she did my pot, I just can’t get over it, it’s just beautiful my pot and I went home and I’ve got a couple of her ones and I’ve got a digital camera like and I printed them off big and I laminated them for her as a thank you present. And I gave her these photos. And I just stood there watching her looking at the photo... In her face she just. And she even said ‘I can’t believe that

11

I did that.’ And I think that’s really encouraging... now wants to go and do that where she lives… (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

The prisoners found the work engrossing and even an escape from the world of imprisonment.

You will have some [prisoners] where you really do need to assist them all time. Others, you wouldn’t… even know they’re there. They’re so into their work that they can’t even hear you when you say, ‘cigarette break’. They are so in tune with what they’re doing and that’s good... That’s what they want and it’s a good chance for them to switch off and just relax. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

…they feel like they are in a job. They don’t feel like they are in prison because of what we’re doing is enjoyable I think. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

The level of skill in the work was sometimes extremely high.

They have prisoners in [the Braille unit] that are peer tutors pretty well. I mean, you had two that had passed the, you know, the blind school exam. Which is the top one in the country and you need to, to get a pass in there you need about 98/99% you know pass rate. (Civilian Industries Manager)

Interestingly, and more subtly perhaps, it was the mixture of skill levels needed in a project that seemed to be a positive feature- something for everyone.

I think the prisoners like doing it because it’s a… skilful kind of job. Not in a big way but you know. It’s not breakfast packs. It’s not... menial tasks, although some of it can be... So there’s a bit for everyone really. (Civilian Industries Manager)

There was a commitment to teach skills in a way that contract work apparently did not.

This is a skill you’re trying to teach. It is not a production line. If it was a production line Contract Services, you know, packing rolls and issuing things... you can do that, straight forward. But when you’re teaching a skill you want the people to come regularly. So what we try... We will try to take the people regularly there. If they leave the number we’ll take another new one from that list... If we can’t make the numbers, then we will take a new person on. But it’s not like every day we take a new person, no. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

12

[The most significant aspect of the Inside Out Trust and its project work is] their contribution really to the Prison Service they also help employment once they're out, released don't they?.. It's mainly the employment side of it cos I find that it's really difficult for people... that have a prison record to then get a job outside... really just placing people in jobs once they're released. Giving them another chance. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

There were acknowledgements of the prisoners’ motivations to work on behalf of a good cause, though there were also perhaps other motivations.

...one [prisoner] just said ‘I’d like to give back because it’s a… charity’. You know it just could be as simple as that... I don’t know if they have alternative motives. I don’t think they’d tell me if they did. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

They’re very aware that it’s a charity. A lot of them are and that’s why a lot of them come there in the first place... It looks good for them for giving back... I don’t know if it’s a personal thing or something that helps them along the way. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

I mean I’m sure any person who does something good for somebody else, he does feel great. That person is going to feel great. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

Apart from the benefits for others, there were felt to be personal benefits that the prisoner might gain in terms of being better able to handle the period of the sentence:

…one has to create an interest in himself what he wants to achieve and what his goals are. I mean, say if I was a prisoner all right? I know I’m going to serve four years here now. Okay. I will have a look. ‘Yes, my interest is to come to work’. What is it going to give me? It’s going to give me a skill, which is mine nobody’s going to take that away from me. Second thing, it’s taking me out of the cell so I’m not sitting in the cell... all the time. Third thing when I work I’m going get some money... If he is coming to parole it is something is going to be on his history sheet that he’s put himself out to learn and gain something out of the system and that will help towards his parole. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

According to some respondents, another benefit was the boost that could be given to their self-esteem and confidence.

A lot of it is actually building their self-esteem for them. Helping them. A lot of it's counselling. It's amazing really... And then we have the artistic side of it. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Yeah we've had quite a few [good examples of effectiveness]. We had one who came to us. He was lovely actually but very, very quiet. Really withdrawn. Used to wear a cap; hide behind his cap. Wouldn't give you direct eye contact. And by the time he left he was talking about starting his own business and all sorts so yeah, it completely built his confidence...

13

Just giving him encouragement. Just showing that he was able and... just bit by bit. We were giving him extra projects to do... all those little bits just helped build confidence up... It's a confidence thing definitely. He's talking quite openly to all the [others] in the workshop. Eye contact with us and you know. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Some of the evidence for such impacts was observed when the prisoners sought recognition from people outside prison, including their families.

My feeling is. I think personally… [the prisoners] like the idea that what they are doing is being sold in a [charity] shop... Purely for the fact a lot of them say ‘Oh is it possible for us to have a photograph of our pots inside the shop?’ because how prestigious is that? [Do you ever get that?] No, but we’re waiting... It’s like an artist getting their first gallery open isn’t it? It’s their stuff being displayed you know and I think. You know some of them are really proud of their pots. The ones they’re most proud of, they buy and they give them to their families in the visits. I think that’s really nice that they can show they’re not just sitting in their cell. ‘Look what I’ve done, mum, dad, husbands, brothers, sisters... look what I achieved’. So it’s sort of split it’s either. It’s showing off their work in the shop or to their family. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

A motivational talk from a staff member encapsulated the benefits of pride in the job, helping people in need, and skill–learning for prisoners at the induction stage.

[This workshop] has been brilliant because people do want to come and join the bike shop because they want to learn that skill. Especially when they come in, I do tell them one thing on their induction. I say, ‘look you’re starting to work in the cycle shop and be proud of yourself. First of all if you haven’t got any skill, you’re going to learn the skill. And if you get a chance you get a job outside that’s one thing. If you don’t at least you can repair your children’s bike or somebody’s bike’. And the main thing is I said, ‘look these bikes you’re repairing is going to the charity. At the moment they’re going to [this country] Some kid, some older person travelling from village to village or going to work is going to use these bikes’. And just imagine when you say, ‘this bike which you have repaired it and somebody’s going to use it over there. Feel yourself a bit proud. So you done something you paid something back to society and that poor guy somewhere in third world country is going to get a pleasure out of it’. I told them exactly these words and they feel great about it. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

Prison staff referred to a “lack of pressure” in the workshops in the same way that prisoners had described.

Nothing’s expected of anybody you know as such. There’s no pressure on anybody. One [prisoner] can be [producing] one in a day and another [can do] ten. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

The atmosphere in the workshops was also perceived to be cooperative and helpful.

14

…people who have got learning skills they can also teach other inmates... Teaching… We use inmates you know, like store controllers. I use them for that. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

You will have a girl in tears because she can’t do it and you sit with her and when. If they can’t draw a picture I draw it for them. Because someone was laughing at her pot and we don’t have that. We have respect in our workshop. Treat as you expect to be treated. You don’t laugh and you don’t disrespect other peoples’ work. Everyone does sit. And one girl might say ‘Oh I can’t do it’ another goes ‘Oh yes you can come ‘ere, I’ll help you’ and there is a lot of that actually. Hardly ever I have to step in and help them; they all help each other, it’s very much like ‘Oh come on I was like that I said I couldn’t draw when I first come in but look at me now come on you can do it’. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

They pointed to the personal benefits of a relaxed manner of working.

I mean some [prisoners] really, really come out of themselves… [they arrive and leave] two different people… I think that’s our whole relaxed work environment that we give to them. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

…it’s rewarding for [prisoners]… It helps the charity but it also helps them because whilst they're up here working distracting them from their other thoughts... they're concentrating on... creating and they're leaving for a few hours you know all the other troubles behind. Yeah it works. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Prison staff also made reference to some of the benefits that a supportive and relaxed workshop atmosphere could have for specific groups of prisoners, such as those with mental health needs.

I mean, I feel that a lot of the [prisoners] in our room come in, doing [self-harm] and they’ve walked out… and they have told me... they’ve stopped because they feel relaxed and feel the room’s therapeutic and that… (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

They’re very well supportive of each other... they could have other problems going on in their head... So you know, some of it means a lot to them... You just help them and draw the fish for them. So you just draw it for them it’s no big deal. Whether they draw it or you draw it. If they are painting and enjoying it that’s what matters. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

I think it's [good for prisoners] just because we run a relaxed atmosphere in there really. It's a complete open office. You know they can come and chat to us about anything and we're completely indifferent. We're impartial to everything so we don't. Well I personally try not to pass judgement on them and just try and confidence build them all the time so that's really all they're needing, you know? (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Indeed workshops could accommodate people with high assessed mental health needs.

15

I would probably say the self-harmers [get the most out of it] because they come in, they're lacking confidence. They don't feel they're worth very much and you know it does build their confidence. Once they start producing… It just builds all their confidence up and they start communicating. It's a nice relaxed atmosphere here and everyone's really quite friendly so they don't feel threatened and they open up. So I'd say self-harmers probably benefit most... We work with... the health care division quite well. We [have someone] up here at the moment who's on twenty-four hour watch so yeah. It's very therapeutic. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Yeah I think [the health unit put that particular prisoner in the workshop] especially to help him so. I think so. Because he was [skilled in the task] and wanted something to occupy his time... They came to speak to me and said ‘do you think?’ you know ‘would you mind handling him?’ and I said no not all... we'll give it a shot and it’s working OK... the only thing is there is obviously an officer in there all the time [keeping suicide watch] which I think distracts the others a little bit but you know… (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

[The best bit about setting up the project] was actually having the women come in and just their comments... They were glad to be in there. They felt safe in the workshop. They felt they were doing something for a good cause. They could put something back into the community. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

I can really honestly say one girl purely did come off that [suicide watch] form from being in our room because she told us so. So I felt that was a really good achievement... Because she found something that she enjoyed. She didn’t really think she could paint and she. The encouragement we gave her. We gave her this really hard picture to do... And she painted it and it was just amazing. And she just so surprised herself… A lot of self-harmers have got no self-esteem and she obviously got her self-esteem back from being in the group. And her quote was ‘It’s the best job in the nick’. She’d been given encouragement. She just wasn’t aware of her talent and it just gave her some self-esteem back. Because half the problem with some of them that do that to themselves they have got no self esteem, no confidence in themselves and then they come into us... It’s very basic, but then some basic things work more better than more intricate counselling. You got to get back to basics and... work up that way. For her to say that. We were so proud of her. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

3.4 Views of Inside Out Trust staff about IOT projects

Inside Out Trust staff were asked for their views about the impact that their prison-based projects might have upon prisoners. No Trust (or indeed prison) staff reported any negative impacts. Any security issues reported were general concerns and were not particular to Trust projects.

16

I’ve never heard any negative connotations attached to our projects at all... And everybody benefits... You know from instructors and prison regimes, to the inmates, to recipients, the beneficiaries. Everybody gains from these situations.

Questions about impact were designed to inform decisions about key factors that should be covered by the monitoring system. The complexity of some of the answers serves to indicate the complexity of the task. To Inside Out Trust staff, there are multiple strands of prisoner benefit and motivation:

[The impact] does vary from prisoner to prisoner... I spoke to a few when I was in [a prison] last year... they get a buzz out of coming into the workshop and they feel like they’re doing something worthwhile and... it does help them give them a sense of purpose for the day really to come. Sort of come into the workshop and do something and know that what they’re doing is going to help. Make an impact on somebody else’s life and help them. I think those sort of projects, the hands on projects do have an impact really. I think it’s just personal, you know? You’re not giving them any other skills but it’s just a sense of well-being and a sense of you know “at least I’m doing something good”.

I think it gives them a sense of team work and a sense of belonging to something... And I think it gives them chance to build up various skills that they’ve either had hidden or didn’t know they even had. Hopefully it makes them think about other people as well, with the work they are doing. But I think with. Doing anything you know, a skill such as computing, or putting the bicycles together is invariably going to give them confidence in some way or another, because when you do something and you do it well and you... are successful then that usually gives you confidence. So hopefully build self esteem... And the other side of it. I suppose it helps the boredom and the monotony of being in prison.

People having the opportunity to build up self-esteem and confidence through those projects. And really getting interested in what they’re doing. Having the opportunity to do something right that they haven’t done before. And then I think the second type of impact is with the individual is dependent on the type of workshop that they’re in. So the skills that they’re learning... the accreditation... But also what they need to learn for themselves as well... I think it varies. The strength of it varies as well.

Despite the entangled nature of perceived benefits, the answers provided by Inside Out Trust staff can be roughly categorised. To various degrees, staff believed that Trust projects provide prisoners with opportunities for altruistic expression; to develop self-esteem and confidence; and to build skills necessary for future employability. The following comment is typical of answers regarding altruism:

I know from talking to prisoners week in and week out over the past years that it's that sense that they're doing something for a world around outside. And a lot of them say you know well it stopped me kind of sitting

17

around and moaning. And realising there's people worse off than me. It’s a comment I get all the time. That's the biggest impact.

The attempts by the Trust to ensure that prisoners are thanked for their involvement and given tangible recognition of their efforts, gave rise to responses from prisoners that were interpreted as signs of increasing self-esteem and pride in achievement.

…we went to [a prison and] awarded the certificates to prisoners. And there was just this sort of wonderful feeling of achievement and the fact that some of them had never ever received any awards qualifications in their lives... never had their hands shaken or even been told well done. And it just gave them a boost.

It's very often, for a lot of people, the first time they've done anything for the benefit of other people. And it's very often the first time anyone said 'thank you' for what they've done, which is an incredibly powerful thing... these are guys who are in their kind of forties and fifties, getting this little laminated bit of paper [as a certificate of thanks] and sort of being in tears. Because no one had ever done something like that for them before. And that kind of sense of sort of pride and self-worth that these blokes are getting from fixing the bikes... is incredibly powerful... That remains the biggest impact.

The growth of self-esteem and confidence was perceived to be linked with prisoners’ sense of their achievements and the recognition of their skills.

Inside Out Trust for me is providing some purposeful activity hopefully with a skill at the end of it. To raise self esteem. To make offenders aware of others’ needs - and in ways that they can help that raises their own self-esteem. And that’s what Inside Out Trust is to me. It’s a win-win. Because we’re helping those that need to be helped. The prisoners are helping. Makes at least them think about others.

The importance of acquiring basic social skills was described, as a primary pathway to greater success.

To give them the opportunity to recognise you know or to begin perhaps even to develop that work ethic so, if you have a workshop, yes, you need to get up in the morning. You know, you need to go into the workshop. You need to communicate. You need to speak. To listen. To perhaps problem solve. To team-build. All the soft office skills or the soft life skills that you and I take for granted which we have which we’ve learned to develop because we’ve worked. But if these people haven’t and if the system has failed them time and time and time again then you know if we’re giving them that opportunity to not fail, to help them be successful even in a very small way.

And the secondary [impact’s] about the fact that we do try and encourage prisoners to pick up skills... where possible accredited skills. And there's people that got certificates for things that they've learnt which they've never managed to, did not go to school for whatever reason. And they

18

have very little formal education. And it's encouraged them to you know recognise that they can learn.

The vast majority of the Inside Out Trust staff acknowledged that they were doing little to provide viable work skills. Some considered that this was a weakness of the organisation.

We are not geared up as a Trust/charity [to train people for work]. That certainly wasn’t the intention initially. It was to provide... worthwhile activity for prisoners. It wasn’t about increasing their chance of employability. I mean things have changed a lot haven’t they over the last few years and most people now if they want a job, get a job.

Some Inside Out Trust staff mentioned a range of further impacts, such as that on family ties.

It has had some other kind of impacts I know with reconnecting people with families. A comment that we've had quite a lot, which led us to sort of change our practice on certificates was that... it gives them something to talk about on visits. And we decided then to... make sure that people had two certificates - one to keep and one to give to family and friends when they arrived. I remember speaking to some people in [a prison] a while ago [they were] saying, ‘now I kind of look forward to when my dad comes because I know he's proud of me for doing this... For the first time ever I think'. That's the comment we get quite regularly.

Although Inside Out Trust staff described a variety of impacts that their projects might have, they also recognised that project work takes place alongside a range of other activities, and that the Trusts’ impact might be limited overall.

I think [involvement with an Inside Out Trust project] probably helps them get through their sentences and serve their time... I think it’s about providing them with meaningful work while they’re serving their sentence and doing something useful while they’re in custody. If they can develop new skills etc. perhaps gain some qualifications... then that’s the difference we’ve made. It might be a small difference but it’s a difference nevertheless. If we weren’t there they wouldn’t do it. What would they do? Sit in their cells.

There was also recognition that impact would also be affected by whether the participant was motivated to change:

We might be able to prompt them but ultimately the change comes from the individual.

Projects were perceived to vary in the extent to which they had an impact in achieving a continuum of objectives- such as delivering purposeful activity (as a minimum), types of skill training (an intermediate outcome), and successful restorative messages (at the maximum).

…I think it depends on the project. We have different grades of projects... all our projects deliver purposeful activity, which prison projects deliver

19

anyway even if they weren’t Inside Out Trust. But if all of us do that as a base level... The better projects deliver some skills training... the even better projects deliver skills training as appropriate for employment on release... the really good projects, as well as that, actually link it clearly to the charitable purpose and feed it back. So you get the prisoners feeling social inclusion. Therefore their self-esteem rises. But I think it depends…

Some staff pointed out that even what might look like a project of dubious worth could actually have beneficial impacts on individual prisoners:

But I don’t think we should get away from the fact that what can appear to be a not very effective project can have a real impact on an individual prisoner’s life whilst he’s in prison. And that we mustn’t forget... because we are a prisoner focussed charity. And sometimes something that doesn’t appear very significant can make you feel really pleased when somebody comes up and says ‘This has really helped me in my life and it’s made a big difference’. And you didn’t see it as particularly significant. And that’s happened to me in a number of prisons.

One thing that all Inside Out Trust staff agreed on was that their work was better for prisoners than the alternatives: nothing at all and the monotony of prison life, or prison-provided ‘contract work’.

[Prison contract work] does look quite tedious. And you know, quite frankly, if you’ve got a lot of offenders there who have never worked going to prison and start doing that sort of work they think to themselves ‘blimey if this is work on the outside I’m back into crime the minute I get out. I wouldn’t want to do that day in day out’.

I see very, very little else, in terms of what prisoners do every day, that can have the same kind of impact. I mean very often our kind of enemy inside prisons is the kind of contract workshops for example. Where people do completely mindless things. Which I think is potentially dangerous. A bloke sitting around packing ten little screws into little plastic bags... packing plastic spoons... It is teaching people that work is boring and unfulfilling and useless. And you know you might as well carry on dealing in drugs because it pays more money and it's not rotting my brain.

In the contract services... I can’t see personally and I’ve never been persuaded that that sort of work contributes to an effective resettlement of an offender. You know you go and talk to them and they’re bored shitless, excuse my French. How on earth does that benefit anybody’s resettlement?.. It’s dull uninteresting boring work and nobody benefits. The only person who benefits is the prison service financially otherwise it’s of no benefit to anybody else. None whatsoever. Waste of time. Complete and utter waste of time.

One coordinator made an interesting observation about the differences in prisoners’ readiness to work.

20

…you do tend to find that those prisoners who are working who are on some of the prison units tend to have a greater work ethic than those on what they call the mains [the mainstream prisoners].

These differences perhaps show that inculcating attitudes to work may be far more significant in some contexts than in others. Hence the impact that Trust projects can have in mainstream prisons could be assessed in terms of instilling a work ethic among other things. Respondents also highlighted the role of workshop staff in generating positive outcomes for prisoners. The key role of the prison staff in the workshops was seen as vital in creating the positive atmosphere needed to make the Trust’s work effective.

A good instructor will make or break a project. Enthusiastic, keen instructor. Well motivated. You can forget anything else but that’s your priority number one. Get a good instructor you’ll have a good workshop. Get a crap instructor you will have a crap workshop.

Those coordinators who had become key holders in the prisons had also become aware of the difficulties and restrictions, imposed by the prison environment, which prison staff had to contend with. Inside Out Trust staff offered numerous descriptions of individual cases where particular beneficial impacts on prisoners seemed to have resulted from involvement with projects.

…we've got loads of stories... staff and volunteers pick up stories all the time from individual prisoners and prison staff. And we put them in our newsletters and we get letters from prisoners saying you know, “This is the best thing that's happened to me”.

Two specific examples will suffice:

When we set up a bike workshop in [a prison]... up ‘til then... they would have to... cannibalise other bikes to take pieces from it to take one good bike... We stepped in and [provided]... finances for new parts... one of the blokes in the workshop couldn’t believe that he came to them one day and said, ‘I need a new tyre’... and within a few days he had it... the man genuinely couldn’t believe that [we] took his word for it... he was able to make this bike roadworthy, look good and feel good about it... that made me go home feeling as though we’d done our job really. That he thought he was good enough that somebody would provide him with what he needed to make that bike work.

There is a young lad at [a prison] who is trying to make a career out of his book that he has learnt to type up on the computers... obviously he is going to get rejected by some of the things like that, but he might learn that that is part of life, and it might be the life he chooses rather than going back to crime... He was just typing books into large print... And then he started doing his own stories and things... he improved his literacy skills... he found he had a talent for writing stories... he was

21

trying to articulate onto paper... and he is doing that. And he’s really positive about the future.

Staff attitudes to prisoners were perceived as underpinning the development of the atmosphere in Inside Out Trust projects:

Very good behaviour... It could be the staff, yeah. I think generally the behaviour in most of our shops is good. I think, or I like to think, it’s the staff have got the experience to make the shop good because we’re not confrontational if you like. We don’t goad them or wind them up. As long as they’re doing their work we’re happy to comply with most of their requests you know. (Civilian Industries Manager)

Part of the impact of the staff was linked to the perception among prisoners that the instructors were civilian and not officers.

Well, [prisoners] certainly look on us differently. Well they treat us differently to the way they treat an officer. Now whether that's because we are civilians I don't know... They know we're not officers... They know that it's actually for them to work in the workshop they know they have to toe the line because otherwise they've gone and someone else will take their place but yeah, they come up with a completely different attitude... I don't think I've had anybody be abusive to me or anything. You know they answer back sometimes... I mean... they normally come in crying to us ‘can we have a chat’... It's that kind of attitude as opposed to anger... Daily basis. Sometimes two or three in a day. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Staff were also able to bring discipline to bear when it was needed.

We can sack them so if they're not producing or. I've had one particular incident where items were being stolen so yeah, we just sack them. We dismiss them. A couple of times that's happened. It's not common at all. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

The high standards of instructors were instrumental in passing on skills and therefore helping to produce results that were felt to compare well with those of other workshops.

When you do something do it professionally and perfectly... And I like teaching even when I was at [my previous job] I used to train apprentices there and I’m more into the teaching and things like that. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

The quality of some relationships was shown by the way that staff spoke of their prisoners’ achievements with pride and sympathy.

I had to speak about this about three months ago. I was like [gestures a snivel]. And [the other staff] they said ‘cor, you had a tear in your eye then’ I said because ‘I’m so proud of her’ because it was. Because she did it, you know…

22

When there was feedback from released prisoners it was perceived as something exceptional and particular to the Trust’s projects.

You do get letters... I certainly get letters back from prisoners... I’ve had quite a lot over the last twelve months really. The interesting thing is I have never worked in a workshop elsewhere doing manufacturing where you get letters from released prisoners. And yet I am now working in four shops doing, you know, charity based projects for the Inside Out Trust and getting letters or hearing from prisoners. Or indeed phone calls. I last spoke to a prisoner who was released from prison a couple of months ago. I last got a phone call, yesterday. And I would say in the last week I have had two phone calls from ex workshop employees, if you like, who are now released. And indeed there is that. So we do get feedback. So it is possible I suppose to find out actually what we are doing in the sense of benefiting the prisoner after [release]. (Prison Service staff)

I’ve had one inmate that emailed me probably every six months [after his release]. He had gone out from our shop, he had gone to University... They are fully aware of his IT qualifications, the company he is working for. The last I heard he had just been made up to a supervisor of his shift. (Prison Service staff)

There seemed to be a consensus among Inside Out Trust staff that feedback from beneficiaries is of great importance, especially to prisoners who became involved in IOT projects, but also to prison staff and instructors.

[One particular] organisation... is excellent with feedback... they really work hard at getting feedback for us because they know how important it is. And he’s always emailing me the latest set of photographs that have been taken... they send us lots of photographs back. So what I then do I will download them. I get them all copied... And they go on the walls in the workshop. And the lads look at it, you know. And a lot of them, particularly I think when they see ones with children in them, you know, they get quite a lot out of it. And they think ‘oh god’, you know, ‘we’ve done that. We’ve done that’.

We had the lady from [a charity]... who quite regularly visits [a prison]... to see the [prisoners] there who have made [products]. And she goes in for that purpose to give them a bit of a morale boost. To say ‘thanks’. To say ‘carry on with the good work’. And so they do do repeat visits... This lady is quite keen to come in. And there are quite a few people who would like to go into the workshops. But it is usually when the industrial manager will say ‘Look the [prisoners] are flagging a bit here, could we have her in again to have a chat with them?’... Or they have got a new in lot of [prisoners]... if they requested a visit I would certainly try and arrange that for them... some people would actually like to go in and have a look. And sometimes that is possible, sometimes that’s not.

23

We also like to get information from beneficiaries... the local newsletter just so that I can share with the prisoners basically... that information... They’ve got a picture of the bikes arriving in… That’s got to be a motivation in terms of, you know, where all their hard work ends up.

Inside Out Trust staff also noted how difficult it sometimes is to provide feedback in a consistent or regular manner, and some staff clearly spent quite a lot of time “chasing” beneficiaries to provide relevant feedback.

…that’s the vital component of the whole system is feedback. It is sometimes difficult. You do have to badger. You do have to hassle at times but it is important otherwise the motivation and enthusiasm just disappears. You know that’s one of the most difficult parts of the job I think. Keeping people motivated.

Prisoners also appeared to appreciate such feedback, and comments of the following sort were typical:

I enjoyed the presentation that [a beneficiary] gave not long ago... Hear from someone who had been out there who had seen the difference [our work made]. It was very good... [T]hey did a presentation... and showed photographs of [the goods] being put together and being installed. And how it changes the whole school... and... classrooms brought to life with what we are doing... I think they have been in twice in the last year. Someone from Africa came in too.

I’ve got stuff in next door from papers from where the people that I’m actually doing stuff for which actually mention the prison.

It’s nice to [get feedback]. Nice to think you’re appreciated.

There are letters of thanks [from beneficiaries]. We also do local schools as well. There’s quite a few letters and photographs and er, how we have changed their lives. And you can see the difference from what comes back. There is a big difference actually.

Some prisoners also commented that they had not had any feedback, or that they would like more feedback than was currently provided:

Well, since I’ve been [working in the] Braille Workshop here I have not seen anybody... There is no feedback as such… It would be nice to know you know what they say about us. I mean what they think about us… Personally I would find it, you know, a bit more interesting if I could find out where they are going.

Getting feedback was usually the task of regional administrators and despite their best efforts, was commonly referred to as being a stumbling block.

Feedback’s really hard... I’ve actually had to write to them asking for feedback and I’ve not seen anything... I have written two letters recently to beneficiaries to say that I’d really like to know what’s happened to my [products], what you think of them and how they’ve benefited your

24

[recipients]... my letter was very clear... that you know the prisoners had given their time to refurbish these. The idea is that it’s helping them build their self-esteem for them to get out in the world... You know and I tried to word the letter so that they would understand the benefits of the Trust.

[Sometimes] the work's done, but there isn't any clear sort of named beneficiary. So you know what it's like, the goods will go off to a store and then you know we'll see who wants them. And then we'll give them away. And the link back to the prisoners in the workshop is sort of fractured at best.

3.5 The relationship between IOT projects and the prisons

Respondents were also asked to comment on how Inside Out Trust projects might impact on prison regimes more generally. Direct examples of such impact were more difficult to uncover. Some respondents did make reference to the way in which Inside Out Trust projects might have a “ripple effect” within prisons, which could over time have some impact on an overall regime, but they also admitted that they were extrapolating from what they did know, for example, about factors such as workshop atmosphere. If something about IOT project work does foster a more harmonious atmosphere which is also perceived by some prisoners as being “safer”, then perhaps some projects could have a “catalytic” effect more widely, as one IOT staff member put it. More generally, Prison Service and other project staff reported that their colleagues often seemed to view the Trust’s work as being worthy of support, for example, and suggested that staff from well outside the direct project work were sometimes interested in the projects and what they were doing.

...and staff are very supportive in buying them as well. You know we’ve had some great support from staff to come and actually purchase the flower pots... everyone’s aware of where you can. A lot of them come in, especially at Christmas time there’s a lot of people come in for presents. You know it’s good they are very. I find the... staff extremely supportive of our workshop. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

I haven't heard any. Touch wood. I haven't heard any negative comments about the workshop at all. It's always positive. Everybody you know that passes through comments how nice it is. The atmosphere, the prisoners themselves. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

At the same time, the characteristics of the different prisons mean that projects are adapted to the prisoners and the regime.

I think the project has to be appropriate to the prison. I think that’s fundamental.

25

…you tailor the type of project as well don’t you? I think there’s the prison needs. So, in local where you’ve got high turnover, something that’s highly skilled, you have to learn a skill, wouldn’t necessarily be successful, where it would in another. Whereas something that’s really easy to pick up and put down is more successful.

The prisons - not the Trust - were responsible for allowing prisoners to join projects.

We as the Trust have no influence over who goes on to the project. That is purely a decision made by the prison. The individual prisons themselves. They will often. It will probably be the instructor or the wing governor will put up some notices around saying we’re going to open up a bicycle workshop or a computer workshop with the Inside Out Trust. If you’re interested you know talk to you know instructor so and so. And then whatever process the individual prisons put in you know, it’s down to them. It’s not down to us. We don’t have any influence at all on which offenders work on which projects.

The key role of the prison in admission of prisoners highlighted some issues about the Trust’s own interest in being seen to ‘succeed’ with individuals. Would it perhaps increase its credibility by ‘cherry picking’ promising candidates and then taking the credit for their success, as other organisations were perceived to do? Currently that form of selection was felt to be unacceptable.

We [don’t want to get into] the situation where we... try and pick the people who are gonna come to that workshop [who] you know they’re gonna get jobs. Oh well fantastic. But these guys have got the jobs anyway which is where The Inside Out Trust is completely different to FTC, where they cherry picked people. I mean... they pick and choose like Transco, they cherry pick the people, they know they are going to succeed. Whereas we don’t do that. We don’t choose... it’s one of the things that we are very good at. We don’t say ‘No, you can’t come in.’ We’ve got [vulnerable prisoners] working here, we’ve got this group of prisoners working there. You know it’s... from a very large baseline.

It was clear that despite the attractions of the projects there was still a need to negotiate with the individual prisons, beginning with talks at a senior level and then assessing the capacity of the instructors and workspaces. Depending on financial circumstances and attitudes to charity work, some prisons were more open than others to the approaches of the Trust.

It’s usually at a governor grade. I tend to try and go in, in the nicest possible way, as high as possible because then you gain the commitment from on high. So I would tend to go in at governor grade level and then once you’ve got their commitment obviously it then filters down... And nine times out of ten it is probably something to do with either the head of learning and skills or more likely to be the resettlement managers or the industry managers.

The appeals of the projects to the Prison Service were stated by the prison staff in very much the same terms as the IOT staff. The scale of the Trust’s work gave it visibility, which increased the chances of its being invited into prisons.

26

…the prison services approached [the Inside Out Trust] because they know they work in prisons elsewhere. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

The setting up of a project was assisted by previous contacts with IOT and by the fact that similar project models could be examined in other prisons. In the following example, initial negotiations to start a project were undertaken through the governor and then taken forward by an instructor.

[The workshop came about] because other prisons had a workshop set up and they wanted to get more work which the prisoners could learn a skill and some purposeful activities. The idea obviously was the Governor’s idea, but obviously I was there, you know, and with my mechanical knowledge I did the setting up… If I can learn and make my shop better, why not? (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

Providing activity and skills learning were basic attractions.

The Governor’s very happy because Governor’s figures go up you know. The time out of cell for the prisoners... KPIs. He is achieving that... and also rehabilitation; it comes because teaching is part of rehabilitation... This particular part is education... there are some complicated bits in a cycle to repair. It is a skilled job... people are earning money working in a cycle shop; they get paid very well... So if you can do something why not? (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

All the factors had to be taken into account before a new project was begun. The priority given to ‘hard’ skills implied that proper certificates were more important than “somebody knocking a certificate up on the computer and saying ‘well done’”. There were “duties” and responsibilities on the part of the Trust to fulfil the Prison Service’s requirements. The staff described ways in which projects were managed so as to meet Prison Service objectives and standards. A process of induction was described which emphasises the extent to which a workshop meets standards of safety, offers wages, is focused on skill learning and so on- all the things that might be typical of a well-run prison workshop. Yet there was also some indication of flexibility that enabled prisoners to access other aspects of the regime.

…we want to get everybody out the cell at least for half a day if not for a full day. That’s why they’re part time. So they can spend half a day with us. But they can go to education if they want to go for other half day. Or they have got other activities to do you know like a gym... if they can tackle that... The library. Or cleaning their cells. You know having a visit and they’ve got loads of other things. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

The practicability of teaching vocational skills was limited in some prisons and with some prisoners. It was the vulnerable prisoners on long sentences who were seen as more able to benefit from the systematic training. Transfers of prisoners to other prisons disrupted the long process of training and acquiring hard-won certificates.

27

We tend to find like the more longer term one’s that we’ve had are our peer tutor’s, number ones, clerks and they’re got the better jobs because they, the sole fact they’ve been here for longer... We start training them on the job and two weeks down the line they could be gone... Two days. Three months. Four months. Nobody ever knows [how long they’ll stay]. What we try to do if we’re gonna enrol them on a course, a certificated course that’s costing the prison money we try to place them on hold... That means we can hold them in the prison for three months. But... they can still ship them off if they have to... If their numbers up they have to go somewhere else then that’s how it has to be... Other than put them on hold that they’re taking a qualification and we’d like to keep them here for the three months there’s not much else we can do... you can never tell how long they’re gonna be here for. (Civilian Industries Manager)

Vocational training also required large and well-equipped facilities that were not readily available.

Ideally [new workshops are established] where they can go on their release get a job in that particular field. That’s why we’re going for more vocational areas like bricklaying and plastering and... woodwork. Building trades. But we can’t always get into that because quite often those areas you need a large area of space with not many prisoners per square foot. You can’t get as many prisoners in... the ratio of prisoner to instructor is often less in those shops than it is in these shops. So we have to try and get a bit of a mix. (Civilian Industries Manager)

Vocational training was also seen as expensive.

We said to our Governor... ‘Why are you closing the carpenters shop when you know it’s in a man’s prison... and a skill?’ It’s good product to make for the prison service as a whole because we were doing stuff for the whole service. Good trade qualifications can be had. But at the time he deemed it to be too expensive to run. (Civilian Industries Manager)

The actual provision of effective training seemed an inherently challenging problem for the service. The operation of a project had to take account of regime conditions. Among these was the security policy that required materials and equipment to be kept under scrutiny and control. Another aspect of the regime was the influence of the staff on the prisoners’ chances of improving their status on the Incentive and Earned Privileges Scheme.

…he will get extra brownie points if he’s helping other people. If there’s another inmate who cannot read and if he’s helping him to read or teaching, he’ll get a brownie point. So his enhanced system goes up… I will write in, ‘Helping other prisoners’... to write a letter or to learn or explaining or teaching... if he’s on enhanced he gets two visits a fortnight. Extra letters. Extra spending money and his wages go up. (Uniformed Workshop Officer Instructor)

Apart from the usual concerns with prisoners’ occupation and resettlement, prisons also want to maintain a reputation among their communities and in the outside

28

world. An Inside Out Trust project was perceived as having some public relations value to a prison.

It’s always a popular workshop for when we have official visitors... apparently Princess Anne stayed a lot longer than what she should have done in our one... she’s had a look at our pots... One gal in particular did paint a horse on one though that was for a special occasion which did me laugh and then she was so nervous she had to put a paint brush down because she was shaking before meeting her (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

There was some agreement with the idea that taking part in restorative work could help to reintegrate offenders with communities.

I mean [restorative justice] was quite plainly a key aim... The stated aim was that if an offender had some identity with his own community and has done some restorative work in that community, it is more likely to be respected in the future. And I would wholeheartedly agree with that. (Prison Service staff)

However, concerns were expressed that the Inside Out Trust needed to be more focussed on demonstrating that the projects could have an impact on reducing re-offending. The priority accorded to evidence like this meant that in future projects would have to be able to show that they were analysing the needs of prisoners and focusing on reducing re-offending.

As I said before, [Inside Out Trust] projects themselves are great. And they really deliver... No getting away from that, the end results have been superb... I think my problem in a way is the way the Prison Service is now run, that we need to show there’s been some analysis of the needs of the prisoner because all the work we do really should be directed towards the needs of the prisoners or the offenders. (Prison Service staff)

I certainly wouldn’t say we wouldn’t want to... continue working with the IOT. I think maybe they... want to be more aware of the agenda that the prison service now have, and maybe look at. Maybe doing some research before a project started almost and to say well actually you know what... in this project could their involvement lead to a reduction... of reoffending... that would be difficult. I’m not saying that’s easy. (Prison Service staff)

These comments suggest that people working in the Prison Service have to manage a complex and sometimes contradictory set of aims and objectives. Reducing re-offending is regarded as primary, and evidence is officially required to allow initiatives to be universalised. At the same time, inexpensive projects that occupy prisoners and teach some skills are welcomed. More ambitious aims to teach vocational skills are stymied by circumscribed budgets and the lack of facilities, as well as the limitations of managing prisoners on a range of sentences in a hard-pressed prison system. Restorative justice is partly seen in terms of its PR advantages.

29

There was scope therefore for some strategic negotiation between the Service and the Trust that could accommodate their different emphases. Otherwise, hard questions might be posed about the value of the Trust’s work to the Service.

I think we need to have closer discussions, probably at a strategy level... so we’re aware of what drives them. But they need to be aware of what drives us…. (Prison Service staff)

The [Trust] have this spark and they have the flexibility in a way to go and identify projects. I think it’s just... being aware of our agenda and say, ‘how can we do what we want to do, but... also help the prison service?’ So in a way we’re sort of you know mutually helping each other... because in a way that would allow us to continue to work with them. I think [it won’t be long until] somebody will be knocking at the door and saying, ‘hang on, why are you working with them? What are they bringing to you?’... the answer would have to be certainly from our point of view, ‘well actually not a lot really.’ (Prison Service staff)

Comments of the latter sort are obviously also relevant to issues around the need for effective monitoring and evaluation, since questions about what benefits the work of the Inside Out Trust might bring to the Prison Service could be answered more convincingly given an appropriate evidence-base. 3.6 Perceptions of the Inside Out Trust as an organisation

All respondents were asked for their views about the Inside Out Trust as an organisation, and for their more specific views about “strengths and weaknesses” of the Trust and its work. Almost without exception, respondents expressed high personal regard for Inside Out Trust staff. Inside Out Trust staff members themselves usually described the “IOT team” in very positive terms:

I think the strengths are in their commitment really. All the co-ordinators are very committed to the ethos of the organisation and want to do. I mean they all sort of do above and beyond the call of duty some of them you know they work long hours.

Overwhelmingly, prison staff also characterised Trust staff as friendly, flexible and knowledgeable.

…from what I've seen I think they work great. I think they do a good job with what they're doing... for me they've always... whatever I've asked for they've always supplied. It's always been really good. Very, very accommodating... [the coordinator is] lovely and very accommodating. Anything [s/he] can do for us [s/he] does do.

Additionally, the Inside Out Trust was widely considered to be well respected and well known:

30

The strengths of the Trust? It’s good at setting up projects. It... has a good reputation and a lot of people know of the work of the Trust so it has a good background and a good pedigree. (Prison Service staff)

Strengths would include that... level, of coverage that we've got. In terms of... we have got presence in a lot of prisons. And some people I've spoken to are quite surprised when they find out that there's only about 20 of us... We can use that to our advantage. (Inside Out Trust staff)

Respondents were also asked to comment on the more day to day communication that took place between prison/project staff and the Inside Out Trust, and such communication was usually described in terms of “touching base”, “keeping tabs” and so on, rather than in terms of regular contact that was necessary for the smooth running of projects.

I’m not aware [of the Inside Out Trust visiting regularly] though the activities people may have seen more of them than I have. I mean I have not had that many formal contacts with them in the prison… no one from the IOT has ever come here and sat in this office and said. ‘right, this is what we intend to do for the next six months’. It might be nice but at the level we’re working at, I wouldn’t say it was essential. But we do... have a quarterly area resettlement managers’ meeting and... part of that’s a standing agenda item [covers] work in the voluntary community sector and particularly restorative projects. (Prison Service staff)

[How often do you actually talk to the Inside Out Trust?] Not a lot. Probably once a month. Once a month. You know every couple of months. Just touch base. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

We don't [feed back to the Inside Out Trust]. I mean they are aware of what we're doing and you know [the coordinator] does make an effort to come up and have a look every now and again. [She] walks round and chats to the [prisoners] and things so yeah, they are involved but we don't on a regular basis feed them figures, no. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Despite such good reports, there was some sense in which the best work of the Trust was perceived to be ‘patchy’ and ill-defined or developed. It was hoped that some consolidation and focus on identifying and supporting good practice would develop in the future. For example, the researchers heard of ‘tagging on’ education and/or a qualification to Inside Out Trust activities. Some were in operation, whilst most were reported as being ‘in the pipeline’. A number of prisons reported sub-sections within workshops which delivered education (including basic skills) and others reported their plans to introduce accreditation to extant activities. The opportunity for such ‘add on’ activities was usually spotted and implemented by prison staff. In some cases it was evident to researchers that staff were motivated to action by the current ‘What Works’ approach of the Prison Service whilst in others it “just seemed the obvious thing to do”. Prison serviced staff also made reference to a necessity for a clearer focus on targets and business plans:

…I would feel happier I think if… it was more clearly defined. You know, ‘in the next six months we have a project… which is… down the road from

31

here… we have these bits of work and we intend to put this and this in your prison… over the next six months we intend to churn out you know… we would like to bring some [products] in to be refurbished in your workshop’. And then, you know, there’s some management and monitoring to that process… that hasn’t been the case. Unless they’ve had that conversation with our head of activities… I’ve said it before, the way we now work, you know, to a business plan and to targets and that, it’s more properly, sort of, managed to some extent; there are some changes and improvements that could be made. (Prison Service staff)

3.7 Views on monitoring and evaluation

Again, all respondents were asked for their views about the monitoring and evaluation of the IOT’s project work (and current data-collection that might be taking place already), and also about what they would like to see focused on in the evaluation and fed back to them. Questions concerning the former were designed to gather feedback relating to the measurement of key project outcomes and causal mechanisms (and “meshing” of the monitoring system to current practice on the ground), and questions concerning the latter were designed to highlight the interests of particular groups of stakeholders in terms of write up and the evaluation products themselves. In terms of current information-collection relating to Inside Out Trust projects, it was extremely common for the researchers to be told by IOT staff that there was little or no record-keeping activity taking place at the moment. There was certainly very little that would be of use in a national monitoring scheme. Feedback from staff within prisons was very similar, and suggested that record-keeping overall is quite rudimentary, although it is usually sufficient to cover requisite details for prisoner payment, and for monitoring “disruptions”. The following comments are illustrative:

We do a regime monitoring form... where we have to record the activities that the prisoners do so how many hours they're unlocked. How many hours we have them with us that type of thing so we do record on a weekly basis the number of prisoners we have through the workshop, the hours that they do with us and what we call disruptions so when they leave us to go to appointments... It’s logged weekly... And disruptions and things where they've been off somewhere else... It is computerised but it's actually paper as well. So I keep a hard copy as well. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Yeah I mean I do actually paperwork obviously. You have to do their pay and so paperwork is also an area of it but no most of the time I'm out there supervising them and the paperwork is done in lunch breaks and things... we’re given thirty minutes between lunch break ending and them arriving. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Yeah we have attendance register... I suppose you’d only just have to flick through the attendance records and you’d soon see when they left... If some person say, started in October we will still have their induction form but it isn’t actually written on that, when they actually left. Maybe

32

that’s something we could do, but you only have to go back on past registers and... The minute you that it stops ticking them in that’s the date they left... If they’d been transferred to another prison it would say ‘T’ next to their name on the register as a transfer”. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Induction procedures for new project participants tend to be rudimentary, and designed to cover key areas such as safety and schedules, rather than to gather baseline information or even key details about the participants themselves. Recording of details concerning the day to day involvement of individual prisoners is usually limited, and again related to hours worked or to behaviour (disruptive or otherwise). Similarly, records concerning project outputs tend to be both aggregate and inaccurate, although some project records are more comprehensive (especially in prisons where prisoner volunteers can help with information-collection). It was also clear that many projects do not routinely supply details about throughput or individual participants to the Inside Out Trust either.

Well we don't [report back to Inside Out Trust about numbers involved] but we do communicate and obviously let them know how it's going and things, but not numbers as such. (Civilian Workshop Instructor)

Arrangements for gathering feedback from prisoners are also usually not in place, although comments from some staff members suggest that they would be interested in gathering such feedback.

[Do you collect anything from prisoners in terms of their views, satisfaction, or their interest in the workshops?] From time to time what usually happens is a prison exercise and... it hasn’t been that long since we last did it. And it is usually at the bequest of the Learning Skills Manager. Questionnaires do go out generally about what is going on. How prisoners find it. What would they like seeing going on. They usually do lead towards a more educational sort of... We don’t particularly ask them what they like. It is what they want to see. What qualifications would they want to achieve. Which then gives our governor some idea on how to plan. (Discussion group with prison staff)

And finally, it became apparent to researchers quite quickly that Inside Out Trust coordinators and Prison Service staff alike did not like or use computer technology very much or very efficiently. Although record-keeping practices on the ground tended to be modest or ad hoc, respondents from across the stakeholder groups did tend to recognize the importance of gathering data concerning participants, projects and their impact, although prisoners tended to be somewhat more sceptical than the other groups. When it came to prisoners’ views of data collection for the monitoring and evaluation work, while most respondents did not seem to mind the idea of the research team seeing their LIDS1 records, many were antagonistic to the idea of

1 The Local Inmate Database System currently used by many prisons to house routine data concerning individual prisoners.

33

researchers accessing other data concerning them, especially data such as those contained on OASys2.

…what your life was, growing up like, that’s what the OASys is about. At the end of the day that’s between me and the prison service, you know, and I think a lot of people will feel [reluctant to give consent]. It’s not just like what your offence has been. It’s obviously you’re family... and stuff like that. It’s a lot of things like that… (Prisoner response)

I don’t mind you looking at LIDS but not OASys... Because that’s personal information about me... That is what we’re getting at, because some of it would be personal stuff... I don’t want that [information] to be mixed with this [charity work]... Because there are a few personal bits of information you want on me for example, when you ask me, and I tell you, then yes you can use it... Providing you come and ask for the information and if I want you to know, I will [tell you]... So rather than give my consent to everything, I would rather you give me a list of questions: ‘If you would like to answer these’. (Discussion among prisoners)

As the latter comment suggests, some prisoners were quite open to being approached directly by members of the research team to ask them questions even after release, although some were also less than keen to be followed up for long periods “on the out”.

No problem. I’ve got no problem with the actual [post release] interview. Where I would have problems is would be you basically going nosing through my personal records. (Prisoner response)

Those who were less keen to be contacted after release made comments such as the following:

But I think if you’re asking people to fill in questionnaires when they’re released from prison... I know personally [after] leaving prison I won’t have nothing to do with it. I want to get out and move on. You know. So I think you’ll find that. (Prisoner response)

Concerning self-completion questionnaires, there was considerable scepticism expressed by prisoners about whether they would actually be completed by very many people.

…if you’ve got 50 people in the shop I think it might be about twenty [questionnaires you’d get] back. (Prisoner response)

I’m not being funny. Most of us nowadays if we walked into our cell now and there was a questionnaire laid on the bed you go: bin. (Prisoner response)

Although the actual completion rates for self-completion questionnaires administered during the pilot are far better than some of the above comments suggest, some of the issues raised by prisoners about data-merging and consent are

2 The Offender Assessment System used by the National Probation Service.

34

clearly of major importance both to implementation of the monitoring system and the wider evaluation. Prison/project staff were fairly receptive to suggestions concerning changes to monitoring practices focusing on the details of “project running”, as they usually claimed to be involved in that sort of record-keeping anyway.

If we’ve got time to do it and it’s not reams of paper then we’re quite happy to accommodate. (Civilian Industries Manager)

Oh there wouldn’t be any resistance [to the introduction of monitoring] because... most staff in prison now are used to having their work monitored. I mean you know we have to produce figures, you know to demonstrate what we’re doing. You know this is what it’s about. (Prison Service staff)

Although prison staff often commented on the value of learning more about how projects impact on prisoners, they also expressed uncertainty or scepticism about how some of these impacts could actually be measured.

You know there is something in this [restorative justice] and it’s probably not that well researched as to what. And a lot of stuff is better researched now and there’s What Works, so prison strategy is all about that, that there isn’t any, to my knowledge, any clear research being done as to the effectiveness of restorative projects. I think anecdotally and in terms of sort of pragmatic view, that if under some form of supervision an offender can get involved in his own community then I can see you know, there is an obvious correlation there. That they… see value in what they’ve done. And there is some evidence now that offenders are less likely to damage something that they’ve actually helped build. But other than that I’m not aware of any other research… (Prison Service staff)

The reality is. From the benefits of the Inside Out and the impact that it has on the lives of prisoners is one of these positives... which is very hard to measure. Because it is the positive impact it makes on prisoners themselves. On their feelings of self worth. On their feelings of their ability to actually do something positive with their lives. And unless we can come up with. We can find a way to demonstrate that... [despairing hand gesture] (Prison Service staff)

Questions were also raised both about data protection issues, and about what some staff regarded as a constantly increasing “paperwork” load on them. Although recognising that prison data are sensitive (although they didn’t see this as an insurmountable impediment to research), some officers commented that they could get a trusted prisoner to help them implement any monitoring tools and they already kept related data such as pay records. As with the other stakeholder groups, most Inside Out Trust staff commented on the need for monitoring and evaluation, and expressed an interest in learning more about what the impacts of Inside Out Trust projects might be.

35

[I would like to know] if we are successful really. And if we make a difference. But I don’t know how you would measure that really... But it would be nice to know if we were having a positive impact on people’s lives... we can’t actually do something definite for them can we? We are just sort of helping them along... It all depends on how you measure it as well... Me personally I am not interested how many bikes come in and out, that is not a thing. I am not interested in that. I can’t see that’s relevant to our work, because our work is to benefit the prisoner. And I wouldn’t have thought that how many bikes coming in with the project would make it... good or bad for the prisoner. Unless the prisoner thought so [laughs]... If you could measure if we’ve had an impact, and if we were helping people’s mindsets change. You know and give them a more positive outlook. That would be a nice thing to measure.

We haven't got enough information... we've got loads of stories... staff and volunteers pick-up stories all the time from individual prisoners and prison staff. And we put them in our newsletters and we get letters from prisoners saying you know 'This is the best thing that's happened to me'... But we haven't got... the other side of the story which is about the numbers and information about how people get on our projects in the first place... we just sort of go into a prison and set-up a workshop and people turn up. And we don't know how they get there. And we don't really know anything about what they do when they leave.

As the latter comments suggest, IOT staff also speculated about what the most important causal mechanisms might be, and by implication, what should be measured as part of a wider evaluation:

If there are any kind of long-term benefits... Whether that be you know that they can work in a team better. That they can get up every day and motivate themselves to go to the workshop... communicate within their own team... come up with ideas that would improve that workshop or... take ownership of what they’re doing. That’s what I’d like to see. Self-esteem... Or something like social skills really... Feeling of ownership or acceptance. Belonging... Motivation in terms of getting there and not just saying ‘oh well I can’t be bothered to day I’ll lie in bed’. All those kind of things that you would want... if you were going to employ somebody on the outside all those kind of elements that you would [want]... eye contact and things like that… Sense of belonging. Not just belonging of a prison but belonging of a workshop that you know means that we can all come together and learn off each other and look what we’ve produced at the end of it.

I suppose [I’d like to know] if [prisoners] feel... it’s fulfilling or if it’s worthwhile doing I think it would be nice to know that actually... if they thought it was just going to get me out of the cell for five hours a day. Or if they thought you know it’s actually quite enjoyable work or it’s quite rewarding... Opinions really of the work.

Has it in some way perhaps linked them through to ‘Yes well I’ve got a sort of interest in repairing computers’... And would they then say move on to education to gain a bit of theory or gain some qualifications. Might it

36

be something that they would want to take up on their release? That sort of thing.

Unlike the other groups however, there was an evident concern about what a detailed evaluation might uncover about the work that they were involved in. More specifically, some staff seemed concerned that an evaluation might indicate that their work was less successful than they were accustomed to thinking it was.

Because [my colleagues] believe [they are doing something useful]... they already have put their hearts into it. And perhaps they’re frightened... that their hearts don’t achieve very much. Perhaps. I don’t know... When you’re doing a job which involves... your altruism, a job like this... It’s a dedication sort of job.

I think [in the evaluation] you might find that perhaps we’re not making as much impact as we’d like to think we are... it’s a very difficult thing to quantify really... we like to think we’re making a difference and to some individuals you know we do.

Others seemed more open to what the benefits might be, of evaluation findings even if negative in some ways:

[If the results of the evaluation are negative] we can put it right. That’s the important thing. I mean there’s no harm in constructive criticism. Far from it. That’s good news. Let’s do it and then find out where we are now. And then when we know where we are we can then decide to work out where we want to go.

Understandably, some Inside Out Trust staff were also concerned about what the monitoring and evaluation work might mean for them in terms of their own workloads. 3.8 Conclusions

As noted earlier, a key purpose of the consultation exercise was to generate feedback from stakeholders which could help the research team to highlight significant features of Inside Out Trust projects and their impacts, and to help understand the ways in which IOT projects might bring about the impacts that they were described as generating. In short, the feedback generated by the consultation exercise assisted the research team in designing the monitoring system and “mapping out” connections between the key features of IOT projects and impacts on participants, project and Prison Service staff and others. The importance of the exercise was therefore crucial in theoretical terms, and some of the links referred to are summarised at Figure 1, overleaf. The overwhelmingly positive views of Inside Out Trust projects held by prisoner participants, workshop staff, and IOT staff are certainly notable. The quotations, examples and illustrations discussed in this section tell a powerful, and often moving, story of how valued and valuable the IOT projects were perceived to be.

Date post:	18-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doanmien
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Restorative practice in prisons: assessing the work of the Inside Out … · Restorative practice...

Documents