Search results

This paper aims to explore the intricate relationship between social capital, faith and prison-leaver resettlement, emphasising how penal voluntary sector organisations (PVSOs) aid prison-leavers in their resettlement and desistance journeys, following incarceration.

Employing a combination of narrative and thematic analysis, data was collected from 20 prison-leavers in England through semi-structured interviews. Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit participants from various community-based resettlement settings.

Thematic analysis revealed the emergence of faith in various iterations in facilitating desistance, Transforming Rehabilitation failure, identity transformation of the prison-leaver, the role of social capital in effective resettlement and the importance of PVSOs. In particular, the findings demonstrate the vital role of a “Faith Anchor”, defined in this paper as a trust-based relationship with an individual or spiritual entity, in facilitating desistance. This paper argues the need to recognise and fully integrate social capital building, faith and specialised support from PVSOs, as essential components of successful offender resettlement and desistance journeys.

The study considers the connection between faith, social capital and offender resettlement. Although demonstrating the role of faith in positive change and community engagement, there are limitations. Primarily, by exclusively recruiting participants through PVSOs, it might overlook varied resettlement experiences. Additionally, measuring desistance is complex and is limited by some academic views that it centres around abstinence. Although small-scale saturation was reached; generalisation should be approached with caution. Notably, post-Transforming Rehabilitation, the human cost of resettlement gaps became evident. Future research could benefit from a longitudinal lens, tracing desistance beyond initial PVSO interactions and offering richer, longitudinal insights.

Significance of “faith anchors”: A “faith anchor” aids the desistance process. Integrating faith in resettlement offers emotional support for prison leavers. Value of social capital: It is pivotal for offender resettlement. Positive social networks are key for successful reintegration. Role of PVSOs: They provide vital resettlement support. Enhanced collaboration can optimise assistance for prison leavers. Addressing current system shortcomings: Rectifying the effects of Transforming Rehabilitation ensures holistic support, catering to prison leavers’ needs. Concept of “faith exchange”: Merging faith and support offers tailored resettlement approaches, fostering effective reintegration.

The study underscores the social implications of effective offender resettlement strategies. The integration of “faith anchors” and social capital aids in the personal rehabilitation of prison leavers and also supports community cohesion. By acknowledging faith as indictive to building trust-based relationships, communities can reduce the stigma associated with former offenders, promoting inclusivity and understanding. Additionally, the essential role of PVSOs highlights the value of community-driven initiatives in supporting reintegration. A combined approach that combines faith, social capital and community support can reshape societal perspectives on desistance, encouraging a more inclusive and empathetic approach to offender reintegration.

The insights gained contribute to the evolving discourse on prison-leaver resettlement and desistance and uniquely highlight the potential of a combined approach between social capital, faith and voluntary sector support, in achieving desistance goals. The term “faith exchange” emerges from this study as an original conceptual contribution, accentuating the relationship between faith and support in resettlement and desistance.

In 2014, the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland published its Safeguarding National Policy and Procedures (HSE, 2014). Under this policy, all agencies providing services through the social care directorate must ensure a robust culture of safeguarding is in place. Concurrent to this has been a move in social policy, practice and research to include the voice of the service user, both in terms of planning and reviewing services. (e.g. HIQA, 2012; Flanagan, 2020) This article examines whether service users with intellectual disabilities want to be involved in safeguarding plans and, if so, how that can be supported. Using focus groups service users demonstrated their knowledge of safeguarding as a concept, how they felt about the issues raised, and, crucially what they felt they would like to see happen next in addressing a safeguarding incident or concern. The focus groups took place in a large organisation providing residential services, day services, independent living supports and clinical supports. Engaging service users in planning and responding to safeguarding concerns is a fundamental principle of human rights legislation, both nationally and internationally. This study aims to highlight that it is both possible and desirable to engage fully with service users using a range of simple communication tools. For this to be implemented as routine practice in services providing support for people with intellectual disabilities, authentic leadership is required. Services will need to devote time, human resources and will need champions to get on board with the necessary culture shift.

Qualitative research examined peoples’ “lived experiences” and knowledge of safeguarding. Focus groups were used with thematic analysis highlighting common themes throughout, as guided by Braun and Clarke (2006). There were two objectives: Objective 1: measuring participant’s understanding of the safeguarding process. Objective 2: compare the potential differences between safeguarding plans devised by the participants in the focus groups, versus plans devised by trained designated officers responsible for safeguarding within the service.

Four principal themes emerged – 1. participants understanding of safeguarding; 2. restorative justice; 3. consent; and 4. high levels of emotional intelligence and compassion. Participants demonstrated that they could and did want to be involved in safeguarding planning and showed little variation in the plans compared to those completed by trained staff.

The study was completed with a small sample size in a single service in one area. It may not represent the lived experiences and knowledge of safeguarding in other services and indeed other countries. The video may have led to some priming; for instance, the Gardai in the footage being called may have resulted in the participants stating that contacting Gardai should be part of the plan. After the video was shown, there was a heightened awareness of safeguarding. This may indicate that participants are aware of safeguarding but unsure of the terminology or how to discuss it out of context.

For this to be implemented as routine practice in services providing support for people with intellectual disabilities, authentic leadership is required. Services will need to devote time and human resources and will need champions in the safeguarding arena to get on board with the shift in culture required.

While there did not appear to be many barriers to listening to participants, to progress this as a standard practice a very real shift in culture will be needed. It is important for practitioners to ask: Is the vulnerable person aware that this concern has been raised? What is known of the vulnerable person’s wishes in relation to the concern? To truly engage with service users in safeguarding plans these questions need to be more than a “tick box” exercise. This process needs to be fully embedded into a culture that promotes a person-centred, rights-based, inclusive approach as a standard rather than a one-off project. Some structural changes will be needed regarding the time given to designated officers, and what resources they can access (such as speech and language therapy). However, the real difference will be made by services operating authentic leadership that champions engagement on this scale, to fully answer the question posed by the researchers at the beginning of this report, “Whose safeguarding is it anyway?”

There appears to be little evidence of service user engagement in terms of planning and processing safeguarding responses, either in research or anecdotally.

There is currently a shortage of applications for the role of principal. There are a range of factors contributing to this, one of which may be the considerable levels of stress and burnout reported by principals and deputy principals. Distributed leadership may offer some solutions to this challenge. This study aimed to explore the lived experiences of distributed leadership from a role sustainability perspective of school principals and deputy principals.

This paper follows a qualitative interpretivist approach based upon 15 semi-structured interviews with principals and deputy principals working in Irish post-primary schools. Data were analysed via thematic analysis.

Results indicate challenges to the sustainability of the role of senior school leaders comprising administrative overload, policy proliferation and challenges due to the complexity and breadth of the role of these school leaders. It was reported that engagement with distributed leadership could aid the sustainability of participants in their roles and the importance of focusing on well-being practices was also highlighted.

Recommendations include the need to reconsider policy proliferation and the need to reconceptualise school leadership. Further consideration regarding how distributed leadership can aid the sustainability of the role of senior school leaders, without adversely contributing to the already busy role of schoolteachers is also recommended.

The findings of this study are valuable as they reflect previous findings relating to the current challenges to sustainable school leadership as well as highlight distributed leadership as a potential aid to mitigate against these challenges.