SEGUI MIENT

There are three central points to note in relation to leadership and vision from the literature on restorative policing. Firstly, that a clear vision is imperative to the successful

implementation and systemic reform (Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003, McLeod 2003, Clamp and Peterson 2013). Secondly, that leadership is transient by its very nature: a strong leadership must be in place that holds a clear vision for the force (Clamp and Paterson, 2013), importantly leadership must “clearly understand what restorative justice is, what commitment to change is, and what change process requires” (McLeod, 2003:301). The third point is in relation to a potential barrier that can occur if the practice on the ground does not match the ambitions vision held (Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003).

In order to be effective this vision needs to be holistic, systemic and seek „to incorporate restorative justice in all aspects of policing‟ (Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003:345). The need for a holistic vision requires issues raised in Chapter Three to be considered: given the different forms that restorative justice can take within the criminal justice system how is the vision of restorative justice decided, projected and interpreted across a police force? One of the primary critiques of COP was that it tried to be „all things to all people‟: there was a lack of clarification as to whether it was a program, a philosophy or both therefore creating difficulties in implementation (Hunter and Barker, 1993). If a clear vision of restorative policing is crucial then in order to deliver successful policy implementation there should be „common understanding‟ throughout the ranks (Paterson and Clamp 2012:601). However, this „common understanding‟ can be difficult. One of the impediments of macro visions of reform is the generalised nature an overarching vision may take: leading it to lack the necessary micro information in relation to local implications (Josserand, Teo et al., 2006). Understandings of restorative justice on the front-line are therefore often confused (Paterson and Clamp, 2012:604) and it is recognised that expectations placed on frontline officers can often be vague, ambiguous and often conflicting (Lipsky, 2010:27) The lack of a clear vision

64 that is easily understood across the whole force is imperative, as Bazemore & Griffiths argue: “to what extent can officers be expected to support restorative policing effectively if basic principles are only vaguely understood?” (2003:343).

Leaders must embrace restorative principles as part of the implementation process; frontline officers, middle managers, and crucially, the wider community need to be actively involved and be given a voice in the process. A leadership that is informed by restorative principles allows and encourages leadership to „bubble up‟ from below (Clamp and Paterson, 2013:301), and actively encourages innovation across the force. This transformational leadership is a critical part of the change from a post-bureaucratic to a restorative police force (McLeod, 2003). Whilst leadership is important to the implementation, it is valuable to recognise the temporary nature of executive police roles: embracing the values of restorative justice is not enough; they must be incorporated into the wider vision of the force and worked into the fabric of the organisation. If the leader does not engender buy-in for restorative justice across the force, and particularly amongst officers tasked with using restorative approaches in their interactions with the public then reform is unlikely to be sustained. Skogan (2008) points to two features that impact in terms of police reform sustainability; firstly police officers are aware of the local political landscape and try to assess the likely outcomes and longevity of leaders and their proposed reforms, therefore if they suspect a new leadership is imminent they are unlikely to „buy in‟ to new processes. Secondly, new leaders often have new ideas and want to do new things, disbanding their predecessor‟s projects (Skogan, 2008) hence the reluctance of frontline officers (who have often witnessed numerous leadership changes throughout their service) committing to reform. In addition it is found that during periods of change officers might be cautious and unwilling to change, thereby slowing down the process with inaction (Skogan, 2008). Learning from unsuccessful attempts at police reform it is imperative to not only embed restorative justice across the organisation, but to garner political support and crucially to involve the community so it becomes their programme, thereby ensuring external support for the reform (Skogan, 2008).

The third point raised relates to the danger of „loose coupling‟ (Weick, 1976) between ambitious vision and plan combined with a lack of implementation or change in practice (Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003:341). However, an important element of Weick‟s theory should not be overlooked: loose coupling may mean that organisational elements disappear and reappear over time, as elements merge or separate in response to organisational need (Weick, 1976). This could mean that while the implementation for restorative policing may

start a process of reform, over time it may disappear from view or suffer implementation

65 within the organisation, for example in relation to police complaints or internal grievances that were not necessarily its primary intention. Whilst the vision and the practice may uncouple for a period of time it is not a one-chance activity, and implementation or reimplementation may occur at a later date.

Training

An important part of reform is the training given to police officers. However, police training tends to focus on the technical and mechanical „crime-fighting‟ elements of policing and less on the non-technical skills such as problem-solving, decision-making, interpersonal and leadership which officers are expected to learn „on the job‟ (Bradford and Pynes 1999, Mazzerolle et al, 2014). The lack of emphasis on delivering training in non-technical skills that are crucial for delivering restorative justice is remarkable. Restorative policing is not about creating one or two isolated restorative justice programmes, restorative justice should be „built into the bricks‟ of organisations (Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003:341). Organisations are transformed not because they „have‟ to do an element of restorative justice or use a „new‟ initiative but because restorative values and the use of restorative approaches in engrained, it is „a way of life‟ (McLeod, 2003:372).

Given programmes such as restorative justice are aimed at „revolutionising policing‟ there is often incredulity that police forces only spend a short period of time, often just a few hours, occasionally perhaps devoting one or two day to training officers (Skogan, 2008:29). However, this lack of training is not unusual, it is not a recent phenomenon, and it does not only apply to restorative justice: recalling the implementation of PACE, John Long describes how he and his fellow police colleagues in 1984 received a mere one day training course (Long, 2008:96). This was deemed by those implementing PACE at the time as a

satisfactory amount of time to provide officers with enough knowledge, in relation to what at the time was a new legal framework, central to their work. However, from an operational perspective it is problematic due to the sheer number of training sessions, all of which are deemed a „priority‟ that officers need to attend (Long, 2008:113). In addition, due to the very nature of police work it is not possible to „close‟ the organisation for a day in order to train staff as the suggested route for delivering restorative training across other organisations requires (Lambert, Johnstone et al., 2011).

However, the importance of training cannot be stressed enough. One of the dangers is that “without an adequate model of training, officers may apply the letter of the law without understanding its spirit.” (Dixon, Bottomley et al., 1989:203). As previously mentioned in Chapter Three training ultimately impacts on the end results: the more developed,

66 adheres to restorative principles, and staff are provided with specific training in order to achieve maximum comprehension and skills then the more likely the scheme will be successful in terms of offender rehabilitation (Bonta, Jesseman et al., 2006). Furthermore, Long argues that in general if new ways of working are to have an effect on the organisation or culture then „deeper learning and development‟ for police officers‟ needs to be

implemented (Long, 2008:114).

In terms of leadership and vision it is therefore important to have an executive team who understand restorative justice and have a desire to implement it. Due to the temporary nature of leadership within a police organisation it is imperative to engage the wider community in restorative justice and embed it across the organisation. Training is a critical means to create understanding and support from frontline officers. The difficulties in training police officers have been recognised, however, the benefits of restorative justice cannot be guaranteed if those facilitating conferences do not possess an understanding of restorative principles. Therefore it is crucial that time and resources are invested to develop skills in relation to conducting restorative processes. One way in which to achieve all these crucial elements is for police forces to strive towards delivering a restorative organisation, rather than relying solely on officers to carry out restorative processes in certain elements of their role. A restorative organisation takes the policing reform brought about by previous models further and promotes employs a bottom-up approach with restorative elements influencing all aspects of the way in which an organisation operates and it is this model that will be considered in more detail in the final chapter section.