Abstract
We know too little about processes of penal innovation, especially those which begin in the deeper reaches of civil society, outside the established policy networks which link lobbying groups, statutory agencies, not-for-profit service providers and central government departments. Yes, there are articles about how and why this or that initiative started—often evaluations of pilot projects—but in the main origins are undertheorised compared with outcomes. Ken Pease (1983) explored the actual concept of “penal innovation,” treating it as an aspect of policy analysis, and applying it to the then new development of “community service” in England and Wales. It was further refined by Paul Rock (1995) from a symbolic interactionist perspective, in ways which allowed for serendipity and the actions of key individuals, but it remained within an undertheorised-though-interesting policy analysis perspective.
The origins of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) in the actions of a Canadian Mennonite pastor and the speed with which the practice spread quickly became something of a legend in the restorative justice world, and indeed outside it. COSA seemed like such an obvious affirmation of courage and compassion toward an otherwise despised subset of offenders in an increasingly punitive and managerial criminal justice system—and indeed it was. Practical, partisan accounts of COSA—and there are many—have confidently and reassuringly read its emergence as a sign that, culturally, we are not after all as punitive as we may seem, but there have equally been many influential theoretical accounts of “the culture of control” in which restorative justice in general and COSA in particular are deemed too marginal to be of real significance.
It is the great merit of Stacey Hannem’s article in this issue that it overcomes the epistemological division in the literature on COSA, avoiding practical naivete on one hand and theoretical and political dismissiveness on the other, while rightly concluding that they have been a most worthwhile development. I doubt if the article would have been quite as rich if Hannem had not personally been an active, long-term member of two circles, as well as an analyst of them. The sense of what practice involves, and of what can go wrong—and right—would probably not have been as strong had Hannem simply been a researcher looking from the outside in. But what really makes the article exemplary as a study of penal innovation is the way it successfully contextualises COSA in broader policy concerns with public protection and risk management. Hannem shows how these become inscribed in the practice of COSA alongside and maybe despite the goodwill that may have motivated participants, and is pitch perfect in showing how the tensions are balanced in practice, and how the balance sometimes fails.
Hannem also considers the international spread of COSA. In England and Wales, they might literally never have happened if retired prison psychologist (and Quaker campaigner for restorative justice) Nick McGeorge had not mentioned to Helen Drewery (an official in Quaker headquarters) an article he had read about the Canadian initiative, and if Drewery herself had not steered the idea so assiduously through Quaker committees to win support for it, and if the Senior Home Office civil servant who green-lighted it had not been a former prison psychologist friend of McGeorge’s. Such are the very fragile, serendipitous, foundations on which penal innovation is sometimes built. Anglo-Welsh COSA were initially developed in the Home Office in a “Public Protection Unit” rather than one concerned with throughcare, victims, restorative justice, which bears out Hannem’s general insight.
Nick McGeorge, a man who makes “indefatigable” seem like a weak adjective, continues to innovate. He now spends part of his time in the United States, and is chair of the steering committee of the North Carolina Circles of Safety and Accountability, founded in 2012, in Durham, North Carolina—the first of its kind in the southern United States, alongside other new ones in Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, Oregon, and California. Note the subtle change of name, to include “safety.” McGeorge’s faith-based initiative is nested within Durham Congregations in Action and has recently been awarded a 2-year U.S. Department of Justice grant to support the development and evaluation of Circles in their community. The recruitment of volunteers is being managed by the attractively named Human Kindness Foundation. Alongside the kind of outcome evaluations that the champions of COSA necessarily require, there is a need for broader and deeper studies of local penal innovations like this, which build on the theoretical insights of Hannem’s fine analysis.