PARtnering for Social Justice and Nonviolence

An Enhanced Case Study of Supportive Housing in Morningside Heights

For the past 15 months, my colleagues and I, at the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR), Teachers College, have partnered with a community-based organization (CBO) that serves formerly incarcerated men and women in NYC, the Fortune Society, in conducting a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project.  We meet every two weeks –  ~ 7 university-trained social scientists from a privileged NYC college and with advanced degrees and ~7 individuals, a few of whom have degrees in public health or social work but more of whom are formerly incarcerated, previously homeless and in recovery from addiction. The focus of our shared interest is the Fortune Academy, a phased-permanent residentialhousing facility in Morningside Heights, just 20 blocks north of Teachers College.  Together, we have struggled with selecting a “good” research question and with preserving anonymity for interview subjects.  We have discussed theories of individual change (Prochaska&DiClemente, 1982), recidivism and desistance from crime (Maruna, 2001)  and reviewed tens of organizational documents in order to describe Fortune’s philosophy and policies.  And we have taken comprehensive notes to document our collaborative journey.  Importantly, we have developed mutual respect and compassion and have co-created a deep commitment to the project.

The Research Question

The umbrella research question we decided upon is “What is the culture of the Fortune Academy and how does it impact on the “success” of Academy alumni?” The Academy houses formerly incarcerated men and women who spend ~6 months there receiving wraparound services and being a part of theAcademy community.  In phase 2, we will also be evaluating the impact of the Academy on the family members of residents and alumni, and on the surrounding community as well.  There is much anecdotal evidence to indicate that the Academy has been successful,[1] and the Fortune Society, the parent organization, is well-respected by elected officials, the community and other CBOs.  However, Fortune wants to document and unpack the Academy’s culture, i.e., philosophy, policy and practices, and to investigate the evidence of its “success.”  ICCCR scholars are also interested in measuring the impact of the Academy on alumni “success” and in interrogating some particular elements of the Academy culture, including the “no violence” policy and the philosophy of second (and third, etc.) chances for Academy residents and alumni.

The Methodology

The project was defined as an enhanced case study (Druckman, 2005.) To capture the philosophy and policies of the Academy, we conducted interviews with the Fortune leadership team (n= 9) and did archival research on 19 Fortune Academy documents.  A coding scheme was developed to identify recurring themes.  Pairs of team members (one ICCCR, one Fortune) coded each document, identifying phrases and segments that provided information about these themes.  To document Academy practicesas they are lived (as opposed to espoused) we will be observing key fora in which the culture is enacted and transmitted, e.g. daily AM and PM meetings, Thursday night “all hands” meetings, dining room and television-sharing behavior.

To measure success, methods will be defined from three different stakeholder perspectives: third, second and first persons.  “Third person” refers to etic measures that are of prime interest to policy makers, concerned with public safety and with the criminal justice system, as well as to scholars.These measures include the rate of reincarceration(i.e.,  being convicted of a new crime) as well as other measures  that  the reentry literature suggests correlate with desistance from crime, e.g., sobriety, having a legal place to live, having connections in the community with least two individuals, and having medical care in place, including mental health support (Maruna, 2001.)

An alternative definition of “success” was offered byteam members who are current client-residents of the Academy.  They spoke to emic measures of “success”, which differed from the objective measures cited in the re-entry literature in several ways.  These “first-person” indicators are measured in days or weeks instead of months or years; are generally more process-oriented than outcome-oriented, and are described in the language of learning and in the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills.  To capture these indicators of success, we will use a mixed-mode method in which residents and alumni describe and visually illustrate the “journey” of a typical client through the Academy, noting what helps and hinders this ”straw client’s” progress.  Small focus group discussions will follow the collection of these individual measures.In addition, we plan to operationalize a definition of “success” that is grounded in shorter term objectives (e.g., attend substance abuse recovery meetings weekly for the next two months, perform 35 hours of community service this week)  as well as connected to the development of psycho-social skills (e.g., resolve a dispute with my roommate nonviolently;  share feelings about incarceration at an AM or PM meeting, etc.)

Finally, we will also include a “second person” measure, based upon the perspective of a culturally- competent individual who knows the client well.  We will interview case managers about how clients’ ongoing treatment goals are normally developed and about how they, as a member of the Academy  staff, define“success” for clients.

Results To Date

Culture

Using NVivo analyses to organize the archival and interview coding data, we identified six key elements of Academy philosophy:  Academy as Family and Home, Academy as (Learning) Laboratory, Defining Success for Clients, Systemic Change,Philosophy about Staff and Funding Consistent with the Philosophy.  Policies were organized around the six elements noted above, as well as Provision of Comprehensive Services, Life Long Commitment to Clients, Building Client Accountability and Responsibility, and Client Empowerment.

 Zero Tolerance for Violence

We will tally the incidents of violence and threats of violence (approximate # of times per month/ year);fortunately, they are a part of standard internal documentation procedures.   Residential staff reportthat these events are infrequent.  It is notable that individuals coming directly from a dangerous prison environment, many of whom were raised in a climate of community violence, and who may have been convicted of a violent crime, appear to largely adapt to a strict policy that eliminates violence (and threats thereof)  from the allowable options for resolving conflict.  Currently, the Academy offers no focused training in conflict resolution nor alternatives to violence to residents or staff.  Senior staff point out thatstaff and peer modeling and the teaching of lessons regarding self-awareness and taking responsibility occur frequently and informally, in scheduled and in chance meetings throughout the Academy.

Navigating Intimate Relationships

Fortune Academy has a policy that prevents individuals from visiting the rooms of other residents.  The intention of this policy is to prevent intimate relationships from forming or being realized at the Academy.  Recently, a  violent incident occurred between a man and woman, both clients, who did in fact have a clandestine relationship thatlater became troubled.  This led senior leadership to reinforce the importance of the “no relationships” policy and of making sure this prohibition is universally understood.  It was commonly agreed by both staff and leadership that intimate relationships are the context in which violence is most likely to occur.

Some team members noted that this policy highlights the tension two conflicting elements within the Academy’s priorities: the importance of helping individuals to successfully reenter society through reconnecting with loved ones and through developing new intimate relationships, and the requirement that the Academy must be a safe place and violence-free.  Following on this discussion there were reflections from client team members about how difficult it is for formerly incarcerated men and women to navigate intimate relationships and yet how important they are as a part of a successful reentry process.  Fortune does not currently have in place the resources or competencies to offer relationship development support and/or programming.  ICCCR PAR members shared information from the vast literature on reentry, including the current emphasis on stable relationships as gateways to desistance. [2]

Why Use a PAR Paradigm for Studying Nonviolence and Social Justice?

PAR is built upon two traditions of inquiry in the social sciences:  Kurt Lewin’s Action Research (AR) paradigm (Lewin, 1952) and Paolo Friere’s democratic, participatory approach to education (“problem-posing” pedagogy; Friere, 1993.)Perhaps due to the Frierelegacy (as well as Lewin’s commitment to social justice), PAR projects are often created in response to conditions of social injustice in communities and in society at large (Burns, 2007.) PAR projects arefairly common as well in the fields of education and health sciences; there have also been some notable projects conductedin prisons with incarcerated men and women (Fine et al, 2001.)  However, there is not much evidence of PAR research in the field of conflict resolution, including in violence prevention.[3]

On the face of it, one clearadvantage of PAR research is the engagement of both individuals who are familiar experientially with the topic or question of study and those who have social science research skills and easy access to evidence-basedknowledge.  In our PAR project, for example, ICCCR researchers conducted extensive reviews of the relevant literature in psychology; criminal justice, especially recidivism; supportive housing and recovery from addiction.  We also contributedexpertise on selecting a research question, research design, content analysis, interviewing, data analysis and more.  Fortune participants contributed their knowledge of the criminal justice system and sentencing guidelines; police practices in Morningside Heights and elsewhere (e.g., “sweeps”); experiences of incarceration and post-incarceration; the day-to-day practices of the Fortune Academy, and afirst person understanding of what “success” means for a formerly incarcerated individual reentering society.  This combination of emic and etic knowledge and of complementaryexpertise has provided us with a more comprehensive, nuanced and potentially valid lens through which to view and to understand the phenomena we are studying.

For example, the development of the construct of “first, second and third person” measures of reentry success is directly attributableto the rich diversity of team member perspectives.  Guided by the criminal justice literature, weinitially focused on “third person” measures of success: in particular, recidivism, defined frequently in the criminal justice literatureas ”no convictions for new crimes within a 2 – 3 year period.”  As we continued to grapple with definitions of “success”, current and recent Academy residents described their own experiences and constructs about success, leading us all to reflect on how inadequate using “third person” measures alone would be. The different foci of the third person and first person measures combined with a review of the Fortune Academy philosophy about “second chances” and “clients for life” pointed out the value of the latter view of success as a continuing journey down a  path fraught with switchbacks andongoing choices and dilemmas….. rather than as a discrete locationat which one arrives.  In addition, the input of Academy staff members led us to look to another source for definitions of success:  Treatment Plans and case notes created by case managers.  These individuals, many of whom are former Fortune clients, are tasked with helping Academy residents define and achieve “treatment” goals; accomplishment of these goals is among the criteria for “graduating” from the Academy.    We identified these goals, and the process by which they are achieved, as another definition of success:  a second-person view based on close knowledge of the individual and the context in which s/he is operating.

Shedding Light on Violence Reduction Theories and Training

If the perception of  very low rates of violence (or threats of violence) by Academy residents is borne out by the data, this finding would be provocative in the light of theories that construe violence as a persistent unyielding personality trait, i.e., ”a violent offender.”(Maruna, 2001.)Instead, this finding wouldbe supportive of theories that view the use of violence or nonviolence as a response to complex situational factors, tempered by individual psychological and socio-emotional development (Hammond & Yung, 1993.) Evidence of violence vs. nonviolence by Academy alumni, while difficult to collect, would add additional information about the lasting power of the Academy experience.

As for creating knowledge about how nonviolent conflict resolution is learned, I am again struck by the value of the divergent perspectives that ICCCR and Academy team mates bring to the project.  I expressed surprise that there is no focused, theory-based nonviolent conflict resolution training for clients or staff at the Academy.  A Fortune team mate responded that nonviolent conflict resolution skills are transmitted, though not in a training program nor labeled as such, through the cultural norms of “respect”, “expressing feelings” and “talking about what’s bothering you” that are both modeled and encouraged.This is a different model than the classroom training paradigm of how constructive conflict resolution is learned.

Once we have analyzed the number of occurrences of violence/ threats of violence at the Academy, and attempted to collect evidence about the avoidance/ engagement with violent behavior after leaving the Academy, we will be better able to determine how effective the current culture (i.e., philosophy, policy and practice) is for encouraging nonviolent conflict resolution, both within the Academy residential community and upon reentry.  And, based on our assessment of effectiveness, we plan to use our skills as educators to co-develop a nonviolent conflict resolution training program tailored to the Academy clients and staff.

Comments

• Sue Anne Mathews says:

  September 3, 2017 at 2:23 am

  I am contemplating pursuing a Peace and Conflict Certificate to help students in urban classrooms throughout the Toledo, Ohio area begin to see the merits of kindness, sharing, and understanding which could influence their decision to promote peace instead of negativity and violence in the urban schools which could possibly carry out to the community and their personal living space.

  Reply