How to apply

Please download a copy of the Fellowships application form, above. This is a PDF file, which you will need to print off and complete by hand. If you cannot print a copy of the form, please phone us on 020 7278 8198 and we will put a copy in the post to you. The application form is quite short and is mainly to record your contact details. There is an equal opportunities monitoring form with the application form.

The main part of your application will be your research proposal and we recommend that you take a look at our tips for a successful application before writing it. Please note that you MUST send us your printed application form and both your references by post to: The Director, The Griffins Society, Claremont Building, 24-27 White Lion Street, London N1 9PD.

You need to obtain two references. One of these must be from your current employer. Your employer's reference will need to confirm that your employer supports your application for a Fellowship, and is willing to facilitate it. This means that they will allow you to come to London for six Fellowships seminars during the year, that they will allow you time to complete your fieldwork, and that if your workplace is going to be your research site, they will allow you to undertake research in your workplace. This does not necessarily mean giving you time off: for example, some Fellows use annual leave, or time off in lieu, for undertaking Fellowships work during the daytime. Your other reference should be from someone who knows you well and who is able to comment authoritatively on your ability to undertake and write about research, and who is not a relative.

You must also send us your CV and your research proposal, which sets out what you want to research, why you want to research it, and how you propose to do it. Research proposals should not be more than two pages of A4 in 11 point font or larger.

You must post us paper copies of your application form and references, but if you prefer, you can e-mail your CV and research proposal to fellowships@thegriffinssociety.org

If we do not receive your application form, your two references, your CV and your research proposal by midday on Wednesday 28 April 2010 we cannot consider your application. We will send you an e-mail within a week of receiving your application to confirm we have got it. If you do not hear from us, please contact us to check we have received it.

Applicants who make the short-list will be called to an interview at LSE on 2 June 2010. Successful candidates will begin their Fellowships in early-October 2010.

Tips on making a successful application

Talk it over

If you have an idea for a research project but are not sure if it is suitable or viable, get in touch with Dr Peter Dunn, Griffins Society Director, and talk it over - we welcome informal enquiries from potential applicants. We do not expect you to be professional researchers: if your central idea is interesting, we are happy to offer guidance on how to formulate your thoughts into a research proposal.

Also, talk to colleagues or other people who might be interested to get their perspective on your ideas - they might have some useful comments to make. We also advise you to discuss your application with your employers where relevant (see below).

Keep it simple

Don't try and cover too many issues - the most successful applicants are usually those who have focused on a specific issue or idea rather than having too broad a topic.

Make sure it's managable

You only have one year to complete and write up your research so make sure it's managable and not too big. We will help you refine your ideas and advise on how to ensure you complete the project in the given time, but we do like to see that you're being realistic about what you can achieve in a year.

Suggested timetable

October onwards – disseminating and promoting with the support of the Griffins Society

Issues to discuss with your employers

As we require a letter of support from applicants’ employers, we have outlined some of the main issues you should discuss with your employers when approaching them about the Fellowship Programme. Not all these issues will be relevant to every applicant and/or employer.

Relevance of your research to your work:
We encourage Fellows to undertake research that they find interesting and important, and which allows them to step outside the usual bounds of their work. However, many Fellows find that their research is relevant to their daily work and/or to the development of new practice and/or policy in their field. We advise applicants to discuss their proposed project with their employers as their practical support and encouragement can be invaluable. 

Time off for visits to London:
You will need to attend LSE on a number of occasions (currently six days in the year but this may be increased by one or two days) for academic supervision and meetings. Some employers have given Fellows additional time off for these meetings whilst others have expected Fellows to book annual leave days to come to London. It is advisable to clarify the status of your time away from your job eg would it be paid leave, unpaid leave, or holiday leave? 

Time off for research work:
You will need time off to conduct your research eg interviewing people, visiting other projects, observations etc. Some employers have given Fellows additional time off for these activities whilst others have expected Fellows to book annual leave days. Similarly, you will need to find time for reading, analysing and writing-up your research. Again, some Fellows have negotiated time off from work to do this whilst others do the work in evenings and weekends etc.

Line management:
Some Fellows’ employers have required updates on Fellowship work in their routine supervision. They have found this a useful way of keeping up-to-date with a Fellow’s work. Fellows have also found this useful as it gives them a structured opportunity to ask for additional support and advice (where relevant). Some have also felt it helps to ‘validate’ the time they spend on Fellowship work in the eyes of their colleagues and seniors.

Examples of successful research proposals

We understand that you are probably not experienced at writing research proposals, so we've included the successful applications from previous years here as a guide to help you write your own. Whilst there is no set format and you are free to individualise the layout and content of your proposal, the following are a useful starting point.

See Fellows' final Research Papers here

• Sarah Clarke: What should be included in an offending behaviour programme designed for 17 year old girls serving the custodial sentence section of a Detention and Training Order?
• Sally Watson: High risk female offenders in Multi-agency public protection arrangements
• Fiona Pervez: Community based treatment in a rural area
• Carlotta Goulden: Arts intervention with female offenders

---

Sarah Clarke: What should be included in an offending behaviour programme designed for seventeen year-old girls serving the custodial sentence section of a Detention and Training Order?

I qualified as a Probation Officer in 2002 after completing my Diploma in Probation Studies.  I currently work in one of four custodial units in the country that has been newly created to hold females aged under-18 and serving Detention and Training Orders.  My role includes the delivery of offending behaviour programmes. 

Aim: To identify 'what works' for this specific offender group. 

Rationale:  The Rivendell Unit at HMP New Hall (which opened December 2005) represents part of a “visionary” new approach towards this particular group of offenders.    A central issue is finding the balance between rehabilitation and punishment and what can be most usefully achieved in a custodial setting for this age group. The fundamental aim of my role is to prevent re-offending in the community.  I am interested in what could be most effectively included in the offending-behaviour focused work that will be delivered upon a group basis. Much of the available material is based upon wider criteria and I would like to develop existing research, including that of Rebecca Clarke (former Griffins Fellow) which examined '"What Works?" for Women Who Offend', to explore the experiences of the girls and what should be incorporated into programme delivery. 

Objectives:

• To examine current thinking around the most appropriate balance between rehabilitation and punishment for under-18s serving Detention and Training Orders.
• To focus solely upon the Rivendell Unit as a small-scale study (which can encompass retrospective data) and an in-depth qualitative exploration of the girls' experiences upon the unit.  
• To identify related research into 'what works' for this offender group and compare it to the girls' experiences, opinions and identifiable needs.
• To identify what should be encapsulated into an offending behaviour programme to most effectively meet their specific criminogenic needs. 

Project timescale:  

October – December

• Review the existing research and policy literature upon 'what works' for women, young offenders and within a custodial setting. 
• Produce and refine questionnaires and identify other research methods. 
• Identify sample group.
• Liaise with multi-agency team within the unit with a view to establishing their observations and the existing response.

January – July

• Gather qualitative date with regard to the profile of the sample.
• Implement questionnaires and qualitative interviews.

July – September

• Analyse the data and write-up completed study.

---

Sally Watson: To identify the specific needs of high and very high risk female offenders in MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) and the implications for practice in the management of such cases by the Probation Service.

The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2001 required Prison and Probation to jointly assess and manage sexual and violent offenders. This led to the development of MAPPA, which brought together a range of agencies to improve assessment and management of this group (including health and social services, police and housing). Yet very little is known about the characteristics of those dealt with by MAPPA, and even less about those females in the system. This research will take an unprecedented look at the assessment and management of female offenders within the MAPPA system. The final report will highlight best practice and provide recommendations for future policy and practice of how MAPPA manages female offenders.

Aims and objectives of the research:

To identify the needs and risks posed by women compared to their male counterparts:

1.     What are the crimineogenic needs of High and Very High risk female offenders and how does this differ from male offenders?

2.     What risks (in respect of nature, level and who to) do High and Very High risk female offenders pose and how does this differ from male offenders?

How are these needs and risks addressed in MAPPA?

3.     What are the specific issues (for example; accommodation, health, ensuring compliance) for the management of High/ Very High Risk female offenders?

4.     What difficulties/ issues do practitioners face in managing such cases?

5.     What are good examples of risk management cases in MAPPA and what can be learnt?

 

Methods:

In-depth literature review: including policy and practice papers, Probation and Home Office literature, journal articles and other publications.

Quantitative study: (Questions 1, 2, 3, above)

• Analysis of data (see below) held by a northern Probation Service on random samples of approximately 50 High/ Very High Risk female offenders[1] and (as a control group) random sample of 50 high/very high risk males offenders:
• EOASys risk assessment tool – identifying what crimineogenic needs this group have (e.g. substance misuse, poor cognitive skills, emotional issues, relationship difficulties)
• Risk of Harm screening:  identify the level and nature of risk of harm posed by this group
• What intervention is recommended for this group – using Supervision Plans to ascertain the category of intervention
• Risk management plans – analysis of the measures put into place in order to manage risk in the community (e.g. attendance on programmes, hostel residence, exclusion zones)

 

Qualitative study: (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, above)

• To look at approximately 10 cases in more detail and collate qualitative information through:
• Semi Structured interviews with the practitioners involved
• Semi Structured interviews with MAPPA Team Managers across the Probation area
• Semi Structured interviews with MAPPA representatives where appropriate (e.g. Police, Prison, Mental Health Services, Social Services, Housing etc. across the Probation area)
• Observation of MAPPA in order to identify some of the difficulties in managing these cases and to provide examples of good practice.

Timetable:

October 2006 – November 2006 (2 months): Literature Review

December 2006 – March 2007 (4 months): Data Collection

Dissemination of Research:April 2007 – August 2007 (5 months): Data Analysis and Write Up

• Seminar presentation on findings to Fellows and Griffins Society Members.
• Full Report plus summary and recommendations for practice for the Griffins Society and the National Probation Service

---

Fiona Pervez: Community based treatment in a rural area

I am a probation officer working in Cumbria, the second largest county in England with a sparse population of just under half a million people. Largely rural, Cumbria has similarities to urban areas, inasmuch as there are problems with drugs and alcohol and anti-social behaviour.

Rationale:

In my work I have noticed that opportunities given to females in prisons, while valuable to those who live in towns and cities, may be of limited use to females who resettle in a rural environment. This made me consider to what extent living in a rural community affects the chances of successful resettlement for female offenders and the nature of the difficulties these women face. I would like to research the provisions that are available to this minority group, to what extent these services are accessible, and how any disadvantages can be overcome. It may be that female offenders in a rural setting require a different kind of support from those who live in the towns and cities, and hopefully such research would highlight this.

The Aims of the Research are:

1) To examine the needs of female offenders who resettle in a rural environment in comparison to those who resettle in an urban environment.

2) To research the agencies that are available and accessible to female offenders in rural areas and establish the services that they offer.

3) To evaluate the agencies and services that are county wide in addition to those that are nationwide.

4) To identify the issues and opportunities which are available to females during their imprisonment and relate these to their future resettlement in a rural environment.

 

The Proposed Outcomes of the Research are:

1)    To establish a profile of female offenders who live in a rural environment in order to highlight their unique needs and difficulties.

2)    To make an evaluation of existing service providers and to ascertain the extent to which they are accessible, with the aim of providing increased access if needed.

3)    To consider the advantages and strengths of county wide agencies.

4)    To match the opportunities offered to females in prison with the needs of those who resettle in a rural environment. If they are relevant, to see how these experiences can be developed to the best advantage.

 

Research Methods:

1)    Identify female offenders who are re-settling in the rural community and interview them.

2)    Analyse the factors that assist or hinder the resettlement.

3)    Contact Probation Officers for additional information.

4)    Focus on the opportunities that have arisen during the imprisonment of female offenders and discuss those which were relevant to their resettlement prospects (and those which were not).

5)    Establish the agencies that provide special services to communities in rural settings (I know that some special provisions are in place; for example, a mobile police station visits 80 villages across north and east Cumbria on a monthly basis).

6)    Target the agencies by providing them with preliminary information about the proposed research project. Enlist the help of these agencies by offering to work alongside them during the research, adhering to their aims and objectives.

 

Timescale

October 2006 – January 2007

• Make initial contact with female offenders, probation officers, prisons and service providers.
• Interview female offenders and probation officers.
• Make contact with and offer to work alongside service providers. Put this into practice.
• Research the available opportunities that prisons provide and assess how the work that has been done by female offenders can be continued during resettlement.
• Review available literature.

February 2007 – April 2007 

• Consolidate findings.
• Write up literature reviews and interviews.
• Consider feedback and follow up with further interviews if necessary.

May 2007 – July 2007

• Write the first draft of the research report.
• Consider feedback and follow up with further interviews where necessary.

August 2007 – September 2007

• Write the final draft of the research report. Write the summary.
• Prepare presentation.

---

Carlotta Goulden: Arts intervention with female offenders

Aim:

This research would be an investigation to attempt to understand the epistemology behind arts intervention with female offenders. I hope to validate the belief that access to culture for female offenders is a human right and combats social exclusion upon resettlement from custody

Context:

Culture has been given a massive role to play in regeneration and urban renewal schemes; arts organisations are urged to become ‘agents of social change’ (Culture and Creativity DCMS 2001). Education and the role of the arts in society changes with different government objectives. Within the offending community it is argued that the arts can raise self-esteem, confidence and creativity, which in turn helps people develop more active, fulfilled and social lives (GLLAM Report 2000). Through my work as an arts practitioner at HMP Askham Grange I have witnessed female offenders commit to emotional and intense arts projects with huge benefits. Women gain transferable life skills and a renewed interest in learning. Artistic intervention at the end of sentence and upon release can act as a catalyst for lifelong learning, a different way to live and re-engage with society.

Objectives

To test two hypotheses about the relevance of experience in the arts to resettlement:

• Within arts projects female offenders tackle subjects such as identity, family ties, growth, change and raise self-esteem, giving women a new and useful language with which to discuss their hopes and fears about life outside prison
• By physically taking women out of their offending role and involving them in cultural activities they are being exposed to real possibilities, positive learning experiences and a different way of living. This enables prisoners to avoid ‘role engulfment’ and find a new identity (Silverman 2000).

 

Questions to be investigated:

·      What artistic experiences has been available for female offenders

·      How were the women benefiting from exposure to the arts

·      What are the lasting effects of the projects

·      How did the subject content relate to resettlement issues

·      What constitutes ‘good practice’ in this field

·      How are the projects being used in through care and making long term changes

·      How best can I disseminate the findings of this research and what are the long term implications

 

Method

This research would be a piece of qualitative research using observations, questionnaires, field notes, semi-structured interviews and possibly action research. Many art interventions involve processes and experiences that are difficult to pin down in terms of what is happening and why. The limitations of the research would not allow for quantative or longitudinal studies.

It has been proposed that there are ‘no objective observations’ (Denzin and Lincoln 24:1998) and I acknowledge that I enter the process from inside an interpretive community; my personal history, biography, gender and social class shape the investigation. I would sustain a critical and objective approach by designing and responding to a specific questionnaire with questions relevant not only to my own projects but all arts experiences, enabling subjects to speak freely.

The research would start with an extensive literature review to bring the reader and myself up to date with current policy on prison reform, art and education in the offending community. Within an historical context this could refer to metaphors of improvement grounded in enlightenment thinking and the civilising rituals of museums and galleries. More recently it is argued that in rethinking what works with offenders that they need to be shown how to use civic institutions (Farrell 2002).

 

I have an opportunity to present various case studies in my discussion:

• Stretch, my own arts charity will be running two or three projects at HMP Askham Grange including photography and sculpture. The women will be taken to local museums and galleries and involved with visiting artists as part of the process. HMP Askham Grange is happy to support the research and have indicated there will be other projects of interest.
• The Irene Taylor Music Trust are running interesting programmes over the next year to which access will be allowed. The programme of ‘through care’ running at Holloway later this year is particularly interesting; where prisoners are placed on appropriate arts projects when they leave.
• Clean Break is a theatre and new writing organisation for women involved in the criminal justice system. I have approached them and they are happy for me to spend some time observing workshops or talking to ex-offenders about how they use their drama and writing classes.
• Other possibilities not yet approached are Escape Artists in Cambridge and the Anne Peaker Centre (formally Unit for Arts and Offenders)

 

Dissemination

1. Seminar presentation on the findings to Fellows and Griffin Society members
2. Full report plus summary to the Griffin Society
3. Seminars or training sessions to Engage, The Anne Peaker Centre, Clean Break and any interested party
4. Publication on the internet

Time Scale

The first term would be spent on the literature review and devising a definitive and objective set of questions to investigate. The second term would be spent collecting the data, visiting the projects, carrying out interviews, observing and making fields notes. The final term would be spent analyzing the results and the implications and collating the material for the final report and dissemination.

Department for Culture, Media &  Sport, (2001), Culture and Creativity The Next Ten Years. DCMS

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) (1998), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. London:Sage

Farrell (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders Londo 

Group for Large Local Authority Museums. (2000) Museums and Social Inclusion: The GLAMM Report, Group for Large Local Authority Museums.

Silverman, (2002) ‘The Therapeutic Potential of Museums as Pathways to Inclusion. In:

Sandell, R. (2002), Museums, Society, Inequality. London: Routledge