Mental health and wellbeing benefits from a prisons horticultural programme

Abstract

Purpose In the context of current prison safety and reform, the purpose of this paper is to discuss findings of an impact evaluation of a horticultural programme delivered in 12 prisons in North West England. Design/methodology/approach The programme was evaluated using quantitative and qualitative methods, including Green Gym© questionnaires, the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) and Biographic-Narrative Interpretive Method interviews. Findings Against a backdrop of high rates of suicide, self-harm and poor mental health, the horticultural programme studied proved beneficial to prisoner participants, the most marked effect was on mental health and wellbeing. In addition to data related to the original mental health outcome indicators, the study revealed multiple layers of “added value” related to mental health arising from horticultural work in a prison setting. Research limitations/implications The main research limitations were the limited completion of follow-on questionnaires due to prisoners being released and the inability to conduct longitudinal data collection post-release. There was also concern about response bias and lack of resource to compare with the experience of prisoners not participating in the programme. Social implications Positive impacts on prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing included increased confidence, social interactions with staff and other prisoners and gaining skills and qualifications and work experience, increasing potential for post-release employment. Originality/value Benefits of horticulture work on health are well established. However, to date, there is little research concerning the effects this work may have on mental wellbeing of prisoners both within prisons and more so upon their release back into the community.

Rugby as a rehabilitation program in a United Kingdom Male Young Offenders’ Institution: key findings and implications from mixed methods research

“…Research has suggested that self-reported change in antisocial attitudes may not provide valid information about change in risk of recidivism as a result of intervention (Howard and van Doorn, 2018) and therefore other methods may be more beneficial in predicting whether interventions will truly 'rehabilitate' their participants. Similar studies have discovered that while quantitative measures may not reveal a significant difference in change scores, qualitative interviews reveal benefits of the intervention which would otherwise not be seen (Farrier et al, 2019). This emphasizes the need for mixed methods in this research area which has been suggested in previous literature (Blagden et al, 2016).…”

“…The specific population of young adult male offenders may also play a role in the effectiveness of the quantitative measure as their social context may explain socially desirable responding to such measures (Howard and van Doorn, 2018), and may influence the truthfulness or accuracy of their answers. Existing studies have encountered similar issues here with response bias, where participants ticked all answers or left questionnaires incomplete (Farrier et al, 2019).…”

“…Existing literature places the significance of mixed methodology in how it offsets the weakness of both quantitative and qualitative methods and provides rich data that would not be possible through either approach alone (Blagden et al, 2016). This has been seen in the evaluation of prison programs (Farrier et al, 2019) who found that while quantitative methods were restricted by limited completion of follow-on questionnaires and concerns regarding response bias, the addition of qualitative interviews revealed the positive impacts on prisoners' mental health and wellbeing. This highlights the benefit of the mixed method approach, as interviews go beyond the quantitative information gained and gather data directly from participants in their own words, indicating the rationale behind the results.…”

“…In line with the increasing number of interventions being provided in prisons to meet rehabilitation needs, recent research has examined the social, psychological and health benefits of prisonbased programs which include those focusing on arts, horticulture and vocational activities (Farrier et al, 2019;Wilkinson and Caulfield, 2017). The majority of these studies have demonstrated benefits in quality of life and reduced anxiety, depression and stress (Battaglia et al, 2013) as well as reduced rates of recidivism (Proctor et al, 2012).…”

Producing food in English and Welsh prisons

“…In the context of the current UK prison reform agenda that seeks effective and sustainable prisoner management and rehabilitation (Ismail & de Viggiani, 2018) and against a backdrop of public sector constraint and concern about the high incidence of violence, suicide, self-harm and poor mental health among prisoners, GOOP has empirically demonstrated that gardening can benefit the physical and mental health and wellbeing of prisoners and make a significant contribution to the creation of safe, secure, supportive and health-enhancing environments (Baybutt et al, 2018;Farrier, Baybutt and Dooris, 2019;Farrier and Kedwards, 2015). These impacts are increasingly widely recognised as being the result of joined-up 'whole system' working.…”