RESTORATIVE PRACTICES IN YOUTH WORK: AN ANALYSIS OF TWO COMMUNITY AGENCIES IN SINGAPORE

Abstract

Restorative Practices (RP) has been gaining momentum in the world in different arenas such as social work, criminal justice and workplace (Wachtel, 2013). This is especially so in the Youth Work (YW) setting (Suzuki & Wood, 2017). In Singapore, some community agencies have explicitly mentioned that they are engaging RP in their work. The small number of players makes it unsurprising that there is limited information on the use of RP in community agencies in Singapore. This qualitative study aims to look at how Beyond Social Services (BSS) and Lutheran Community Care Services (LCCS) apply RP in their work with youths in community work (CW) and school social work (SSW). A total of seventeen practitioners from BSS and LCCS took part in this study. Data collection was conducted in three different stages: semi-structured interviews with organisation leader and department head, focus group discussions with managers and staff and lastly, observations of sessions with RP involved. Data collection was focused on the three main areas of RP – RP theories & principles held by the agency, agency’s RP practice and contextual influences of RP work. The findings showed that LCCS perceives RP as an identity while BSS views RP as a general direction. It was found that LCCS’ RP work is more structured and has a more consistent RP language which is aligned to O’Connell’s RP framework. On the other hand, BSS’ RP work is more fluid and the RP language is open to the interpretation of the workers. Moreover, practices from both agencies are similar in seeing that RP is both a process and an outcome. They also actively work with different community stakeholders and partners and infuses RP into creative platforms like drama and sports. Moreover, RP is perceived to be unique as the outcomes achieved are more sustainable and itempowers the individuals and the community. RP also extends a wide reach to create a culture that impacts beyond those who are involved in the process. Being a Singapore-based analysis, this study also shows that implementation of RP is perceived to be influenced by the target group of youths, the community partners and also larger systems in Singapore like the laws and culture. These findings provided an insight that RP is universal and the effort required in its implementation is worthwhile. RP is argued to be universal as 1) the findings show that it is possible to align the RP works to the RP framework in Singapore, 2) there is goodness-of-fit between RP and YW and 3) the practitioners were able to work around cultural barriers to implement RP. The roles of RP incommunity agencies were also explored. Agencies can utilise RP as a strategy to achieve their mission or integrate it throughout the agency and be RP-centric. Moreover, RP can also be seen as an approach in CW or SSW. This study concluded by proposing to social work practitioners about the worthiness of implementing RP. RP is worth it because findings suggest that RP can prevent the youths from going back to their negative behaviours, reduce spending on social services, create a positive environment for youth’s development and lastly, empower the youths and their community which keeps the youths from going astray. Overall, this study aims to show the possibility of using RP in Singapore to engage the youths. It shares the current practices of RP and providepractitioners with an insight about the roles of RP in community agencies and their services. It aims to challenge readers to think about the possibility and feasibility of RP in Singapore and utilises the practice in different settings.