University of Gloucestershire
School of Business, Computing and Social Science

Application for Funding 2026-2027
BCSS Impact Accelerator Research Fund

The total maximum amount that can be requested is £10,000 for this fund.

Please complete all sections listed below. Your application should not exceed four pages in total (excluding the publications list). The text should be in 11-point font and single-line spaced.

Please delete all text not in bold in the tables below – these are instructions.

Fund Purpose
To promote impact development, a measurable benefit that accrues beyond academia and is caused by previously completed research.

Focus
• Prioritizes impact over ‘early-stage’ engagement, co-production, and relationship building.
• It will only support ‘early-stage’ activities if they are part of clear, plausible, and well-scheduled impact plans.
• Any co-production plans must clearly articulate their engagement processes and impact objectives.

Scope
Realizes research impact and supports its evaluation. The fund does not support primary research.

Fund criteria
Must include:
1. Involve at least two researchers.
2. Address a contemporary problem or challenge.
3. Identify prior research outputs to underpin the intended impact
4. Have clear goals to accelerate the impact of the previously completed research.
5. Engage the relevant stakeholders and target audience
6. Provide a convincing impact plan that includes how the impact will be evaluated and the evidence that will be gathered.

Preference will be given to applications with:
7. Ambitious but realistic identification of external funding opportunities and a convincing fit with their funding criteria.
8. Clear potential for impact and the possibility of supporting an impact case study for REF.
9. Participation from external organizations.

Please return completed forms by email to: Philippa Ward, [email protected], using the subject line:
BCSS Impact Accelerator Research Funding 2026-2027 application [insert PI name]



1.
Name (Principal Investigator):
Professor Jonathan Hobson — established researcher
2.
Name(s) of other research UOG team members:
Dr Niki White (Co-Investigator) — early career researcher
3.
Name(s) external organization/s:
Åbo Akademi University (Finland); Avans University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands); Ministry of Justice (Estonia); The Probation Service (Ireland); Restorative Justice Council (UK)
4.
Name(s) external participant/s:
Dr Heidi Jokinen (Åbo Akademi University, Finland); Aino Jauhiainen (University of Helsinki, Finland); Dr Annemieke Wolthuis (Avans University, Netherlands); Sophie Jooren (Avans University); Professor Bart Claes (Avans University); Stanislav Solodov (Ministry of Justice, Estonia); Rachel Lillis and Emma Gunn (The Probation Service, Ireland); Aisa Shearing and Jim Simon (Restorative Justice Council, UK)
5.
Proposed research title (18 words maximum):
From Framework to Practice: 'What Works' Guidance for Restorative Justice in Prisons and Probation across Five Jurisdictions


Project Summary (300 words maximum):
Restorative justice (RJ) is a stated policy priority across Europe, embedded in Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8, the EU Victims' Rights Directive and national legislation across the continent. Yet there is no shared means of describing how far RJ is integrated in a system.
This project addresses that gap, using restorative justice in prison and probation settings as its key example.

The project extends work from Phase 1 (2023–24) and Phase 2 (2025–26) that established a multi-country, multi-sectoral partnership across five national jurisdictions: Åbo Akademi University (Finland), Avans University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), the Ministry of Justice (Estonia), The National Probation Service (Ireland) and the Restorative Justice Council with the University of Gloucestershire (United Kingdom). This work produced the conceptual Institutionalising–Formalising–Shaping (IFS) framework, which distinguishes three modes of system integration for restorative justice in prison and probation settings.

Phase 3 builds on that theoretical work to produce impact-focused 'what works' guidance for an international, multi-sectoral audience. Using the IFS framework as a guide, it creates worked examples of RJ provision from across the five partners. The examples focus on what drove RJ programmes in different prison and probation settings into being, what held them in place, what stopped them, and how far they reach. From these it synthesises the 'what works' style guidance showing what enables and blocks it in each mode. The resulting resources can help shape the development of new provision as well as better understand the role, function, and impact of current provision.

The project captures impact from partners through statement of use from each partner organisation, feedback at project workshops, and a check on whether the material has been referenced in their own materials. It also provides a baseline for ongoing evidence after the end of the project.

6.
Proposed Background & Description (600 words maximum):
This proposal builds on Restorative Justice in Prisons and Probation, a two-phase programme led from the University of Gloucestershire, 2023–2026 involving partners from across 5 European jusrisdictions.

Phases 1 and 2 (2023–2026)
Phase 1 (2023–2024) established a tri-country network across England and Wales, Ireland, and Estonia through reciprocal country visits, site visits to prisons and community justice services, and structured roundtables with policymakers, practitioners and academics. It identified six shared findings, among them that access remains inconsistent, that coordinated national strategies are essential, that shared metrics are needed to evidence impact, and that access should follow risk and need rather than offence type or geography.
Phase 2 (2025–2026), supported by a £20,000 University of Gloucestershire Policy Support Fund award and in-kind support from partners (c.£20,000), who hosted and co-designed each visit, extended the network to the Netherlands and Finland, adding Åbo Akademi University, Avans University of Applied Sciences, and Finnish and Dutch practice partners. It took Phase 1's findings from description to analysis: structured data collection across all five jurisdictions; an innovative reflective methodology using restorative circles as both research method and subject of study; and, key to this project, developed the IFS framework as a way of accounting for what the comparison showed.

The Institutionalising–Formalising–Shaping (IFS) framework
The programme's principal original contribution is the IFS framework, which sets out how restorative justice becomes present across a whole system, through policy cutting across organisations (institutionalising), adoption from within one (formalising), or emergence from community or professional need (shaping). Its value is comparative: it gives different systems a common vocabulary, and treats the depth at which any mode is realised, rather than which mode a system has, as the measure that matters.

Contributions to date
The programme has so far produced:
• seven outputs, listed at the end of this application: three conference and seminar presentations, a partnership briefing report, a forthcoming journal article and two papers in development;
• a standing five-jurisdiction partnership spanning ministries, probation and prison services, NGOs and universities, working together since 2023;
• a developing University of Gloucestershire–Avans institutional partnership;
• an associate staff appointment with Åbo Akademi (Finland).

Phase 3 (2026–27)
Phases 1 and 2 built the network and produced the IFS framework as a conceptual tool. Phase 3 operationalises it: working with the five national partners, it will produce comparative examples from across the jurisdictions showing in each case, what the service does, what drove it into being, what enablers and challenges it faces, and how far it reaches. From these it will synthesise across the examples to produce 'what works' guidance for developing services in each mode.
Together these give national governments, services, advocacy bodies and academics cross-nationally relevant material for planning, supporting and evaluating restorative services: a template and 15–20 worked examples across the five countries, a 'what works' guide for each mode, guidance on evaluating provision, briefings for policymakers in each jurisdiction, and an impact log and baseline for tracking what partners do next.
To achieve this the project is split into four parts, moving from the theory of Phases 1 and 2 to the practical guidance of Phase 3:
• Co-production with the international partners of a template to capture the national examples (WP1)
• 15–20 completed examples, three to four per partner, of services across the IFS modes, forming a repository other services can draw on (WP2)
• Synthesis across the examples, focused on what works in each mode (WP3)
• Published examples and guidance, translated into partner languages, forming both the publicly available material and the baseline for ongoing evaluation (WP4)

7.
Evidence of Potential to Achieve Impact (400 words maximum):
Building on the first two phases, the project produces worked examples of RJ provision across five jurisdictions and distils from them 'what works' style guidance on what enables and obstructs integration in each mode, making the conceptual work of those phases usable.
• Demand: Demand was documented through Phases 1 and 2. As RJ provision grows and changes across prison and probation settings, the difficulty is no longer knowing that something exists somewhere, but being able to compare it. Phase 1's joint briefing paper named shared metrics as one of six priority findings, and the request for something practical came out of the exchange itself.
• Beneficiaries: Immediate beneficiaries in this phase are the five partner organisations and the practitioners and policy actors in their networks. Prison and probation services, and the RJ practitioners in them, gain a way of seeing how far their own provision reaches and what has worked in comparable systems. Policy leads in ministries and national services gain comparative evidence for strategy and commissioning. Sector bodies gain material to disseminate and a common vocabulary to argue from. People in custody and under supervision benefit at one remove, where provision is strengthened. If the material works across these five systems it is designed to be used elsewhere in Europe and beyond.
• Partners: The route to impact is the network the first two phases built. Five jurisdictions are represented by a government ministry, a national probation service, a national sector body and two universities, so policy, practice and research are already engaged and the audience for the guidance is already in the room. Each partner has committed to contributing examples from its own system and to testing the material with its own practitioners, and between them the five systems already cover the range the framework describes. All five contribute examples and all five validate.

Statements of support from each named organisation accompany this application.

8
Project Management & Plan (400 words maximum, split into work packages [WPs]):
The project runs for ten months from October 2026, delivered by Professor Jonathan Hobson (PI) and Dr Niki White (Co-I) with the five-jurisdiction partnership. Governance is through a partnership steering group meeting quarterly online, with a named lead in each jurisdiction responsible for co-production activity and for confirming how their system is represented. Partners contribute staff time in kind, host the workshops and handle local logistics. Content decisions rest with the steering group; the PI holds delivery accountability.
• WP1 Co-produce the template (Oct 2026 – Feb 2027). Design the example template from the Phase 1–2 material and consolidate that material into a documented starting position for each jurisdiction, including where each stands now, as the point later change is measured from. The Ireland workshop closes the package: the whole partnership agrees the template and works through the first examples together. Milestone: template agreed and starting position documented, February 2027. Deliverable: template and starting position report.
• WP2 Complete the examples (Feb – Apr 2027). Each partner produces three to four worked examples across the three modes, drawn from their own system and networks, 15–20 in total. Returns are collated and checked for consistency against the agreed template. Milestone: examples returned across all five jurisdictions, April 2027. Deliverable: consolidated example set.
• WP3 Synthesise and agree (Apr – May 2027). What enables and what obstructs integration is distilled per mode across all the examples, and translated into partner languages with native-speaker checking. The second workshop closes the package: the partnership resolves cross-jurisdictional differences and agrees final content. Milestone: synthesis agreed, May 2027. Deliverable: synthesis of enablers and challenges.
• WP4 Publish and evaluate (May – Jul 2027). Open-access publication through partner and sector channels, and five jurisdiction-specific policy briefings. Impact is captured through partner statements of use, workshop feedback, an impact log, and a check on references in partner documents, as set out under Impact below. Milestone: launch, July 2027. Deliverables: guidance, briefing series, evaluation report and impact log.

9.
Project Outcomes, Outputs & Impact (400 words maximum):

Impact
Phase 3 produces worked examples of restorative justice in prisons and probation from all five partner countries, and from them 'what works' style guidance on what makes provision work and what blocks it. These give the five systems a common way of describing and comparing provision, and material they can act on. The evidence produced therefore has geographic and systemic reach: Five jurisdictions, each represented by a government ministry, national probation service, national sector body or university; three to four worked examples each; two partnership workshops; and dissemination through partner channels. That is the change a REF ICS records.

Impact is captured by:
• a statement of use from each partner organisation;
• structured feedback at both workshops, giving a before and after;
• an impact log recording organisation, date and action;
• and a check at three months on whether the material has been referenced in partner strategy, training or commissioning documents.
• A format for ongoing impact capture and tracking of impacts beyond the end of the project.

Outputs
Phase 3 does not include primary research, but operationalises the findings from Phases 1 and 2. Outputs include:
• A template for capturing service examples, co-produced with the five partners, and 15–20 completed examples (three to four per partner) across the three modes, published open access
• A 'what works' guide for each mode: what enables services and what gets in the way
• Guidance on how to evaluate provision in each mode
• Five jurisdiction-specific policy briefings, translated by partners where useful
• A baseline for tracking what partners do next: adoption of the material, and references to it in policy, strategy, training and commissioning documents

Outcomes
• Contribution to an existing REF Impact Case Study in UoA21, supplying the international reach the case needs
• Material towards a 3*/4* output on translating comparative frameworks into practice
• Deepened partnerships: a University of Gloucestershire–Avans institutional link under exploration, and an associate staff appointment with Åbo Akademi, both carried forward through Phase 3
• Further context for an external funding bid
• Continuation without further funding: the material is hosted by partner universities at no ongoing cost, and the partnership predates this phase of the project.

10.
How will you ensure compliance with research ethics requirements? (100 words maximum):
Updated ethical approval for phase 3 will be sought from the University of Gloucestershire Research Ethics Committee. Participants are professionals commenting on a resource in their professional capacity, not subjects in a study; no data will be gathered from people in custody or under supervision. Participation is voluntary and informed, with consent recorded and withdrawal permitted. Validation and data from the workshops will be anonymised, reported at organisational rather than individual level, and stored in line with GDPR and University data policy. Partner organisations retain approval over how their jurisdiction is represented.

11.
Details of intended external funding provider and fund (150 words maximum):
The primary external target is Horizon Europe (Cluster 3, Civil Security for Society) or the EU Justice Programme, for which this project produces three assessed requirements: a validated instrument, a multi-country consortium with signed institutional commitment, and evidence of practitioner demand. Both schemes weight consortium maturity and demonstrated uptake; guidance already co-produced and validated across five jurisdictions addresses each directly.

Partner in-kind commitment of staff time, venues and local logistics were a feature of both prior phases. For example, the Estonian Ministry of Justice has funded partner activity from its own budget previously. Partners would continue to fund some elements of contributopn for phase 3, primarily in-kind staff time and in-country logistics.

Åbo Akademi intends to apply to Finnish foundation funding in January 2027 for a linked practitioner conference, following a successful precedent in the previous phase. This would be suplimentary to this project, adding value but not integral to the activities and deliverables listed above.

The developing University of Gloucestershire–Avans institutional partnership offers a further route, including Marie Skłodowska-Curie doctoral collaboration.

12.
How does your project consider the principles of Responsible Innovation? (200 words maximum):
The project follows UKRI's AREA framework. Anticipate: the clearest risk is that practical guidance becomes a compliance checklist, a service evidencing that it has RJ provision without that provision having depth. This is live in a sector under pressure to evidence rehabilitative activity, and would invert the framework's central argument. The guidance is therefore built around depth prompts and honest accounts of blockers rather than achievement levels, and states that no mode is superior and that movement between modes is not progress. Reflect: partners retain approval over how their jurisdiction is represented, preventing the comparative material from becoming an implicit ranking. Engage: content is co-produced with those who will use it, rather than developed then disseminated. Act: validation findings that challenge the framework will be published, including where practitioners judge it unusable. The guidance is openly licensed and free at the point of use.

13.
How does your project align with the UKRI principles of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (ED&I) in funded research? (200 words maximum):
The team spans career stages by design: at UoG, an established researcher as PI, an early-career Co-I, and doctoral and early-career colleagues among the partners, with roles allocated to build capacity rather than concentrate visibility. The partners bring further academcis at experienced, mid, and early career stages, including a current PhD student.

Language is the most significant inclusion issue in a five-jurisdiction project: partners will translate the validation instrument and the guidance into their own languages, checked by native speakers, so participation does not depend on English fluency. Both events will be hybrid and validation asynchronous and online, so partners with caring responsibilities, health-limiting conditions or restricted travel can contribute fully.

Published materials will be screen-reader accessible, plain-language and open access. We will seek examples from small NGOs and community organisations as well as ministries, since guidance drawn only from well-resourced institutions would reproduce the inequity the research identified. EDI is a standing item at each quarterly steering group.


14.
Workplan

Work Package
Timing
Description
Amount (£)



From
To
In a few words, describe what the money will be used for.
Equipment
Other Costs
Staff
Travel & Subsistence
Total

(I)
(II)
(III)

(IV)
(V)
(VI)
(VII)
(VIII)

WP1
Oct 26
Feb 27
Template co-production workshop, Ireland: travel, accommodation, subsistence, venue; RA time on template design and starting position

500
500
3,000
4,000

WP2
Feb 27
Apr 27
Partner support for in-country example gathering and local convening (five countries at £500); RA time collating returns

500
500

1,000

WP3
Apr 27
May 27
Synthesis workshop: travel, accommodation, subsistence, venue; native-speaker checking of partner translations; RA time on synthesis

1000
500
3,000
4,500

WP4
May 27
Jul 27
Guidance design, typesetting and digital hosting; RA time for follow-up and evaluation

500


500




Partner in-kind contribution (staff time, venues, hosting, local travel, and translation into partner languages) is additional and not charged to this fund; estimated equivalent value £12,000+ across the partnership.






Total:

–
2,500
1,500
6,000
10,000

.Outputs from this programme
Hobson, Jonathan, Banwell-Moore, Rebecca, Lilloi, Rachel and Aniston, Joelle (2024) Restorative justice in prisons and probation: opportunities and challenges. 2th International conference of the European Forum for Restorative Justice, 29-31 May, Tallinn, Estonia.
Hobson, J. et al. (2025) Restorative Justice in Prisons and Probation: Cross-National Learning Exchange — Phase 1 Briefing Report. Cheltenham: University of Gloucestershire. (link to folloew)
Hobson, J. (2026)  Integrating restorative justice European Society of Criminology Restorative Justice Working Group Online Seminar Series, 12 May.
Hobson, J , White, N, Wolthius, A, Banwell-Moore, R, and Joren, S(2026) Restorative Justice in Prisons and Probation. From Local Practice to Systemic Change.  13th International Conference of the European Forum for Restorative Justice, 11-13 June 2026, Poznań (Poland)
Hobson, J., Jokinen, H., Wolthuis, A. & Jooren, S. (forthcoming) Mapping Restorative Justice in European Prisons and Probation: A Comparative Typology. International Criminal Justice Review.
Hobson, J., White, N. & Jokinen, H. (in development) Restorative circles as a cross-national research method. [target journal TBC]
Hobson, J. et al. (in development) Comparative challenges and enablers of restorative justice integration in prisons and probation. [target journal TBC]

Team publications underpinning this proposal
Marder, I., Banwell-Moore, R., Hobson, J. & Payne, B. (2025) New ideas, enduring cultural barriers? An analysis of recommendations from the APPG on Restorative Justice in England and Wales. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 25(4), 1053–1070.
Fisk, B.M., Hobson, J. & Twyman-Ghoshal, A. (2025) Effectiveness, efficiency, and impact in restorative justice. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 8(2) (in press).
Twyman-Ghoshal, A., Hobson, J., Gregory, A., Morris, M., Grant, F., Hare, A. & Aldington, C. (2024) Diversifying the Restorative Sector: Lessons from Practitioners. International Journal of Restorative Justice.
Procter-Legg, T., Hobson, J. & Quimby, E. (2024) Restorative justice and social justice: an international perspective. Contemporary Justice Review, 27(2–3), 218–238.
Hobson, J. & Payne, B. (2022) Building restorative services: considerations on top-down and bottom-up approaches. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 71.
Hobson, J., Payne, B., Bangura, K.S. & Hester, R. (2022) 'Spaces' for restorative development: international case studies on restorative services. Contemporary Justice Review, 25(2), 143–162.
Rees, E. & Hobson, J. (2021) Restorative Practice in the Criminal Justice System: Examining a Restorative Reasoning Programme in a Women's Prison. Laws, 10(4), 95.
White, N.J. (2025) The Gendered Stigma-Vulnerability Nexus and Women Who Use Drugs Such as Spice in Prison. Feminist Criminology.
Hobson, J. (ed.) (2026) Integrating Restorative Justice: A Whole-System Approach. Bristol: Bristol University Press.




Appendix: Examples of spending for each funding heading

Equipment
Other Costs
Staff
Travel and Subsistence
• Equipment maintenance costs
(where the warranty has expired)
• Equipment purchase costs
(specific to the funded project)
• Other equipment
• Specialized software
(specific to the funded research)
• Stationery and consumables
• Conference Fees
• Course Registration
• Currency Conversion Fees (not already claimed)
• Gifts (misc. under £25.00)
• Gifts for research respondents/participants.
• Miscellaneous Expenses
• Other Entertaining/Hospitality
• Recruitment of research respondents/ participants.
• Investigator costs (staff time buyout)
• Research Worker (casual claim)
• Research Worker (part-time hourly paid)
• Air Fare
• Breakfast
• Bus Fare
• Coach Fare
• Dinner
• Excess Baggage
• Ferry Fare
• Fuel for Rental Vehicle
• Hotel or other accommodation
• Lunch/Snacks/Refreshments
• Parking Charges
• Rail Fare
• Taxi Fare
• Toll Charges
• Vehicle Hire