Book Review: An Evaluation of the Plymouth Restorative Justice Programme
| Author | Pete Grady |
| Published date | 01 April 2004 |
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/147322540400400110 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Patricia Gray, An Evaluation of the Plymouth Restorative Justice Programme,
University of Plymouth, Plymouth, 2003, 1-84102-107-5.
Reviewed by: Pete Grady, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, Manchester
Metropolitan University.
The need for evidence led practice has come to the fore in work with young people
over recent years. Whatever one thinks of the political nature of this debate, it is clear
that the justification of practice from evidence is to remain one of the core aspects of
professionalism. The debate that remains is what type and quality of evidence should
be required in order to justify effective practice?
This evaluation of a restorative justice programme has the potential to provide solid
evidence for the practitioner and academic alike into the effectiveness (or otherwise)
of restorative principles. Gray sets out to evaluate the Plymouth experience from the
perspective of the young person and the victim and to examine the relationship
between characteristics of offenders and reconviction rates, and the impact of social
exclusion on offenders, with an overall focus on ‘Process’and ‘Outcomes’for those
involved.
One is immediately struck by the complexity of the layout of the text. The use of
numerous tables within the text and constant reference to the tables leaves the reader
often wondering whether so many tables were necessary. That aside Gray has identified
a number of themes that are important at a local and national level for developing our
understanding of restorative principles in practice.
The research is unfortunately hindered by external factors which appeared to
conspire against an effective outcome. In particular the requirement of the Youth
Justice Board, and national evaluator, that the evaluation be conducted one month after
the Plymouth Restorative Justice Project had been established. This seems to be
unrealistic to begin an evaluation so soon after a project has been established, and one
would have to question what is actually being evaluated in these circumstances.
As a consequence, the quantitative research contained within the report does not
really add to knowledge. Much of the discussion is prefaced with reminders that the
samples were very small, and that the outcomes are not representative or significant,
in the statistical sense. Of far more interest were the qualitative elements of the
research, which focused on what young people, victims and professionals had to say
about their experiences of the restorative justice process. Gray uses quotes from the
various participants effectively to support some of the themes. These voices give the
reader an insight of how those involved make sense of the experience.
There is a quality to these interviews which is lost a little in the structure of the
report itself. The views of the individuals are often more important than the outcomes
of the intervention itself. Victim satisfaction that justice has been done must surely rate
higher than the possibility of reoffending in terms of the goals of restorative justice,
which is ultimately about bringing the victim back into the process.
It is unfortunate that Gray’s evaluation was hampered by the decision to evaluate
this project so early. Much of the report appears as an apology for that decision, small
numbers of subjects and delays in developing the service were clearly predictable at the
outset. The potential for this report to provide good evidence for developing practice
Youth Justice Vol. 4 No. 1 67
To continue reading
Request your trial