Employing Offenders
| Date | 01 December 2001 |
| Author | Andrea Haith |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050104800412 |
| Published date | 01 December 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
296
Evaluating
Restorative Justice
This report seeks to satisfy the need to
evidence the impact of restorative justice,
by presenting the results of a 15-month
study into seven English schemes
currently in operation. The report aims to
identify the elements which constitute best
practice and are most effective in reducing
crime, while also being cost-effective. The
study included data and information
analysis, as well as interviews with
victims, offenders and staff. The authors
acknowledge that the short timescale of
the research impaired assessment of
reconviction rates, and the limited lifespan
of many of the schemes hindered analysis
at this stage. The research was conducted
at a time of transition when Youth
Offending Teams were being formed, and
its success criteria will be challenged as
overly reductive by some advocates of
restorative justice. Nevertheless, this study
offers some important indicators, which
should be integrated into service
development as restorative justice
becomes embedded in the Criminal Justice
System. These include the following:
• Victims reported high levels of
satisfaction when involved, but very few
had participated in direct mediation with
an offender.
• Personal letters of apology, which had
clearly been written by the offenders and
not corrected by staff, were well received
by victims.
• Both victims and offenders valued
mediation sessions that were conducted
expeditiously, were responsive to their
views, and were concluded with clearly
agreed outcomes.
• Retrospective analysis of impact on
re-offending suggested wide variation,
ranging from significant results in terms of
frequency and seriousness in West
Yorkshire, to no evidence on re-offending
rates in areas such as the West Midlands,
Leicestershire and Suffolk.
• The West Yorkshire scheme with
adults was also assessed to be cost-
effective in reducing reconvictions, and
intervention with higher risk offenders
showed particularly positive impacts. This
challenges the orthodox view that
restorative justice is primarily an early
intervention.
• The schemes with young offenders
were assessed as not being cost-effective
in terms of reconviction, but assessments
using CRIMEPICS II demonstrated
substantial improvements in attitudes
towards victims and towards offending in
general.
•The fragility of many of the schemes
influenced their success; funding was an
obvious issue, and they received fewer
referrals when agencies became
preoccupied with meeting the challenge of
statutory requirements.
The report describes other schemes
which were not evaluated, including the
largest in the country, the Thames Valley
Restorative Justice Project. This is the
subject of a separate evaluation from the
University of Oxford, due to be published
in Spring 2002. Best practice
recommendations, cross-referenced with
the Youth Justice Board’s draft standards,
are outlined.
An Exploratory Evaluation of Restorative
Justice Schemes, 2001, by David Miers
et al, Crime Reduction Research Series
Paper 9. Available from the Research
and Statistics Directorate, Room 201,
Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate,
London SW1H 9AT. Robin Tuddenham
Strategic Manager,
Barking & Dagenham Youth Offending Te a m
Employing
Offenders
This report cites a growing body of
evidence suggesting that employer
295
International
Restorative Justice
This Home Office report provides an
international review of the position and
use of restorative justice, in order to
inform policy development in England and
Wales. The review examines restorative
justice programmes across twelve
European jurisdictions, together with
summaries of programmes in Australia,
the United States, Canada and New
Zealand. The latter are broad summaries
as a result of the time constraints on the
author, and the large range of programmes
on offer.
The review tackles each of these
countries in turn and provides an
evaluative summary. The key findings
from the review are:
•The overall picture is of considerable
heterogeneity, with little correlation
between the legal basis of restorative
justice and the format of any particular
outcome. The only area under which
schemes are in universal agreement is the
value of an apology as a preferred
outcome.
• All the jurisdictions reviewed had
provision for adult and young offenders,
but there was a marked difference in the
extent of provision for these two groups. It
appeared easier to manage policy shifts
towards restorative justice for young
offenders, as this required less of a
qualitative change in criminal justice
provision, as it could build upon existing
welfare, pedagogical or rehabilitative
models.
• Only one jurisdiction (Denmark)
claimed to be primarily victim-orientated,
whereas five (France, Norway, Poland,
Slovenia and Spain) are primarily
offender-orientated, with the other stating
orientation as mixed. There is little
correlation between a programme’s
diversionary effects and its claimed
orientation, with a diversionary effect such
as an apology being perceived as serving
different purposes in different countries.
•While some programmes were run by
professionals, others valued volunteers
highly, both because of resource
limitations and because they were seen as
being devoid of an ‘agenda’aside from a
willingness to help (Norway).
•In half of the jurisdictions direct
victim-offender mediation was the
exclusive form of victim-offender
engagement, others such as the
Netherlands preferred indirect methods.
• Factors encouraging programme
success were unsurprising. They included:
a sustained impetus for reform, common
ideology, political will, sound financial
planning, attention to detail in
implementation, reliance on research and
good supervision.
•The review identifies three models of
victim-offender mediation: integrated
provision within the Criminal Justice
System, alternative provision to divert at
an early stage, or additional provision to
run alongside the criminal justice process.
The first option was by far the most
popular.
The review concludes with a useful
summary of the arguments for and against
introduction of restorative justice
approaches. The arguments in support
highlight evidence on reducing the
frequency and severity of offending from
Austria and Germany, and the high levels
of satisfaction from those who participate.
The sceptics point to the lack of clear
definitions of restorative justice and the
difficulty of evaluating interventions when
there is lack of agreement on success
criteria.
An International Review of Restorative
Justice, 2001, by David Miers. Copies
available from Research Development
and Statistics Directorate, Room 201,
Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate,
London SW1H 9AT. Robin Tuddenham
Strategic Manager,
Barking & Dagenham Youth Offending Te a m
R&R-p292-300 22/11/01 9:15 am Page 4
To continue reading
Request your trial