Restorative justice-based practices in settings with children and young people
| Author | Duncan E Gillard |
| Published date | 01 March 2015 |
| Date | 01 March 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1461355714566784 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Restorative justice-based practices in
settings with children and young people:
Examining the views of young people
Duncan E Gillard
Bristol Education Centre, UK
Abstract
The Youth Justice Board and the Department for Education (DfE) share the common goal of reducing harmful behaviour
in children and young people. In both sectors, evidence for the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) practices is
mounting, yet there is little clarity regarding the psychological mechanisms through which RJ works. The voice of
young people is documented in the literature through surveys and closed-question response formats. However, an
in-depth characterisation of young people’s experiences is largely lacking. In this article, six young people are interviewed
about their experiences of RJ. Transcripts are thematically analysed in an inductive manner. Analysis is interpreted in
terms of the Empowerment Model of RJ, Responsive Regulation and Cognitive Dissonance Theory. It is suggested that
RJ practices are effective because: (a) they empower stakeholders, (b) responses processes are contextually sensitive and
(c) they provide frameworks for effectively managing the cognitive dissonance experienced by participants.
Keywords
Restorative justice, restorative approaches, schools, Empowerment Model, responsive regulation, cognitive dissonance
Submitted 04 Sep 2014, accepted 10 Dec 2014
Introduction
Purpose
Evidence for the effectiveness of practices based upon
restorative justice (RJ) in reducing harmful behaviour in
children and young people (C&YP), when compared with
retributive approaches, is mounting. This is not only true
of practices currently employed by the Youth Justice sys-
tem (Campbell et al., 2005; Walker, 2002), but also when
RJ is applied in educational settings (Irley and Ivkar,
2003; Kane et al., 2006; Shaw and Wierenga, 2002). A
number of contender theories exist as potential explana-
tions for this. However, as Morrison (2005) has pointed out,
no theory has thus far identified a causal mechanism under-
pinning RJ. The voice of C&YP with regard to these issues
has been gathered through a number of different methodo-
logical approaches, although most have relied upon quanti-
tative and/or survey-based data. The lack of in-depth
understanding and systematic characterisations of C&YP’s
restorative experiences is likely to be a contributing factor
in this lack of theoretical clarity. The purpose of this under-
taking is to develop such an understanding.
Context
RJ-based responses to harmful behaviour challenge many
of the core assumptions of traditional, retributive
approaches. For example, a restorative approach (RA)
assumes that victims of crime should have the opportunity
to play an active role in the development of consequences,
that victims and offenders are not necessarily enemies and
that formal retribution is not the most effective way to
reduce reoffending (Sherman and Strang, 2007). These
Corresponding author:
Duncan E Gillard, Bristol Education Centre, Sheridan Road, Horfield,
Bristol BS7 0PU, UK.
Email: duncan.gillard@bristol.gov.uk
International Journalof
Police Science & Management
2015, Vol. 17(1) 50–59
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355714566784
psm.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial