Restorative Practice: Policy Context

YOUTH JUSTICE

Restorative justice has been used in the UK since its introduction to police cautioning by Thames Valley Police in 1996. Then chief constable Charles Pollard invited the Australian restorative justice conferencing pioneer Terry O'Connell to train key members of staff in police and partner agencies to deliver all cautions restoratively as well as addressing complaints and grievances within the police service through restorative conferences.

Both initiatives were independently evaluated by the Oxford Centre for Criminological Research and the Independent Police Complaints Commission respectively and found to deliver positive outcomes and increased victim satisfaction. The subsequent 1998 Crime and Disorder Act establishing the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 establishing Youth Conferencing in Northern Ireland, further enshrined restorative approaches in statute.

Restorative initiatives in secure children's homes and young offender institutions have been shown to reduce violence, decrease the need for restraint and improve education outcomes and yet cutbacks in staff and resources has meant that many of these schemes have not been able to continue. National evaluations of these practices built on existing international evidence in adult and youth contexts. These consistently highlight the benefits to be gained from high-quality practice for victims, offenders, families and the wider community but also the complexity of the process and the need for high-quality rigorous practice, which takes time and does not necessarily produce instant results.

In 2001, in response to the need for national standards and quality assurance, the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) was established as an independent membership body for the field of restorative practice (see expert view, p30). It provides quality assurance and acts as a national voice to advocate and promote high quality practice in the field.

As restorative justice has expanded beyond criminal justice and into education, social care, communities and the workplace, the RJC has established standards, accreditation and a code of practice that provide an underpinning ethical framework for practitioners, trainers and organisations in the field. With the potential for poor-quality practice to have such devastating consequences for the people involved, this role is hugely important and one that is increasingly needed as many organisations, especially in the public sector, are put under pressure to deliver "more for less" and aggressively bid for small pots of funding to carry out core functions.

BEYOND YOUTH JUSTICE

The basic principles of "restorative" - repairing harm and building relationships - have developed at different rates and in different contexts around the world. As the benefits of an approach to wrongdoing that includes all those affected by the harm have become established, so the wider use of proactive restorative practices has been introduced, focusing on building and maintaining relationships and developing problem-solving and social interaction skills to prevent harm occurring in the first place. The same ethical and explicit framework applies to the different contexts in which restorative practice takes place with an emphasis on finding out what has happened, who has been affected and how relationships can be restored, rather than who is to blame and what punishment should be applied (see ADCS view). The processes provide the opportunity for dialogue and the expression of needs and emotions in a safe environment while ensuring those who have caused the harm are held accountable for their actions.

SCHOOLS

Restorative justice was first introduced within schools to address serious incidents of misconduct and harmful behaviour and proved to be very successful (see graphic). In 2008 and 2009, evaluations of restorative approaches in schools in Barnet and Bristol showed significant reductions in exclusions and improved school attendance and a 2010 report by the Department for Education on the use and effectiveness of anti-bullying strategies gave restorative approaches the highest rating of effectiveness with 97 per cent of the schools surveyed rating restorative approaches as effective.

Hilary Cremin of the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge comments that restorative practice "resonates strongly with many existing initiatives and practices in schools, and provides a vehicle for structuring and conceptualising the work of teachers and others". The key challenge for schools has become the need for cultural change and a move from traditional, punitive discipline towards a restorative approach that recognises the wider web of relationships within schools and that a continuum of restorative practices can build social capital and community, teach important relationship skills as well as repair relationships when they are damaged.

Restorative frameworks provide a consistent, inclusive and explicit way for children to gain emotional literacy, co-operation and problem-solving skills (see practice example, p35).

The statistics suggest that primary-aged boys with social, emotional and behavioural issues is a group at high risk of exclusion, mental health issues and involvement with the criminal justice system in their teenage years, so early intervention takes on added importance. The focus on academic attainment and diagnosis of "conditions" to the detriment of relationship building across the school community is a worrying trend. Staff and young people are under increasing pressure to deliver a prescribed curriculum and meet set standards, leaving little time for developing community and getting to know and meet the individual needs of young people.

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES

Restorative practices in the family context has a well-established history linked to the family group conference - also known as family guided decision making or in the Netherlands as Eigen Kracht (own power) conferences (see research evidence, p33; practice example, p36).

In the UK, the restorative principles of bringing everyone affected by an issue or incident together to identify their needs and work towards solutions match the family group conferencing model of empowering families to find solutions to their problems. More than 75 per cent of local authorities in England and Wales currently run or commission family group conferences for children in their area.

Until recently the use of restorative practices in social work and children's services has been intermittent and lacked any rigorous evaluation. This changed in July following the publication of an evaluation of the Leeds Family Valued initiative - a programme funded by the Department for Education's Social Care Innovation Programme (see graphics).

The programme began in March 2015 and ended in December 2016 with the aim to spread restorative practice across children's services and the social work service. This included an expansion of the family group conferencing service to a much larger scale and to include families experiencing domestic violence (see research evidence, p32).

At the time of analysis, which was 16 months into the programme, evaluators found statistically significant reductions in:

• The number of child protection plans
• The number of looked-after children
• The rate of looked-after children per 10,000
• The number of children in need.

Even taking into consideration the complexity of this system change programme and the need to follow the longer-term success of these outcomes, the cultural change that has been achieved and the positive outcomes for children, families and staff are significant and offer greater opportunities and life chances for children and young people.

THE FUTURE

Restorative practices have certainly been shown to produce positive results for the lives of children, young people, families and communities across a range of indicators and the body of research evidence to support these successful outcomes is growing across the different contexts in which restorative practices have been applied. Measuring cultural change and achieving a paradigm shift in the way in which we perceive and address relationships, conflict and harm are much more complex objectives to measure and require longitudinal, qualitative study over a longer period of time. The greatest threat to the field comes from pressure to implement these processes quickly and with practitioners with little training or experience.

It is important that leaders within the organisations where restorative practices are being implemented understand that good preparation, quality training and ethical practice is crucial and practitioners need to be supported with time, resources and supervision to ensure harm is repaired and not made worse.

Relationships are at the heart of restorative practices and time and again children and young people, especially those who may have had a difficult start in life, highlight how important relationships are and how they value those adults who spend the time listening to them and helping them to work out their relationships.

The Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University highlights decades of research in behavioural and social sciences that explain why some people develop the adaptive capacities to overcome significant adversity and others do not. The single most common finding is that children who end up doing well have had at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive adult. The authors state that "these relationships provide the personalised responsiveness, scaffolding, and protection that buffer children from developmental disruption. They also build key capacities - such as the ability to plan, monitor and regulate behaviour, and adapt to changing circumstances - that enable children to respond to adversity and to thrive". Restorative practice is more than just another intervention, it provides an explicit and robust framework for building, maintaining and repairing relationships.

As an emerging social science it also has the potential to influence human behaviour and strengthen civil society.

ADCS View: Embedding restorative practice

By Alison Michalska, corporate director, children and adults at Nottingham City Council and president of ADCS

The terms restorative justice and restorative practices are often confused. Restorative justice has of course been a feature of the work of youth offending teams (YOTs) for some time but the use of restorative practices can be usefully employed by a variety of staff who work with children and young people, including teachers and staff in residential children's homes.

Our YOT in Nottingham is a recipient of the "Restorative Services Quality Mark" and we have a full-time restorative justice co-ordinator. As a result, these practices are widely embedded within our residential and foster placements, as well as school settings and with police colleagues.

I am particularly proud of the multi-layered approach we have developed locally to tackling knife crime, which is firmly rooted in restorative practices. Through the work of the targeted youth support team, a range of approaches have been developed, aimed at preventing first-time knife crime, possession and use of a weapon.

Working alongside police colleagues and secondary schools across the city - and supplemented by the work of seconded police community support officers (PCSOs) into the YOT - we deliver a range of interventions via partnership working. This includes the dissemination of "universal messages" around positive citizenship in assemblies and during enrichment days with the aim of keeping pupils safe and helping them to take pride in their city. Our YOT PCSOs and the voluntary sector also deliver targeted group interventions for those at greater risk of involvement in harmful behaviour. These can also be used by schools as an alternative to the permanent exclusion of young people caught in possession of a weapon.

In Nottingham, co-ordinated working between schools, neighbourhood policing, youth support workers and the YOT PCSOs, ensures risks are tackled at the earliest possible opportunity. There is a two-week programme to raise awareness of the risks of knife-carrying, including information on the law and the impact on health, safety and wellbeing for anyone who does become subject to a court order. For young people convicted of a knife-related offence or deemed to be at risk, attendance is required at a six-week programme that highlights how death and significant injury are associated with violent crime, while equipping young people with skills needed to save lives.

Last year, high-profile reviews by Lord Laming, Charlie Taylor and Sir Martin Narey for various government departments and charities recognised the value of using restorative approaches in youth justice and residential care settings. The recommendations in these areas have been welcomed by the government, which is a positive development, but I would like to see schools giving real consideration to adopting this way of working too. We need to think differently and more inclusively for the benefit of children and their futures. Adopting restorative approaches to problem solving isn't a quick fix, nor is it simply the role of one person - it requires cultural and organisational change, a real investment in staff development and the most precious resource of all, time.

Expert View: Invest in helping communities solve their own problems

By Chris Straker, interim chief executive, Restorative Justice Council

Restorative practice has seen growing support over the past decade, but there is still a long way to go before we achieve the Restorative Justice Council's vision of a society where high-quality restorative practice is available for all. Despite statements that restorative justice should take place at any point in the youth justice system, there are still significant issues with availability. While some youth offending trusts and custodial establishments for young people routinely use restorative justice to reduce reoffending and help victims to cope and recover, others have done less to integrate it into their work.

Beyond the justice system, a key limitation is many decision-makers seeing restorative processes as being solely restorative justice, with a victim, an offender and a conference. This limiting definition flies in the face of practice occurring all over the UK, delivered by practitioners working in the field, responding to specific issues and contexts.

The challenge for practitioners and policymakers is to move restorative practice into the centre of the debate on how best to achieve positive outcomes for young people and families in the present funding climate.

There are several barriers to restorative practice being used more widely, and one of them is cost. Decision-makers in the public sector see their budgets shrinking and the idea of introducing entirely new ways of working can be viewed as a costly risk. But the reactive nature of so much work in the social care system is a strain on limited resources; too much money is spent on fixing problems after they've happened. The adoption of proactive restorative practice would offer longer-term benefits and reduce the cost of breakdowns in placements, reoffending, exclusions and the criminalisation of young people.

Trigger for reform

There are other powerful arguments for restorative practice, besides saving money. In a criminal justice setting, Transform Justice recently produced an insightful guide on how to communicate arguments for reform. Their research looked at which beliefs trigger support for reform, and found that a cost-saving argument is not very effective at engaging people. According to their research, cost can provide a useful secondary argument, but values such as national progress, problem-solving and human potential are more likely to get people interested in reform. Although this guide is specific to criminal justice reform, the idea that there are other more powerful arguments for change than cost is useful to bear in mind when advocating for restorative practice.

For example, restorative practice develops responsibility and resilience in individuals and communities. It requires a different way of working with families, leaving behind the model which sees the professional as "expert" and "rescuer". It aims to work with young people and families and as such rejects a narrative loaded with presumptions of dependency. There is a secondary cost-saving argument here: if we spend money on developing the skills and knowledge that already exist in the communities, we spend a lot less on training expert professionals. The really powerful argument here is that more trust is put into the ability of communities to achieve positive outcomes for themselves.

Fairness, trust and responsibility are at the heart of restorative working and are essential skills for young people as they engage with all the new experiences they face as they develop. Restorative practice supports and challenges young people and families to actively engage in decision-making about themselves. It moves them from the margin to the centre.

By Nicola Preston, a senior lecturer in special educational needs and inclusion at the University of Northampton, and adjunct faculty for the International Institute for Restorative Practices Graduate School. She is a former police officer, primary school teacher and SEN coordinator with more than 20 years of experience in restorative practices. nicolapreston@iirp.edu
@NicolaPreston9

FURTHER READING

Restorative justice, 4th Report of the House of Commons Justice Committee, July 2016

The European Union Victims Directive, 2012

International Institute for Restorative Practices, resources

Code of practice for trainers and practitioners, Restorative Justice Council

Improving school climate: findings from school implementing restorative practices, International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2009