Written evidence from the Restorative Justice Council

About the Restorative Justice Council (RJC)

The RJC is the independent third sector membership body for the field of restorative practice. It provides a national voice advocating the widespread use of all forms of restorative practice, including restorative justice, and raises public awareness and confidence in restorative processes. The RJC sets and champions standards for the restorative justice field, provides quality assurance, and supports organisations in the field to build on their capacity and accessibility. The aim of the RJC is to enable safe, high quality restorative practice to develop and thrive.

About restorative justice

Restorative justice gives victims the chance to meet or communicate with their offender(s) to explain the real impact of the crime. It empowers victims by giving them a voice. It also holds offenders to account for what they have done and helps them take responsibility and make amends. During a restorative justice meeting, the offender and victim will often agree on certain actions that the offender can undertake to repair the harm they have caused. Research conducted in the UK by the Ministry of Justice demonstrates that restorative justice provides an 85% victim satisfaction rate and a 14% reduction in the frequency of reoffending[i], with a Campbell Collaboration systematic review finding a “clear and compelling” effect on reoffending over a two year period[ii]. Evidence from other countries also demonstrates the impact that restorative justice can have. For example research conducted in New Zealand has found that, in adults, restorative justice led to a 23% reduction in offences committed[iii].

About restorative practice

Restorative practice is a broader approach which can be used in a number of settings to deal with conflict and prevent harm. It involves a range of methods involving face to face conferences, the use of restorative language, and the use of circles – a structured way of encouraging members of a group to share the impact of an incident and to contribute to finding a solution. Restorative practice can be used as a preventative measure to stop relationship-damaging incidents from occurring and to promote a positive environment and way of communicating. It can also be used after incidents as a form of resolution. Restorative practice is effective in building strong relationships and has been shown to prevent and manage conflict in schools, children’s services, workplaces, hospitals, prisons and communities.

Introduction

1. The RJC advocates for restorative justice to be embedded in the criminal justice system for young adult offenders. We support the provision of the most effective interventions for this offender group based on maturity rather than age and research suggests that restorative justice may work particularly well for young adult offenders yet to reach maturity[iv]. It is a measure with benefits for the offender as well as for the victim.

2. Our recommendations:

1. Restorative justice should be available in all appropriate cases for young adult offenders at every stage of the criminal justice process: as a diversionary measure, as part of out of court disposals and community sentences and alongside custodial sentences. There are a number of restorative interventions already offered in the youth justice system and these opportunities should be extended to young adults.
2. Within custodial settings holding young adult offenders, we recommend the use of restorative practice to build a positive environment and to repair relationships following harmful incidents. Increasing the use of restorative practice will help to tackle bullying and violence, as well as build the self-esteem of young adult offenders.
3. All restorative justice for young adult offenders must be high quality, with adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable participants, meeting the standards laid down by the RJC. We recommend high quality follow-ups after a conference has taken place and suitable needs assessments undertaken prior to the restorative meetings.

3. The RJC, in partnership with the Transition to Adulthood Alliance and the Barrow Cadbury Trust produced a report, Restorative Justice for Young Adults: Factoring in Maturity and Facilitating Desistance, which explores this topic in depth. For further analysis and more detail on supporting evidence, the report can be found -www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/restorative-justice-young-adults-factoring-maturity-and-facilitating-desistance-0

Response to the consultation questions

2. The suitability of current provision for young adult offenders, directly responding to:  

• What is the evidence on how outcomes across a range of measures for young adult offenders compare with other offenders?

4. The evidence strongly supports restorative justice as an intervention with positive outcomes for young adult offenders. Its effectiveness in reducing recidivism by young people and adults is already well documented and research suggests that, due to the maturing process, restorative justice may be particularly successful in supporting young adult offenders to desist.

5. Research into youth justice in Northern Ireland, where restorative justice conferencing is the default response to young offenders[v], has shown it to be highly effective in supporting young offenders to stop committing crimes. The combined reoffending rate was 37.7% following youth restorative conferencing – for custodial sentences it was 70.7%, and for community sentences it was 52.1%[vi]. Accounting for the strength of this evidence base for young offenders, it is highly unlikely that the effects would diminish when the offender turns 18. Indeed, factors relating to the development of maturity make restorative justice particularly powerful for young adults.

6. Young adult offenders are the most likely group to desist if given the right intervention (as found in research on 16-24 year olds[vii]). The evidence shows that the wrong interventions – often custodial interventions – actually serve to increase criminality in young adult offenders. Ensuring that the best, most effective, interventions are offered is therefore essential. There are a number of ways in which restorative justice supports desistance which make it a particularly important intervention for this group[viii]. They may have already begun to consider a life beyond crime as part of maturing, and restorative justice can help to support this process. 

7. Restorative justice can encourage personal responsibility and empathy, a process often linked with maturity and cognitive development. It holds the offender accountable and simultaneously encourages them to believe they can change: they are left with a feeling of self-efficacy, which is particularly important to young adults. Young offenders are more likely to conform to behavioural contracts they see as fair, and which they have contributed and agreed to[ix]; consent is central to restorative justice, making it highly satisfying, particularly for young people. We would expect this to also be the case for young adult offenders, and by giving them a chance to participate and have their voices heard, restorative processes can help them to build a sense of self-worth while tackling offending behaviour.

• Taking into account the findings of the Harris Review, what measures should be prioritised in addressing levels of suicide, self-harm, and violence amongst young adult offenders currently held in custody?

8. We would like to see more restorative practice used for young adults in prison. This will help to build relationships between prisoners and between prisoners and officers, as well as to instil a sense of self-worth in young adult prisoners. Restorative practice within prisons can take the form of a restorative meeting after a serious incident, such as an assault, or an informal intervention to resolve low level conflict.

9. Some prisons and Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) are already using restorative approaches as a tool for resolving violent altercations. In HMP and YOI Parc, where restorative practice is being trialled, prisoners and prison officers have noticed a distinct change in the behaviour of prisoners and atmosphere on the wings. Given this, we support the implementation of this approach for young adults in custody. This needs to be a systematic implementation of restorative practice, as opposed to a ‘bolt-on’, to create long-term positive relationships within custodial settings.

10. In addition to restorative practice being used as a tool for resolving violent incidents, there is the potential to use these processes to improve prisoner self-awareness and coping skills. There is a growing interest in the youth estate for using this technique to achieve these outcomes, and this is currently being trialled in Feltham and Cookham Wood YOIs. We propose the collection of high quality data from these pilots to inform the use of future restorative practice in the penal system. 

11. Evidence from a range of sectors shows that restorative practice can help to minimise conflict and promote positive relationships. In Atkinson Secure Children’s Home, restorative practice led to a 91% decrease in the use of restraint, providing a safer and more positive environment for residents and staff alike. In children’s homes in Norfolk, introducing more restorative interventions resulted in a reduction in violence and disorderly behaviour, which in turn led to 19% fewer police call-outs and a 52% drop in charges.

12. Embedding restorative practice in prisons necessitates an understanding of the pre-existing relationship and hierarchical structures within the prison. Any intervention in YOIs or prisons needs sufficient flexibility to take these relationships into account[x]. Whole organisation buy-in is needed to make sure that the dynamics within the prison environment are understood and accounted for as part of the restorative process.

3. The Harris Review advocated a distinct approach to young adult offenders. Is this desirable? If so, what would this entail i) in the community and ii) in custody? If not, why not? Please address the following:

• The Harris Review recommended that more young adults should be diverted from custody and from the criminal justice system. Is it appropriate to seek to divert more young adults from custody and the criminal justice system, and if so, how would this best be achieved?

13. We would like to see restorative justice used increasingly for young adult offenders both as a diversionary measure and as part of out of court disposals, to ensure fewer offenders enter the custodial estate. Restorative justice would support the development of maturity and act as a stepping stone on the path to desistance for young adults.

14. There are many cases where, if the victim is willing to participate, it is appropriate to use restorative justice as a diversionary measure for young adult offenders as an alternative to proceeding to charge and prosecution. This already takes place for both young and adult offenders and we propose to formalise the use of these diversionary measures specifically for young adults. For low-level offending, trained police offices can administer youth restorative disposals which can include a direct encounter with the victim[xi].

15. Other diversionary measures for minor offences can include restorative cautions and youth conditional cautions involving restorative justice. In Surrey, the youth justice landscape has been transformed with the introduction of a Youth Restorative Intervention (YRI), run jointly between the youth support service and Surrey police. A pre-court disposal, and an alternative to the youth conditional caution or prosecution, it is the default disposal for offenders under the age of 18 who admit guilt. The results of the YRI speak for themselves: a 50% reduction in youth crime and a more than 60% reduction in serious youth crime in the last four years[xii].

16. In Northern Ireland, the majority of young offenders are dealt with by diversionary restorative justice with the stated aim of keeping young people out of prison[xiii]. The courts receive only a minority of the total youth justice caseload[xiv]. The police in the first instance can divert young people from the courts system with restorative cautions. If cases are referred to the Public Prosecution Service, these can be referred back to the police for a restorative caution or referred for a diversionary youth conference[xv]. When cases are tried in court in Northern Ireland, the option remains for a restorative solution. In 2013, 46.4% of young offenders convicted by the courts received a youth conference order rather than a custodial sentence[xvi]. Custody is truly a last resort used only for the most serious offences.

17. We strongly support the introduction of these diversionary measures in England and Wales not just for young offenders but also for young adults to reduce the numbers of young adults entering custody. Where a community sentence is deemed appropriate, restorative justice should form a part of the sentence, in line with the practice in Northern Ireland. Community Rehabilitation Companies have an important role to play in offering and delivering high-quality restorative justice services to offenders, and it is essential that they have the capacity and capability to do so. 

18. Regardless of the stage of restorative justice intervention, it must be of a high quality and practitioners need to take into account maturity factors specific to young adults. This can include an awareness of the chaotic lifestyles young adults may have which can lead to attendance issues at meetings; their dependence on family; low levels of emotional literacy; difficulties in accepting responsibility for their own actions and a lack of a sense of ownership over their own lives.

19. The restorative justice process must also provide adequate safeguards for vulnerable offenders. In one study, an offender did not receive a prompt follow-up, and was left distressed, believing that the victim had not had a positive experience. The offender’s initial positive feelings following the conference were undone by a lack of follow-up and poor quality aftercare.

20. A full assessment of the offenders prior to the restorative conference must take place[xvii]. This should involve an assessment of the crime, and the potential risk of emotional harm to participants. At this stage, consideration can be given to how to manage these risks, and opportunities formed to promote a safe and constructive dialogue.

4. What legislative or other barriers are there to more appropriate practices for young adult offenders and how could these be overcome?

There remain significant barriers to restorative justice being used more widely as an intervention.

a)      To ensure restorative justice is delivered safely and effectively to young adult offenders, the process needs to adhere to recognised standards, as promoted by the RJC. Long term funding provided to Police and Crime Commissioners, voluntary sector providers and multi-agency partnerships is required to ensure that skilled resources are in place to provide high quality restorative justice to all. Interventions must be carried out by experienced facilitators that have been accredited in line with standards developed by the RJC and supported by the Ministry of Justice.

b)      Our research found that awareness and understanding of restorative justice among the public is low – only 30% had heard of it[xviii]. This means offender knowledge is also likely to be poor. Recent research suggests this makes offenders suspicious and unwilling to participate[xix]. We would like to see better information being given to offenders about the restorative justice process, its safeguards and benefits.

c)      It is essential that victims are made aware of their rights. The EU Victims’ Directive, to be implemented into British law on 16 November this year, makes clear that victims should be given information about the available restorative justice services ‘from the first contact with a competent authority.’ The Victims’ Code already entitles victims to be given information on restorative justice and how to take part. Ensuring that these obligations are fulfilled is key in ensuring that restorative justice is used more widely as an intervention for offenders of all ages. 

d)      We need greater awareness of the potential for restorative justice to take place at any point in the criminal justice system, including at pre-sentence stage. The Crown and Courts Act 2013 allows for the passing of a sentence to be deferred in order for restorative justice to take place, in cases in which an offender has admitted guilt and both the offender and the victim agree to take part. Raising awareness of this opportunity, in both Crown and Magistrates' courts would help to ensure this opportunity is not missed.

e)      We often hear from our members and partner agencies that a lack of information sharing is a huge problem. Data protection laws and lack of national agreements inhibit information sharing between statutory and non-statutory criminal justice agencies and restorative justice providers. Recent research[xx] has found that data protection regulations prevent agencies such as the national probation service and community rehabilitation companies sharing information about offenders. Even when it is technically possible for agencies to share information, a lack of trust, legal restrictions or uncertainty about how the information may be used may hold them back.

Some trailblazers, such as the Thames Valley multi-agency hub[xxi], have introduced protocols for information sharing to minimise this problem. National standards for agreements of this kind would mean more restorative justice practitioners were able to identify and approach likely candidates for restorative justice.

September 2015