Police as Restorative Justice Facilitators

RJC's response to the Victim's Code consultation paper

Dan Van Ness — 2013-05-03T01:00:00Z

3. RJC also welcomes the duty on the police to offer restorative justice to victims where such a service is provided by the police. Where the restorative service is provided by a partner agency the police should inform victims about the service and refer them, but not be required to make the offer of restorative justice, as the actual offer of restorative justice should only be made by a trained restorative justice facilitator working to national standards. In many areas restorative services are led by agencies other than the police. We therefore propose that the duty to offer restorative justice be amended to require the police to refer victims to the relevant restorative justice service, whether this service is provided by the police, or by a partner agency.

4. In our response to Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses the RJC expressed a concern that a right to ask for restorative justice subject to resources did not amount to a new entitlement for victims if it did not affect the response that victims are entitled to receive.7 The publication of the corresponding duties relating to the entitlements in the Victims Code provides some clarity with respect to how victims will be treated where a restorative service is available to them. We would welcome further clarity with respect to how victims will be treated where no restorative service is available locally – as this is still the experience for too many victims, particularly victims of adult offenders and victims of more serious offences.

5. In our experience victims have been poorly treated when requesting information about restorative justice from services who have little or no awareness about what restorative justice is, when it is suitable or whether it is available in their local area. Victims can be made to feel as though their request is odd, an inconvenience, misinformed or even immoral (for example where relatives of victims of homicide have made the request).

6. Amending the victim’s entitlement to ask for restorative justice (subject to it being available) to a right to be informed about the availability of restorative justice in their area would help address the poor treatment of victims who have requested access to restorative justice from the police.

7. We expect that the majority of police forces may already have received sufficient restorative justice awareness training to fulfill this duty. However, there is a need for the police to be supplied with accurate, up-to-date information about the availability of restorative justice in their local area and to be able to provide accurate information and signposting as to what is available for victims of more serious offences, at later stages of the CJS.

8. The availability of restorative justice is complex as it is affected by a range of considerations including the stage of the criminal justice system the request has been made, how the offence was handled by the justice system (ie whether or not the offence was prosecuted, and what type of sentence imposed) and the wide range of agencies potentially offering restorative justice services locally (including probation, prisons, youth offending teams, neighbourhood justice panels, charities, local mediation services, schools, local authorities, care-homes, housing associations). Therefore the police will need to understand exactly what is available in their area. The RJC provides an online ‘Restorative Services Map’ which could be a useful sign-posting tool for victims and the police.

We therefore propose that the entitlement to ask for restorative justice where it is available is amended to a right to be informed about the availability of restorative justice locally.

Read the whole response.

Restorative Justice in the Greater Manchester Police

Dan Van Ness — 2012-03-09T06:00:00Z

The move to RJ was fully endorsed by Peter Fahy, GMP’s Chief Constable. Under his leadership, the key challenge for GMP was to implement awell-proven but radically different method that would need a major cultural shift to be successful following a decade of performance targets. He was also conscious that while the RJ approach requires the same level of work and delivers better outcomes, it may result in fewer arrests and fewer sanctioned detections. The decision to go with RJ carried the risk that, at a time of budget cuts and following documented target successes, GMP would be embarking on an innovation the benefits of which could be hard to quantify.

....For victims of crime, RJ helps produce an outcome they can control. It offers a choice; not all victims want to go to court but they do want their questions answered. Victim satisfaction levels are 96% for RJ interventions, where previously they were around 78%.

Currently some 3-4% of all crime across GMP is now dealt with in a restorative way with around 5,000 RJ interventions over the past year. For a new programme, this indicates very strong buy-in from officers.

Community groups have been very supportive of the RJ policy and are approaching GMP to see if they too can engage in the RJ process. It was unexpected that people would want to get involved and take on some of the work.

Relations between GMP and schools have also benefited. There are now more RJ interventions and fewer arrests of children of school age, police are invited to schools more often and some schools are willing to pay for a dedicated officer. The increased use of RJ also means fewer perpetrators of petty crimes, such as stealing sweets, end up with a criminal record yet they do subsequently change their behaviour for the better.

Many officers across GMP are now passionate about RJ. Analysis shows that re-offending levels are low, and officers describe the policy as “high impact”, “very powerful”, “it works” and that it is “a proven part of the toolkit”. One officer noted “I feel morally it’s the right thing to do. I haven’t always felt that”.

Read the whole report.

Pioneer justice scheme is working in Norfolk

Lynette Parker — 2011-10-24T05:00:00Z

Figures released by Norfolk police for the last quarter show that just 10.4pc of children and young people and 14pc of adults dealt with through the restorative approach go onto reoffend. They also show that:

85pc of victims said they had confidence in the police using restorative justice
89pc of participants were satisfied with the outcome
87pc of participants feel restorative justice is effective in dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour
93pc of particants are satisfied with their treatment
83pc of participants are confident in the ability of police and partners to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour having been exposed to restorative justice

...Peter Merry, head of criminal justice at Norfolk and Suffolk Police, said: “We utilise restorative justice to deliver an outcome that is valued by the victim, makes a difference to the community and which impacts positively on offending behaviour.

“We use the professionalism, commitment, dedication, judgement, skills and training of our staff, those of partner agencies and our citizens themselves to make a real difference to the communities of Norfolk. It’s about listening and responding to the needs of those we serve fairly and inclusively, as a collective.”

...The process also offers good value for money with an average restorative justice intervention costing £25 per person compared to £1,036 for each person placed through the court system.

...All of Norfolk’s Safer Neighbourhood Teams have the ability to use restorative justice to address crime issues and anti-social behaviour with members of the panels being asked to come up with ideas to ensure that those caught for minor offences can make a positive contribution to society.

Read the full article.

Lancashire's restorative justice scheme criticised

Dan Van Ness — 2010-06-14T05:00:00Z

Yet a critical study into how different divisions within Lancashire police use the interventions shows a ‘lack of clarity’, a ‘lack of confidence’ and a ‘lack of faith’ amongst some officers.

It stated there was a ‘cultural and ideological resistance’ to the option.

According to the report, which looked at figures for restorative justice (RJ) between April 2009 and March 2010, its use has shot up in East Lancashire.

In Eastern division covering Blackburn, Darwen, Hyndburn and the Ribble Valley, 800 ‘harmers’ have been dealt with using an RJ - with a 328 per cent increase from quarter one to quarter four.

Similarly in Pennine for Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, there have been 877 RJs used, with a 232 per cent increase from first to last quarter.

Read the whole article.

Stewart, Anna Louise and Smith, Frances. Youth Justice Conferencing and Police Referrals: The Gatekeeping Role of Police in Queensland, Australia

Stewart, Anna Louise and Smith, Frances — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

Youth justice conferencing in Queensland, Australia is a process which brings together those people in the community which have been most affected by a criminal offense the offender, the victim, and their supporters, and was established after an amendment in 1996 to the Juvenile Justice Act of 1992. Youth justice conferencing relies on the discretionary referral of young offenders by the police. Since the introduction of conferencing, low rates of police referrals were identified as a critical issue in undermining the successful implementation of conferencing. This study explored Queensland police officers’ training, experience, understandings of youth justice conferencing, and their individual discretionary policing style. In addition, the impact of these factors on officers’ attitudes towards conferencing and their reported likelihood of referring to conference were examined. Of the 600 questionnaires mailed out to randomly selected operational police officers in the Metropolitan North, Metropolitan South, Southeastern, and Southern regions, 184 questionnaires were available for analyses. Of the 184 police officers, 28 reported that they had never heard of conferencing. Of those officers who had heard of conferencing, the majority had received no training in relation to conferencing. Overall, surveyed officers who had heard of conferencing considered it to be a positive process. Those who had received training were more likely to endorse conferencing as a positive process. In addition, exposure to conferencing increased officers’ beliefs in the effectiveness of conferencing and ensured they were familiar with the procedures involved in conferencing. Study limitations are presented and briefly discussed. Abstract courtesy of National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. An evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of an initiative in restorative cautioning

Joseph Rowntree Foundation — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

In 1998, Thames Valley Police launched a restorative cautioning initiative, whereby police officers administering cautions were meant to invite all those affected by the offence, including victims, to a meeting. The police officer used a script to facilitate a structured discussion about the harm caused by the offence and how this could be repaired. Richard Young and Carolyn Hoyle of Oxford University helped the police to implement this new way of cautioning, and carried out a formal evaluation of the process and the outcomes achieved. The researchers found that: Thames Valley Police was largely successful in transforming its cautioning practice. The restorative justice script was used in over two-thirds of cautions. Over the first three years of the initiative, 1,915 restorative conferences took place at which victims were present. In a further 12,065 restorative cautions, the views of any absent victims were relayed by the cautioning officer. This is the largest-scale restorative justice programme in the United Kingdom to date. Implementation of the restorative cautioning model in individual cautions was often deficient. Police facilitators sometimes sidelined the other participants and occasionally asked illegitimate questions. By the end of the research project implementation was much better, although still not always good. Offenders, victims and their respective supporters were generally satisfied with the fairness of the process and the outcomes achieved. Cautioning sessions that adhered most closely to restorative justice principles tended to produce the most positive outcomes. Restorative cautioning appears to be significantly more effective than traditional cautioning in reducing the risk of re-offending. (excerpt)

Shaw, Mandy. Hard Coating, Soft Centre? The Role of the Police in Dordrecht Offender Rehabilitation Programmes

Shaw, Mandy — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

As Mandy Shaw explains, Dordrecht rehabilitation programs take their name from a successful program initiated in Dordrecht, Holland, in 1992. Dordrecht programs offer offenders convicted of burglary in criminal court an alternative to a custodial prison sentence. They are designed to address the root causes of persistent offending through intensive supervision and rehabilitation instead of incarceration. When an offender agrees to participate in a Dordrecht program, it typically involves two program personnel, one from the police service and one from the probation service. Shaw characterizes the Dordrecht model as an extension of restorative justice. Just as the restorative justice approach represents a change in offender-victim interaction after a crime from retribution to restitution so the Dordrecht approach consists of a new interaction between the offender and the police. With all of this in mind, and in a United Kingdom context, Shaw explores the role of the police in the interplay between "hard" and "soft" policing elements of the Dordrecht model.

O'Mahony, David and Doak, Jonathan. Restorative Justice -- Is More Better?: The Experience of Police-Led Restorative Cautioning Pilots in Northern Ireland

O'Mahony, David and Doak, Jonathan — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

Under the two programs, juveniles (under 17 years old) who committed an offense were diverted from formal prosecution through a formal caution under a restorative justice approach. Evaluation researchers conducted fieldwork from September 2000 to April 2001. All case files (n=1,861) handled by the juvenile liaison officers in the 2 areas over the duration of the project were reviewed. Attention was given to the types of cases that came to the attention of the liaison officers and how the cases were resolved, categorized as "no further police action," "advice and warning," "caution," or "prosecution." The conferences typically consisted of the officer inviting the juvenile to state in his/her own words what they had done to warrant police action. This was usually followed with a question about the youth's motivation for committing the offense. The facilitator would then inquire about the actual and potential consequences of the act for the victim (not present), the juvenile's family, and the juvenile himself/herself. The conference would result in a cautioning agreement that might include expression of remorse, agreement to pay for damage, a written apology to the victim, and agreement to perform certain duties or engage in prescribed behaviors. Evaluators conducted interviews with 29 participants, their parents, and their victims. All participants valued the philosophy underlying the programs and viewed their implementation as appropriate and effective; however, there were two major areas of concern identified by evaluators, i.e., the risk of "net-widening" (drawing offenders into police processing who would have previously received only a verbal caution or warning from police) and the lack of significant victim participation in the programs. Abstract courtesy of National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.

Fitzgerald, Jacqueline and Vignaendra, Sumitra. Reoffending Among Young People Cautioned by Police or Who Participated in Youth Justice Conference.

Fitzgerald, Jacqueline and Vignaendra, Sumitra — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

This study investigated the rate of reoffending among young people who were cautioned by New South Wales (NSW) Police or who participated in a youth justice conference for the first time in 1999. Results of this study showed that continued contact with the criminal justice system also occurred among those participating in diversionary alternatives to court; however, this contact seemed less common. This is particularly true for offenders who are older at their first caution or conference, female offenders, and non-Indigenous offenders. Although the study showed a clear difference in the rate of appearance in court for those given a caution versus a conference, this difference should not be taken as an indication of the relative effectiveness of cautions versus conferences in reducing juvenile reoffending. Since 1998, a significant proportion of young offenders in New South Wales (NSW) have been dealt with by warning caution or youth justice conference under the Young Offenders Act of 1997 rather than proceeding through the traditional court system. Utilizing two cohorts of young people, one of which was cautioned by NSW Police in 1999 and the other completing a youth justice conference, this study describes the likelihood and frequency of reoffending, the time it takes to reoffend, and the likelihood of receiving a penalty of imprisonment all within 5 years of the caution or conference. (Abstract courtesy of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.

Thames Valley Police. Thames Valley Police Chief Constable's Annual Report 1998-1999.

Thames Valley Police — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

This annual report for the Thames Valley Police highlights the major efforts and directions for policing in the Thames Valley area for 1998-1999 and beyond. As indicated in the Chief Constable’s foreword, the focus has been on development of a problem-solving approach to policing, both for crime prevention and for resolution of crimes that occur. Additionally, the police have worked closely with local authorities to forge new statutory partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and they have extended the principles and uses of restorative justice across the police force. The principal application was the restorative conference, a process whereby trained police facilitators bring together young offenders, their families, and the victims of their crimes to acknowledge and address the harm caused by the crime or crimes. The report covers key statistics on crime and policing, initiatives in local communities, and specific policing areas or issues (e.g., road safety, racism, crime prevention, and restorative justice).

Cunningham, Teresa. Pre-court diversion in the Northern Territory: impact on juvenile reoffending.

Cunningham, Teresa — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

A juvenile pre-court diversion scheme was introduced in the Northern Territory in 2000. Administered by police, it uses warnings and conferences to divert selected juveniles from the court process. This paper reports on an analysis of Northern Territory police records on 3,597 apprehended juveniles over a 5 year period. Findings showed that the great majority of juveniles (76%) did not reoffend within the first year after their initial diversion or court appearance. However, there were significant differences between juveniles who attended court and those who were diverted, both in terms of risk of reoffending and time to reoffending. Those who were diverted reoffended less than those who attended court and those who went to court reoffended more quickly. Property offenders who attended court were 30 percent more at risk of reoffending than violent offenders. Further work is required to see if the different effects for court versus diversion remain if prior offending history is taken into account. The significant differences in offending related to age, gender, Indigenous status and location confirm the need for specific responses to particular groups of juveniles. (author's abstract)

Wachtel, Benjamin and McCold, Paul. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Summary.

Wachtel, Benjamin and McCold, Paul — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

This paper updates preliminary results reported in 1996. (For that report, see the following. McCold, Paul, and John Stahr. 1996. "Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project." Paper, with preliminary results, presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference, Annual Meeting. Chicago, 20-23 November 1996.)This paper is an evaluation of a restorative justice program operated by the police in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a mid-sized American city. Although developed independently from the restorative justice movement, family group conferencing is considered an important new development in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively with young offenders by diverting them from court and involving their extended families and victims in addressing their wrongdoing. Originating in New Zealand in 1989, conferencing was substantially revised as a community policing technique in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, in 1991. The 'Wagga model' was introduced to North America in 1995 by the Real Justice® organization.

Heslop, J. Diverting Young Offenders from the Formal Justice System

Heslop, J — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

Two alternatives to institutionalization for juvenile offenders, police cautioning and the juvenile and mediation reparation programs, in New South Wales are described. A caution is a formal procedure in which the offender admits to the commission of a less serious offense and agrees to participate with a parent or guardian in the caution process at a police station. In the mediation/reparation program, young offenders are encouraged to make direct amends to the victims of the crime. Any agreement between the two parties is monitored by the Community Justice Center. Benefits are incurred in this type of program for the victim, the young offender, the community, and the police.

McCold, Paul. Police-Facilitated Restorative Conferencing. What the Data Show

McCold, Paul — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

The recent development of police officers conducting community conferences for juvenile offenders has created concern among restorative justice advocates. This paper considers the potential dangers and benefits of police-facilitated conferences in light of recent empirical evaluations of restorative policing and earlier evaluations of criminal mediation programs in the U.S. and Canada. Results demonstrate that police are capable of conducting such programs in a highly restorative manner. Police conferences were rated higher than mediation programs on participant satisfaction and sense of fairness. The advantages of police operated restorative program include direct access to cases and a much lower operational cost. Police can become important stakeholders in the restorative justice movement. There is a need for future program evaluations to use consistent measurements to confirm these findings, but initial evidence suggest the concerns raised pose a greater threat to some criminal mediation programs than to police-facilitated conferencing programs.

Wachtel, Benjamin and McCold, Paul. The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project

Wachtel, Benjamin and McCold, Paul — 2007-03-04T23:41:09Z

This is a report on the Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. First-time moderately serious juvenile offenders were randomly assigned either to formal adjudication or to a diversionary "restorative policing" process called family group conferencing. Police-based family group conferencing employs trained police officers to facilitate a meeting attended by juvenile offenders, their victims, and their respective family and friends, to discuss the harm caused by the offender's actions and to develop an agreement to repair the harm. Victim and offender participation is voluntary. The effect of the program was measured through surveys of victims, offenders, offender's parents and police officers and by examining outcomes of conferences and formal adjudication. Results are related to six questions about restorative policing. Findings include: 42% participation rate, 100% of conferences (n=67) reaching an agreement, 94% of offenders (n=80) fully complying with agreements, and participant satisfaction and sense of fairness exceeding 96%. Results suggests that recidivism was more a function of offenders choice to participate than the effects of the conferencing, per se. Violent offenders participating in conferences had lower rearrest rates than violent offenders declining to participate, but this was not true for property offenders.