Restorative justice the research evidence and implications for

Restorative justice: the research evidence and implications for Scotland Public dialogues on restorative justice and Scotland, Scottish Universities Insight Institute, Glasgow, 13 March 2017 Joanna Shapland Chair Restorative Justice Forum (Scotland) 1

Restorative justice 'Restorative justice is a process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future' (Marshall 1999) I shall be talking about restorative justice (RJ) as a response to criminal offences so implies: both offender and victim involved, with a mediator/facilitator and sometimes their supporters – it is inclusive and voluntary need to distinguish restorative justice from restorative practices (e. g. community service as ‘community reparation’, ‘payback’) – for me, RJ involves two-way communication between offender and victim not a means of 'trying' offences; normally requires that offender has already pleaded guilty or admitted offence 2

An 'umbrella concept' with many different forms round the world - and growing … Victim Offender Mediation or Victim Offender Reconciliation Projects - just V, O and mediator q may be either direct mediation (face to face) q or indirect or shuttle mediation (mediator passes information between the parties) conferencing (police or court-based) - involves supporters of V and O as well. Typically: q offender says how offence came about, may apologise (questions about offence) q victim and others say about effects of offence q then parties turn to think about the future and may produce an outcome agreement youth panel model - with community panel, as in referral orders for first offenders in E&W youth justice sentencing circles (Canada, Australia) community reconciliation - Truth and Reconciliation Commissions 3

Most restorative justice projects internationally: • have involved young offenders and minor offences • mostly as diversion from criminal justice, or, sometimes, within criminal justice But, our evaluation of three restorative justice schemes (funded by the Home Office/Ministry of Justice) primarily involved: • adult offenders and often serious offences • restorative justice within criminal justice - people experienced both - at a variety of different stages of the criminal justice process. 4

The schemes we evaluated (all offences with personal victims; 840 restorative justice events; observed 285 conferences, interviews with 180 offenders and 259 victims experiencing restorative justice): • Justice Research Consortium (JRC): – conferencing with random assignment – pre-sentence in London Crown Courts for adults, led by police facilitators – pre-sentence for adults, final warnings for youths, some adult caution cases in Northumbria, led by police facilitators – community sentences and prison pre-release in Thames Valley (all adults), led by probation officer, prison officer or community mediation facilitators • CONNECT: – victim-offender indirect and direct mediation and conferencing (matched control groups) – pre-sentence, or during sentence, for adults, mostly in two magistrates’ court areas in London • REMEDI: – victim-offender mediation throughout S Yorkshire (matched control groups) – community sentences and prison for adults, youth justice and diversion for young offenders 5

What should restorative justice be aiming to achieve? In our evaluation of the three schemes, there were two major aims: • whether restorative justice reduced reoffending • to focus on the needs and rights of victims But, none of this can happen unless: • there is provision for restorative justice and people know about it • people want to participate • restorative justice is delivered well and consistently 6

What are the research lessons from elsewhere? When restorative justice is available, people did want to participate, even for serious offences and adult offenders, including violent crime From our evaluation: % victims who were approached wishing to participate CONNECT: adult magistrates' court JRC: London Crown Court burglary London Crown Court street crime Northumbria adult court cases Northumbria youth final warning cases Thames Valley prison cases REMEDI: adult offender-initiated youth YOT referrals 77 56 55 51 75 36 38 83 Restorative justice was delivered consistently by well trained facilitators/mediators Outcome agreements were made in over 98% of JRC conferences (not relevant to all models of mediation) Noone assaulted anyone else in the schemes we evaluated - though there was sometimes emotion. People said they felt safe and could express what they wanted to say. 7

Victim and offender views • These victims and offenders took part in restorative justice as well as criminal justice. They were positive about criminal justice, but even more positive about restorative justice. • Their reactions will depend upon their expectations: – Victims wanted to find out how the offence occurred (questions answered) and work to prevent reoffending – they didn’t want reparation – Offenders wanted to apologise, offer reparation and explain - and prevent what might lead them to offend again. • The overall reaction was one of satisfaction - 80% of JRC offenders and 85% of JRC victims were very/quite satisfied with the conference - only 10% of JRC offenders and 12% of JRC victims expressed any doubt about the outcome agreement • Not everyone was entirely satisfied, but only 6 offenders (of 152) and 6 victims (of 216) were dissatisfied overall with JRC conferencing dissatisfaction revolved around disputes about the offence or difficulties in communication 8

Looking back, what did victims say? • Victims appreciated the offender meeting them and answering questions • Victims appreciated an apology, but it could be ‘just saying it’ (except for minor offences/the young, where that was all that was needed) – 91% of JRC victims said the offender had apologised – 91% of these said they had accepted it – Asked if they thought the offender was sincere, 45% said yes, but 21% doubted it – Note that in ordinary criminal justice, apologies were far rarer overall (only 19% of victims in JRC in England said they had ever received an apology) • Victims mostly didn’t want direct reparation; but they did want symbolic reparation (the offender turning his life around and taking definite steps to do so - desistance), • Victims of more serious offences found RJ more helpful in achieving closure 9

What did offenders say was important to them about restorative justice? • When thinking about participating, having the opportunity to apologise was really important to offenders • For many offenders, apologising was sorting ‘unfinished business’, ‘clearing the air’ - and related to closure, moving on and changing one’s life – 56% of JRC offenders said they had found closure through the conference, 19% to some extent, 7% not really, 10% no • But a few (particularly the most serious offenders) could not apologise to the victim, though they regretted, and acknowledged, the hurt of the victim and others 10

The other aim was reducing reoffending: • In our evaluation, there was a significant decrease in the frequency of reconviction over the following two years, looking over all the trials, schemes and groups. Offenders’ reoffending decelerated. • No significant effects on severity of reconviction, or whether or not reconvicted • Cost of convictions (cost to potential future victims plus costs of criminal justice) combines frequency and severity. All JRC groups (conferencing), summed together, showed a significantly lower cost of convictions versus the control groups (mediation did not) • The result was conferencing was value for money: the money saved through preventing reoffending was much more than the cost of running the scheme in all three areas (8 times more saved than the cost, overall) • No significant results pointing towards any criminogenic effects. Restorative justice does not make people worse. 11

And the official view on reducing re-offending? The College of Policing is doing ‘What works? ’ reviews, looking over all evaluations globally as to what really reduces re-offending: Their Crime Reduction Toolkit says about conferencing: • Overall, the evidence suggests that RJ conferencing has reduced crime [very strong quality evidence]. And about Victim Offender Mediation: • Overall the evidence suggests a decrease in crime, but some studies suggested an increase [strong quality evidence - mostly about youth offending] The Scottish Government’s (2015) report says: ‘There is mixed, though mostly positive, evidence on the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing reoffending’ 12

What about restorative justice and policing? Many of the conferences we evaluated were led by police officers (others by probation officers, prison officers, community mediators) All did well Recent research in three police forces (Shapland et al. 2017) found that though it is a requirement in England & Wales that victims must be told about restorative justice, this was patchy – because of lack of officer awareness or confidence, though many were using RJ Referral paths need easy ways to refer (electronic; a question on the victim information form) and minimal paperwork! But it is possible to have working multi-agency partnerships with voluntary sector practitioners, and with council-run community justice panels, and with youth justice EEI workers 13

What are the challenges of developing RJ? • To raise awareness, so it’s not a surprise when it’s mentioned – (to Vs, Os or criminal justice personnel) • To dispel misconceptions – It isn’t an easy option – It isn’t a way to ignore difficult offences – It isn’t a threat to criminal justice • To make good quality delivery available wherever one lives – Funding; supply of trained facilitators – Referral paths – knowing what to deliver in-house and what to refer – Always consulting victims • To work towards better assessment of what and how to deliver 14

In Scotland currently, what restorative justice services are available? From the mapping events held by the Restorative Justice Forum (Scotland): • • A changing landscape, but not as developed as in England & Wales or Northern Ireland Use by the police for minor offences as diversion (‘street RJ’ and some conferencing, as well as in relation to EEI) – but patchy – as it is in England & Wales No specific diversionary power for fiscals Previously pilot projects in relation to children’s hearings to 2008, but specific funding was cut – interest in reviving its use Scottish Government Youth Offending Strategy 2015 – encourages use of restorative approaches where appropriate Community justice for adults – some areas keen, given relationship with desistance – but patchy SACRO and others delivering restorative justice upon referrals from agencies, victims and those who have harmed – but availability geographically limited and depends upon funding Interest in developing it in prisons and custodial estate, but little practice 15

And what is imminent? Statutory guidance from the Scottish Government - • Currently in final consultation, to provide guidance for practitioners and for those referring, to promote good quality practice in relation to both young people and adults who have harmed • Stemming from the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2013 From the Restorative Justice (Forum) Scotland – • Developing awareness of restorative justice and its potential, through events such as this • Practitioners’ network events to allow facilitators to share good practice • Providing continuing opportunities for multi-agency communication on developing restorative justice 16

Some references: Shapland, J. , Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2011) Restorative justice in practice. London: Routledge. Sapouna, M. , Bisset, C. , Conlong, A-M. and Matthews, B. (2015) What works to reduce reoffending: a summary of the evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government at http: //www. gov. scot/Publications/2015/05/2480/0 College of Policing Crime Reduction Toolkit (2015) Victim Offender Mediation, at http: //whatworks. college. police. uk/toolkit/Pages/Intervention. aspx? Intervention. ID=30 College of Policing Crime Reduction Toolkit (2015) Restorative Justice (RJ) conferencing, at http: //whatworks. college. police. uk/toolkit/Pages/Intervention. aspx? Intervention. ID=24 Shapland, J. , Crawford, A. , Gray, E. and Burn, D. (2017) Developing restorative policing in Humberside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Sheffield: Centre for Criminological Research, at https: //www. sheffield. ac. uk/polopoly_fs/1. 682936!/file/developing-restorative-policing -stage 1 -report. pdf Contact me at: j. m. shapland@sheffield. ac. uk 17