1. A Tale of Two Projects: Reflections on using Restorative Approaches in Schools and Children’s Residential Care Carol Hayden ICJS, University of Portsmouth carol.hayden@port.ac.uk

2. The Research Projects Family Group Conferences in Schools (see Hayden, 2009) Focus on school attendance, behaviour and exclusion from school. All schools in one local authority. Restorative Justice in Children’s Residential Care (see Hayden and Gough, 2010) Focus on conflict and offending behaviour. All 10 children residential homes (for children without disabilities) in one local authority.

3. Source: McCold and Watchel (2003)

4. Research Designs and Data Collected FGCs (2003-2004)RJ (2006-2008) DesignQuasi experimental (FGC and comparison group, EWS) Natural experiment (before and after, informed by a realist approach) ‘Outcomes ‘dataAttendance %; exclusion %; Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Offending %; incident records; police call outs; out of hours service; cohort study Staff viewpointsReferral agents (n=60) EWS staff team (n=9) FGC co-ordinators (n=20) Care staff (2006: 99; 2007: 71) Managers (2006: 10; 2007:8) Young people’s viewpointsYPs experiences of an FGC (n=27) YPs experiences of staff responses to conflict (n=43)

5. The two approaches: ‘FGCs’ and ‘RJ’ FGCsRJ The Model Formal Full ConferenceContinuum of approaches; mostly informal Roles ‘Victim’ and ‘Offender’? Focus on the individual child. ‘Victim’ and ‘offender ‘not the focus. Blurred; not always clear. ‘Victim’ and ‘offender ‘ not seen as appropriate terms. External mediator Independent co-ordinator from ‘pool’ across the Local Authority No external staff. Some homes had staff that specialised Reparation Not the focusOften, but not always Cultural change in institutions Not the focusStrong focus Links across agencies Support services to schools; pool of co-ordinators crossed other services (eg social care) Local Authority Steering group; links to Youth Offending Team; Police protocol developed about use of RJ.

6. The Models and focus of Change FGCs Referral to an external agency that used independent co-ordinators (from a local authority ‘pool’) to set up and run the conference. Focus: The individual child, for whom an external service or ‘mediator’ was used with the school, family and significant others. Restorative Justice (later referred to as RAs) All staff in all 10 residential homes trained in an RJ approach, with refresher training one year later for manager and RJ co-ordinator. Initial training emphasised the scripted conference. Refresher training focussed on informal uses, referred to as ‘Street RJ.’ Focus: Whole service/whole staff approach. RJ used primarily as a way of resolving everyday conflict.

7. Problem Construction and Performance Indicators FGCs Attendance/behaviour/ exclusion from school More broadly – schools and partnership working with families RJ Offending and conflict/ relationships and quality of life More broadly -relationships and quality of life in children’s homes

8. Data types and sourcesCONCLUSIONS FGC RESEARCH Outcomes data FGCs not successful overall in increasing attendance or preventing exclusion; but some successes in individual cases. SDQ (Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaires) on individual children No real change in total difficulties score, but a better appreciation of problems Reduced ‘sense of burden’ Increases in pro-social behaviour Appreciation of the process Referral agents Often positive about the idea. Outside help popular with schools. EWS team (comparison in the research) Saw the potential and wanted FGCs as an option in some cases. FGC co-ordinators Last resort status of the FGC in schools. Relies more on individual change of the child, than other used of FGCs. Children Self conscious - didn’t like the number of adults in meetings, especially adults from schools. Wanted a friend in the meeting, some schools would not allow in school time.

9. Data types and sourcesCONCLUSIONS RJ RESEARCH Care staff and managers (questionnaires and interviews) Positive shift in attitudes towards the approach (statistically significant). Managers more positive than care staff. RJ mostly used informally, full conferences rare. External facilitators not available. Divisions in some staff groups more obvious at second visits. Reparation not a feature of around a third of encounters. Children (questionnaires and interviews) Staff expectations about behaviour – understood by the majority. Staff accessibility and support - most felt that staff would talk things through or help, as needed. Clarity of rules and staff fairness – views were divided. Understanding of RJ - 42.1% knew what RJ meant, rest didn’t or were unsure; more showed an intuitive understanding when giving examples of how problem were dealt with/should be Context and Process (observations during fieldwork and in meetings and presentations with staff) Big changes across the service in a one year period. This included two home closures; another home under investigation in relation to the use of physical interventions and in others changes in residents (that were more or less volatile). Change in the management of one home. Despite some loss of momentum staff did have refresher training and meetings continued in relation to promoting the approach across the service. Outcomes for children (cohort study and case files) High levels of offending and incidents in homes. Importance of education amongst those NOT in trouble. Use and impact of RJ variable at the individual level. Organisational change: outcome indicators (organisational trend data on: offending, police call-outs, incident records and out-of-hours service) No change in rate of offending. Positive change in all other respects.

10. THE SCHOOL As a referral agent – requesting the help and expertise of an outside agency ADHERED TO FORMAL MODEL EXTERNAL: FGC Facilitator brings together key adults, the child and supporters to develop and agree a plan to address the attendance/ behaviour problem (s) that are presenting in school. Limited or no impact on school culture. 100s of referral points. Formal event, takes place about 6 weeks after ‘referral’. THE RESIDENTIAL HOME No external facilitators – all staff trained in an RJ approach. Mostly used within the home PRAGMATIC INTERNAL: staff skills developed. Cultural change mostly limited to within the residential home. RJ as everyday communication – ‘corridor’ or ‘stand-up’ RJ. Impromptu conferences common – immediacy.

11. Source: McCold and Watchel (2003)

12. Values and Practices: some questions to consider Managing behaviour or managing relationships within organisations? Independent co-ordinators/skills and the conference model – where/when is this useful? RAs as a whole school/organisation approach – what about the principle of ‘voluntarism’ Voluntarism, organisational ethos and fairness Organisations ‘owning conflict’ Transferability, pragmatism and RAs