1. RESTORATIVE PRACTICES AND THE SOCIAL RE-INTEGRATION OF OFFENDERS IN THE U.K
Vicki Smith
Restorative Justice Worker
Oxfordshire Youth Offending Service

2. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Restorative Justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future. (Marshall, 1999)

3. Social Re-integration & Restorative Justice
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Harm by offender balanced by harm to offender
Harm by offender balanced by making right
Focus on blame and guilt
Focus on responsibility and problem-solving
Action from state to offender; offender passive
Victim/offender/community roles recognized: Collective response
Focus on offender; victim ignored
Victims’ needs central
Punishment (along with rewards)
Education
Extrinsic motivation-doing something because other people want them to
Intrinsic motivation-doing something because they want to
Victim-offender relationships ignored
Victim-offender relationships central
Offender’s ties to community weakened
Offender’s integration into community increased
Response based on offender’s past behaviour
Response based on consequences of offender’s behaviour
Before I became an RJ worker, I spent a lot of time working with adult offenders in the National Probation Service in the UK, pre and post Court. Much of what I learned about justice in the UK
the 2+2=more harm,
one-size fits all-sentencing guidelines, matrixes…..
Contrast the terminology of criminal justice—punishment, zero tolerance, criminal personality—with that of restorative justice— empowerment, social justice, healing
As a set of values, restorative justice offers great promise in regard to promoting healing and strengthening community bonds by addressing the criminal harm done to victims and communities. The context of personal negotiation allows flexible adjustment of agreements to the parties' needs and capacities and a greater level of creativity than court processes

4. Restorative Justice and Young Offenders
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 introduced the Referral Order
10-17 year olds pleading guilty and convicted for the first time.
Referral to a youth offender panel (YOP).
Governed by the principles of “restoration, reintegration and responsibility” (Home Office, 1997).
Between 3-12 months
Panels consist of one YOT member and (at least) two community panel members-to engage local communities in dealing with young offenders.
Other people may be invited to attend panel meetings (any participation is strictly voluntary).
Surrogate victims
Crime & Disorder Act 1998 set up the Youth Justice Board to oversee work with young offenders and introduced Youth Offending Teams
Targets set to ensure victims participate in restorative process in 25% of relevant cases and 85% of these victims to be satisfied
Number of different types of sentencing disposals that all allow for a restorative element.
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 introduced a new primary sentencing disposal – the Referral Order – for year olds pleading guilty and convicted for the first time by the courts. The disposal involves referring the young offender to a youth offender panel (YOP).
The work of YOPs is governed by the principles “underlying the concept of restorative justice”: defined as “restoration, reintegration and responsibility” (Home Office, 1997).
Compulsory in all cases where the juvenile is convicted for the first time and pleads guilty.
Courts may make referral orders for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 12
months depending on the seriousness of the crime (as determined by the court) and must specify the length for which any contract will have effect.
Referral Order Panels consist of one YOT member and (at least) two community panel members. The purpose of their inclusion is to engage local communities in dealing with young offenders.
Other people may be invited to attend panel meetings (any participation is strictly voluntary). Those who may attend include:
● the victim or a representative of the community at large
● a victim supporter
● a supporter of the young person
● anyone else that the panel considers to be capable of having a “good influence”
on the offender
● signers and interpreters if required.
Surrogate victims

5. In practice continued... Contract
Where victim chooses to attend, restorative process
Agreement reached
The YOT is responsible for monitoring the contract
Regular panel reviews
Vary terms of contract/breach
On completion, conviction will be considered “spent” for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
The aim of the initial panel is to devise a “contract” and, where the victim chooses to attend, for them to meet and talk about the offence with the offender.
If no agreement can be reached or the offender refuses to sign the contract, then he or she will be referred back to court for re-sentencing.
The Yot is responsible for monitoring the contract and is expected to keep a record of the offender’s compliance with the contract.
The panel is expected to hold at least one interim meeting with the offender to discuss progress – the first such review is recommended to be held after one month followed by at least one progress meeting for each three months of the contract.
Additional panel meetings will be held if the offender wishes to vary the terms of the contract or to seek to revoke the order, or where the Yot feels that the offender has breached the terms of the contract.
Once the period of the referral order is successfully completed the conviction will be considered “spent” for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

6. Does it work?
PROS
Offenders are part of the process- part of the negotiation (not directed)
Victims feel heard
Any unresolved difficulties between them can be settled – e.g. how to behave should they meet one another in the street
Deal with victims’ emotional as much as material needs.
Some victims experiences satisfaction from influencing the offender away from crime – transforming a negative experience into something positive.
Offenders more affected by the experience than by formal prosecution and punishment
Positive motivation to reform and a feeling that society is ready to offer re-acceptance.
CONS
Short time scale for victim contact between sentence and first panel
Resources for victim contact
Is it truly restorative if offender has no say in whether a victim attends?
Training for panel members is short (7 days) with 1 session on RJ- is this adequate? (practitioners have 4 days on RJ)
Panel members not involved in preparation of each party for panel- relying on our assessments/missing vital rapport building opportunities

7. Stats/numbers
Participant Satisfaction: For both victims and offenders satisfaction is consistently high ranging from 73-90%. Fairness in mediation and conferencing processes is also consistently high - ranging from 75-95% (Umbreit,Vos & Coates,2006).
Re-offending: The RJC has reported on 41 studies where RJ has been proven to reduce re-offending. One meta-analysis looked at 14 studies with over 9,000 juveniles and indicated that participation in Victim-Offender Mediation had lead to 26% reduction in reoffending. When the VOM youth did re-offend, they often committed less serious offences (Nugent, Williams & Umbreit, 2003; RJC, 2006).
Statistics from the Ministry of Defence on juvenile re-offending rates for 2006 cohort indicated that over a one year period- reoffending rates were 43% for Referral Orders compared to 55% for Fines; 62% for Action Plan Orders, 77% for Custody.

8. The Future: Referral Order
Revised National Standards
Increased focus of YOT resources directed at the highest reoffending risk cases
Require that YOTs have a range of restorative processes for victim participation
Revised Key Elements of Effective Practice – Restorative Justice
- prioritise face-to-face restorative justice cases where there are direct, personal victims and the victim and offender are both willing
- in preparation for restorative justice processes, victims and offenders should have the opportunity to meet with a restorative justice worker
- restorative justice processes should be arranged in consultation with victims, taking into account their convenience
- the views, experience and satisfaction of victims should be regularly monitored.
Revised National Standards are due to be published and implemented during 2009
Increased focus of YOT resources directed at the highest reoffending risk cases
Require that YOTs have a range of restorative processes for victim participation with the aim of putting right the harm which victims and the community have experienced.
Revised Key Elements of Effective Practice – Restorative Justice
prioritise face-to-face restorative justice cases where there are direct, personal victims and the victim and offender are both willing
in preparation for restorative justice processes, victims and offenders should have the opportunity to meet with a restorative justice worker
restorative justice processes should be arranged in consultation with victims, taking into account their convenience
the views, experience and satisfaction of victims should be regularly monitored.

9. Adult RJ
Thames Valley Probation Service (part of the National Probation Service in UK) have taken part in RJ with adults which has shown that it can: > reduce the rate of re-offending > improve the satisfaction of victims > be cost effective > and build confidence in the CJ system
The research also showed that RJ can work with adults and more serious offenders for violent offences and for burglary, including those serving substantial prison sentences.
Whilst RJ in the UK is built into the Youth Justice System, this is not the case for adults, however, Thames Valley Probation are pioneering the use of RJ as part of a Community Sentence in the adult courts.
Shapland et al (2008): research results

10. The TV Evidence overall
Community trial – 55% reduction in rate of re-offending.
Prison trial – 33% reduction in rate of re-offending.
Statistically significant reduction in reconvictions over 2yrs over all JRC trials taken together.
¾ of victims and offenders would recommend process to others – valued asking questions and being able to put their view.
Majority of victims had found closure.

11. What makes a difference? Re-offending
Whether the offender wanted to meet the victim.
How the offender experienced the conference.
Extent to which offender felt the conf had made them realise harm done.
Extent to which offender seen to be taking active part in conf.
How useful offender felt conf had been.

12. What makes a difference 2 Re-offending
Offenders value useful elements in outcome agreements – make elements future orientated.
Extent to which outcome agreement completed by offender.
Community conferences more successful than prison.

13. What doesn’t make a difference in terms of re-offending?
Gender, ethnicity, age, burglary v violence, pre v post-sentence.
Victims’ views of the conference.
Whether victim and offender knew each other.
Whether victim accepted apology.
Whether victim thought offender was sincere.
Outcome agreements (OAs) containing: apology, promises to stay out of trouble, pay compensation, letters of progress to victims, victim contact.

14. Why do conferences work for offenders? – theory supported by evidence
The process of meeting itself.
Appear to have value in promoting desistance among those adult offenders who have decided to stop offending by:
Increase motivation to desist.
Impact of what victims and supporters say.
Provide a framework/plan (outcome agreement) for putting good intentions into practice.
Provide support from others to help tackle problems related to offending.

15. What makes conferences / process work for victims?
The process of meeting itself.
Both sides able to present views and ask questions.
Safe process.
Facilitators allow process and not be too dominant.
Satisfaction levels higher for more serious offences.
Victims value apologies.
Leads to less feelings of retaliation.

16. Victim dissatisfaction
Only six cases for whole of JRC
Related to:
Unresolved and significant dispute over facts of offence.
Offender does not take responsibility, makes light, would not apologise, or blames victim.
Facilitators too dominant.
Facilitator did not intervene when too heated, or one side dominated.

17. Victim dissatisfaction - lessons
Balance between dominance and intervention.
Abandon where participants are inebriated
Guard against attempts to manipulate process.
Be open where reports are to be produced.
Do what you say you are going to do – follow through in relation to Oas.

18. ??
Restorative Justice saves the criminal justice system up to £8 for every £1 spent delivering the Restorative Justice service-Even the most expensive RJ conferences—those for serious crimes—cost only £800, compared with the £35,000 a year that we pay to keep someone in prison. It is time for us to stop endlessly studying and evaluating RJ and to use it much more widely in the areas where it has proven value?

19. Further Information www.restorativejustice.org.uk www.yjb.gov.uk