Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:17 pm
Time: 9:17 pm
Results for victim-offender mediation
26 results foundAuthor: Maruna, Shadd Title: Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long-term Follow-Up Study Summary: The Northern Ireland Youth Conferencing Service (YCS) was launched in December 2003 in response to recommendations made in the Belfast Agreement of 1998. The YCS conferencing process involves a meeting between the young person (between 10 and 18) who offended, the victim, and others who have been affected by the crime. The focus is on all parties resolving how the young person can both make amends for the crime, and also ensure that future offending is avoided. This report presents the findings from a qualitative, process evaluation of the long-term life outcomes for a small sample (N=26) of young people involved in this process due to the commission of a crime. Participants were interviewed at least one year after their initial involvement with the YCS in order to discern whether the conference has had any lasting impact on their lives and their self-understandings. Interviews were transcribed and coded for patterns in the participants’ reflections on the conferencing process, their postconference lives, and their involvement with criminality and risky behaviours. Details: Cambridge, UK: ARCS Ltd., 2011. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2011 at: http://www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads//SHAD_MARUNA_STUDY.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads//SHAD_MARUNA_STUDY.pdf Shelf Number: 122730 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K).Victim-Offender MediationYouth Conferencing |
Author: European Forum for Restorative Justice Title: Restorative Justice and Crime Prevention: Presenting a Theoretical Exploration, An Empirical Analysis and the Policy Perspective Summary: The report opens with a wide theoretical reflection on restorative justice and crime prevention. In this first chapter the points of connection (and departure) between restorative justice theory and crime prevention models are explored. An elaborate, detailed and well-explained conceptual framework is presented; and thereby attention is paid to social and ethical issues raised by the relationship between both concepts. Reference is also made to community justice. Overall the chapter explicitly raises more questions for reflection and future empirical research than it provides concrete answers. The challenge to build, in an empirical way, upon the concepts, theories and connection points with regard to restorative justice and crime prevention is taken up in the second chapter. The way restorative justice fits as an object of criminological research together with some other background information is explained; but only serves as an introduction to the core of the chapter. For the most part, methodological considerations (that seem relevant when combining restorative justice and crime prevention in differing aspects) and empirical findings (with regard to offenders, victims and community/society) are presented and discussed. In the third chapter, the focus lies on the legal and policy level, and more specific, on the extent to which restorative justice is inscribed in crime prevention or other policies. Attention is also given to the presence of (crime) prevention goals within restorative justice related (legal) documents. For well-considered reasons the chapter contains extensive accounts of countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and UK), short country examples and an international overview based on the three main international institutions (Council of Europe, United Nations and European Union). Whereas the theoretical, empirical and policy oriented chapters are based on available literature and documents, the fourth chapter is of different nature. The results of a European survey – formally administered to gather information about practices, perceptions, and dominant beliefs and cultures across Europe in regards to current practice and the potential that restorative justice programmes and practices may play in crime prevention efforts - are presented. In addition challenges and recommendations for action complete the chapter. In chapter five, final conclusions and recommendations can be found. Details: Brussels, Belgium: European Forum for Restorative Justice, 2010. 196p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at: http://www.euforumrj.org/Projects/Restorative%20Justice%20and%20Crime%20Prevention%20Final%20report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.euforumrj.org/Projects/Restorative%20Justice%20and%20Crime%20Prevention%20Final%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 124126 Keywords: Restorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Facing Up To Offending: Use of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice System. A joint thematic inspection by HMIC, HMI Probation, HMI Prisons and the HMCPSI Summary: Much of the research on Restorative Justice (RJ) has found that such an approach can have a positive effect on victim satisfaction and re-offending rates. This has led to a renewed focus on RJ (which has been used in the criminal justice system since the 1980s). As a result, it features as a priority in current plans to reform sentencing. RJ can be used at each stage of the criminal justice system: from informal resolutions on the street, when the police decide to resolve low-level crime and antisocial behaviour in a common-sense manner without resorting to judicial process, to RJ conferences, when a victim meets the offender face to face (sometimes in prison after the offender has been convicted). Although RJ outcomes are not recorded nationally, our inspection showed that informal resolutions administered by the police have shown a marked increase in number. More formal RJ approaches involving a meeting or conference between he offender and victim are much smaller in number by comparison, whether utilised before or after conviction and remain in development. It is the impact of RJ conferences on reoffending behaviour and victim satisfaction that most academic research has been focussed. Conferencing aims to help victims recover from the impact of the crime; to ensure the offender understands the implication of his or her actions; and to provide an opportunity for the offender to make amends. Less is known about the impact of informal resolutions on the street. 5 This flexibility in how and where it can be used is a benefit; but in the absence of a clear strategy, it also introduces the risk that RJ approaches will be applied inconsistently. This could mean that people are being treated differently depending on where they live or what criminal justice agency they are involved with; and this could lead to the perception of unfairness. The criminal justice joint inspectorates therefore committed to reviewing practices across the system, to ensure the benefits RJ offers are being fully exploited, and the risks minimised. The aim of this review was to identify the benefits of restorative justice practices across the criminal justice system. It was a joint inspection, carried out by Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation), Her Majesty‟s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) and Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP). Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/VWEX/RJ_CJJI_rpt_Sept12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/VWEX/RJ_CJJI_rpt_Sept12.pdf Shelf Number: 126401 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationRestorative Justice (U.K.)Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Burke, Kimberly S. Title: An Inventory and Examination of Restorative Justice Practices for Youth in Illinois Summary: In this study, organizations in Illinois that address youth misconduct or delinquency were surveyed to examine the use of restorative justice practices in Illinois and the extent to which they incorporate critical components of restorative justice, and to create an inventory of restorative justice practices across the state. A total of 152 individuals completed a web-based survey. From their responses, 95 organizations were included in an inventory of restorative justice practices. Key findings include: • Respondents reporting using restorative justice practices were found in 54 Illinois counties, and in many different types of organizations who respond to youth misconduct, including police departments, probation and court services, schools, community-based organizations, and other state and municipal departments • Of respondents who indicated the types of restorative justice practices they used (n=69), the most common restorative justice practices used were peer juries (40 percent), circles (17 percent), family group conferencing (16 percent), and victim-offender mediation (23 percent). • Respondents most commonly used restorative justice practices with non-violent, first-time offenders. For program eligibility, restorative justice programs commonly required youth to volunteer to participate, admit guilt for the wrongdoing, and have little or no criminal history. • Of respondents who listed an agency affiliation (n=114), 68 percent worked within the juvenile justice system, and 65 percent of those working within the juvenile justice system were law enforcement. • Of the respondents who indicated the types of restorative justice practices used (n=69), 61 percent reported using a combination of practices. • When a single program was used peer jury was the most commonly reported. This study provided respondents with a scale to measure the degree to which they used five components of restorative justice in their program. The five components of restorative justice included offender involvement and experience of justice, victim involvement and experience of justice, victim-offender relationships, community involvement and experience of justice, and problem-solving through restorative justice. Respondents were invited to respond on how likely it was that each component of restorative justice was addressed through their programming. The study found the following through the use of the scale. • Twenty-three percent of survey respondents highly incorporated the five components of restorative justice into programming in their organizations. Respondents were given a survey with five choices of the degree to which restorative justice is incorporated into programming. • The components reported as the least likely addressed by organizations was victim-offender relationships in their programs (average of 2.11 on a scale of five) or involve the community in the experience of justice (average of 2.93 on a scale of five). Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2013. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/researchreports/inventoryandexaminationofrestorativejusticepracticesforyouthillinois_042013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/researchreports/inventoryandexaminationofrestorativejusticepracticesforyouthillinois_042013.pdf Shelf Number: 128905 Keywords: Alternative Dispute SettlementConflict ResolutionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile OffendersRestorative Justice (U.S.)Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Marder, Ian Title: Restorative Justice for Young Adults: Factoring in Maturity and Facilitating Desistance Summary: Drawing on primary evidence in the form of interviews with criminal justice practitioners and young adult offenders, as well as the existing literature, the aim of this report is to broaden our understanding of how restorative justice can be used with young adults (both victims and offenders) throughout the criminal justice process, considering the relevance of the maturation process, its implications for restorative practitioners working with this age group, and why restorative justice might be effective at encouraging desistance from crime. The main findings are as follows: • Although technically considered to be adults, victims and offenders between the ages of 18 and 25 may not be fully mature. This has many implications for restorative practice, of which facilitators and other criminal justice professionals must be aware; • There are a number of theoretically- and empirically-informed ways in which participation in a restorative process might encourage desistance and otherwise have a significant impact on young adult offenders. For example, it can be argued that it helps to develop a sense of personal responsibility and self-efficacy, is conducive to the building of social bonds and attachments and encourages compliance by being perceived by participant offenders to be more procedurally-just than court-based processes. Depending on the offender, restorative justice might either instigate the desistance process or provide additional motivation for those who have already chosen or begun to desist; • It is possible for service managers to integrate restorative practices into their work with 18-25 year old victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal justice process. The key recommendations are as follows: • Restorative justice should be offered to all victims irrespective of the age of the offender; • Restorative practitioners who work with young adults should be aware of the practice implications of a lack of maturity; • Restorative practice should be used to develop maturity and facilitate desistance among young adults who offend. Details: London: Restorative Justice Council, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/t2a-985/#.UayXHDXD_cs Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/t2a-985/#.UayXHDXD_cs Shelf Number: 128926 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender MediationYoung Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Meadows, Linda Title: Evaluation of Sheffield City Council's Community Justice Panels Project Summary: This report is the output of an evaluation commissioned by Sheffield City Council and undertaken by the Hallam Centre for Community Justice at Sheffield Hallam University. The evaluation was undertaken during October and November 2009 with the objectives of assessing the effectiveness of the Community Justice Panels project so far and providing recommendations for future development. The evaluation used an action research methodology and included documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews with strategic partners and stakeholders, wrongdoers and harmed persons, facilitator focus group and observation of the Panels. Community Justice Panels were introduced in Sheffield in June 2009, following approval from Sheffield City Council with the objectives of: • Reducing re-offending and involvement in anti-social behaviour and low-level crime; • Improving victim satisfaction and community engagement; • Making communities safer; and • Increasing volunteering; • Reducing police administration time. The model adopted was based on the implementation of Community Justice Panels in Chard, Somerset. Initially conceived as a pilot covering Ecclesfield and Broomhill Safer Neighbourhood Areas, the project was extended in August to cover the whole of Sheffield. Community Justice Panels are a possible disposal for first-time, low-level offences can involve both criminal and anti-social incidents and can be referred from sources including police, and registered social landlords. They bring together the wrongdoer and harmed person, along with supporters, to discuss what has happened, how it has affected them and how all parties can move forward. Outcomes usually involve some form of reparation on behalf of the wrongdoer, to make good for the harm caused. The objectives of the Panels themselves are to: • Provide face to face contact between the wrongdoer and harmed person; • Give victims a voice • Provide an opportunity for the wrongdoer to apologise; • Enable agreement of reparation to mitigate the harm caused to the harmed person Although there are other examples of similar projects in the UK, including the Chard model on which this was based1, the pilot is particularly innovative in the UK context in its implementation in a city of the size of Sheffield. At the time of the evaluation, the project had only been operational for a period of five months. Although clearly at a very early stage, the project has already made some significant achievements including: • Roll out of the project across the whole of Sheffield • Successful engagement at a strategic and operational level of key stakeholders and partners from a range of agencies • Establishment of effective working practices and information sharing protocols • Recruitment and training of 23 high quality facilitators from a diverse range of backgrounds • Recruitment of a professional, committed and effective Community Justice Panels staff team • Achievement of 20 referrals and five panels. This is in line with expectations based on the Chard model and co-ordinators have recently reported significant increases • Well run, and effective Panels which were perceived as fair by participants • Positive responses to most aspects of the Panels process by wrongdoers and harmed persons, including the quality of facilitation and support prior to and during the Panel; • Positive impact of participation on wrongdoers and the majority of harmed persons, including (in the wrongdoers' case) an impact on future behaviour The evaluation identified a number of key areas for development at both a strategic and operational level and these are summarised in the recommendations section below: Details: Sheffield, UK: Hallam Centre for Community Justice, Sheffield Hallam University, 2010. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/7053/ Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/7053/ Shelf Number: 129033 Keywords: Community Justice Panels (U.K.)Restorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Turley, Caroline Title: Process Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Panels Summary: Neighbourhood Justice Panels (NJPs) are a form of restorative justice (RJ) conferencing. NJP meetings aim to bring local victims and perpetrators together, using restorative and reparative approaches. The panel meetings are facilitated by trained local volunteers. Fifteen areas in England and Wales were involved in a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) two-year test. Some test areas accepted referrals from May 2012, while for others this was slightly later. Although each area had autonomy to deliver their NJPs according to local need, the scope of offences was defined by the MoJ and included behaviours which were suitable for informal resolution, such as non-criminal activity like anti-social behaviour (ASB) and neighbour disputes. Out-of-scope offences included indictable cases, domestic abuse/domestic violence (DA/DV), hate crime, dishonesty offences, assault, and cases where a more formal out-of-court disposal was required. This summary sets out the findings of the qualitative process evaluation commissioned by the MoJ to explore the set-up, delivery and perceived effects of the NJPs. The findings have implications for policy-makers and staff involved in NJP delivery and other RJ approaches. They also offer an evidence base for areas that are considering setting up their own NJPs. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294247/neighbourhood-justice-panels.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294247/neighbourhood-justice-panels.pdf Shelf Number: 132148 Keywords: Community Justice Panels (U.K.) Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Muir, Rick Title: Everyday justice: Mobilising the power of victims, communities and public services to reduce crime Summary: This report argues for reforms to the way the criminal justice system deals with victims, communities and offenders, in order to repair the everyday relationships damaged by crime and social exclusion. Crime is both a cause and a consequence of a breakdown in relationships: a lack of positive family and wider social relationships very often lies behind offending behaviour, while crime itself damages relationships, harming victims and fostering fear and mistrust within communities. Yet our criminal justice system does very little to repair the relationships that are damaged by crime and social exclusion. The system is set up as a confrontation between the state and the accused, rather than providing for direct reparation between the victim and the offender; it also gives local communities very little role in achieving justice and tackling the causes of crime. Furthermore, rather than providing the kind of consistent relationships with professionals that would aid rehabilitation, the system passes offenders between a range of different agencies, with too many falling between the cracks. This report proposes means to tackle the everyday, high-volume but relatively low-harm offences that make up the vast majority of crimes by mobilising the collective power of all relevant actors and institutions to ensure reparation for harm done and rehabilitation for the offender. Its recommendations cover three areas. - Offering greater direct reparation from offenders to their victims, including a right to restorative justice, to improve victims' confidence in the system while helping to reduce reoffending by bringing home to the offender the damage they have caused. - Fostering greater community involvement in the justice system, particularly through neighbourhood justice panels, to secure greater public confidence in the courts. - Providing offenders with the kind of stable and consistent relationships with criminal justice professionals that the evidence tells us are likely to promote desistance from crime, by making the justice system more integrated, and placing all young adult offenders aged 18-21 under the responsibility of the successful local youth offending teams. Details: London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 2014. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2015 at: http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/publications/pdf/Everyday-justice_Jul2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/publications/pdf/Everyday-justice_Jul2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134980 Keywords: Community ParticipationCriminal Justice Reform (U.K.)Offender RehabilitationRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Melendez Pereto, Anna Title: Restorative justice and desistance. The impact of victim-offender mediation on desistance from crime Summary: This research aims to examine the capacity of restorative justice to have an influence on desistance from crime, by focusing on mediation processes in order to identify whether there is a relationship between participating in a mediation process and taking the decision to desist from crime as well as to study the offenders' stability in a pro-social life, desisting from deviant behaviour. A particular aim of the research is to explore whether the victims' participation in the process, restoration and the process itself can promote positive changes in the offenders' behaviour after completion of the mediation programme dealt with in this research. First, to examine to what extent the offender can reduce the use of some neutralisation techniques. Specifically, the aim is to analyse whether the offender is able to recognise that there has been a victim, to admit having injured someone and to admit rather than deny responsibility for it. Second, the aim is to analyse whether mediation enables offenders to express guilt, remorse and shame and thus lead them to change their offending behaviour. And finally, to analyse whether the process has an impact on the offender's ability to reflect on what happened and its consequence. The empirical study has two main parts divided in four different moments. The first part of the study has three stages. The first is at the beginning of the process and offenders have to complete a self-administered pre-test questionnaire -at the end of the first individual mediation session- in order to know their expectations of the process. The second takes place immediately after the mediation, and offenders complete a self-administered pot-test questionnaire. During direct mediation -when victim and offender met together with a mediator- non-participant observation is carried out to observe the interaction between parties. In indirect mediation the last session with the mediator is observed. The second part of the study, which takes place 6 months later, consists of a final narrative interview with the offenders who had been observed during mediation in order to learn more about the offenders' life course, their experience in mediation and its possible impact on their lives in the future. Details: Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Departament de Ciencia Politica i de Dret Public, 2015. 343p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 19, 2015 at: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/309139 Year: 2015 Country: Spain URL: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/309139 Shelf Number: 136997 Keywords: DesistanceRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Weitekamp, Elmar G.M. Title: Developing Peacemaking Circles in a European Context Summary: The first question to be asked, before even beginning with this research, was why do we want to focus on peacemaking circles? What sets them apart that we even want to try to implement them (or at least explore if an implementation is possible) in a European context? To answer this question, we have to look back at the broader context of restorative justice. Restorative justice has grown for the last few decades out of a criticism towards the traditional justice system. Christie, in his article "onflicts as property" was probably one of the first to describe so clearly that this traditional justice system itself took the conflict away from its rightful owners, namely victim, offender and the neighbourhood, and that we should strive to give it back to them (1977). Although this statement does not really focus on every nuance of the whole evolution of why the state came to claim the ownership of dealing with crime and therefore might oversimplify the issue, as a basic premise it still holds its value to this day. It is this premise that restorative justice practitioners still hold high as they try to bring victim and offender together to deal with the crime and its consequences. In the search of how to do this, restorative justice proponents were sometimes inspired by native ways of dealing with conflicts - although some criticized that restorative justice literature did too much "butterfly-collecting": picking native practices that helped build the restorative discourse, without spending too much attention to the context of those practices (Crawford, 2002). As such, restorative justice seems to focus on three large methodological approaches, where especially the latter two find their roots, at least partially, in native practices: victim-offender mediation, conferencing and (peacemaking) circles. The success of restorative justice has led in the last decade(s) to a growth in both the use and regulation, both in international and national law, of restorative justice practices in Europe. Victim-offender mediation is the most wide-spread in Europe, although conferencing is gaining ground (Zinsstag & Vanfraechem, 2012). Circles however, are not used in Europe at the moment. It is in that use of restorative justice practices and the regulation thereof that we tend to see a growing distinction offender mediation is the most wide-spread in Europe, although conferencing is gaining ground (Zinsstag & Vanfraechem, 2012). Circles however, are not used in Europe at the moment. It is in that use of restorative justice practices and the regulation thereof that we tend to see a growing distinction between the restorative justice theory and the restorative justice practice. And that distinction lies entirely in the question that already arose in the previously mentioned article from Christie: who are the rightful owners of a conflict? Details: Tubingen: Institute for Criminology, University of Tubingen, 2015, 833p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: https://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/einrichtungen/ifk/forschung/sanktionsforschung/abgeschlossen/implementing-peacemaking-circles-in-europe/forschungsbericht Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: https://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/einrichtungen/ifk/forschung/sanktionsforschung/abgeschlossen/implementing-peacemaking-circles-in-europe/forschungsbericht Shelf Number: 138481 Keywords: Restorative JusticeVictim-Offender MediationVictims of Crime |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Restorative Justice: Fourth Report of Session 2016-17 Summary: In this report we consider the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) provision across the criminal justice system. The push from the Ministry of Justice has been for high quality restorative justice to be available to victims at every stage of the criminal justice system irrespective of where they are geographically, the age of the offender or the offence committed against them and we support these objectives in this report. We have focused our analysis on the services currently available to victims. We examine the evidence base for the effectiveness of restorative justice. We conclude that while undue reliance should not be placed on the statistic that $8 is saved for every $1 spent on RJ, there are benefits in both reductions in reoffending and in providing tangible benefits to victims. Our attention was drawn to doubts around the use of restorative justice in cases of sexual offences, domestic abuse and hate crime. In particular we received submissions concerned with the appropriateness of restorative justice in cases of domestic abuse. While acknowledging the real and substantial risks, our view is that, while restorative justice will not be appropriate in every case, it should not be excluded simply by reason of the type of offence committed. We found that restorative justice provision is currently subject to a 'postcode lottery' and regional buy-in. While ring-fencing funding to Police and Crime Commissioners may appear superficially attractive, we do not believe budgets for restorative justice could be set in a reliable or sensible manner. Our other principal recommendations and conclusions can be summed up as follows: - Restorative justice is well embedded in the youth justice system, although there is further work to be done, particularly in improving victim engagement. We recommend the Ministry of Justice looks to the example of youth conferencing used in Northern Ireland. - Problems in data sharing have presented a somewhat intractable obstacle to the development of restorative justice. We recommend the creation and dissemination of a national data sharing template to help speed up the agreement of data sharing protocols. - There is evidence of mixed compliance with the requirement under the Victims' Code to make victims aware of restorative justice, and we recommend the introduction of a system to improve compliance. - The entitlements under the Victims' Code should be rationalised so they no longer vary based on the age of the offender. - The Ministry should consult with PCCs and Stakeholders to ensure there is sufficient capacity to feasibly introduce an entitlement to restorative justice under the Victims' Code. - It is too soon to introduce a legislative right to access restorative justice services but such a goal is laudable and should be actively worked towards. We believe a right to access such services should be included in the Victims' Law but that provision should only be commenced once the Minister has demonstrated to Parliament that the system has sufficient capacity. Details: London: House of Commons, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 164: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmjust/164/164.pdf?utm_source=164&utm_medium=module&utm_campaign=modulereports Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmjust/164/164.pdf?utm_source=164&utm_medium=module&utm_campaign=modulereports Shelf Number: 147868 Keywords: Restorative JusticeVictim ServicesVictim-Offender MediationVictims of Crime |
Author: Drost, Lisanne Title: Restorative Justice in Cases of Domestic Violence: Best practice examples between increasing mutual understanding and awareness of specific protection needs Summary: This project, Restorative Justice in Cases of Domestic Violence, Best practice examples between increasing mutual understanding and awareness of specific protection needs (JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/5487), financed by the European Commission and coordinated by the VerweyJonker Institute, aims at filling research gaps and getting together existing knowledge on using restorative justice (RJ) in cases of domestic violence (DV) or rather - more precise - intimate partner violence (IPV). The main question is: How can restorative justice practices like victim-offender mediation (VOM) or conferencing be of use in these specific cases of IPV. Furthermore it aims at exchanging risk points and best practice among practitioners and creating a network of practitioners to increase mutual understanding between different judicial systems and RJ practices in the member states. Partners in this project are from Austria, Denmark, Greece, Finland, the Netherlands and the UK (England & Wales). Current practices and regulations in these countries will be studied in depth, but the project aims to get better insights into the topic in the whole of Europe. This will result in a better understanding of the risks and potentialities of the use of restorative justice in cases of intimate partner violence. This again results in a better protection of victims and society at large in the European member states. This comparative report consists of an introductory chapter (chapter 1) in which we explain the definitions and the aims of the project. We also describe what the international and European legal instruments (conventions, guidelines and recommendations) say about the use of RJ in IPV cases. In the last paragraph we give insight into the more theoretical discussion about opportunities and risks of RJ in cases of IPV, including pro and contra arguments and - if appropriate - requirements. Chapter 2 gives a comparative overview of the situation in the six partner countries. Chapter 3 presents some first conclusions and discussion points. Definitions In this project domestic violence is understood as violence used by (former) adult intimate partners, i.e. intimate partner violence. Restorative justice is focused on reparation of harm in the aftermath of a crime or conflict. The most frequently used restorative justice practice in the context of IPV is victim-offender mediation (VOM). Sometimes conferencing is used. Therefore our main focus is on IPV cases that have been reported to the police and/or have led to criminal procedures and have been referred to VOM. Civil cases are not part of this research project. Aims and products Restorative justice practices have been developed over the last decades in various European countries in different legal and social contexts. Community based organizations, police, probation services or others provide RJ services for victims of violence committed in close relationships. In Finland and Austria, for example, crimes including intimate partner violence have been referred to VOM for many years, even though there are specific restrictions on when this can be done. The dynamics of IPV create particular challenges for the practice of RJ, especially what concerns achieving safety and voluntary participation. Suitability and inappropriateness of RJ for cases of IPV have remained largely unexplored in many countries, therefore in-depth research is needed, as well as the exchange of promising practices and difficulties or problems faced in practice and of regulations throughout Europe. The aim of this exchange and research project is to generate relevant knowledge on practices of RJ and to identify criteria for offering RJ to victims of IPV so that they can benefit to the maximum extent and in accordance with the EU Victims' Directive of 2012. Another objective is to set standards to guarantee the quality of the implementation of RJ practices. Based on this knowledge, a guide for practitioners will be developed and tested. This guide can be used in the training of VOM mediators, but also officials like police officers, prosecutors and court staff can benefit from such a guide. The main questions in order to achieve these objectives are: 1) What are the relevant RJ practices and policies concerning IPV in different European countries? 2) Can RJ be useful in case of IPV, and if so, under what circumstances or conditions? What do victims of IPV need in respect to RJ? 3) Can RJ in cases of IPV be offered at each stage of the criminal procedure (before, during and/or after) and/or should victim-offender mediation (VOM) (or other methods such as conferencing) be carried out by using a different (community) approach outside the criminal justice system? 4) Can networking with regard to IPV be stimulated between practitioners of RJ/mediation both at national and European level in order to support sustainable implementation of RJ in IPV cases? Details: Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Instituut, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.verwey-jonker.nl/doc/2015/7388_restorative%20justice%20in%20cases%20of%20domestic%20violence.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.verwey-jonker.nl/doc/2015/7388_restorative%20justice%20in%20cases%20of%20domestic%20violence.pdf Shelf Number: 145113 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Lunnemann, Katinka Title: Victim Offender Mediation: Needs of victims and offenders of Intimate Partner Violence. 2nd Comparative report, interviews & focus groups Summary: Can Restorative Justice (RJ) be used in cases of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), and if so, under what circumstances? This question guides the European project on restorative justice in cases of domestic violence.1 This project, funded by the European Commission (EC), aims to investigate the research gaps and gather existing knowledge on the use of RJ in cases of IPV. Another objective is to gain a better understanding of the risks and potential of using restorative justice (in particular Victim Offender Mediation) in cases of IPV. Partners in this project are from Austria, Denmark, Greece, Finland, the Netherlands and England & Wales (here referred to shortly as the UK) and the European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ). In 2014, under Workstream 1 of the project, a comparative report provided the legal and policy context and practice of restorative justice in cases of domestic violence. 2 In this report, we defined domestic violence as violence used by (former) adult intimate partners. We looked at intimate partner violence and RJ as focused on reparation of harm in the aftermath of a crime or conflict. Different forms of violence were described: situational couple violence and intimate terrorism or coercive control (Johnson, 2006). It was also highlighted that across the European countries, the most frequently used restorative justice practice in the context of IPV is victim-offender mediation (VOM). Therefore our main focus is on IPV cases that have been reported to the police and/or have led to criminal procedures and have been referred to VOM. It should be noted that civil cases are not part of this research project. International standards such as laid down in the EU Victim Directive of 20123 , the Istanbul Convention (2014) and recommendations and Principles on RJ are guiding the research. In this second comparative report we focus on the methodology of the research, the expectations, the experiences and needs of victims and offenders who have been involved in VOM. In addition to speaking to practitioners, we also held a focus group in each country for practitioners who are working in this field. The country reports that formed the basis for the comparative report are integrated as annexes in part 2 (addendum) of this report (Annex 1- 6). Information on experiences with RJ in IPV cases as used by the German institute Waage in Hannover, that hosted the first expert meeting, can be found in Annex 7. Structure of the report Chapter 1 gives background information on the situation of RJ and IPV in the different partner countries. Chapter 2 is focused on the research and the methodology employed for recruiting research participants. Chapter 3 and 4 present the results of the interviews with the participants. In chapter 3, we describe the background of the respondents and the level and type of violence in their relationship. In chapter 4, we describe why the respondents chose to join VOM, how they experienced VOM, what the results of the mediation procedure were and what happened after VOM. Chapter 4 ends with a conclusion on the needs of victims and offenders and analyses the potential variation in needs for each participant group. Chapter 5 examines the outcomes of the focus groups with professionals in the different countries. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions. Details: Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Institute, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.irks.at/assets/irks/Publikationen/Forschungsbericht/Comparative_reportII.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.irks.at/assets/irks/Publikationen/Forschungsbericht/Comparative_reportII.pdf Shelf Number: 145112 Keywords: Domestic Violence Intimate Partner Violence Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Lauwaert, Katrien Title: Desistance and restorative justice. Mechanisms for desisting from crime within restorative justice practices Summary: The project 'Desistance and restorative justice. Mechanisms for desisting from crime within restorative justice practices' focuses on the benefit offenders can get in a desistance perspective from participating in a restorative justice (RJ) process. The research was developed as a complement of an earlier study the European Forum for Restorative Justice coordinated on 'Victims and restorative justice' and as a response to an increasing interest of in particular policymakers in knowing what the effect of participation in restorative justice processes is on offending behaviour. Recidivism research has looked into the link between RJ and reoffending. The results are not conclusive, but show that at least there is a potential for RJ to reduce crime. Recidivism research, with its mainly quantitative approach, does not, however, provide insight in why this influence occurs. Therefore this project has investigated 1) how participation in restorative justice processes influences the desistance journey of people who have offended, and 2) which factors within restorative justice practices support subjective and social changes that help initiate or maintain desistance from crime. A qualitative approach was used in order to answer the research questions. We interviewed 80 desisters who had taken part in a restorative justice process. The interviews were conducted in in Austria, Belgium, and Northern Ireland. In Austria the juvenile and adult desisters had participated in victim-offender mediation which is organised as a pre-trial diversion measure for not so serious offences. In Belgium the adult desisters had participated in victim-offender mediation which runs parallel to the criminal justice procedure and involves (rather) serious offences. In Northern Ireland the juvenile desisters had participated in diversionary and court-ordered conferencing for offences of varying seriousness as part of the regular procedure. The findings of the research confirm that victim-offender mediation and conferencing as practiced in Austria, Belgium and Northern Ireland have the potential to influence desistance; sometimes as a trigger for change, but more often as a support for an ongoing desistance process. The research uncovered a number of recurring factors and dynamics. However, every desistance account was highly individual and therefore no generalisations should be made. In all three countries the work of the mediator created an atmosphere of openness and respect, and this set the right context for other effects to happen. Adopting a non-judgmental attitude, showing a willingness to listen, and not labeling the participants as criminals was conducive to a constructive spirit and open communication in which participants felt comfortable to speak freely, to explain their whole story and to take responsibility. Although the flexibility of the restorative justice process differs in the three countries, it was clear that the possibility to tailor the process to the needs of the parties also helped to make it a useful experience for the desisting offender. The communication with the victim was a dominant element in terms of impact on change. Facing the situation of the victim, experiencing the sometimes constructive attitude of the victim, the fact that the offender could explain things, apologise, express regrets and show changes in his life since the offence, these had all been helpful elements. The restorative justice process enabled the offenders to change their perspective, to develop empathy with the victim, or to acknowledge the real impact of their behaviour. After the restorative justice process the offenders had felt relieved, they had felt courageous and proud or it had helped them to turn the page. In Northern Ireland in particular the rehabilitative elements in the reparation plans, which were prepared during the conference, were beneficial to many participants, especially to the juveniles who had been persistent offenders. Moreover, these young persons benefitted strongly from the relationship they were able to develop with the Youth Justice Agency worker who supervised the completion of their reparation plan, and from the ethos and humanising response they received from the Youth Justice Agency as a whole. Financial reparation as a result of a mediation, came to the fore as an element supporting desistance in a few Belgian narratives. How were these factors helpful for desistance? Through these factors, the restorative justice processes helped desisters to deal with emotions of shame, blame, guilt and culpability. They instilled hope, provided an opportunity to find closure or to confirm the desister's pro-social identity. In specific situations the restorative justice process helped repairing relationships. Furthermore, it was seen as (very) helpful by the participants that the restorative justice process prevented a case to go to court, or that the restorative justice process supported a positive decision for an early release from prison. Finally, the efficacy of victimless conferences and conferences with drug addicted offenders are areas which merit further attention, as our findings indicate that these situations may prevent restorative justice processes from influencing desistance. Details: Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice, 2015. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Research-report-desistance-and-RJ-total-doc-24-11-final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Research-report-desistance-and-RJ-total-doc-24-11-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145115 Keywords: DesistanceRecidivismReoffendingRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Bolivar, Daniela Title: Victims and Restorative Justice: An empirical study of the needs, experience and position of the victim within restorative justice practices: Country Reports Summary: This report covers the final findings of the two-year research project "victims and restorative justice" coordinated by the European Forum for Restorative Justice and implemented in The Netherlands, Finland and Austria. This research aimed to study the position of the victim in restorative justice (RJ). To do so, two main issues were addressed: on the one hand, the experiences of victims of crime who had participated (or not, for whatever reason) in victim-offender mediation and, on the other hand, the opinions and views of practitioners from the fields of victim support and RJ. This report focuses on the empirical findings on victims' experiences. Researchers from the three countries that took part in this study (Austria, Finland and The Netherlands) describe and analyse their findings through three informative chapters. Finally, some conclusions are drawn and some implications for practice and research are discussed (chapter 4). A more detailed and analytical account of specific aspects of our research in addition to other findings not included in this report can be found in the publication Vanfraechem, I., Bolivar, D. and Aertsen, I., eds., 2015. Victims and Restorative Justice. London: Routledge. This publication offers a theoretical and empirical overview of the position of the victim within European RJ practices so it can be considered as a necessary complement to this country reports. Details: Utrecht: European Forum for Restorative Justice, 2015. 143p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/report_victimsandRJ-2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/report_victimsandRJ-2.pdf Shelf Number: 145114 Keywords: Restorative Justice Victim ServicesVictim-Offender MediationVictims of Crime |
Author: Barabas, Tunde Title: Responsibility-taking, Relationship-building and Restoration in Prisons. Mediation and Restorative Justice in Prison Settings Summary: This publication includes the research studies, results, observations, experiences and proposals relating to the work carried out by the participating partners over the three years of the MEREPS project (JLS/2008/JPEN015-30-CE-0267156/00-39), co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme 2008 of the European Commission. Following the introduction by Martin Wright, first the chapters written by Tunde Barabas and Szandra Windt presents the background of the empirical research of several years carried out by the National Institute of Criminology, the summary of the different target groups and methods of the survey and, on the basis of all this, the possibilities of mediation in Hungarian prisons. In the course of this, we will present the results of the examinations conducted in the penal institutions in Balassagyarmat and Tokol, you can get to know the feelings and circumstances of inmates as well as their attitude to repentance, what the Hungarian prison system has to offer and the attitude of those working in the prisons. You can also read about the needs of victims, based on victims' forums and the relevant research. This is followed by the evaluation study of Dora Szego and Borbala Fellegi (Foresee Research Group) of the one-year pilot project implemented in Hungary: the disclosure of the difficulties, (partial) successes and the tasks arising in the everyday life of prisons, which have to be addressed and solved and which will lay the foundation of the domestic application of prison mediation. The pilot project tested the applicability of the restorative justice (RJ) approach in the Hungarian prison system: how can practices representing restorative principles be introduced in prison settings? What are the institutional, legal and personal conditions that serve as supportive circumstances, and what are the specific challenging circumstances? Based on in-depth interviews and participant observations, the study shows a thorough picture about the internal dynamics and mechanisms of the prison, about the attitudes of staff and about the ways in which RJ can be integrated into this world. The Hungarian chapter ends with the evaluation of a practicing public prosecutor, Andras Szucs (High Prosecution Service) of the opportunities offered by the legal and institutional framework which are necessary for the application of penal mediation and which can be realised in the current legal framework. The presentation of the research carried out by our foreign partners begins with the study conducted in England, concentrating on juvenile offenders. According to this chapter, written by Theo Gavrielides, director of IARS, in Britain there are fewer legal barriers to the introduction and application of restorative practices (compared to the continent), and so they are significantly ahead of us in the field of introducing and applying restorative tools. This may facilitate the experiences of the British being regarded as exemplary when introducing penal mediation in Hungary. The essay, however, looks further ahead, and presents a much broader range of the programmes of a restorative approach applied in the different prisons of the world, primarily in respect of juvenile offenders. The essay mentions the research carried out among English experts and makes recommendations concerning the application of the restorative approach in prisons. After that you can read about the results achieved in the German study and pilot project, led by Arthur Hartmann (professor of the University of Bremen). You can become acquainted with the complex system of the German federal rules and the rules of the state of Bremen, as well as the general conditions and current practice of Restorative Justice in Germany. The chapter details the research carried out by the University of Bremen and the results of the model experiment subsequently conducted in the penal institution in Oslebshausen (Bremen). The closing study written by Ivo Aertsen (professor at the University of Leuven) in the volume describes the history and possibilities of prison mediation already implemented and operating efficiently in Belgium. On the one hand, it outlines the Belgian legislative environment and current regulatory framework; on the other hand it presents the structural barriers and difficulties as well as the good practices and other development trends. A special feature of the book is that its last part contains three case studies (a mediation case written by Els Gossens, mediator of the Belgian Suggnome, and two family group conferencing cases by Vidia Negrea (director of the IIRP Hungary) and by Dora Szego and Borbala Fellegi) that illustrate the resolution of "real-life", successfully closed and very serious cases, from preparation to closing, through a restorative approach. This seemingly small volume may represent an important milestone in the adaptation and introduction of restorative practices such as mediation and group conferencing in prison settings. We are hopeful that the studies in this book will contribute to the communication of the various programmes and models of a restorative approach. And maybe they can also make us reflect on programmes that make it possible to get those affected by a crime to sit down and discuss the issues that are important to them, so that they can develop a mutually acceptable solution together. Details: Budapest: P-T Muhely: Commissioned by the National Institute of Criminology, 2012. 330p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: http://mereps.foresee.hu/uploads/tx_abdownloads/files/MEREPS_FinalPublication_EN.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Europe URL: http://mereps.foresee.hu/uploads/tx_abdownloads/files/MEREPS_FinalPublication_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 145116 Keywords: PrisonersPrisonsRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Laxminarayan, Malini Title: Accessibility and Initiation of Restorative Justice Summary: The project Accessibility and Initiation of Restorative Justice developed in response to the understanding that while restorative justice mechanisms provide a positive means of dealing with crime, both for the victim and the offender, such procedures are not often being utilised. Both international and national legislation on restorative justice has emerged in the past years, providing countries with a framework to look to as a guide for the implementation of restorative justice. Yet accessibility issues have existed for the past 20 years, hindering a greater number of cases from being dealt with through restorative justice approaches. This project aims to identify these barriers and investigate how to best deal with them, from a comparative perspective. The report answers two primary questions. First, when and under what conditions are restorative justice processes accessible to citizens? Factors related to accessibility include those that impede or assist parties in getting to a restorative procedure (i.e. those that can increase or prevent referrals). Therefore, important topics include the referral procedure, namely at what moment in time a referral is made and by whom parties are referred. A framework is designed based on international legislation, access to justice literature and existing empirical research on the topic. Subsequently, 10 factors are determined to conceptualise accessibility and are the focus of the empirical research: availability, legislation, exclusion criteria, awareness, attitudes, cooperation, trust, institutionalisation, good practices and costs. Second, how are restorative justice processes initiated under different jurisdictions and in different models? Factors related to initiation include those that stimulate or discourage beginning a restorative procedure by the parties, and are related to the moment a victim or offender is invited or informed about restorative justice. There are several important elements to consider when informing parties about the option to participate in a restorative justice programme. These include the level of influence and authority of the initiator, the information provided, the mode of the offer, the language of the offer and the frequency of the offer. To answer these questions, empirical research was conducted comprising several methods. A questionnaire was disseminated to both referral bodies and restorative justice practitioners to better understand barriers in their own countries. It was observed that numbers of cases are limited, ranging most often between a few hundred to roughly 10,000 per country. Exceptions included countries such as Austria, Germany and Finland (representing countries with higher cases). Perhaps unsurprisingly, all participants from the 17 countries who completed the questionnaire appeared to report similar issues. Most often mentioned was the lack of awareness and punitive attitudes that limited a greater number of referrals to restorative justice. Qualitative interviews were also conducted to examine the different initiation models that could be found in each of the five countries: Croatia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania. Interviews with 'initiators,' namely those who had some type of role in informing or inviting victims and/or offenders to participate in restorative justice illustrated the diverse methods used and the issues that arose during the initiation phase. Approaches included initiation through letters, phone calls, and face-to-face conversations. It may be the case, for example, that the judge adjourns a case while a probation officer informs the offender about the possibility for restorative justice (e.g., Ireland); employees of the prosecution service invite the juvenile offender to discuss how they will deal with his or her case, where one possible scenario is that he will be offered to participate in victim-offender mediation (e.g., Croatia); a selection table will filter out cases and send a letter to the parties that qualify, who may then get in touch with the mediator (e.g., the Netherlands); or police, prosecutors and judges may inform parties where they can go to get more information from the mediation service, often through information points in courts or leaflets (e.g., Romania). Interviews with victims and offenders were conducted to examine their perspective on the way the offer was made. Information was gathered on coercion, authority, manner of the offer, awareness, language of the offer, dealing with concerns and timing. It was found that, in some instances, offenders felt they had little choice about participating; the positive approach of the initiator had a direct influence on their decision to participate; parties were often unaware of restorative justice before they were provided with such information; support and flexibility when dealing with the parties' concerns was influential in the decision to participate in restorative justice programmes. The letter that is sent to victims and offenders was also given attention in the empirical research. Several aspects were identified as important in the letter: making the language easy to understand; avoiding certain terms (e.g., mediation); personalising the benefits of restorative justice; recognising the victim’s harm; being authoritative; making the letter interactive; providing examples of successful relevant mediations. Furthermore, a small-scale experiment with Criminology students examined whether two aspects in particular – authority and social norming – were associated with one’s decision to participate. The findings concluded that social norming, or the belief that similar others are involved in some type of behaviour (i.e., participating in mediation), does impact the likelihood of participating in mediation. The comparative nature of the project allowed for an assessment of different models, in addition to an examination of good practices. It is evident that countries adopt different approaches in their procedures surrounding restorative justice. Despite these differences, all countries face issues and aim to increase their referral procedures. Without making both the public and referral bodies aware of restorative justice, however, accessibility will remain limited. Attitudes also must change, where a restorative philosophy can be adopted in the best case scenario, and at the least legal authorities must begin to believe in the advantages of restorative justice. Undeniably, these two factors – attitudes and awareness – are largely intertwined. Greater awareness is likely to lead to more positive attitudes towards restorative justice. Furthermore, other elements such as cooperation, costs, legislation, and exclusion criteria must be given consideration. Details: Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice, 2014. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2016 at: http://euforumrj.org/assets/upload/Accessibility_and_Initiation_of_RJ_website.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://euforumrj.org/assets/upload/Accessibility_and_Initiation_of_RJ_website.pdf Shelf Number: 145396 Keywords: MediationRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Adler, Joanna R. Title: Evaluation of the Forgiveness Project within prisons Summary: The Forgiveness Project (TFP) is a UK based charity that uses real stories to explore how ideas around forgiveness, reconciliation and conflict resolution can have a positive impact on people's lives. One aspect of the charity's work is a programme run within prisons, targeted at the early stages of a sentence. TFP describe their prison programme as an intensive, group based intervention that encourages prisoners to explore concepts of forgiveness and reparation in a framework that fosters greater accountability and responsibility. Every course is co-facilitated by at least one ex-offender and a victim/survivor of serious crime. The intervention can be seen as being restorative and preparatory; those who take part in the programme will tend to be relatively early on in their sentence. TFP centres on the personal testimonies of both victims and perpetrators of crime and violence. TFP is unlike many other restorative initiatives in that it has no political or religious affiliation and TFP's prison programme is similarly secular in its approach. TFP aims to facilitate changes in attitude and thinking styles of offenders. That is, to encourage prisoners and young offenders in finding their own pathways to change. In finding those pathways, they may draw on many different resources and insights. These could include personal, communal, spiritual or religious beliefs that they may have, whether or not they have previously seen those beliefs as relevant to their offending behaviours. TFP run programmes via both education and psychology units. The emphasis on individual change is also intended to differentiate TFP from prison or National Offenders Management Service interventions. This person centred, facilitative but non prescriptive approach was adopted with the intention that prisoners and young offenders would be more responsive to the intervention than they may be to other, more standardised, manual based programmes. ii Design and Participant Information This evaluation was commissioned to build on a previous qualitative examination of the work of TFP within prisons and to provide information that would begin to evaluate its impact. The aims included consideration of the extent to which TFP is meeting its objectives and assessment of whether adequate safeguards are in place for the young offenders and adult prisoners who participate in the intervention. We adopted a triangulated approach using quantitative and qualitative methodologies with: 1. A prospective, longitudinal sample of male young offenders and older male prisoners and matched control groups (a total of 20 research and 20 control group participants across two institutions, followed up over 3 months). 2. A sample of 7 prison staff drawn from the same two institutions. 3. A retrospective, cross-sectional sample of 4 adult, male prisoners from a third institution. Our key hypotheses for this evaluation were: H1: That TFP will encourage greater awareness of victims and victim empathy. H2: That TFP will encourage enhanced cognitive processing and improved thinking skills. H3: That participants will face psycho-social challenges that result in additional needs, currently unmet. These needs include increased anxiety, challenges to self-esteem and increased negative attitudes. Details: London: Middlesex University, 2012. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2016 at: http://www.thebromleytrust.org.uk/Indexhibit/files/Restore%20evaluation%20final%20report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.thebromleytrust.org.uk/Indexhibit/files/Restore%20evaluation%20final%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 150549 Keywords: MediationPrisonsRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Bright, Janet Title: Improving victim take-up of restorative justice Summary: The report, written by Janet Bright, explores the barriers to victims participating in restorative justice and what can be done to address them. It is the result of an eight-month research project which involved interviews with practitioners, service managers and victims - both those who had taken part in restorative justice and those who had chosen not to do so. The report highlights a number of barriers preventing higher restorative justice take-up and makes a series of recommendations. These include better facilitator training in engaging victims, removing offence-specific exclusions, increasing the number of points in the criminal justice system where service providers can deliver restorative justice and increasing awareness among key agencies. Details: London: Restorative Justice Council, 2017. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 15, 2017 at: https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/RJC_TakeUpReport_web.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/RJC_TakeUpReport_web.pdf Shelf Number: 146183 Keywords: Restorative Justice Victim-Offender MediationVictims of Crime |
Author: Wilson, David B. Title: Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis Summary: The restorative justice theoretical framework views crime as a violation of people and relationships. These violations in turn create an obligation to make things right. Restorative justice aims to reestablish the balance that has been offset as a result of a crime by involving the primary stakeholders (i.e. victim, offender, and the affected community) in the decision-making process of how best to restore this balance. The focus is on healing as opposed to punishment. Other important principles of restorative justice include offender accountability for wrongdoing, respect for all participants, and the centrality of the victim throughout the process. A fundamental component of restorative justice programs is some form of dialog or interaction between the offender and the victim or a victim surrogate, with some programs extending participation to family and community members. Examples of programs include Victim-Offender Mediation, Family Group Conferencing, and Sentencing Circles. Furthermore, some routine practices of the juvenile justice system such as restitution are consistent with restorative justice principles, and some programs incorporate some aspect of the framework, such as teen courts. Several programs for juvenile and adult offenders have been created and implemented within various justice and non-justice settings. These programs have also been tested over the past several decades, producing a substantial body of evidence. The objective of this study was to systematically review and statistically synthesize all available research that, at a minimum, compared participants in a restorative justice program to participants processed in a more traditional way using meta-analytic methods. Ideally, these studies would include research designs with random assignment to condition groups, as this provides the most credible evidence of program effectiveness. Our systematic search identified 99 publications, both published and unpublished, reporting on the results of 84 evaluations nested within the 60 unique research projects or studies. From these studies, we extracted results related to delinquency, non-delinquency, and victim outcomes for the youth and victims participating in these programs. Overall, the results evaluating restorative justice programs and practices showed a moderate reduction in future delinquent behavior relative to more traditional juvenile court processing. However, these results were smaller for the more credible random assignment studies, raising concerns about the robustness of this overall result. Promising findings in terms of delinquency outcomes for the youth were seen for victim-offender conferencing, family group conferencing, arbitration/mediation programs, and circle sentencing programs. However, in all cases the evidence is equivocal with lower effects for random assignment studies and high variability in findings across studies. The effects for restitution, teen courts, impact panels, and reparative boards are less encouraging, suggesting that these may not be effective programs. In contrast, cautioning and diversion programs had the largest reductions in delinquency, suggesting that this approach may be effective for low-risk and first-time youthful offenders. Promising findings were seen for many of the non-delinquency outcomes for the youth, although some uncertainty remains about these outcomes given the small number of studies and variability across studies. Still, youth participating in restorative justice programs had a greater perception of fairness. The results also suggest that restorative justice youth are more satisfied with the restorative justice programs and have somewhat less supportive attitudes toward delinquency. Similarly, victims reported improved perceptions of fairness, greater satisfaction, improved attitudes toward the juvenile, are more willing to forgive the offender, and are more likely to feel that the outcome was just. The bottom line for restorative justice programs and practices is that the evidence is promising, suggesting possible but still uncertain benefits for the youth participants in terms of reduced future delinquent behavior and other non-delinquent outcomes. Victim participants in these programs, however, do appear to experience a number of benefits and are more satisfied with these programs than traditional approaches to juvenile justice. Additional high quality research of these programs is clearly warranted given these promising but uncertain findings. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, 2017. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250872.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250872.pdf Shelf Number: 146582 Keywords: Juvenile Court Processing Juvenile Offenders Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Baliga, Sujatha Title: Restorative Community Conferencing. A study of Community Works West's restorative justice youth diversion program in Alameda County Summary: This report, written by Impact Justice's Restorative Justice Project, explores Community Works West's Restorative Community Conferencing program, which currently diverts over 100 youth per year away from the juvenile legal system. Restorative Community Conferencing (RCC) is a process for resolving harm through an organized, facilitated dialogue in which young people, with the support of family and community members, meet with their crime victims to create a plan to repair the harm caused by their offense. Community Works West has been operating the RCC program in Alameda County, California for more than six years through positive relationships with community and criminal legal system stakeholders. This report describes the program's benefits and effectiveness based on an analysis of available data from January 2012 through December 2014. Notable findings reveal that, of 102 young people who completed the RCC program, after 12 months only 18.4% of the RCC youth were subsequently adjudicated delinquent - that is, determined by the court to have committed another delinquent act - compared to 32.1% of the control group of youth whose cases were processed through the traditional juvenile legal system. Over time, recidivism rates for RCC youth generally held, rising only slightly, while the recidivism rates of the control group youth increased significantly over time. Ninety-one percent of participating victims reported that they would participate in another RCC. The report also describes how the RCC program carries significant cost-saving potential, due to the lower rates of reoffending from using RCC, combined with the RCC intervention's average one-time cost of $4,500, versus $23,000 per year on average for a youth on probation. Details: Oakland, CA: Impact Justice, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2017 at: http://impactjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CWW-Report_Final_6.14.17_electronic.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://impactjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CWW-Report_Final_6.14.17_electronic.pdf Shelf Number: 147039 Keywords: Juvenile Diversion Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Native Counselling Services of Alberta Title: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hollow Water's Community Holistic Circle Healing Process (APC 20 CA (2001) Summary: The Solicitor General's Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative (ACCI) and Justice Canada's Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS) have both implied that improvements to justice and corrections in Aboriginal communities would result in cost savings to governments. Although a cost-benefit analysis can be undertaken, it is particularly difficult to ascertain the costs associated with community wellness strategies, and, therefore, any potential savings to policing, administrating justice and corrections. The Hollow Water First Nation Community Holistic Circle Healing (CHCH) strategy is the most mature healing process in Canada. While integrating elements for a number of federal and provincially funded services (i.e., policing, justice, corrections, health and social services) CHCH provides a unique opportunity to explore the costs associated with its various components. Clearly, Aboriginal culture, value-system and process differ significantly from the dominant society. In order to perform research that is ethical, careful and thorough, comparable linkages between Justice and Aboriginal criteria must be explored in different ways. The real value of CHCH work can only be identified by the community members impacted by the healing process; typically, however, the benefits of this process have not been acknowledged nor measured by the dominant society. Yet, the benefits of the CHCH activity have touched all aspects of life in Hollow Water, many of which, cannot be given a specific dollar value. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to adequately place a dollar value on the depth, quality, commitment and sustainability of the substantial healing work achieved in Hollow Water, and the impressive track record CHCH holds. To overcome what appears to be a significant obstacle, the research team collaborated with the community to develop a common understanding of the CHCH research & healing process with community members and to express the core elements/dynamics/process of CHCH healing activity. This collaboration resulted in a clear comparison of some aspects of the CHCH process with mainstream judicial, victim and family services available in Manitoba. In addition, it provided an indication of many value-added benefits of the CHCH program, which are difficult to measure, unique and have far-reaching community healing implications. Details: Ottawa: Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit, Solicitor General of Canada , 2001. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 11, 2017 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/cst-bnft-hllw-wtr/cst-bnft-hllw-wtr-eng.pdf Year: 2001 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/cst-bnft-hllw-wtr/cst-bnft-hllw-wtr-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147213 Keywords: Aboriginal PeoplesCost-Benefit AnalysisRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Shapland, Joanna Title: Developing restorative policing: using the evidence base to inform the delivery of restorative justice and improve engagement with victims. Learning lessons from Belgium and Northern Ireland Summary: Restorative justice (RJ) is well established in Belgium where interventions are widely available for both adults and juveniles with regard to both pre-court and post-court provision. There is a particularly well-embedded recent history of restorative justice in the Flemish-speaking region of Belgium, most notably in the city of Leuven dating back (at least) to the late 1980s. With the support of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven), a scheme of restorative mediation was set up with the explicit focus on providing restorative justice for more serious crimes where the public prosecutor had already made a decision to prosecute. It was felt that much of the international success in restorative justice - from New Zealand and Australia notably - had focused more directly on less serious crime and on juveniles. So, the aims of the new initiative in Leuven at the time were: first, to elaborate and develop a model of (victim/offender) restorative mediation in cases of adult serious crimes; and secondly, to explore the implications for the wider criminal justice system of the operation of the two different processes; namely restorative justice on the one hand and criminal prosecution on the other hand. In particular, the scheme's proponents were interested in the ways in which restorative principles might influence and prompt key actors - notably judges, prosecutors and police - 'to rethink in some way the objectives and rationales of the criminal justice system' (according to one of the KU Leuven proponents interviewed). This initial approach has influenced many of the developments, informing policy and practice both within and beyond Leuven, over the ensuing years. Examples of this include the establishment of a pilot project in 1998 in six prisons (in collaboration with the universities of Leuven and Liege) (Robert and Peters 2003; Aertsen 2005). In 2000, the Minister of Justice decided to implement the model across all prisons in Belgium supported by the appointment of a full-time 'restorative justice advisor' in each prison operating at the level of prison management to develop a culture, skills and programme to support victims' needs and restorative responses. Similarly, in the field of juvenile justice, the university was instrumental in establishing an action research conferencing pilot project in 2000 in four locations. The pilot was based on the experiences of the New Zealand model of Family Group Conferencing, but as well as the above mentioned adult scheme, it focused specifically upon more serious crimes (Vanfraechem 2005; Vanfraechem and Walgrave 2004). In many ways, Leuven has been a generator and beacon of good practice in the field of restorative justice over a number of years, with models of practice developed in Leuven being adopted and adapted elsewhere in the country. The role of the university has been quite pivotal in this, serving as an international hub of research and theorisation in the field of restorative justice and as a key centre for the diffusion of evidence-based practice and application of practical innovations. For instance, the European Forum for Restorative Justice, which promotes the application of restorative practices across Europe, has its base and its secretariat in the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at KU Leuven (since it was established in 2000). The university has played an important role in stimulating practice-based and policy innovations as well as informing citywide multi-agency partnerships in promoting restorative approaches. In 1996 the mediation service of Leuven (Bemiddelingsdienst arrondissement Leuven - BAL) was established as a cooperation between the office of the Counsel for the Prosecution (the public prosecutors), the police, the city board of Leuven (municipal authority), the board of lawyers, the local Judicial Welfare Service and the probation service (working with offenders), Victim Support, a NGO juvenile justice service provider (then Oikoten, but subsequently Alba), a mediation service provider for adults (then Suggnome but subsequently renamed Moderator), the prison service and the university. Consequently, developments in Leuven have benefited from this longstanding history of inter-organisational collaboration informed by an acute awareness of the evidence-base and conceptual clarity regarding the principles of restorative justice. Details: Sheffield, UK: Centre for Criminological Research, University of Sheffield, 2017. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2017 at: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.714948!/file/Comparative-report-publication.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.714948!/file/Comparative-report-publication.pdf Shelf Number: 147561 Keywords: MediationPolice TrainingRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Beaudette, Janelle Title: The Impact of Offender Participation in the Restorative Opportunities Program Summary: Restorative justice (RJ) has been part of the Canadian criminal justice system for over 30 years. Today, RJ programs exist in all provinces and territories and can be accessed at multiple points in the criminal justice process from pre-charge to post-sentence. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) began providing victim-offender mediation (VOM) services to address serious crime on a limited basis in 1992. In 2004, VOM was provided nationally and was officially-recognized as the Restorative Opportunities (RO) program in 2006. The purpose of the current study was to compare offenders who participated in facilitated face-to-face meetings organized by RO to a sample of matched non-participants on their rates of revocation while on conditional release. A total of 122 offenders who had taken part in RO and 122 matched offenders comprised the study sample. A facilitated face-to-face meeting could take place while incarcerated or while under conditional release in the community. Consequently, this study reported the results by time of face-to-face meeting (i.e., facilitated meeting prior to release or post-release) to account for differences between these groups and to allow for more meaningful interpretations of the findings. Survival analyses were conducted to compare rates of revocation for offenders who participated in RO to non-participants and to relate the time of revocation with the offenders' participation in RO. Results indicated that for the participants who had their meetings while incarcerated, there was no significant difference between participants and non-participants on rates of revocation, although the trend was that RO participants did better on release. When the meetings were held in the community post-release, participants were significantly more likely to spend a longer period of time under supervision in the community and were less likely to be revoked than their matched counterparts. The findings from the study demonstrated support for RO participation in the community. The results suggest that while participating in facilitated face-to-face meetings during incarceration may not decrease rates of revocation after release, providing offenders with mediation sessions during the period of community supervision does promote better outcomes. While our models controlled for variables associated with risk, it should be cautioned that factors not controlled in the matching procedure could have contributed to this effect. Research that employs a wait list design could control for the possible effects of self selection for participation in the program. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-364: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-364-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-364-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 148211 Keywords: Restorative JusticeRevocationVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Sabbagh, Muna Title: Restorative justice and black, Asian and minority ethnic children in the youth justice system Summary: This report presents the findings of a research study conducted to develop a better understanding of the delivery of restorative justice with black, Asian and minority ethnic1 (BAME) children who have offended. It is intended to help to increase the number of BAME children who access restorative justice and improve the experiences of those who do. Restorative justice gives victims the chance to meet or communicate with their offender, to talk about the harm that has been caused and find a way to repair that harm. Restorative justice can be used to divert children before they enter the youth justice system (YJS) and can also be used as part of, or as a complement to, a formal youth justice disposal. Evidence shows that it is effective in reducing reoffending, while also helping victims to put the crime behind them and move on. Some restorative justice practitioners have, however, suggested that BAME children are less likely to access restorative justice than their white peers. This study set out to explore the scale, nature and causes of this problem and to make recommendations for change. To do this, the RJC has conducted: 1. a review of the existing evidence base on BAME children within youth justice services and on children's access to and experience of restorative justice 2. interviews with practitioners working in the YJS and with BAME children who have offended, including those who had participated in a restorative justice intervention and those who had not The findings have been used to develop recommendations for changes in both policy and practice. The project was assisted by an advisory group of experts in the field, who provided advice on the research design, the final report and the ensuing recommendations. Details: London: Restorative Justice Council, 2017. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2017 at: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Restorative-justice-and-BAME-children-in-the-youth-justice-system-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Restorative-justice-and-BAME-children-in-the-youth-justice-system-1.pdf Shelf Number: 148751 Keywords: Ethnic Minorities Juvenile Offenders Minority Youth Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Aidoo, Davina Title: Hidden hurts, healing from within: restorative justice for victims and convicted offenders in Bermuda Summary: This thesis sought to explore how restorative justice (RJ) could be implemented into the Bermuda Department of Corrections using action research. The aim was to explore how RJ can work for victims and incarcerated offenders in Bermuda in regards to the potential for reduction of harm, increasing empathy and as an addition to the existing CJS. Training was provided and partnerships established with the Bermuda Police Service and Prison Fellowship Bermuda for the specific purpose of the initiative. Phase-one involved the introduction of two prerequisite programmes (Victim Empathy and the Sycamore Tree) that offenders were invited to voluntarily participate in. Respectively, one programme delivered by Corrections staff and consisting of only prisoners and the other delivered by Prison Fellowship facilitators and involving 16 surrogate victim-participants. A mixed-method approach was used to examine impact and process. These included questionnaires pre and post the phase-one programmes and the CRIME-PICS II psychometric to assess attitudinal change, participatory and non-participatory observations and a focus group. Both programmes increased the offenders' empathy while the Sycamore Tree programme involving participants from the community, helped create further positive attitudinal change on the main scales measured by the CRIME-PICS II. 93% of the Sycamore Tree victim-participants were 'very satisfied' overall and 'would definitely' recommend the programme to others. Qualitative findings indicated victim healing, with some referring to a sense of closure and forgiveness for themselves and the offender. The second-phase introduced RJ conferencing, two conferences were held and the experience of participants was again very positive. The offenders considered trained conference facilitators from the Police and Corrections as being impartial. Overall benefits for both parties (offenders and victims) indicated a promising start to the initiative. A number of previous findings from empirical research were found in the current study. Victims valued having a voice and rehabilitation; and offenders valued the 'victim's forgiveness and reintegration'. The social interconnectedness of Bermuda creates a need for RJ as the stigmatization of criminality often extends beyond the offender to include their family. The pilot indicated the need in some cases for reparatory preparation work with offenders and their families before the offender feels comfortable, or able to call upon family members as conference supporters. Further the importance of community lay in the fact that the likelihood of victims coming into contact with the person who offended against them, once released is virtually inevitable. The success of the action research pilot led to the Department of Corrections adopting the initiative and continuing with it and produced nine trained facilitators. The content of the Sycamore Tree Project was superior as a phase-one prerequisite programme to RJ conferencing; however, an adaption to the programme would be needed to reduce the strong religious content. Victims and offenders benefited from the initiative. Details: London: London Metropolitan University, 2016. 233p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1139/1/AidooDavina_HiddenHurtsHealingFromWithin.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Central America URL: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1139/1/AidooDavina_HiddenHurtsHealingFromWithin.pdf Shelf Number: 149885 Keywords: Restorative Justice (Bermuda)Victim-Offender MediationVictims of Crime |