Resolution 36 summer 2010

Resolution 36

Summer 2010

News from the Restorative Justice Consortium

Company number:4199237Charity number:1097969

Fully RestorativeYouth JusticeServicesThe Case forRestorativePolicing

Going Round inCircles

Newham RJNetwork

www.restorativejustice.org.uk

Resolution 36 Final Draft v6.qxp 5/7/10 5:26 pm Page 1

elcome to the Summer issue ofResolution.

We know that restorative justice changeslives. In this issue Anne-Marie Hagan tellshow meeting the man who killed her fatherenabled her to move on, and SandieHastings’ article shows how inLeicestershire using a circle process isenabling communities themselves to find thesolutions to crime and conflict in theirneighbourhood. ACC Garry Shewan, theACPO lead for restorative justice, makes acompelling case for much wider police useof RJ to resolve low level crime andcommunity disputes.

The RJC is delighted to see the commitmentof the new Coalition Government torestorative justice. Along with VictimSupport’s Director of Policy, I met JusticeMinister Crispin Blunt in June. Wehighlighted the gold-standard researchevidence for the cost-savings that can bemade through delivering restorative justice,not just for low level offences, but for adultoffenders and serious offences. ProfessorJoanna Shapland’s research for theMinistry of Justice demonstrates that,through reductions in re-offending,restorative justice delivers £6k in cashablesavings to criminal justice for everyoffender who takes part. We also know thatRJ delivers 85% victim satisfaction, andfits with the ‘Big Society’ ethos of thisGovernment, empowering communities toown, and find their own solutions to crime.Crispin Blunt, along with his Ministerialcolleagues is extremely positive aboutrestorative justice and determined to ensuregreater use of RJ throughout the CJS.We’llbe working closely with the Ministry ofJustice on this, to ensure that access to RJis as wide as possible, and that the quality ofrestorative justice is maintained as RJdevelops.

Some news from the RJC. The RJC Boardhave asked me to stay as Director workingthree days a week, with Chris Igoe taking onadditional responsibilities to support me asour Assistant Director. Chris will lead forthe RJC on our financial management,volunteer management, and act as ourCompany Secretary, as well as continuing tolead on all RJC external communications,including the redevelopment of the RJCwebsite.

With support from the former Office forCriminal Justice Reform, our name has beenchanged with Companies House to becomethe Restorative Justice Council. We areworking with a branding agency and willofficially launch the new name and brandlater this year – all members will be warmlyinvited to join us at the launch. As promisedat the AGM, we are strengthening the Board

of the RJC, bringing in new skills to enablethe organisation to develop as theRestorative Justice Council, the qualityassurance body for the field of restorativepractice. We are delighted that ProfessorTony Hazell, Chair of the Nursing andMidwifery Council, and founder Chair of theHealth Professions Council is joining theRJC Board, bringing a wealth of experienceto guide us as we develop the new RJCpractitioner register and Code of Practice,review the 2004 Best Practice Guidanceand partner with Skills for Justice to pilotof the first practitioner accreditation basedon the 2010 National OccupationalStandards. We’ll run an interview with Tonyin a future issue of Resolution, and keep youposted on other new appointments to theRJC Board.

As Niall Kearney highlights in his article inthis issue, restorative justice is a constantlyevolving field.The key challenge for the newRestorative Justice Council will be to bestrong guardians and proponents of qualityrestorative practice – essential to safeguardparticipants in RJ, and ensure that theexcellent findings in research aremaintained as RJ grows and expands -whilst enabling the innovation that is thehallmark of this rapidly expanding field tothrive. We welcome the support andengagement of all our members as we growthe role and work and role of theRestorative Justice Council, helping us toget this balance right, and enabling us toequip everyone delivering restorativepractice at local level with the inspiration,guidance and support that you need tocontinue your life-changing work.

Lizzie NelsonDirectorRestorative Justice Consortiumwww.restorativejustice.org.uk

WContents

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

12

14

15

16

Director’s Introduction

News in Brief

Fully Restorative Youth Justice Services

Newham RJ Network

Anne’s Story

Towards a Restorative Society

The Case for RestorativePolicing

Going Round in Circles

On Moving Forwards

Youth Justice Face to Face

Events and Vacancies

Editor’s note

Resolution is here to reflect restorativepractice in all its forms anddevelopments. Please get in touch ifyou would like to submit an article,have suggestions for a feature, ideasfor what you would like covered, newsof an event or would simply like toshare an experience with otherreaders.

Dan Kershen, Guest-EditorE:[email protected]

Resolution is the quarterly newsletter of the:Restorative Justice ConsortiumBeacon House, 113 KingswayLondon,WC2B 6PP.

T: 020 7831 5700E: [email protected] W: www.restorativejustice.org.ukCompany number: 4199237Charity number: 1097969

©2010 RJC. Not to be reproducedwithout permission.

The articles in this newsletterexpress the personal views of theauthors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the RJC.

The image on the front cover is © istock.com/LeggNett.Theperson represented is a model.

Director’s Introduction02


03

News In BriefLandmark Election forRestorative Justice

For the first time ever, every politicalparty in England & Wales representedin Parliament has pledged anexpansion of Restorative Justice in therun up to a General Election.

In the first ever televised electiondebate Nick Clegg, now Deputy PrimeMinister, spoke in favour of youngoffenders facing their victims.

Labour made a manifestocommitment to “bring in a RestorativeJustice Act” whilst the Green Partywho won in Brighton Pavillion pledged“to establish restorative justice as akey feature of the UK criminal justicesystem”.

Plaid Cymru, who increased theirnumber of seats, proposed to replaceASBOs with a system of RestorativeJustice and, in another first forEngland & Wales, pledged tointroduce restorative practice into theeducation system.

The Liberal Democrat manifestocommitment to introduce RestorativeJustice to tackle anti-social behaviourand low-level crime throughNeighbourhood Justice Panels becamepart of the new Government’s fullcoalition programme.

Conservative Justice Minister CrispinBlunt has built on the commitmentmade by Alan Duncan, the formerShadow Prisons Minister, to “urgentlyinvestigate” what needs to be done toimplement restorative justicenationwide. In a meeting with RJCDirector Lizzie Nelson and VictimSupport the Minister for Prisons andProbation discussed how restorativejustice might be introduced at everystage of the criminal justice system.

Nick Herbert, Minister for Policingand Criminal Justice, spoke publicallyon 24th June about the potential forrestorative justice to help offendersaccept their social responsibilities andoffer better support to victims ofcrime.

Zoe’s storyRJC worked closely with the DailyMirror leading to a double page reporton Restorative Justice. The articlelooks at the story of Zoe Harrison whoafter being mugged at knife pointfound that confronting the youngperson responsible helped her recover.Zoe said “I thought that image [of theviolent attack] would never go away...I feel better for venting my feelings athim and for listening to what he had tosay in return.”

Victim Support added “On a nationallevel [RJ] would be a greatopportunity. The benefits lookpromising. All the indicators are nowpointing in the right direction.”Read the full article atwww.restorativejustice.org.uk/?Media

Youth Restorative DisposalA national evaluation of over fourthousand Youth Restorative Disposalsacross eight police forces has beenpublished by the YJB.

The evaluation found that the YRD is agood value investment leading to longterm efficiency savings and increasedpublic confidence. The reportrecommends that the YRD forms partof a broader police strategy onrestorative justice. However the needfor significant initial investment intraining of the highest standard andongoing support and quality assurancewere underlined.

The evaluation can be found atwww.restorativejustice.org.uk-/?restorative_justice:restorative_policing

Making Progress in RJJohn Bacon’s Masters’ thesis ‘MakingProgress in Restorative Justice: aqualitative study’ uses the experience ofRJ facilitators from the MOJ researchpilots to consider the journey made byfacilitators through the restorativeprocess.The study has implications forrecruitment, training and supervision ofrestorative facilitators. Enter “MakingProgress” into our website search tool tofind the thesis.

Creating a Restorative CapitalRJC, with the support of The CityBridge Trust, are working to promoteand support Restorative Justice in theCapital.

Creating a Restorative Capital willbring together people with an interestin restorative justice in London towork collaboratively to begin theprocess of creating a restorative city.

Clifford Chance are hosting an RJCevent on 27th July launching thisproject which is already fullysubscribed.To register your interest injoining Creating a Restorative Capitalnetworks and attending future eventsplease [email protected].

Start a Restorative NetworkWe want to use our new website tohelp people set up new regional andlocal RJ networks and to supportexisting ones. If you are part of a localnetwork in your area or want to setone up please contact us [email protected].

About UsRestorative justice empowers thepeople most affected by crime andconflict to deal with its effects. It doesthis through enabling communicationbetween people who have been harmedand people who are responsible forthat harm.

Restorative justice can give victimsthe chance to tell offenders the realimpact of their crime, to get answers,receive an apology and move on withtheir lives. It holds offenders toaccount whilst giving them the chanceto understand the real impact of whatthey’ve done and to do something torepair the harm.

Restorative processes are also beingused in schools, workplaces, carehomes, health services andcommunities as a better way ofprevent ing and resolving conflict.

The RJC is the voice for RestorativeJustice in England and Wales. Ourvision is that every person affected byconflict and crime should have accessto a restorative process. RJC isbecoming the Restorative JusticeCouncil - the quality assurance bodyfor the field.


Becoming a ‘Fully Restorative Youth JusticeService’ Restorative Justice in Surrey

victim of bullying. Over time the workhas focussed on making the linkagesbetween John’s own experiences as avictim and his empathy andunderstanding of Ryan’s needs. Thework is on-going but at this point Johnhas consented to signing an agreementto stay away from Ryan that will formpart of his contract/intervention plan.

Who knows, it may not yet be the end ofthe story. The possibility of bringingRyan and John together face to face atsome point in the future remains.

Key lessons

1. If we can seriously developrestorative approaches in all schoolsthen we might prevent bullying earlierand avoid the need to bring John andRyan into encounter with the youthjustice system in the first place.

2. All too often our ‘offenders’have their own experiences ofvictimisation. We need to develop waysto make connection that can lead toeffective practice and benefits for bothvictims and offenders.

3. This will become routine whenall youth justice staff become‘restorative practitioners’ not simply interms of supporting relationshipsbetween victims and offenders but in allthat we do.

Chris Stevens is Divisional Manager atSurrey Youth Justice Service.

If you would like to know more pleaseemail [email protected].

Surrey YJS has recently set itself thechallenge to work towards becoming afully restorative service. What doesthis mean?

Well, on the one hand Surrey is nodifferent from other Youth OffendingTeams (YOTs) in as much as we havebeen working to deliver restorativejustice services for a number of years,with a focus on victims of crime andcreating opportunities for ‘offenders’ torepair harm, both practically and/or,emotionally.

So you will find at Surrey YJS a rangeof services, such as our reparationscheme, our victim/offender mediationprovision, our Referral Order practiceunderpinned with a restorative ethos;all of which may not stand very muchapart from what is going on in lots ofother YOTs around the country.

So what do we mean by ‘fullyrestorative service’? We think theanswer lies in our endeavour to putrestorative values at the heart of all ofour relationships and practices withinthe youth justice system, so that therestorative justice agenda movesbeyond interest in ‘victims’ and‘offenders’ and what we might do toheal and repair when things go wrong, itfurthers application of restorativeapproaches in the ways that we managerelationships between ourselves as workforce; to how we apply restorativevalues to our approach to casemanagement and enabling compliance;to underpin our approach to deliveringgroup work programmes; andstrengthening families through ourparenting support provision.

We want to develop restorative practiceend to end: as a range of approaches todivert pre-court as part of ourprevention strategy at one end and tosupport re-settlement of those leavingcustody at the other.

Furthermore, we want to build a cross-service restorative practice agendawith police, education and children’sservices in particular, as part of a widerprevention strategy, including ourpartners and stakeholders in the wideryouth justice system. This includesworking with our partners in exploringchanges we can make to youth court

practice and the development of‘restorative youth courts’ that bettersupport restorative practice with youngpeople on court orders.

We will strive to learn from the ‘wholeschool’ restorative approachesexperience in education and seek todisplace the current hybrid of‘retributive’ and ‘restorative’ culturewith a coherent restorative local youthjustice system, designed to deliver thepotential that restorative approachescan bring, for ‘victims’, ‘offenders’,professionals and volunteers, schools,care settings and the wider community.

In so doing we want to reduce relianceon formal criminal justice, reform theformal youth justice system (alongrestorative lines) where it’s needed,elevate and better support restorativepractices across the board and reduceoffending, increase victim satisfactionand public confidence and createhappier, healthier workplaces conduciveto professionals delivering serviceimprovements that benefit us all.

Case Study – Ryan and John

John (13 years) has been repeatedlybullying Ryan (12 years) in school forsome time and has now come toattention of the police for a CommonAssault.

There was no restorative work thattook place at the school and Ryan’sfamily were very disappointed, resultingin Ryan’s parents taking him out ofeducation and schooling him at home.Furthermore, Ryan’s family were veryfrustrated with the justice system thatwas failing to meet their needs and‘making things worse’.

When we got involved and met withRyan’s family it was clear that theydesperately needed the bullying to stopso that Ryan could move on so begin toresume his life without fear. They didnot want ‘a letter of apology’ or‘community reparation’ or theopportunity to meet face to face but didspecifically ask if we could secure anagreement with John that he wouldleave Ryan alone.

Our subsequent work with John hasexposed his own history of abuse as a

04


05

Newham Restorative Justice Network

The project is coordinated by RobinLockhart from REIN (RaceEquality In Newham) and isfunded by Safer LondonFoundation and the YouthOpportunity Fund,. It is run by aYouth Advisory Board (YAB) whoadvise a Network of professionals(including YOT, Police, WitnessServices, Conflict & Change –Mediation & Counselling, PRU,Victim Support, CPS etc) on theimplementation of the RestorativeJustice Network for young peoplein Newham.

The Young Advisors are aged 16 –25 and every member has beenaffected by guns, gangs, knives orstreet crime; as a victim or assomeone who has offended, as awitness, or as a young person whohas been otherwise affected bythese issues (several have lostfamily members through streetcrime).

The YAB are a very positive &proactive group. They have raisedalmost £50,000 themselves to payfor Friday and Sunday sessions inour Youth Centre, includingaccredited courses for themselvesand for the other young peoplereferred to the project.

Restorative justice stems from abelief that every person harmed bycrime and conflict, including bothvictims & those who haveoffended, should have the

opportunity to resolve it througha restorative process. At REINwe believe that restorativeprocesses can help to break thecycle of offending and re-offending in a more effective waythan the current punitive / penalapproach.

Newham Restorative JusticeNetwork (NRJN) works withyoung people aged 13 – 19 whohave been affected by conflict andcrime from our purpose builtyouth club “The Mix” in Plaistow(1a Cumberland Rd, E13 8LH).

The project seeks to addressissues surrounding guns, gangs,knives & street crime (& relatedcrimes) among young people inthe borough. It works withoffenders, as well as with victims(who often go on to becomeoffenders) to reduce offendingsubsequent recidivism.

Unfortunately, we have hadseveral deaths of young people inthe borough and the high level ofmedia attention has driven theperception (that many youngpeople have developed in theborough) of fear of each other.This pervasive fear among ouryoung people is, we believe,‘skewing’ the true figures relatingto this type of crime. it leads tomany more young people carryingweapons (to make them feel safer,whilst not realising that it

contributes to them becominginvolved in such crime) or notreporting incidents of violentstreet crime for fear of reprisals.Newham is spotlighted by nationalmedia as being a youth & streetcrime ‘hot-spot’ – further drivingthe fear. This is despite the factthat we have more young people inNewham than in most areas &therefore it seems to us obviousthat we will have more youthassociated incidents (almost 25%of Newham’s community is under25 & this is rising!)

The project seeks to address theseissues by working with youngpeople (both victims &perpetrators of street basedcrime) through individual sessions& group workshops / sessionsexploring the feelings that theyhold about their experiencesthrough utilising restorativejustice practice. We also engagewith the young people’s friends &families to ensure that we embedthe restorative ethos in the localcommunity & throughout theyoung people’s lives.

The Youth Advisory Board are allundertaking training in order to beable to participate in the deliveryof the workshops & restorativepractice sessions with their peersin the borough. The YAB havealready delivered a RestorativeJustice Training Day inpartnership with Ken Websterentitled - “An introduction tousing restorative processes toeffectively challenge anti-socialbehaviour and youth crime”, whichwas attended by over 50professionals from across the UK.

NRJN was nominated for a PhillipLawrence Award in 2009 &reached the final – unfortunatelythe project did not win, but hasbeen invited to attend again nextyear.

Robin Lockhart is the RestorativeJustice Coordinator for Rightsand Equalities in Newham(REIN).

To find out more, go towww.rein.uk.com orwww.lat.org.uk, or email us [email protected]


Anne Marie Hagan’s father,ThomasHagan, was 56 years old when hewas murdered in 1979 in the littlefishing village of Kingman’s Cove,Newfoundland, Canada.

He received 16 axe cuts, seven inthe head, neck and face. The 30-year-old man who committed theact was his neighbour. He wassuffering from schizophrenia, andhe believed that he’d heard thevoice of his dead mother telling himto kill Thomas Hagan.

It was Sunday August 12, 1979. Iwas a 19-year-old nursing studenthome on summer holidays when Isaw my father murdered with anaxe. I tried to stop the man, but heaxed me as well.Filled with sadness and despair, I

became completely consumedwith anger, bitterness, vengeance,and self-pity. I was absolutelydetermined that this man wouldnever, ever regain his freedom.The longer he was locked away,the greater the value of myfather’s life.

Then, on June 7, 1996, during acomprehensive campaign I’dorganized to stop his release, Italked with him face-to-face. Itwas during this meeting, whilelearning more about him as ahuman being and the horrendoussuffering that he’d endured, thateverything changed.

I’d not heard of the termrestorative justice then but inthat face-to-face meeting, whichlasted 1 hour and 40 minutes, 16

years and 10 months of miserywas just wiped away. As hestarted to cry and said, “I’m toblame, I’m to blame”, I couldn’ttake it anymore. I rushed aroundthe table and hugged him, tellinghim that I forgave him. Iremember saying to him, “Blameis too strong a word, blame istoo strong a word.”

I could never have imagined thatin doing so, I would set myselffree. Finally I was able to let goof all the pain and torment thathad held me captive, realizingthat I’d been my own jailer. Mylife changed as I began to see theworld through new eyes. I felt joyagain, the numbness was gone.

My father’s killer is now 59years old. He has a job, and he’sworking towards a universitydegree. I admire him for havingthe strength and the courage torebuild his life.

I visit him regularly. We havetalked at length about whathappened on that fateful day,and how my forgiving him haschanged both our lives.

In June 2002, my journey as aMotivational Speaker began.Since then I’ve spoken tothousands of people acrossCanada including police officersand prison inmates. Before Iforgave my father’s killer I hadzero compassion for such people.Now, I see each inmate assomebody’s child.

Forgiveness is not permission. Itdoesn’t mean that you agree withwhat the offender has done, orthat they had a right to do whatthey did. Also, forgiveness cannotbe conditional on remorsebecause that would mean we canonly forgive those who are sorry.Forgiveness is recognizing thatthe offender is a human being

Anne Marie Hagan - Copyright The Forgiveness Project ©

Anne’s Story06


07

who is deserving of kindness,compassion and love despite theharm they have done.

In that June 7, 1996 meeting, Iawoke to the realization that if aloved one of mine committedmurder, I would want the othercheek turned to them. And, that Idid not have the right to demandmore from the world than I waswilling to give to this man.

I have been on a long journeysince seeing my fathermurdered. I have learned to letgo. I have learned thatvengeance is blinding and thatwhile I may have the right tomiss my father, I do not have theright to judge, condemn, or hatewho killed him.

I have learned that while my lifecould never be the same afterthe murder, it didn’t have to beworse. That was a matter ofchoice, my choice. And, I alsolearned that murder cannotdestroy hope, faith, or love.

Story and photo providedcourtesy of The Forgiveness

Projectwww.theforgivenessproject.com

“The longer myfather’s killer waslocked away the

greater the value of myfather’s life”

A vision of how reform ofcriminal justice could lead to arestorative society is presentedin this pamphlet by MartinWright.

Drawing on his experience asdirector of the Howard Leaguefor Penal Reform, and morerecently as a board member ofthe RJC, he begins with ananalysis of the confused logic onwhich conventional sentencingpractice is based. In theory itaims to achieve several aims, but‘toughness’, rehabilitation andreparation conflict with eachother. The aims should beclarified; and one, in particular,the denunciation of the offence,could be achieved by the amountof reparation rather than theamount of punishment.

Even without a major change ofphilosophy, improvements couldbe made now. A system of‘transferable funding’ isproposed: if the probationservice reduced the prisonpopulation by establishingprojects to meet specific needs,and persuading courts to usethem, it would receive aproportion of the funds saved.

What would make a realdifference would be a change toa restorative philosophy. Therestorative movement isdescribed, from its beginnings in

Canada and New Zealand toEurope and beyond. Wright liststhe principles and benefits, butalso faces objections andtensions that are sometimesraised by sceptics; then heoutlines a possible way ahead forintroducing a restorativeprocess. A key element of thiscould be ‘preventive feedback’:since the restorative processencourages participants to thinkabout the conditions which gaverise to the offence; in SouthAfrica and New Zealand,facilitators of restorativeconferences are collectinginformation and using it toaddress those influences.

The restorative idea has spreadto schools and communities,where a healthy social order ismaintained by promoting respectfor each other rather than CCTVand fear of punishment. It isevolving into a restorativephilosophy of social justice.

The pamphlet is issued by thenew campaigning organizationMake Justice Work, on line at:h t t p : / / m a ke j u s t i c e w o rk . o r g . u k / w p -c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 0 / 0 4 / M a r t i n -W r i g h t - To w a r d s - a - R e s t o r a t i v e -Society.pdf

Hard copies are available fromthe RJC at £5 + £1.50 p&p.

Towards a RestorativeSociety a problem- solvingresponse to harm


Garry Shewan is Assistant ChiefConstable with Greater ManchesterPolice, overseeing the Citizen Focusportfolio. He is the Association ofChief Police Officers (ACPO) lead forRestorative and Community Justice.

There is already widespreadevidence worldwide about thepositive impact that RestorativeJustice (RJ) can have on bothoffending behaviour and uponvictims.

Criminological theories such asLabelling and Re-integrativeshaming suggests that retributivejustice can make matters worse byalienating both offender andvictim. Offenders stigmatized bythe Criminal Justice System (CJS)are often drawn together to formtheir own sub cultures (often withhigher social capital than thecommunities they offend – RhysJones). The needs of‘communities’ when faced with lawbreaking and anti-social behaviourare different from purely revengeand payback.

RJ focuses on the victim as thecore element in the process,whether it is an individual, groupof people or indeed the communityas a whole. Victims are not leftoutside of the process – it placesthem at the centre and seeks to

heal the effects of crime andwrong-doing by meeting the needsof victims, offenders andcommunities.

“It enables communitiesto take responsibility for

delivering their ownjustice”

RJ can empower communities todeal with offending according totheir own values and expectations.It allows communities to re-integrate offenders back intocommunity life and it enablescommunities to take responsibilityfor delivering their own justice. In2001 professor Joanna Shaplandwas funded by the Ministry ofJustice to examine the effectivenessof RJ. The headline findings of theresearch were that RJ delivered85% victim satisfaction andreduced the frequency ofreconviction by 27% when usedwith serious offences commited byadult offenders. Summed togetherthe trials showed that for everypound spent on delivering RJ, thereare savings of £8.

RJ in UK Policing

The use of Restorative Justicewithin UK police forces isincreasing at a significant pace. Inaddition there is growing nationalinterest in its application todevelop both a victim-focused butlow-bureaucratic disposal for lowlevel offending and as a criticaltool within Neighbourhood Policingto assist in problem-solving andmeeting community expectations.

A survey sent out to police forcesin December 2009 on behalf ofACPO examined the extent that RJwas being utilised in policing. 38forces responded of which 33forces indicated that they are usingRJ practices. Key findings include;

o 76.3% said their RJinitiatives involved other partnerso 73.7% said their RJpractices involved response andneighbourhood officerso 55% said thatneighbourhood officers utilisedrestorative conferencing as a partof the processo The survey revealed a veryclear understanding of theprinciples of RJ with agreementthat the process seeks to involveboth the harmer and the harmed,seeks to establish the facts andacceptance and above all seeks torepair the harm (73.7%)

The ACPO survey identified threerecurring barriers to the use of RJ;o The performance cultureand the impact upon the sanctiondetection measureso Negative media coveragewith the suggestion that RJ is asoft optiono The cost of training andmaintaining skills

The ACPO survey also highlightedgaps in training, performancemeasurement and qualityassurance, and as such it isnecessary to fill in these gaps. Thesuggested requirements focused onclear training accreditation,further Police Service PracticeGuidance and the HO/ HMICrecognition of RJ/CJ disposals

The Flanagan review of policingled to a four-force pilot in Surrey,Leicestershire, Staffordshire andWest Midlands of the use ofCommunity Resolution (CR). CRis instinctively restorative in itsapproach and has been shown toachieve the benefits associatedwith the use of restorative justice.

The ACPO survey also highlightedinconsistencies amongst forces asto the training standards andquality assurance processes in

The Case for Restorative Justice Restorative Policing and our Communities08


09

Restorative Policing and our Communitiesplace to check the appropriateuse of restorative justice.

In excess of 6,000 police officersand PCSOs have received training inRJ interventions as well as asignificant number of volunteersand partner staff.

RJ is now being utilized as a lowlevel disposal within the CJS, as aproblem solving tool byNeighbourhood Policing Teams,within schools, to settle long-termneighbour disputes, as a post-sentence element of reducing re-offending programmes and as aquick and effective means oftackling those crimes and incidentswhich have a disproportionateimpact upon communities.

“Performancemanagement has broughtmore offenders to justice,only they are the wrong

offenders”

The use of RJ interventions hasbeen enthusiastically embraced byofficers in participating forces.They have described its flexible andimpactive capabilities as a return to‘common-sense policing’. Officershave seen it as a return toprofessional decision-making aftera decade of rigid performancemanagement during which officerswere encouraged to concentrate onthe ‘low hanging fruit of detections’in an effort to raise the detectedcrime rate – ‘performancemanagement has brought moreoffenders to justice, only they arethe wrong offenders’.

The continued professionaldevelopment of NeighbourhoodPolicing has seen officers and policestaff develop close and informedrelationships with localcommunities. This engagement andunderstanding has highlighted theinability of the formal criminal

justice system to deal effectively withyoung first time offenders who havenot been embraced within their owncommunities through cautions,reprimands or even final warningsand who have not understood theconsequences of their actions.

RJ – Evidence of Impact

The ACPO survey found that lessthan half of forces could identifythe performance impact that theuse of restorative justice hadbrought about. Some forces feltthat it was at that time too early tohave had an opportunity to carry outmeaningful analysis. Where impactwas being measured was specificallyaround the areas of First TimeEntrants and Re-offending rates.Forces are developing performanceframeworks around RJ whichmeasure impacts on re-offendingrates, time to complete,victim/offender/officer satisfactionas well as partner involvement.

There is a very strong evidence-basearound RJ which already exists. Weknow that early results from schemesoperating in forces that the evidenceis indicative of supporting thecriminological evidence already inexistence. We know that;

1. RJ has been shown to reducere-offending (e.g., reduces thefrequency in re-offending),2. RJ is able to improve publicconfidence and satisfaction bydirectly engaging the affected partiesin the disposal.3. RJ has significant costbenefits and increases efficiency anduse of resources, allowing officers tospend more time on the street dealingwith more serious crime; reducingbureaucracy.

“Forces are developingperformance frameworks

around RJ”

The use of RJ and working withpartners such as schools and YOTs isenabling the police to see that itcontributes toward a reduction in thefrequency and severity of re-offending. In Norfolk they arereporting a re-offending rate of just7.4%. In North Wales the re-offending rate for the recipients ofYouth Restorative Disposals (YRDs)stands at 5%. In Bristol the re-offending rate is higher at 15.9% butthis compares to a rate of 30.2% forthose receiving a reprimand. InCheshire their evaluation found thatthe use of RJ resulted in a fall in there-offending rate for FTEs from26% to 12%. North Yorkshire


identified that their re-offendingrate within 3 months fell from 7.8%before their RJ pilot to 2.2%.

In Norfolk the proportion of victimsvery and completely satisfied withthe whole experience of being dealtwith through restorative justice was92% compared with 67% forconventional justice disposals. InCheshire 78% of victims felt thatrestorative justice was a better wayof dealing with the crime and 91%would recommend it to a friend.

Before the restorative conference inCheshire, 54% of victims felttraumatised by the incident and feltanger toward the offender, only 9%understood why the crime hadhappened and as a result 18% feltscared of the offender and only45% felt safe in the localcommunity. At the conclusion of theconference, the results were verydifferent. Following the conference,73% of those involved felt they werenow able to put the incident behindthem. One of the reasons behind thiscould be that 45% now understoodwhy the incident had happened tothem.The fact the victim was able togive closure to the incident meantthat now only 18% felt angertowards the offender, as opposed to54% before. An interesting fact wasthat following the conference, noneof the participants felt scared of theoffender and 73% now felt safe intheir community. The impact of allthis was that 72% of the victimsviews of the local police had nowimproved.

“RJ is providing anopportunity to change

the offending landscape for the next

generation”

The use of RJ is allowing a moreproportionate and efficient use ofthe resources employed within theCJS. Issuing a YRD takesapproximately an hour to completeand costs approximately £14 of apolice officers’ time compared withthe cost of £63 for a reprimand.Cheshire have found that by

analysing shoplifting and criminaldamage offences that the currentarrest and custody process alonetakes on average 19 hours and 39minutes to complete. The use ofstreet issue restorative disposalswould save 18 hours and 39 minutesfrom this process – a projectedsaving of £497K per annum onprojected use.

These interventions do not onlydeliver the benefits (when correctlyapplied) to victims, offenders andcommunities but also allow thoseengaged within the CJS to re-investtime saved on other activities; policeofficers and PCSOs can focus timeand investigative skills on moreserious offences, on victim andwitness care, on problem solvingactivity or on intelligence led visiblepatrol. Youth Offending Teams arereporting a greater emphasis uponprevention work.

“Following theconference, 73% of

those involved felt theywere now able to put theincident behind them”

RJ is also providing an opportunityto change the offending landscapefor the next generation. In hisresignation from his post with theYouth Justice Board in February2007, Rod Morgan stated that thecriminal justice system hadbecome “swamped” because of theincreasing criminalisation of youngpeople. In Cheshire the number ofunder 18's being brought into theCJS for the first time increasebetween 2002 and 2007 by 95%as the drive for more detectionstargeted young offenders. The useof RJ interventions is delaying andpreventing entry into the formalCJS. Cumbria has noted a fall lastyear of First Time Entrants (FTEs)of 27% and Cheshire a fall of20% as RJ replaces reprimandsand final warnings.

The Youth RestorativeDisposal

The Youth Restorative Disposal(YRD) was piloted in eight policeforces between April 2008 andSeptember 2009. It was developedby the Youth Justice Board inpartnership with ACPO, MoJ andthe DCSF. It aimed to offer policeofficers and PCSOs more discretionand a quick and effective means ofdealing with low level, anti-socialand nuisance offending.

Over four thousand YRDs wereissued during the pilot withshoplifting, assault and criminaldamage being the main offencesdealt with.

The YRD was evaluated and thisfound that police satisfaction withthe scheme was high. This was dueto giving police officers greaterdiscretion over choosing the mostappropriate way of dealing with lowlevel incidents; by raising publicconfidence in policing through givingvictims a say in how offendersshould be dealt with; and, in mostcases YRD were less time consumingthan alternative CJS disposals.

The evaluation found that victimsatisfaction was high, that YRDs didnot increase the work rate for YOTsand that there was a high level ofagreement that YRDs represented amore appropriate and proportionalresponse which did not result inyoung people being caught in theCJS net.

The evaluation found that whencompared with a Reprimand thecost of administering a YRD was asaving of £426 or £393 if a RJconference was used.

RJ and CommunityJustice

Victims of crime want more thananything not to have been a victimin the first place and certainly dowant to be a victim again. They havean investment in seeking the

10


reduction of re-offending rates.Victims also want to understandwhy they were ‘victimised’, want toseek closure, take away the pain andfeel safe and confident in goingabout their business within theirneighbourhood. Traditional meansof dealing with first-time and low-level offending cannot always offera way of meeting these needs, yetRJ can.

It is the involvement of communitiesthat sets aside the currentdevelopment of RJ within policingfrom those that have gone before.The new paradigm of CommunityRestorative Justice builds upon therole of local neighbourhood officersand staff to understand localvalues, priorities and needs andequips them with a new flexibility todesign interventions to meet them.This enables police andcommunities to work together onbehalf of victims and the communityitself, turning conflict into co-operation enabling the achievementof real and lasting resolutions.

“RJ is not policing done topeople but returns to theideals of policing as part

of a true communitypartnership”

RJ forces have recognised wecannot create strong and safecommunities or higher levels ofconfidence if we continue to setperformance expectations whichlimit the ability of our teams topolice communities according totheir needs and values. Theapplication of RJ has set a clearagenda for public services; invitepeople to get engaged, support theirinvolvement and engage them inproper conversations, and thenlevels of citizen activity willincrease.

RJ is not policing done to peoplebut returns to the ideals of policingas part of a true communitypartnership. It is clear that donewell RJ cannot be done to or evenfor victims it must be done with

them. Many forces are now trainingcommunity volunteers in the use ofrestorative justice, to both act ascommunity ‘victims’ but excitingly toorganise and administer restorativejustice themselves – communitiestaking responsibility for and workingwith the police to deal with their‘own’ offenders and the way thatjustice is applied.

The true value of RJ is yet to be fullyrealized. RJ offers a holisticapproach to rule-breaking andwrong-doing. It can be utilised todeal with simple and complexoffending, as a diversionary tool oras a means for offenders tounderstand the consequences oftheir actions, it can solve problemsand heal communities suffering fromthe pain of harm caused. Wheredelivered in conjunction with schoolsthere is a consistency in how youngpeople are dealt with at school andthen on the streets, removing thecontradictions which can exist. Thedevelopment of RestorativeCommunities is gathering pace.

RJ – What Is Needed?

RJ and Community Resolution havebeen shown to be able to reducebureaucracy, achieve efficiencysavings whilst delivering onperformance targets.

In order to achieve their full impact,RJ and CR schemes need to beapplied as a community-focusedprogramme of activity which seeksto allow communities to protectthemselves, deter offending and seekto heal the harm caused wherecrimes and wrong-doing happens.

We must never sacrifice the need toprotect our communities and bringoffenders to account for their crimesthrough the CJS where appropriate.Diversionary RJ will not beappropriate in the majority ofcriminal offending (though may wellbe appropriate in addition to theformal CJS for serious offences).However, a restorative model ofdealing with crime and offendingwhich seeks to repair the harm tovictims and communities, seeks toreduce re-offending and bringoffenders to accept responsibility fortheir actions and help build strong,vibrant and active communities isworthy of pursuit.

An expended verion of this article isavailable on the RJC websitewww.restorativejustice.org.uk

11

© istockphoto.com/Franck-Boston


How many of us haveleft a meetingfeeling that ourcontributions werenot valued, opinionsnot listened to oreven understood, andwhere only theloudest voices havebeen heard?

Undoubtedly this is a familiar story formany of us.

How refreshing then to know that bymaking some changes to the structure ofa meeting, outcomes can be a positiveexperience for everyone involved.

A circle process brings togetherindividuals wishing to engage in conflictresolution, healing, support, decisionmaking or other activities in whichhonest communication, relationshipdevelopment and community buildingare core desired outcomes.

The changes require all participants tobe seated on chairs in a complete circlewith no barriers such as desks or tablespresent.

The circle is facilitated by a ‘keeper,’(two or more keepers if the circle islarge) who opens the circle, guides theprocess and keeps track of thediscussion, as well as summarising anddocumenting ideas and contributionsbefore closing the circle.

A talking piece; (something ofsignificance and meaning to those takingpart), is introduced and passed fromperson to person consecutively aroundthe circle.

The person holding the talking piece hasthe attention of everyone else in thecircle and can speak withoutinterruption whilst all other participantsrespectfully listen.

Circles intentionally create a space thatlifts barriers between people, openingfresh possibilities for connection,collaboration and mutual understanding.

The process works because it bringspeople together in a way that allowsthem to see one another as individualsand to talk about what matters in anenvironment that promotes thoughtfulreflection.

I had the opportunity to take part inthree separate circle learning

experiences as part of a FulbrightScholarship in the USA in 2007; one asa trainee, one as an observer and one asa participant.

Over the past three weeks I have had theopportunity to facilitate three separatelive circle meetings in my role as afacilitator and Police officer inLeicestershire.

The first circle (Case study 1) directlyinvolved young people at risk ofexclusion from school.

The next one (Case study 2) includedconcerned parents of a group of youngpeople,and the Police.

Finally, the most recent example (Casestudy 3) was with representatives fromthe Somali and African Caribbeancommunities in Leicester. Someparticipants were parents of youngpeople who have displayed extremelyviolent behaviour towards each other.

Case study 1

A social enterprise group called U Hold(U Hold de Key) invited me to promotethe concept of restorative justice to agroup of seventeen boys aged betweentwelve and fifteen years, who all attendthe same Leicester school and are at riskof exclusion due to behavioural issues.

U Hold aims to meet the needs ofmarginalised or disadvantaged youngpeople by responding to youth relatedanti social behaviour and raisingeducational aspiration and attainment bypromoting social justice and inclusion.

The three U Hold workers agreed toassist me in the facilitation of the circleand we sat, evenly distributed, as part ofthe circle.

The talking piece was a microphone andwas the inspired choice of one of theworkers who recognised the boys’ love ofrap music.

After a round of introductions, the taskfor the next round was for the group toset their own ground rules for the circle.

Not only did they very quickly grasp thebasic rules of the circle but there was100% engagement as they gave carefulthought to their individual contributions.

Statements such as ‘challenge withrespect and honour’ ‘loyalty’ ‘acceptconstructive feedback’ and ‘understand

each others differences’ were but a smallsample of the responses of theseyoungsters.

The meaning of ‘community’ promptedan interesting and encouragingdiscussion whereby the concept of‘family’ in a variety of contexts such asschool and sports, in their minds equatesto the same thing.

The group then enthusiasticallycontributed to the re-development oftheir school behaviour code. Feedbackfrom the group following their first evercircle experience was interesting.

The younger ones felt that the durationof the circle was too long and theystruggled somewhat with the concept,although this did not seem apparent atthe time. Most of the older boys also feltthat the circle went on for too long butdid recognise that in order to effectchange ‘this was the process that needsto take place’.

Case Study 2

This circle took place in the library of acommunity centre and participantsconsisted of parents of a group of localyoung people, and Police representatives,including local beat officers.

Calls to the Police from local residentsregarding incidents of low level anti socialbehaviour by these young people hadrecently increased and tensions were highfollowing a number of ‘stop and search’checks carried out on the young people bythe Police in relation to these incidents.

One of the young men had recently beenarrested on suspicion of assaulting aPolice Officer. Pepper spray was usedduring the arrest and the young man’sfather had lodged a complaint about thePolice handling of the situation.

At the beginning of the circle meeting Imade it very clear that this particularmatter was under investigation andtherefore could not be discussed.

After introductions, participants wereinvited to speak about the main issuesand concerns affecting them.

The parents perceived a lack ofresources and facilities available for theyoung people in the area which createdboredom. They also felt that the Policewere antagonising the situation by usingpurely punitive methods with the youngpeople.

12

Going round in Circles


The Police Officers explained thatfrequently when they tried to engagethe young people in conversation, theyreceived abuse, bad language, evenoccasional spitting, in return.

They also explained that if they ignorethe young people the residents wouldsay ‘there’s no point in reportinganything to the Police as they donothing anyway’.

One of the local officer’s had asked across section of residents the question;‘What’s it like to live around here?’

All comments were negative and one inparticular began; ‘This is a horribleplace to live at the minute. They areterrorising us.The kids have no respect,they are intimidating and aggressive’.

These words had a significant impacton the parents which reflected in thefinal circle round where the circle wasasked for ideas on how some of theseissues can be resolved.

Ideas began to flow and once again thecohesive effect of the circle processallowed participants to see that theywere not alone with the problems andthat individual ownership andresponsibility from everyone concerned(including the young people) and awillingness to work together to improvetheir community was necessary.

A follow up circle meeting to include theyoung people is planned for next week.

As a direct result of this meeting, thecomplaint against the Police waswithdrawn and a healing process hasbegun.

Case Study 3

I was invited to facilitate a circle of sixparents from the African Caribbeancommunity and six parents from theSomali community, all living in thesame area in Leicester.

The purpose of the meeting was todiscuss an incident at a local collegebetween their children which hadinvolved knives and culminated in oneyoung person being attacked andseriously injured with a machete.The parents had specifically asked thatno Police were present at the meeting,however the local Police Inspectorasked one of the community leaderswhether it would be acceptable for meto facilitate the meeting.

He explained that although I was aPolice Officer, I was also trained toindependently facilitate circle meetingsand that this particular process is likelyto be more effective, given the sensitivityof the issues, than a conventional setting.

This was agreed, and a local beat officer(wearing a civilian jacket) was permittedto be outside of the circle, taking noteson a flip chart to be handed to the groupat the end of the meeting.

In spite of the initial brief of twelveparents, a total of twenty three peopleattended; some parents, some agencyrepresentatives.

The atmosphere was tense from thebeginning and became more so afterintroductions had been made.

The first task for the circle regardedidentifying the key issues. The focus ofthese issues revolved around theperceived lack of support from statutoryagencies i.e., School, Social Services,Council etc;but mainly the Police.

In twenty three years of Police service Ican honestly say that I have never felt sovulnerable, disliked and impotent as I didduring that next hour as the talking piecewent from one angry person to the next.

Cultural differences between their twocommunities were alluded to, but did notseem to be a major or eveninsurmountable issue for them.

It also became very clear that one oftheir biggest fears was that their childrenwould be seriously injured or even killedif the issues were left unresolved.

Then the discussion moved on to howthese issues could be resolved and bywhom. At this point the power of thecircle came into its own.

Ownership and parental responsibility interms of role modelling and mentoringbetween the two communities proved tobe a fascinating debate.

Events such as a picnic day and jointsports fixtures between parents andyoung people from both communities andgenders were enthusiastically discussed.

One Somali mother expressed concernsabout needing to act with urgency,suggesting that the children should bebrought together just as we all are nowand taught to understand the harm thatthey are causing.

At this point I broke the circle rule andinterrupted her to explain that what shehad just described was called restorativejustice and that with good qualitytraining, this is achievable.

I then offered RJ training (and anyfurther circle facilitation), to anyoneinterested in working this way; at leastsix people raised their hands in a show ofsupport.

The remainder of this circle meeting sawthese two communities coming togetheras concerned parents with the same goalsand hopes for the future of their families.

They exuded a sense of empowermentthat is the magic of the circle.

Sandie Hastings is a Police Constablefor Leicestershire Constabulary.

13

© istockphoto.com/ docken


This article locatessome of the threatsand challengesfacing restorativejustice within abrief historicalcontext and drawson a number of

sources to provide future direction.The views expressed are those of theauthor and not necessarily those of theEuropean Forum for RestorativeJustice. The intended audience isexperienced, reflective restorativejustice practitioners in both the youthand adult sectors.

Restorative justice has made steadyprogress towards being seriouslyconsidered by policy makers, thejudiciary and politicians as a genuine,worthwhile response to crime. This hasbeen helped in no small way byresearch findings and the provision ofsupranational policy frameworks suchas the Council of Europe FrameworkDecision on the standing of victims incriminal proceedings 2001.

Most EU member states now havelegal provision allowing for, and in somecases requiring, the use of restorativejustice practices particularly in thefield of youth justice (Willemsens2008). There is still much to be done inrelation to providing restorative justiceservices in the adult justice system butit is tempting to say “so far so good”.Yet in the face of external threats suchas recession driven cut backs to fundingand the public’s perception of crime asbeing more widespread than it is(Rajan 2009), and internal threatswithin the restorative justice movementitself (Gavrielides 2008), thechallenges facing restorative justicehave never been greater and we are farfrom being able to say that all is ok.We may look in these challenging timesto unlikely sources for clues on whatthe future might hold and where we gofrom here.

An analogy from the field of massproduction may provide useful hintsabout the future and what we may needto do in order to thrive. The concept of“continuous improvement” has itsorigins in the car manufacturing

industry and is gaining ground in otherproduction and service sectors underthe guise of lean and smarter workingmethods (Eustice 2009). Essentially,“continuous improvement” is aboutfocussing on the needs of the customerand involving workers directly indeveloping and improving the quality ofthe final product with a view to addingvalue and eliminating waste.

The manufacture of the famous ModelT Ford car in 1908 began an innovativeapproach that subverted the dominantparadigm and revolutionised carproduction putting the car more withinthe reach of everyone (Tidd & Bessant2009). Other car manufacturerslearned quickly from Ford’s methodsand were able to innovate even further.They provided more choice toconsumers and also over time learnedto improve the quality of the work by,for example, elevating the contributionof the worker from a mere ‘cog in awheel’ to a valued and creative‘problem solver’ with pride in the finaleco friendly product. In the course ofalmost 100 years, car production hascompletely changed.

Can the restorative justice movementlearn anything from this the field ofmass production? There is plenty ofscope for continued development of therestorative justice ‘product’ and howthis is aligned with the requirements offunders and generally accepted

restorative justice principles and values(Zehr 2002). The concept of“continuous improvement” has merit interms of better practice and, if webroaden the definition of “worker” toinclude not only the RJ facilitator butalso victims, offenders, funders andmembers of the public, we then create adynamic body of “problem solvers” forcrime in their community. Thechallenge of “continuousimprovement” in the public sector mayhave more far-reaching consequencesin terms of how business is conductedthan in the voluntary sector which isarguably more adept at changing toprevailing circumstances. It is helpfultoo to be reminded that all changetakes time and often requires us toquestion inherited ways of operatingwith a view to providing the bestpossible service.

Looking back on the more recentorigins of what we can call therestorative justice movement we cansee that the precursors had at theircore a desire for a new justiceparadigm that would change society’sresponse to crime and at the very leastprovide victims and offenders with amore beneficial experience of justicethan the judicial system was designedto provide. At the 2009 summer schoolof the European Forum for RestorativeJustice, Professor Gerry Johnstoneoutlined the history and development ofrestorative justice over the past 50

On Moving Forwards14

European Forum for Restorative Justice (Niall Kearney, centre)


years since Eglash’s creativerestitution. Johnstone cautionedparticipants about the “Cohen effects”whereby, to put it simply, the systemunder reform incorporates the reformbut remains essentially unchanged(Johnstone 2007). In other words,attempts to continuously improve arethwarted. He poses the challengesfacing restorative justice in twoquestions:

- How to ‘grow’ restorative justicepractices while avoiding the Coheneffects?

- How to make sure that the growth ofpractice fundamentally changes, forbetter, the societal response towrongdoing?

Among his helpful solutions, Johnstonesuggests that we retrieve the criticalmessage of RJ and represent it in a waythat enables decision makers toconfidently replace the current systemrather than simply add restorativeelements to it. He would also want tous to engage in a more “sophisticatedway” with the state criminal justicesystem on issues like punishment andretribution. Above all, he would wantus to replace “evangelical boosting”about restorative justice witharguments that will convince“intelligent sceptics” (Johnstone2009). It is a call for greater maturityand critical thinking.

After 50 years of research, debate andpractice in restorative justice we canmodestly say that some people benefitfrom this approach to wrongdoing. Inorder for restorative justice to thrivewe need to adapt and seize theopportunities the current challengespresent, learn from other disciplinesand renew our efforts to converserespectfully with each other and anyoneconcerned about crime and justice andhow society responds to wrongdoing.

Niall Kearney is Chair of the EuropeanForum of Restorative Justice -www.euforumrj.org

Recent enthusiasmfor restorative justicehas come from theground up as localcommunities investresources on theirown iniative.

The YJB has always firmly believedrestorative justice should be at theheart of the youth justice system.

Restorative processes enable victimsto have their say, and to talk about thefull impact of a crime on their lives.

It also allows them to participate in theresolution of the offence, receiveanswers to questions they may haveabout the incident, and receivereparation for the harm caused.

By the same token, the young peoplewho offend can talk about why theycommitted the crime. They are alsogiven the opportunity to help put thingsright with the victim.

Young people can come to understandthe impact of what they have done, andalso learn not only how to repair theharm, but how to avoid causing it in thefuture.

Both in community and custody, thelatest research – and the experience of

Youth Justice Face to Face15

real people in real situations – tell usrestorative interventions are highlyeffective in reducing reoffending,satisfying victims and boosting publicconfidence in the youth justice system.

That’s why the YJB strongly believesrestorative justice should be integral toall work undertaken by all of us workingin youth justice services – from earlypreventive work through to custody.

But this is not just a trend being led fromthe centre,although the YJB has investedin initiative such as Making Good.

Local areas are starting to invest theirown resources in restorative justice –both within youth justice itself, and atthe wider local authority level.

In the end, it’s about making a dramaticand positive difference to victims,offenders and their communities.

That’s why we need to make everyeffort to involve more victims inrestorative processes, to heal thetrauma they may feel, as well as to helpyoung people steer clear of crime.

Zarina Ibrahim is Senior PolicyAdvisor for the Youth Justice Board

Text and picture provided courtesy of theYouth Justice Board and YJ Magazine.

RJC will be re-developing our websitethis summer. Designed ten years agowww.restorativejustice.org.uk needsredesigning to ease navigation andaccessibility for users. RJC have

launched an online survey availableon the site homepage so we canlisten to what is important to you.Please take five minutes tocontribute.

www.restorativejustice.org.uk


To register your interest in joining theCreating a Restorative Capitalnetwork and future events pleaseemail [email protected].

Events & Vacancies

Join the RJC

If you believe in Restorative Justice, join the Restorative Justice Consortium and help support our work.

Supporters receive a free copy of our quarterly newsletter Resolution, and our monthly e-bulletins, with all the latestrestorative justice news. In addition, full members of the RJC receive discounts on all RJC events, free telephone adviceand support from the RJC,and the opportunity to advertise on our website, the largest restorative justice e-resource in Europe.

We rely on our membership to help us promote the use of Restorative Justice;your support will help us do even more.

Supporting membership start from just £30 for the year so join now at www.restorativejustice.org.uk/-index.php?Join_the_RJC

For up-to-date information on RJ events go to:www.restorativejustice.org.uk/?Events

RJC, with the support of The CityBridge Trust, are working to helpmake London a restorative city.

13th IIRP World ConferenceWednesday 13th – 15th October 2010

Hull, England The IIRP's 13th World Conference,"Restorative Practices AcrossDisciplines," will be held October 13–15,2010, in Hull, in collaboration with HullCity Council.The conference will featureseveral plenary speakers, includingHull's Director of Children and YoungPeople's Services, Nigel Richardson,whose vision of a family-friendly city hasled to training in restorative practicesfor 23,000 professionals and volunteersthroughout the city.

More information visit www.iirp.org

Restorative Justice Training and Training Organisations

Three Day Restorative JusticeConference Facilitation Training20th-22nd October ‘10. Bradford / [email protected]

Listed training providers subscribe to RJC Code of Practice for Trainers and Training Organisations. For afull list of signatories, training courses and the accompanying RJC complaints procedure visitwww.restorativejustice.org.uk

fair process personnel have beentraining restorative practice since2004 and have flexible courses thatare bespoke to client [email protected]

Restorative Practices: FacilitatorSkills Training - Standard Level5th- 7th October 2010.IIRP UK Training Centre, [email protected]

Restorative Justice & Mediation InitiativesVictim Awareness in a Youth JusticeSetting - Tuesday, 27th July 2010Remedi, Scotia Works, [email protected]

Restorative Solutions is a not for profitcompany committed to promotingrestorative practice by training others touse and develop restorative skills.www.restorativesolutions.org.uk

Writing Wrongs is a new programmethat delivers restorative processes toyoung people. For training to deliverthe programme effectively visitwww.writing-wrongs.org


Date post:	19-Jan-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	restorative-justice-council
View:	1,885 times
Download:	1 times

Resolution 36 summer 2010

Documents