Experiences of restorative processes - new research published

The first piece of research from the UK pilot of the Europe-wide programme, Restorative justice at post-sentencing level; supporting and protecting victims, has been released. Consisting of a series of detailed, in-depth interviews, the results offer an insight into the practical and operational barriers denying victims access to restorative justice meetings.

A collaboration between Thames Valley Probation, Thames Valley Partnership and Victim Support, the research investigates the development of a victim-initiated restorative justice service, with referrals through key agencies. Focused on improving victims’ access to high quality restorative justice, the report recommends mechanisms to help victims make an informed decision about taking part.

The findings from the research are summarised below and a link to the full report is at the bottom of the page.

The professionals who made referrals:

• The referrers were well informed about, and largely trained in, restorative justice. All felt generally positive about the process and, where victims understood and requested restorative justice, referrers were happy to arrange it. They found the process of referral easy, and were pleased with links between their organisations and facilitators.

• Where victims had not requested restorative justice, potential referrers were less keen to recommend it. There existed a general concern that restorative justice was not always appropriate for victims, especially of more serious crimes, and all referrers were concerned about its effect on victim well-being – even those cases initiated by the victim. The seriousness of the crime, the offender, and personal victim characteristics were all seen as relevant to the referrer’s decision.

• Referrers felt victim understanding of restorative justice was poor. They were also concerned that it could, if offered at the wrong time, damage their relationship with the victim.

The victims who took part (7):

• All victims had experienced serious violent or sexual crimes leaving them with long-lasting emotional trauma. They found the legal process following the crime almost as distressing as the incidents themselves.

• Victims felt concern about the ‘risks’ of the conference. Many of their families and friends had been sceptical. Victims had faith that their facilitators would manage the conferences well, but were worried about the emotional impact of meeting their offender.

• Meeting the facilitator was key to victims’ decision to take part. All felt well supported, pleased to have the chance to tell their story to someone, and felt the process had been well explained to them. Face to face meetings (with facilitators) were much more helpful than initial contact by phone or by email.

• There was a range of motivations for taking part in restorative justice. Victims wanted to ask why the offender had committed the crime, to express anger and to confront their own fears, to tell them the harm they had caused and to gain closure and move on.

• The whole process was viewed positively. Victims felt that they had been put centre-stage and had a chance to air their views and needs. Criticisms of the process were few, minor, and described as insignificant.

• Following the conferences, all victims felt their concerns were unfounded and had gained a sense of satisfaction that had not been provided by the criminal justice system.

The Offenders (2):

• Due to difficulties with contacting offenders, only two were interviewed.

• The offenders had never heard of restorative justice prior to being contacted, and were initially much more wary than the victims.

• They felt their access to information was limited, and the letters inviting them to participate were brief and unhelpful. Both felt it would have been useful to be told that restorative justice is a recognised and established process with safeguards in place, why victims take part and the advantages and disadvantages for the offender.

• They were concerned about victims’ motives, what would happen during the conferences and if they would be able to cope with the process. One was concerned the victim would do him harm in some way, such as shaming on social media. The other worried about how the meeting would affect his mental health.

• One offender was acutely nervous during the conference. He regretted that he had not taken more in, and that he didn’t know if it had helped the victims. Initially after the meeting he felt positive, but a long delay in follow-up left him feeling hopeless and distressed. Evidently a rapid follow-up is very important for the offender in a restorative justice conference.

Recommendations from the report

• Better information should be provided for victims and offenders, including what restorative justice is, who it is offered to, how it is provided, what it involves, how long it takes, how other victims and offenders have felt after taking part, what the risks are and what safeguards are in place to mitigate these.

• Victims who have experienced significant harm may have complex emotional needs. Services should be designed and delivered to make allowance for this.

• At every stage in the process, the understanding of victims and offenders should be improved.

• Awareness of restorative justice as a beneficial service available to victims should be raised.

• Counselling should be provided for facilitators to be able to refer victims to if needed.

• Explicit guidance should be given to prison staff so that they can support vulnerable offenders.

You can read the full report via the link below.