Working With Offenders
Restorative Justice Projects
This is a summary of the national evaluation of the Youth Justice Board's restorative justice projects.
Title: Restorative Justice Projects
Author: Aidan Wilcox, Carolyn Hoyle of the Youth Justice Board
Date published: August 2004
Number of pages: 85 (summary 12)
Restorative justice seeks to involve those affected by crime – victims, offenders and the wider community – by giving them an opportunity to meet or communicate. They can consider the harm done and how it could be repaired, and try to reintegrate offenders back into their communities.
An evaluation of 46 restorative justice projects funded by the Youth Justice Board was carried out. The different projects offered:
family group conferencing
mediation (direct and indirect)
reparation (direct and to the community)
victim awareness.
These are not equally restorative, and the extent to which they facilitate dialogue between the offender, victim and community varies. For example, family group conferencing can be fully restorative, as all parties are involved, but victim awareness is only partly restorative. Most of the 46 projects offered a range of restorative interventions. Less than 20% offered only conferencing or mediation.
Evaluation Findings
Local evaluators reported that in-house projects were generally more successful than others in contacting victims, communicating between agencies and obtaining referrals than projects that were carried out independent of the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs).
The 42 projects for which data are available worked with over 6,800 young people of which:
76% were male
80% aged 14 -17
91% were white
63% of those starting restorative interventions were either on a Final Warning or at a Reparation Order stage
30% of referrals were for theft
23% of referrals were for violence
In order to increase the number of referrals or to improve victim contact, 83% of projects adapted their referral criteria, the range of interventions offered or the location of project staff.
Interventions were successfully implemented by 83% of offenders.
Reconviction
Reconviction rates of the young people in these projects were compared with a national sample of young people convicted since 1997.
728 offenders from 34 projects were tracked.
Results
There was no significant association between the type of restorative intervention and the reconviction rate.
Offenders who had met their victim were the least likely to reconvict with 41.6% likely to reconvict compared with 47.3% of those who undertook community reparation and 52.4% of those who participated in indirect mediation.
Only 42.1% of those who had had victim awareness intervention were reconvicted.
Of those reconvicted, the offence committed was less serious than the original offence that got them referred to the restorative justice programme.
The proportion of reconvictions involving a Final Warning or Caution fell from 29% to 5%, while there was an increase in custodial sentences and Supervision Orders.
The proportion of Reparation Orders fell from 37% at the conviction which led to the referral, to just 12% at first reconviction.
Victim Contact and Participation
Victim Contact
In 61% of projects, the police officer in the Youth Offending Team (YOT) made the initial contact with victims. In the rest, a dedicated project worker or victim liaison officer did so.
In 33% of projects, victims were telephoned. An opt-in or opt-out letter contacted the remainders.
Local evaluators reported that almost 80% of known victims were contacted, 67% of whom agreed to some form of participation (thus 53% of all identifiable victims agreed to participate).
Victim Participation
Where the views of victims and offenders were sought, the response was positive. Over 75% of both groups:
felt well prepared by project staff
found the process fair
agreed their participation was voluntary, and that they were treated with respect
believed that the intervention had helped the offender to take responsibility for the offence.
Seven out of 10 victims thought that the offender better understood the impact of the offence on the victim, with 79% of victims saying that they were now able to put the offence behind them. 62% of victims also said that they would recommend mediation or a conference to others.
Level of Referrals
Over half the projects experienced fewer referrals and interventions than anticipated.
Reasons for this were:
Targets were too ambitious
Inappropriate victim contact procedures
Ineffective communication about the criteria for referrals
Fewer court orders, such as Reparation Orders, than expected.
Many projects were able to increase referrals by making presentations to the courts and the YOT to improve communication, streamlining the procedures for referral and victim contact, or expanding the range of interventions offered.
Recommendations
Who contacted victims and how they were contacted had a significant influence on the extent of victim participation. Local evaluators therefore suggested that it was preferable for project workers to carry out the task, since they were specially trained and had more time than police officers to conduct matters in a sensitive manner.
Phone contact had the advantage of being faster than a letter, and enabled the victim's questions to be answered more easily, but the opt-out letter followed by a phone call or visit is felt to be the best means of generating victim participation. The op-out letter requires the victim to contact the project if they DO NOT wish to be involved.
Local evaluators for some projects expressed concern at what they believed was an over-reliance on community reparation, in cases where victims did not wish to participate. They believe that reparation placements should be offered that enable the experience to be more than just a punishment.
They should:
relate to the offence as far as possible
match the young person's interests and skills
develop new skills, where possible
encourage the young person to consider the consequences of their actions on the victim and the community.
Download: Summary
of Restorative Justice
Projects 
PDF (348 Kb)
Download: Full
National evaluation of the Youth Justice Boards Restorative Justice Projects
PDF (1276 Kb)
Last update: 09 September 2004