By Joanna Shapland, Jamie Buchan, Steve Kirkwood and Estelle Zinsstag

This report summarises key findings from our project which was funded by the Scottish Government, in support of the Scottish Government’s Restorative Justice Action Plan (Scottish Government 2019). In particular, we seek to support the expansion of restorative justice in Scotland to include its use in response to more serious offending and more difficult cases.

Our objectives were to develop a sense of what factors were perceived by facilitators as risky in any restorative justice process, how they assessed risks, and what measures have been used to prevent and mitigate these risks, with a view to informing the development of practice and policy in Scotland. By ‘risk’ we mean not (just) risks to safety but any factors that might jeopardise the success of the process, i.e. the participants being able to communicate safely. To this end, we interviewed 30 restorative justice facilitators in 11 European jurisdictions. The extent to which restorative justice was ‘established’, and how it was organised, varied considerably between these. Our questions roughly followed the timeline of a restorative justice process: we began by talking about the referral process and how facilitators decide to move forward (or not), before considering facilitators’ definitions of ‘risk’, approaches to assessment, and measures they used to mitigate specific risks in restorative justice. Finally, we asked them about their training and measures for capacity building, including co-facilitation, mentoring and reflective practice.

Key Findings

• The restorative justice risks described by our interviewees attach to individual people and cases. Some cases are risky, but this is because of individual factors, not because of the type of case or person. This is essentially different to the actuarial/statistical mode of risk assessment found in many criminal justice settings.

• It is impossible to predict the risks of a case before engaging with the individuals involved, because different people experience ‘risk’ factors in very different ways. Furthermore, the seriousness of the harm in a given case may not tally with the legal categories imposed on it by the criminal justice system.

• Aside from unwillingness to engage or attempts to coerce others on the part of either party, only two types of risk were seen as ruling out restorative justice entirely: where the person responsible is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the harm (which does not necessarily entail admitting criminal guilt), and where either party is unable to comprehend the proceedings, usually because of substance use or severe mental disorder. Even these may be amenable to change over time. 

• Most facilitators agreed that certain difficult cases, particularly those involving sexual offending and domestic/intimate partner abuse, presented particular challenges related to trauma and power imbalance. There was no sense however of them being qualitatively different to other cases in terms of how they were approached from a practice perspective - they just require additional care and preparation.

• Capacity to facilitate more challenging cases comes with experience. In Scotland, many facilitators are less experienced with these types of case, so are more concerned about risk and their capacity to facilitate these; facilitators in other jurisdictions with experience around facilitating in cases involving more severe harm are much more confident taking on more difficult cases. 

• Facilitators rarely used formal risk assessment processes, and none appeared to use, or have, validated risk assessment tools in relation to restorative justice, although some may use informal ‘checklists’ of factors. Professional judgment and a case-by-case approach, sometimes with advice and support from other professionals, was the key element in assessing and mitigating risks. Given this, and the individual nature of ‘risk’, it was usual to consider risks and mitigating measures simultaneously, not sequentially. In assessing risk, they focus on risks related to the restorative justice process itself, rather than more general risks, such as risk of re-offending. They would also adopt a restorative approach to assessing risk, such as through raising and discussing potential risks and their mitigation with participants. 

• Facilitators valued the advice of other professionals, such as prison officers, social workers and psychiatrists, and (in some cases) these professionals’ work supporting parties in restorative justice meetings. However, in making decisions about restorative justice, facilitators’ own judgment and the views and needs of the parties (principally the person harmed) were seen as more important. 

• Facilitators use a range of measures to mitigate potential risks. The single most important measure is simply preparation with the people involved, through a series of ‘pre-meetings’. All facilitators used these meetings to prepare each party for the restorative justice process, and identify and mitigate particular risks; more difficult cases were generally seen as requiring more pre-meetings. 

• Communication difficulties which could affect the process included language barriers as well as those related to mental illness or the youth of the parties. Facilitators used a range of methods to overcome these, including interpreters and supporters as well as non-verbal communication techniques. 

• While some types of case, such as those involving young people, communication difficulties or large groups, might require extra preparation, these cases (like more difficult cases) were not seen as fundamentally different to any others. 

• Many participants want supporters present at face-to-face meetings, and so facilitators invited these people into the restorative justice process as ‘supporters’. These could be friends and family of the participants or sometimes professionals (e.g. therapists or social workers). While this was seen as useful, care was needed in order to avoid power imbalances or inappropriate interventions from supporters. 

• There was varied evidence on the practice of using follow-up measures after the meeting, though this was seen as very desirable. While some facilitators iv check in with the participants afterwards, others are content simply to provide contact information and solicit feedback. 

• It was common for facilitators to work in pairs on a given case, particularly where the case is risky, complex or involves many people. This ‘co facilitation’ is particularly valuable for gaining complementary perspectives as well as for training newer or less experienced facilitators, who can ‘shadow’ a senior colleague. 

• The physical space in which a meeting occurs is very important. Preferably this would be an accessible and neutral space with no links to criminal justice or to either of the parties, and conducive to an atmosphere of safety and calm. It should have at least one ‘breakout room’ for parties to prepare and take breaks. 

• Facilitators generally felt that their training had prepared them adequately for facilitating restorative justice, but this training had not always been well evaluated. 

• Restorative justice is not suitable for all people or all cases. However, it is worth remembering that for some people harmed by offences, the risks of not engaging in restorative justice may outweigh the risks of doing so.

Suggestions 

• We do not advise the adoption of formal risk assessment processes in restorative justice. This would risk compromising the individual-focused ethos of restorative justice, and could have harmful consequences by imposing risk categories ‘top down’ on cases. Tools should particularly not be imported from other criminal justice processes, where the aims and purposes are likely to be different. There must be an acknowledgement that every case is different - the most serious offences may be relatively straightforward in restorative justice terms, while apparently minor crimes may hide unexpected risks. However, checklists, tailored to the specific restorative justice services, may function as a useful aide memoire for practitioners in considering the types of issues and factors that should be considered when assessing and mitigating risks. 

• ‘Pre-meetings’ are the key measure for identifying and mitigating risks. Without introducing undue delay, adequate time must be allowed for a preparatory meeting or meetings ahead of the restorative justice process. This is particularly true for more difficult cases. 

• Restorative justice services will need to be flexible in accepting referrals at different stages of the criminal justice process and afterwards, to allow for cases of serious offending where the person responsible is serving or has served a custodial sentence. 

• Where necessary, resources should be made available for communication support in restorative justice (interpreters and/or supporters). Non-verbal tools such as picture cards may also be helpful for supporting communication.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 2022. 98p.

By Scottish Government, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs

Although many countries have now introduced domestic homicide reviews, there remains little evidence on their effectiveness in creating system change and improving organisational practice. Taking the learning forward from reviews and ensuring recommendations are implemented is of crucial importance and at the very core of the purpose of the process, yet there is little evidence of how and whether this works in practice. A lack of evaluation of the effectiveness of domestic homicide reviews internationally makes it difficult to establish a consensus for best practice and develop a model with this in mind (Scottish Government, 2023). Still, where problems have been identified and mechanisms have been introduced to attempt to overcome these issues, we can consider these when developing a domestic homicide and suicide review (DHSR) model for Scotland. This will help to ensure that the process created does not repeat the same mistakes, and instead is constructed in a way that will enable lessons to be learned effectively from reviews. In doing so, Scotland’s model will facilitate the system changes and improvements that are the core purpose of conducting reviews, and will ensure that practitioners and victims’ families can have faith in the process and see value in their participation. This report builds on a working paper by Professor John Devaney, which introduces key points to consider for the implementation of learning from reviews to generate service improvement. This report outlines 15 aspects of good practice to be considered in the development of a domestic homicide and suicide review model for Scotland. The report then discusses the rationale behind these points in more detail, identifying existing challenges with implementing recommendations from reviews, exploring examples of good practice, and considering how to define and measure success and impact. This report was prepared by Justice Analytical Services for the DHSR Model Development Sub-Group. As the key points presented in this report have been generated at an early stage of development of the model, they are designed to be considered as general principles of good practice, and may require further refinement and deliberation as the details of the model are established. The information presented in this report is drawn from academic literature on domestic homicide reviews and other similar review processes, consideration of responses to the Scottish Government’s targeted engagement consultation, and consultation with British and international DHR experts (see Annex 1 for a description of the methodology).

Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Justice Directorate, 2024. 27p.

By Julie Berg and Emily Mann

The authors undertook a literature review on intersectionality and policing to provide a critical, impact-based account of scholarly/academic engagement with policing and intersectionality. This review informs an intersectional good practice toolkit by which police organisations can better engage with the phenomenon of intersectionality and its implications for policing and ‘seldom heard communities’. Additionally, the authors hosted two interactive workshops to share preliminary findings, consult with academics and police practitioners and request feedback. The review highlighted that intersectional convergence of certain social identities and characteristics can provide complex challenges for policing, for example: The impact of micro-interactions between the police and those with intersecting social identities. Meso-level institutional issues may mitigate or aggravate negative interactions between the police and those with intersecting identities (such as police culture, resources, specialist training, and/or whether the police have specialist teams or programmes). Macro-level factors; the police operate under broader structural influences and power dynamics which negatively impact on certain groups, and which is informed by both historical and contemporary factors such as law, policy, political and public discourses and expectations.

Edinburgh: Scottish Police Academy, 2023. 71p.

By  Ben Collier , James Stewart , Shane Horgan, Lydia Wilson and Daniel R. Thomas 

Influence policing is an emerging phenomenon: the use of digital targeted ‘nudge’ communications campaigns by police forces and law enforcement agencies to directly achieve strategic policing outcomes. While scholarship, civil society, and journalism have focused on political influence and targeting (often by malicious actors), there has been next to no research on the use of these influence techniques and technologies by governments for preventative law enforcement. With grant funding from SIPR and support from The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR), we have studied how this novel mode of police practice is developing through an in-depth study of Police Scotland’s strategic communications unit and a wider systematic overview of these campaigns across the UK. Key findings: Police Scotland . Since 2018, Police Scotland has had a dedicated team devoted to strategic communications marketing campaigns - developing methods for crime prevention through communications. These adapt classic forms of ‘strategic communications’ and ‘social marketing’ to incorporate novel techniques and tools, tailoring them to crime prevention - particularly the use of behaviour change theory and digital targeting and segmentation infrastructures. These influence (including ‘nudge’) communications go beyond ‘information’ campaigns or those which simply tell or ask the public to do something, and instead incorporate psychological design elements which attempt to alter the decision environment in which members of the public make choices about their behaviour - often linking up with other interventions such as the redesign of public services.  In a wider policing context, these innovations can be understood as a development of problem-oriented and intelligence-led policing models in a digital context. The campaigns - focusing on areas with a perceived ‘online’ component, such as violence against women and girls, online grooming, and hate crime - are conceived as part of a public health prevention approach, often using perpetrator-focused adverts to deliver messages to those profiled as ‘at risk’ of offending. This is part of a move away from campaigns which simply rely on telling the public what to do, or which focus on putting the responsibility for crime prevention on victims. There are two main elements to campaigns - the first are attempts to directly change people’s behaviour through ‘nudge’ communications, and the second are wider attempts to shape the cultural narratives that are perceived to contribute to crime.  In Scotland, digital targeting is mostly used at the broad demographic level (i.e. age and gender), although some use of fine-detail location and interest-based targeting is evident.  Online targeted paid advertising is used in conjunction with conventional media buying, and organic and ‘earned’ communication with stakeholders and civil society partners.  Campaigns are largely developed in house, but the media buying and some campaign development is done with commercial advertising and marketing partners. Civil Society stakeholders play a key role in consultation and development of campaigns, and in the ‘organic’ promotion.  The digital platforms themselves play a major role in shaping what is possible, sometimes redirecting the intervention through algorithmic processes or promoting organic sharing.  Evaluation of the campaigns is able to use some outcome measures but also still relies heavily on ‘vanity’ metrics (such as apparent views and click throughs) provided by the platforms - and effects are difficult to measure.  The use of influencers (usually well-known public figures) in some campaigns to amplify messages is a clear innovation - though raises some concerns. These influencers have legitimacy with and knowledge of targeted communities, and generally retain their audiences across multiple platforms (even when these platforms change or fail).  We suggest the term Influence officers to describe the professional police communications specialists who design and develop these campaigns, who represent a growing new role in ‘frontline’ policing. The centralised unit and single national force structure in Scotland has had some positive effects when compared to English forces, providing mechanisms for accountability (and saying ‘no’ to unsuitable or harmful campaigns) where more formal structures don’t yet exist. However, this is reliant on the tacit knowledge and expertise of a small group of practitioners - and some aspects of this approach would benefit from being on a more formal institutional footing.  Despite its proliferation across the UK, this is a distinctively Scottish mode of ‘influence policing’ and the ‘influence officer’ as a possible emerging role within policing.     

Edinburgh: Scottish Institute for Policing Research (SIPR), 2023. 162p.