restorative justice in staffordshire · pdf filerestorative justice in staffordshire ......

1

Restorative Justice in Staffordshire

Report of Task and Finish Group

December 2015

2

Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....3

2. Role and Purpose of the Task and Finish Group……………..……………………………..3

3. Membership……………………………………………………………………………………...4

4. Meetings………………………………………………………………………………………….4

5. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………..4

6. What is Restorative Justice (RJ)......................................................................................4

7. RJ Processes……………………………………………………………………………………5

8. Points at which RJ Might be Applied in the Criminal Justice Process…………………….6

9. RJ Services Available Within the Criminal Justice System in Staffordshire……………...7

10. Effectiveness of Current Service Arrangements and Gaps in Provision……………..…...8

11. Demand for RJ Interventions............................................................................................8

12. Future Delivery of Criminal Justice RJ Services.............................................................10

13. RJ Hub............................................................................................................................10

14. Scope of the Hub Service…………………………………………………………………….12

15. Resourcing the Hub Model…………………………………………………………………...13

16. Core Staff Team……………………………………………………………………………….13

17. Hub Location…………………………………………………………………………………...14

18. Governance…………………………………………………………………………………….15

19. Performance Management…………………………………………………………………...15

20. Marketing……………………………………………………………………………………….16

21. Sustainability…………………………………………………………………………………...16

22. Transitional Arrangements……………………………………………………………………17

23. Conclusion and Recommendations……………………………………….…………………17

Appendix A: Members of the Task and Finish Group

Appendix B: RJ Services in Staffordshire

3

Appendix C: Future RJ Delivery Options

1. Introduction

This report summarises the output from the Task and Finish Group convened to review

current Restorative Justice (RJ) delivery arrangements within the criminal justice (CJ)

system in Staffordshire.

2. Role and Purpose of the Task and Finish Group

The Task and Finish Group was established to explore concerns raised during the

consultation on the development of the Staffordshire Strategic Framework for Reducing

Offending regarding inconsistencies in the availability of RJ services across the CJ system in

Staffordshire.

Whilst RJ service provision in the county has increased considerably in recent years,

concerns were raised during the consultation about gaps in the availability of RJ services at

key stages of the CJ process which it was felt were limiting opportunities for many victims

(and offenders) to engage in potentially positive and beneficial restorative processes.

The Task and Finish Group was asked to explore this issue and to consider ways in which

agencies across the system could work better together (through closer collaboration and

integrated working across sectors) to improve and extend the availability of RJ services

across all stages of the CJ process to ensure consistent access to services for victims in all

situations where a need/demand for RJ interventions might occur.

The specific purpose of the Group was to:

Clarify agency responsibilities for RJ across the CJ system;

Review and gauge the demand for victim-initiated RJ services and interventions at

different points of the CJ process;

Review the effectiveness of current RJ delivery arrangements in managing demand;

Establish areas in which services might need to be strengthened or improved to

enable more consistent delivery of services across all points of the CJ process (pre

and post-sentence);

Put forward a new joined-up, multi-agency strategy and delivery model to guide the

future development of RJ services in Staffordshire, to help build specific, additional

RJ capacity and capability to meet the demand for RJ services and interventions at

key stages of the CJ process where gaps in RJ provision have been identified;

The group was asked to review the current use of agency resources for RJ, including the

specific allocation available to the PCC to commission victim-led RJ services, in order to

ensure that best use is made of resources going forward in support of the Delivery model

proposed.

The group was also asked to review the need for broader organisational actions and

developments that may be required between partner organisations to support improvements

in the quality and effectiveness of RJ service arrangements in the county going forward, in

particular requirements for:

4

Additional training across agencies to improve understanding of the benefits of the

use of RJ;

An appropriate quality assurance process for RJ interventions to ensure consistent

standards in the delivery of RJ services (based on achievement of the Restorative

Justice Council Quality Mark).

3. Membership

The Task and Finish Group comprised of representatives from Staffordshire and Stoke on

Trent YOS, the NPS, Staffordshire and West Midlands CRC, the Prison service, Police and

OPCC with management responsibility for RJ delivery and/or specialist knowledge and

experience of RJ approaches.

Other relevant partners were invited to attend meetings and specialist inputs/contributions

arranged to support the work of the Group as appropriate, including inputs from the MoJ

national Police RJ Lead.

A list of members and invited contributors is provided at Appendix A.

4. Meetings

The Group met on 4 occasions during October and early November 2015.

5. Methodology

Members of Staffordshire and West Midlands CRC Business Improvement Team were

engaged to process map points across the CJ process where RJ processes might be

applied, to identify current services and gaps in provision and to identify areas where, on the

basis of current and projected demand, RJ services and interventions need to be

strengthened.

The learning from national RJ Pathfinder projects and the output from relevant national and

local research reports and reviews of RJ services, including the findings from the recent

West Midlands PCC/University of Birmingham review of RJ delivery within the youth justice

system in the West Midlands was used to identify best practice on which to base a possible

revised RJ service model for Staffordshire going forward.

6. What is Restorative Justice?

Put simply, restorative justice processes:

“Bring those harmed by crime or conflict, and those responsible for the harm, into

communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing

the harm and finding a positive way forward” (definition taken from the Restorative Justice

Council website - www.restorativejustice.org.uk).

Each RJ process aims to enable the participants to explore, in a safe and structured way:

Facts - what happened and why?

Consequences - how people were affected?

Future - what needs to happen in order to repair or address the harm caused and

prevent it from happening again?

http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/

5

When delivered effectively, RJ gives victims the opportunity to explain the impact of crime

upon them, to seek an explanation or apology from the offender, or to play a part in agreeing

restorative or reparative activity for the offender to undertake.

RJ can also play an important role in holding offenders to account and in enabling them to

understand the consequences of their actions and the impact it has had on others.

In the last few years use of RJ within criminal justice settings has grown as evidence as to

the effectiveness of the approach in promoting increased victim satisfaction and in securing

reductions in reoffending has strengthened.

Much of the research on RJ has found that the approach can have a positive effect on victim

satisfaction and re-offending rates.

7. Restorative Justice Processes

A variety of RJ processes are available - designed to take account of the specific needs,

wishes and circumstances of participants - but processes fall broadly into two main

categories:

Processes involving some form of communication between the person responsible

for causing the harm and the person harmed;

Processes involving no communication between the person responsible and the

person harmed.

The following processes involve some form of communication between the person

responsible for causing the harm and the person harmed:

Face-to Face Meetings - can be led by either one or two facilitators and are attended

by only the person(s) harmed and the person(s) responsible (eg a meeting between

the person harmed and the person responsible arranged by a police officer/offender

manager/other trained practitioner);

Shuttle Dialogue - involves a facilitator acting as a go-between for the person(s)

harmed and the person(s) responsible (eg a police officer/offender manager/other

trained practitioner arranging an exchange of letters between the person responsible

and the person harmed);

Restorative Conferences – are normally led by two facilitators – typically a

Coordinator (a qualified RJ practitioner) and supporting professional - and are

attended by the person(s) harmed, the person(s) responsible, their respective

support persons and other affected persons.

The following processes involve no communication between the person responsible and the

person harmed. In a restorative justice context, these processes are used if (and only if)

either person does not wish to participate in a restorative justice process, is unsuitable, or

cannot be contacted or identified:

Restorative Conversations - involve only the person responsible in a 5-10 minute

meeting with a facilitator (a police officer/other trained practitioner);

Victim Awareness - involves only the person responsible in one-to-one or group-work

sessions with a facilitator, and may include reparative tasks;

6

Support for Persons Harmed - involve only the person harmed meeting with a

facilitator to talk about their experience, short- and long-term reactions, strategies for

recovery and access to other support services.

8. Points at Which Restorative Justice Might be Applied in the CJ Process

An overview of stages of the CJ process at which RJ can be applied and agency

responsibilities for the provision of RJ services at each stage is provided below:

Pre-Sentence Post-Sentence Out of Court Court Community Custody Post Appearance/ Sentence Release Sentencing

Type: - Restorative

Conversation - Victim-offender face to face meeting or ‘shuttle’ dialogue - Restorative conferencing

- Victim-offender face to face meeting or ‘shuttle’ dialogue - Restorative conferencing

- Victim-offender face to face meeting or ‘shuttle’ dialogue - Restorative conferencing

- Victim- offender face to face meeting or ‘shuttle’ dialogue - Restorative conferencing

- Restorative conferencing

Delivery: - Informal

‘Community Resolutions’ with RJ as an element (‘Street RJ’) - Youth/Adult Conditional Caution

- Offender Management




Responsible Agency:

- Police - YOS - NPS/CRC - CPS

- YOS - NPS/CRC - Court - CPS

- YOS - NPS/CRC - Police - Court

- Prison service - NPS/CRC - YOS

- NPS/CRC - YOS - Police - Prison service

Within the CJ context, RJ processes can be used outside of court proceedings by police

officers in resolving incidents of low level crime and anti-social behaviour on the street,

informally as part of a restorative warning/conversation (‘Community Resolutions’) or more

formally as part of an out of court disposal (Youth or Adult Conditional Cautions), or following

a court appearance (at the post-conviction/pre-Sentencing stage to inform sentencing) or at

the post-Sentence stage to support the delivery of restorative conferencing in a variety of

settings - including interventions delivered whilst an offender is under supervision in the

community, in prison or following release from custody.

Evidence suggests that processes involving direct communication between the victim and

offender (face to face meetings and restorative conferencing) seem to work better than most

other forms of RJ.

The research to date has identified good results with victims (and offenders) particularly in

cases of property or violence offences. There is more limited evidence of the effectiveness of

RJ in cases of sexual offending or intimate partner violence (domestic violence).

7

9. Services Available Within the CJ System in Staffordshire

An overview of current RJ service provision in Staffordshire is provided at Appendix B.

To varying degrees the OPCC, Police, Youth Offending Service, NPS, CRC and Prison

service all have resources and trained staff in place to support the delivery of RJ

interventions at different stages of the juvenile and adult CJ process.

Current arrangements include:

OPCC

Since April 2013, PCCs have had new responsibilities for ensuring the overall availability of

RJ services to those harmed by crime and anti-social behaviour in their areas and have

been provided with specific MoJ grant funding with which to commission local services.

Funding is restricted to support the delivery of victim-initiated RJ services only and in

Staffordshire to date has been used to support the appointment of an RJ Coordinator and

pool of volunteer RJ Facilitators who have provided a general RJ resource for victims -

predominantly at the pre-Sentence stage of the CJ process with volunteers facilitating shuttle

dialogue and restorative conferences arising from Police Community Resolutions and Out of

Court Disposals.

Police

Staffordshire Police plays a significant role in the delivery of diversionary RJ interventions

through the delivery of ‘Community Resolutions’ and Out of Court disposals (Youth and Adult

Conditional Cautions).

This may range from simple restorative conversations with offenders on the street - ‘Street RJ’ – based on action requested by the victim, which is agreed by the offender and is

considered appropriate and proportionate by the officer, through to engagement of victims

and offenders in direct or indirect communication (formal, facilitated RJ conferences or

shuttle dialogue) to improve the mutual understanding of an issue and to jointly reach the

best available solution.

Taken together, Community Resolutions and Out of Court disposals account for a significant

proportion of the overall number of RJ interventions currently delivered in Staffordshire.

Youth Offending Services

Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Youth Offending Services currently work closely with the

Police in the delivery of diversionary interventions with young people, in particular the

delivery of formal Out of Court Disposals (Youth Conditional Cautions).

Both YOS services also make use of adjournment/deferred sentencing arrangements with

the Courts (as part of Youth Referral Orders) as a means of enabling RJ interventions to be

completed with young people as a compliment to the sentencing process.

At the post-Sentence stage each YOS is working to integrate restorative processes into

community and custodial sentences (including processes delivered in YOIs, Secure Training

8

Centres and Secure Children’s Homes) however it is acknowledged that provision in these areas is at present comparatively under-developed.

NPS/CRC

The NPS and CRC currently support the delivery RJ services at the post-sentence stage

during the delivery of community and custodial sentences and following release.

Both organisations have recently received new guidance from NOMS regarding the delivery

of RJ interventions and have trained staff (Offender Managers and other staff including

volunteers) available to enable staff to deliver RJ conferences.

However despite these measures delivery of RJ interventions in both organisations to date

has been slow to develop.

Prison Service

The Prison Service (where appropriate with the involvement of the NPS and CRC) also has

an important role to play in the delivery of RJ services to offenders in custody and following

release.

As with the NPS and CRC, the service has recently received updated guidance from NOMS

regarding the delivery of RJ interventions and has trained staff available (Offender

Managers, Offender Supervisors and other staff including volunteers) available to deliver RJ

conferences, however despite this RJ provision in establishments in Staffordshire remains

under-developed.

At the time of the review only limited examples of RJ interventions could be identified in

individual establishments although initiatives were being planned (eg in HMP Dovegate) to

address this.

10. Effectiveness of Current Service Arrangements and Gaps in Provision

It will be apparent from the above that under current arrangements in Staffordshire services

are in place to provide opportunities for RJ interventions at many points of the CJ process.

At the same time there are clearly gaps in RJ provision at key points of the CJ system with

agencies not always being in a position to deliver the type of RJ support required in a timely

fashion at all points where a need/demand for an RJ intervention might occur.

Alongside examples of good practice by agencies, particularly in the youth justice sector, the

Task and Finish group found inconsistencies in the implementation of RJ initiatives across

the local justice system, with a lack of opportunities for both victims and offenders to

participate in RJ approaches at key stages of the CJ process. This is most evident in relation

to the availability of RJ services at the Sentencing and post-Sentence stages of the adult CJ

process, where there is evidence of significant gaps in provision (in respect of both

community and custodial sentences) and the availability of RJ services following offenders’ release from custody.

Use of restorative approaches and conferencing at these stages of the CJ process in

Staffordshire is at present very much under-developed.

9

This has been attributed to the low priority currently attached to RJ by the respective/

responsible agencies - particularly the NPS, CRC and Prison services, a lack of

understanding of referral pathways for RJ amongst agencies, and to concerns over the

resources required to organise conferences.

Where services are in place the primary focus of interventions across agencies as things

stand is on the provision of services to offenders (often particular cohorts of offenders) rather

than victims.

In terms of RJ service arrangements more generally across the system, the Group found

evidence of inconsistencies in service delivery resulting from the lack of a common, system-

wide approach to:

Training, quality and standards;

Performance and outcome monitoring

Under current service arrangements there is considerable variation in practice between

agencies in terms of approaches to the training and accreditation of RJ practitioners, RJ

assessment processes, service quality and performance monitoring.

Additionally, as things stand, outside of Police arrangements in respect of the delivery of

informal community resolutions and Out of Court Disposals (where formal scrutiny

arrangements are in place via an independent Scrutiny Panel), there are no clear

governance, scrutiny and accountability arrangements in place to allow for effective

oversight of RJ service delivery.

11. Demand for RJ Interventions

Accurate/up to date data on the demand for RJ interventions across the CJ system in

Staffordshire was not available at the time of the review, however based on activity data

available from the Police in respect of the delivery of Community Resolutions and Out of

Court Disposals and information on the number of cases passing through the newly-

established Staffordshire Victims Gateway service it is estimated that the potential demand

for RJ across different points of the CJ system in Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent is

significant.

Street RJ/Out of Court Disposals

As indicated above restorative Policing approaches, including Community Resolutions and

Out of Court Disposals (Youth and Adult Conditional Cautions) currently account for a

significant proportion of the overall number of RJ interventions currently delivered in

Staffordshire. The approach has been used successfully by the Police and YOS with young

people in Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent for some time, accounting for a significant

proportion of YOS prevention/early intervention activity in each authority, and more recently

has been piloted with adults with some success.

Currently, in total, around 2,500 Community Resolutions are being made by the Police each

year with Out of Court disposals running at half this rate at around 1300 per year.

Together the two approaches generate a demand for a significant number of RJ

interventions – including restorative conferences - each year.

10

It is estimated that this level of demand could increase significantly in future if the piloting of

the approach with adults proves successful and the approach is rolled out more widely

across Police operational units and used in an increased range of policing situations.

Victims Gateway

The Staffordshire Victims Gateway service – introduced in August, 2015 – now provides a

single point of contact for all victims of crime and ASB in Staffordshire.

As part of its service, the Gateway ensures that all victims of crime in the county receive an

offer of RJ, irrespective of whether they wish to report the crime to the police or not.

On the basis of the current throughput of cases it is estimated that the Gateway service will

lead to between 40,000 and 50,000 people per year being signposted for initial information

about RJ. Of these it is expected that a significant proportion – 10-15% or 4000-6000 cases

per annum - will subsequently elect to be assessed for a possible RJ intervention.

In light of the above estimates, it is clear that the potential demand for RJ interventions

across the CJ system in Staffordshire is significant.

Against this background it is important for current inconsistencies in RJ provision in the

county to be addressed.

12. Future Delivery of Criminal Justice RJ Services

As part of its brief the Group was asked to consider options for the future delivery of services

to ensure improved availability and more consistent access to RJ services for victims and

offenders at all points of the CJ system.

A number of possible service models were looked at by the Group on which to potentially

base RJ delivery arrangements going forward, ranging from continued direct delivery by

agencies under current or modified ‘silo’ working arrangements, through to more flexible/distributed delivery arrangements based on integrated working across agencies.

The key service options considered and their respective strengths and weaknesses are

summarised at Appendix C. These included:

Option 1: Agency direct delivery (existing arrangement);

Option 2: Informal RJ Network;

Option 3: Formal/managed multi-agency RJ Hub

From the above options, the service model considered to be best suited to support the future

development of RJ in Staffordshire to ensure that best use of resources is made collectively

across agencies to meet the current and projected demand for RJ at different points of the

CJ system going forward is Option 3 - a formal multi-agency RJ Hub.

13. RJ Hub

An illustration of how the model might look in practice is provided below:

11

Benefits of the Hub Model

There is evidence that the current agency ‘silo’ approach to RJ development across the CJ

system in Staffordshire is failing to deliver the leadership and central coordination required to

drive RJ service development forward in such a way as to ensure the consistent availability

of services for victims across all stages of the CJ process.

There is evidence, also, that the approach is leading to the inefficient operation of referral

pathways across the system.

Outside of the delivery of interventions in the youth justice sector, where there is evidence of

effective joint working between the YOS, Police, CPS and HMCTS, services across the

system are currently planned and delivered at different stages of the CJ process according

to the immediate service requirements of individual agencies rather than collaboratively in a

joined up way in such a way as to ensure best use of RJ resources across the system.

It is considered that a centrally managed Hub configured along the above lines will provide a

number of advantages over existing agency direct delivery arrangements, or other possible

service delivery options, in addressing these issues.

Staffed by a core team of skilled RJ Practitioners (see below) the Hub would:

Receive all enquiries about restorative justice in Staffordshire;

Receive all referrals (including self-referrals, referrals from the Victims Gateway,

police officers and staff, and staff in other agencies, including the NPS, CRC and

Prison service) for restorative justice in the county;

Co-ordinate and lead on all early engagement with victims interested in exploring

restorative interventions;

Police

Courts/ CPS

YOS

Probation

(NPS)

Prisons

CRC

Victims Gateway

Self Referral

RJ Hub Development

Manager Senior Practitioner(s)

Volunteer RJ Facilitators

Hub Coordinator Admin Support (‘embedded’ in

partner agencies)

Referral Hub Practitioner Database Training

Quality & Standards Information Sharing

Marketing MAPPA/

MARAC

12

Maintain a database of trained restorative justice practitioners from a range of

agencies and the local community to build capacity to deliver restorative justice

interventions;

Where appropriate, directly deliver/facilitate restorative justice interventions to eligible

and suitable victims of crime or ASB;

Ensure that arrangements are in place for victims of crime participating in restorative

justice conferences to have access to appropriate support during the process;

Maintain robust data to enable effective evaluation of all restorative justice

interventions;

Act as a centre of excellence for the provision of restorative justice – sharing training

opportunities where available;

Work with partners to develop and extend the use of restorative justice practices;

Provide an improved basis for the governance of training, quality and standards

across the system to assure the quality and consistency of RJ services;

Enable a more joined up approach to service planning and development across

agencies to more effectively meet the demand for RJ interventions across the CJ

system going forward;

Provide a clearer basis for the allocation of PCC (and other agency) resources to

support the further development/commissioning of victim-led RJ services across all

stages of the CJ process.

The Hub would provide coordination and support for the delivery of victim-led RJ

interventions across the CJ system, managing the flow of referrals from different points of

the system, identifying suitable cases for an RJ intervention and enabling those victims

requiring an RJ intervention to be quickly put in contact with RJ practitioners, with a view to

ensuring that all victims who wish to engage in RJ processes are able to access appropriate

services.

The Hub would enable the sharing of information on RJ across agencies, provide an

improved basis for the governance of training, quality and standards across the CJ system to

assure the quality and consistency of RJ services and provide an improved basis for

monitoring RJ performance and outcomes across the system.

It would enable a more joined up approach to service planning and development across

agencies, providing an improved basis for the allocation of PCC (and other agency)

resources to ensure that RJ resources across the CJ system are applied as efficiently and

effectively as possible to meet local needs and demand.

Of the different delivery options reviewed, it is considered to offer the best fit with local

commissioning needs and requirements in Staffordshire and to offer the best potential for

ensuring the improved availability of RJ services across the CJ system going forward.

14. Scope of the Hub Service

Type of RJ to be Delivered

As indicated above, evidence suggests that face to face meetings between the victim and

offender (with or without supporters present) - ‘restorative conferencing’ - seem to work

better than most other forms of RJ.

13

It is proposed therefore that the focus of the Hub service, if approved for introduction in

Staffordshire, should be on the provision of victim-offender conferencing, both pre- and post-

sentence.

The service would however facilitate the delivery of indirect communication - eg shuttle

dialogue – in appropriate cases (eg if a risk assessment indicated that it would be unsafe for

participants to meet face to face, or they made an informed choice not to).

The service would not cover the delivery of RJ interventions where the victim and offender

are not brought into communication.

Offences to be Covered

Should the strategy outlined in this paper be accepted it is proposed that specific targeting

and eligibility criteria for the service be determined by partners to clarify the types of

offence/incident to be covered by the service and any exclusions.

Given the limited evidence of the effectiveness of RJ in cases of sexual offending or intimate

partner violence (domestic violence) and the potential additional risks and challenges

involved in work with victims affected by these types of offences, it is suggested that there

should be more in depth assessment in these cases to check suitability for an RJ

intervention including consideration of risk and consent to participation in activity RJ prior to

any RJ process being agreed, with conferencing only taking place when there is confidence

that the process will be of clear benefit and will not cause harm to any individual involved.

15. Resourcing the Hub Model

As indicated above the PCC in Staffordshire has a specific budget available to build capacity

and commission Restorative Justice (RJ) provision.

It is recommended that funding from this budget be used to pump-prime development of the

Hub model through the commissioning of a provider to recruit and manage the enhanced

core staff team and volunteer capacity proposed.

16. Core Staff Team

For illustrative purposes an indication of how a possible initial staffing configuration for the

Hub core team in Staffordshire might look is provided below.

The job roles and staffing levels outlined are modelled on Hub team structures already in

place in similar sized counties in other parts of the country where the offer of RJ is currently

made to all victims of crime (as is proposed will be the case in Staffordshire), and have been

adjusted to take into account the current stage of development of RJ services in the county.

Core Staff Team

RJ Development Manager 1.0 FTE;

Senior Practitioner(s) (x 2) .5 FTE (with a possibility to extend);

Hub Coordinator .5 FTE (with a possibility to extend);

Admin Worker(s) (x 8) .1 FTE tbc (embedded in key agencies/partner organisations);

Volunteer RJ Facilitators

14

It is considered that a Development Manager (or similar) role within the proposed core team

will be critical to providing the leadership necessary to establish the Hub model and to drive

RJ development in the county forward.

In year 1 the role would be primarily developmental, promoting the service widely, attending

relevant local meetings, and linking with key stakeholders to develop and embed new joint

working arrangements across agencies to help establish the Hub model whilst working to

improve the availability of victim-initiated RJ interventions across the system.

In addition it is anticipated that a number of dedicated RJ Senior Practitioners and a pool of

trained volunteer RJ facilitators will be required within the Hub core team (with the role of

Senior Practitioners including supervision, support and ‘mentoring’ of volunteer facilitators

recruited to the Hub) to provide the capacity required to support and manage the throughput

of RJ referrals at the volume projected across the system and to support the delivery of

victim-initiated RJ interventions across agencies where capacity is currently lacking (eg CRC

and prisons).

Alongside the above roles, specific administrative capacity will be needed (both within the

Hub team and within partner agencies participating in the local Hub network) to support

delivery of the model and the enhanced level of integrated working required.

The Hub Coordinator role included within the example Hub core team and Admin Support

Worker roles embedded in partner agencies across the Hub network would provide the core

administrative support function for the Hub, ensuring the maintenance of operational links

across the Hub network and the effective operation of referral pathways and caseworker

allocation processes to ensure that referrals for RJ across the system are quickly and

appropriately facilitated.

The above is just one possible iteration of how staffing arrangements might be configured to

meet the basic requirements for a Hub model but is considered to be indicative of the

minimum level of resources that would need to be committed to support delivery of such a

model in Staffordshire.

In light of the restrictions applying to the use of PCC funding for RJ (with use of funds being

restricted to victim-initiated RJ) in the initial phases of implementation the focus of the Hub

core team (Development Manager, Senior Practitioners and Coordinator) would need to be

on victim-initiated cases only.

Additional agency financial/staffing resources for RJ would need to be aligned as appropriate

going forward to augment those available via the PCC to enable the provision of offender-

initiated RJ services across the system to enable the Hub to meet the demand for both

victim and offender initiated RJ across all points of the CJ system.

17. Hub Location

Ensuring the continued effective delivery of existing pre-Sentence diversionary RJ

interventions - Community Resolutions and Out of Court Disposals - where RJ service

provision is most developed and demand for RJ interventions is currently most acute - will be

a key requirement of the Hub service in the initial phases of development.

15

With this in mind, for operational purposes, it is proposed that the Hub core team initially be

located at Police HQ, working alongside (but not reporting to) the Police Out of Court

Disposals Team (this will also have the benefit of enabling fast access to victim information

held by the Police).

It is proposed that this arrangement be reviewed however once the Hub model is fully

established and additional RJ referral pathways across the system are in place and

operational.

18. Governance

Should the strategy outlined in this paper be approved, in order to provide a basis for the

introduction of the model it is proposed that a time-limited Steering Group be established to

plan and oversee the establishment of the Hub and linked new working arrangements,

comprising of representatives of key agencies involved in the commissioning and/or delivery

of services, including representation from Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs), Youth

Offending Teams (YOTs), Staffordshire Police, The NPS, CRC, Prison service, the Local

Criminal Justice Efficiency Board as well as further members of the OPCC team with the

Steering Group reporting to the county Offender Management Commissioning and

Development Board.

Whilst under the proposed model all agencies will retain their respective responsibilities for

providing and/or commissioning RJ services, delivery of the Hub model along the lines

envisaged in this paper will depend on the agreement of management arrangements which

rely less on current silo delivery arrangements by agencies and more on flexible, integrated

working between agencies across a formal, distributed RJ network based around central

referral/coordination unit.

This will require integrated working across agencies and the coordination of new working

arrangements which allow staff to work co-operatively across agency boundaries and across

different points of the CJ system.

Going forward new collaborative working arrangements will need to be agreed between

partners on the Steering Group as appropriate in order to support the enhanced level of

integrated working required.

19. Performance Management

To support the introduction of the new model and to ensure the delivery of services that

meet the needs of victims, offenders and communities in Staffordshire regardless of

geography or the point in the CJ process at which RJ interventions are required it is

suggested that indicators are developed to support measurement of the overall number of

interventions delivered across the CJ system and outcomes achieved with data being

collated to indicate:

Number of referrals into the Hub (and from where – self-referral, other agency);

Characteristics of those referred to include details such as age, ethnicity, gender etc;

Source of referral;

Stage of the CJ process at which interventions are applied;

Offence type;

16

Type of RJ process applied;

Agency delivering RJ intervention;

Number of people engaging – agreeing to initial conversations with RJ Facilitator

(compared to those spoken to in early conversations with Hub staff);

Conversion rate from referrals into first meetings (acknowledging first meetings go

ahead before offenders have been contacted and where offenders are not yet

identified);

Number of cases deemed not suitable and why;

Conversion rate from engagement with victims to actual conferencing;

Timescales - from referral to completion of conference;

Outcome (eg victim satisfaction/reduced reoffending).

20. Marketing

It is proposed that one of the key functions of the Hub once in place will be to bring greater

attention to the marketing and promotion of RJ across the CJ system.

Improved marketing of RJ will be critical to improving awareness of the positive benefits of

the use of RJ amongst victims and offenders (and professionals working with them) across

the local CJ system and in generating increased referrals in the early phases of introducing

the Hub model.

In this regard, to improve the visibility of RJ to victims and offenders (and across agencies

and the local community) going forward it is proposed that the opportunity be taken when

introducing the Hub model to re-brand the service and to formally launch the service under

the new banner of the ‘Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Restorative Justice Service’.

It is considered that this will help to improve awareness and understanding of RJ within and

across agencies, whilst providing an improved basis for marketing and promoting RJ to

victims, offenders and to the community at large.

Evidence from other areas however suggests that improved marketing of service alone will

be insufficient to generate a level of referrals that would fully reflect the demand for RJ

services that potentially exists in the system.

On the basis of experience in other areas it is clear that in order to ensure an adequate flow

of referrals, particularly in the early phases of implementation of the model, it is likely that

alongside improved marketing activity, an emphasis will need to be placed on pro-actively

‘extracting’ cases from the system, with all agencies doing more to identify potential referrals

and working to encourage take up of services.

21. Sustainability

Given the current challenging financial climate and increased pressure on resources, it is

important for any arrangements agreed to be sustainable.

It is proposed that in the short-medium term the focus of the Hub service model be restricted

to work in the CJ sector, with the resourcing of services being covered via the PCC and,

where appropriate, other partner agencies. It is anticipated however that over time the Hub

would be effectively positioned (and have the capability) to potentially market and to take on

RJ work in other sectors - in particular local government (in relation to housing, neighbour

17

disputes, ASB etc), which could potentially generate an important additional income stream

to help sustain the Hub business model going forward.

It is recommended that as part of the programme of work undertaken to support the Hub’s development early discussions are held with local authorities and other potential external

business partners (eg RSL’s) as appropriate to ascertain the scope for possible business relationships to be agreed.

22. Transitional Arrangements

Should the strategy outlined in this paper be approved, and the creation of an RJ Hub be

agreed, to assist planning for the introduction of the Hub it is proposed that partners

represented on the Steering Group work with the OMCDB to plan and manage a phased

move to the proposed new service model and ways of working.

In order to provide arrangements for a managed move to the service model it will be

important for any decisions impacting on the future delivery of RJ services during the

remainder of 2015/16 and in 2016/17 - including the transfer of pre-existing agreements that

are set to continue beyond 31 March 2016 - to be agreed by the Steering Group and

OMCDB.

In terms of the commissioning of a provider to oversee the recruitment and management the

core staff team it is proposed that over coming weeks a specification be drawn up in

preparation for a procurement process to be completed to identify a suitable organisation to

take on a contract to coordinate the introduction of the Hub model and to recruit and manage

the proposed core team proposed with a view to having a contract in place by 1 October

2016.

To allow time for this process to be completed and to provide continuity of service in the

interim it is recommended that the PCC’s existing contract in respect of the current RJ

Coordinator post (with Victim Support) which is due to terminate on 31 March 2016 be

extended for a period of 6 months (to 30 September 2016).

23. Conclusion and Recommendations A good start has been made to RJ development in the CJ system in Staffordshire and Stoke

on Trent – particularly in respect of restorative Policing approaches and the provision of

services in the youth justice sector, however it is clear that the approach to RJ development

by agencies to date has failed to deliver a coherent county-wide system of provision that is

capable of meeting the demand for RJ at all points of the CJ process where a need for RJ

interventions might occur. Whilst there is some valuable and effective RJ provision in place

there is evidence of significant gaps in service in key areas and inconsistent standards of

delivery.

The next stage of implementing restorative interventions will need to concentrate on refining

and focusing existing practice, extending the availability of RJ services to other points of the

CJ system where a demand for RJ interventions has been identified and, crucially, ensuring

that restorative interventions become fully integrated across services working to deliver

services to victims and to address offending and anti-social behaviour amongst juvenile and

adult offenders.

18

Support for the strategy and delivery model outlined in this paper will go some way to

addressing these issues, building on the positive aspects of work that has already taken

place whilst creating the conditions for strengthened leadership and improved coordination

of services between agencies going forward to secure the development of new pathways

required to deliver a comprehensive, system-wide, multi-agency service capable effectively

meeting the demand for victim-initiated RJ services across the CJ process.

19

Appendix A – Task and Finish Group Members: OPCC Staffordshire Police Staffordshire YOS Stoke on Trent YOS NPS Staffordshire and West Midlands CRC Prison service Consultees: HMCTS CPS Specialist Advice: MoJ national Police RJ Lead

20

Appendix B - RJ Services Within the CJ System in Staffordshire Children and Young People (17 years and under)

CJ Stage

RJ Option

Lead Agency (ies)

Potential Provider

Organisation

Service Currently in

Place?

Out of Court Diversionary RJ interventions for minor incidents/crimes. For more serious incidents offenders have the opportunity to opt for an OOCD with RJ as an element

Restorative conversation (Street RJ)

Police Staffordshire YOS Stoke on Trent YOS

Police/YOS

Restorative conferencing

Police Staffordshire YOS Stoke on Trent YOS

Police, External

Youth Caution with RJ as an element (including restorative conferencing)

Police, CPS, Staffordshire/ Stoke on Trent YOS

Police

Court RJ used to inform sentencing. RJ can also be included as a mandatory element of the sentence

Victim-offender face to face meeting or shuttle dialogue

Staffordshire/Stoke on Trent YOS, Court, CPS

YOS

Restorative Conferencing Staffordshire/Stoke

on Trent YOS, Court, CPS

YOS

Community Sentence For victims/offenders where RJ has been included as a mandatory element of the sentence, or where victims/ offenders voluntarily wish to engage in RJ


Staffordshire/Stoke on Trent YOS, Court

YOS

Victim-offender restorative conferencing


YOS

Specialist restorative conferencing


YOS

Custody For victims/ offenders who voluntarily wish to engage in RJ and are deemed appropriate


Youth Custody Staffordshire/Stoke on Trent YOS

Youth Custody, YOS, External



Youth Custody, YOS, External



Youth Custody, YOS, Police, External

Community Release For victims/ offenders who voluntarily wish to engage in RJ and are deemed appropriate



YOS, Youth Custody, Police, External




Community conferencing (for cases where impact is on whole community)



21

Adults (18 years and above)

CJ Stage

RJ Option

Lead Agency (ies)

Potential Provider

Organisation

Service Currently in

Place?

Out of Court Diversionary RJ interventions for minor incidents/crimes. For more serious incidents offenders have the opportunity to opt for an OOCD with RJ as an element

Restorative conversation (‘Street’ RJ)

Police Police

Restorative conferencing Police Police,

External

Adult Conditional Caution with RJ as an element (including restorative conferencing)

Police, CPS Police, External

Court RJ used to inform sentencing. RJ can also be included as a voluntary element of the sentence


NPS, Court, CPS NPS, External


NPS, Court, CPS NPS, External

Community Sentence For victims/offenders where RJ has been included as a voluntary element of the sentence, or where victims/ offenders voluntarily wish to engage in RJ


NPS, CRC, Police, Court

NPS, CRC, External



NPS, CRC, External



NPS, CRC, External

Custody For victims/ offenders who voluntarily wish to engage in RJ and are deemed appropriate


Prison, NPS, CRC, Prison, NPS, CRC, External


Prison, NPS, CRC, Prison, NPS, CRC, External


Prison, NPS, CRC, Prison, NPS, CRC, Police, External

Community Release For victims/ offenders who voluntarily wish to engage in RJ and are deemed appropriate


NPS, CRC, Prison, Police

Prison, NPS, CRC, Police, External



Prison/ NPS, CRC, Police, External

Community conferencing (for cases where impact is on whole community)


Prison/ NPS, CRC, Police, External

22

Appendix C – RJ Delivery Models: Options

Service Model

Strengths

Weaknesses

1. Agency direct delivery

- Clearly defined agency roles and responsibilities for RJ - Clearly defined agency budgets for RJ - Clear basis for the allocation of agency resources - Clear basis for monitoring and evaluating RJ service delivery within individual agencies

- Risk of silo approach to delivery/ineffective coordination of services across CJ system - Risk of fragmentation/gaps in service at key points of the CJ process - Lack of flexibility in responding to demand - Limited opportunities to build capacity across CJ system - No clear basis for sharing of Information/knowledge between agencies - Inefficient operation of referral pathways across system - Inefficient use of shared resources for RJ across system - No clear basis for allocation of PCC resources for RJ - Inefficient use of existing trained pool of RJ practitioners - inadequate arrangements for oversight and scrutiny of RJ interventions across system

2. Informal Multi-Agency RJ

Network

(Joint working/delivery on the basis of agreed Partnership Agreement

and protocols)

- Whole-system approach - Potential for improved service coordination across agencies - Provides greater flexibility in responding to demand - Potential to build capacity across CJ system - Clearer basis for sharing of information/knowledge between agencies - Potential for improved access to/ utilisation of trained pool of RJ practitioners - Improved basis for training - Improved basis for marketing of RJ - Improved basis for monitoring quality and standards across system - Improved basis for monitoring performance across system - Potential for improved arrangements for oversight and scrutiny of RJ

- New service model - Requires effective partnership working - Requires development of new protocols to support joint working - Inefficient operation of referral pathways across system - Limited opportunities for achieving efficiency gains - No clear basis for allocation of PCC resources for RJ - Requires consistent application of RJ standards

3. Multi-Agency RJ Hub

(Joint working/delivery via a

managed central RJ Hub)

- Whole-system approach - Provides central coordination of services - Added flexibility in responding to demand (through core staff team) - Provides opportunities to build capacity across CJ system - Clear basis for sharing of information/knowledge between agencies - Potential cost-efficiencies from pooling of resources

- New service model - Requires effective partnership working - Requires development of new protocols to support joint working - Requires consistent application of RJ standards

23

- Clear basis for allocation of PCC resources for RJ - Improved access to/utilisation of trained pool of RJ practitioners - Improved basis for training - Improved basis for marketing of RJ - Improved basis for monitoring quality and standards across system - Improved basis for monitoring performance across system - Improved basis for oversight and scrutiny of RJ

restorative justice in staffordshire · pdf filerestorative justice in staffordshire ......

Documents