In 2004, the UK Home Office released “Two-year resanctioning study: a comparison of restorative and traditional cautions.” The study compared resanctioning rates from the Thames Valley police force, where restorative cautioning is standard policy, with rates from two police forces in similar jurisdictions--Sussex and Warwickshire--where traditional cautioning is used. Restorative cautioning used a trained police facilitator with a script to “encourage an offender to take responsibility for repairing the harm caused by the offence.” Sometimes the victim was present, in which case the meeting was called a restorative conference; usually however the victim was not present. Traditional cautioning, on the other hand, lasts only a few minutes, requires no special training, and focuses on the officer explaining the possible consequences of future offending.  

In order to test the impact of restorative cautioning, the study looked at resanctioning rates in a 24 month period for over 29,000 offenders from the three police forces. Resanctioning was defined as an offender receiving either a conviction or a police disposition. The study showed that resanctioning rates in Thames Valley were statistically significantly lower than in the other two jurisdictions. However, resanctioning rates declined in all three jurisdictions. While Thames Valley had significantly lower rates than Sussex for all three years as well as significantly lower rates than Warwickshire for the first two years of the study, it did not for the last year of the study.

The research could not explain why the rates for Thames Valley and Warwickshire were not significantly different in the third year after they were in the first two. Because of this, the researchers concluded that it would be "premature to conclude that restorative cautioning in Thames Valley had a beneficial impact on resanctioning over the three-year period." (By implication, it would also be premature to conclude that restorative cautioning in Thames Valley does not have a beneficial impact.)

The researchers added two further observations. First, there was no evidence that restorative cautioning increased resanctioning rates. This was significant because some interventions such as “boot camps” and “scared straight" prison programmes have been shown to cause an increase in reoffending.

Second, restorative cautioning provides many positive outcomes for both victims and offenders regardless of their impact on resanctioning. Research has shown that restorative cautioning:

• Helps offenders understand the impact of crime
• Provides symbolic and material reparation to victims
• Provides a sense of resolution in the case
  

They conclude:  “Given the relatively modest cost of the initiative, it would appear to represent value for money, whether or not a statistically significant reduction in resanctioning rates was achieved.”

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Justice released two studies evaluating community-managed restorative justice programmes in December of 2004. The two programmes, Rotorua Second Chance Community-Managed Restorative Justice Programme and the Wanganui Community-Managed Restorative Justice Programme, have been operating in New Zealand since the late 1990s. The objectives of the evaluation were to:

• describe each programme - its history, the context in which it operates, delivery, objectives and resources
• determine the effectiveness of each programme, in relation to its objectives
• contribute to the development of best practice principles for community-managed restorative justice programmes (in Rotorua, this included a look at practices based in customary practices)
• describe the extent to which this programme has contributed to the further development of the partnership between government and communities

The evaluation markers for these studies were the goals set by each programme. In the Rotorua programme, the objectives were to:

• Secure a reduction in reoffending by those offenders who participate in the Community-Managed Restorative Justice process;
• Secure the active participation of community members in the programme;
• Secure participation of victims of offences where appropriate;
• Secure a restorative effect with community-negotiated sanctions placed on offenders; and
• Secure acceptance of the programme by interested parties such as the Judiciary, Department for Courts, Police, and Victim Support.

In Wanganui, the objectives were articulated differently:

• The restorative justice process only proceeds when victims of offences or their agents participate;
• Community members actively participate in the programme;
• Victim-offender contracts negotiated with community input have a restorative effect;
• The programme is accepted by interested parties, such as the Judiciary, Department for Courts, Police, and Victim Support;
• There is a reduction in re-offending by offenders who participate in the Community-Managed Restorative Justice programme.

Information was gathered through interviews with victims, offenders, Ministry of Justice personnel and Corrections personnel. The reconviction analysis was done by using comparison groups between offenders using the programmes and those going through the courts.  

Reconviction rates were similar for the groups of offenders who went through the two restorative justice programmes and the matched offender groups going through the courts. Also, the offenders going through the Rotorua and Wanganui programmes were convicted of crimes of similar levels of seriousness as the offenders who went through the courts. This means that while restorative approaches did not reduce reconviction rates, neither did they increase them.

However, the restorative processes were found to offer other benefits for both victims and offenders. In each programme, the majority of conference agreements had restorative elements: apology, reparation, or donation. In the Rotorua programme, 83% of victims were satisfied with the outcome agreement and 95% were satisfied with the meeting over all. Also, nine of ten offenders interviewed completed their obligations under the agreement.  

In Wanganui, 90% of victims reported being satisfied with the plan. Ninety five percent were pleased that they had participated in the programme. This was true in spite of a serious problem offenders appeared to have with completing their agreements. Only 27% of offenders interviewed had completed their plans. The study authors noted that for a programme or plan to be truly restorative, more effort needed to be made to ensure that agreements are completed.  

Overall, the two programmes received positive evaluations with some comments for improvement based on the Ministry of Justice's previously published best practices document.


Lynette Parker

June  2005