Restorative practice in an age of ‘broken services’

by Rosie Chadwick

It’s becoming commonplace to say that our public services are broken. An event late last week where the focus was on special educational needs and disabilities brought home vividly what ‘broken services’ mean in practice for families desperate for help and those looking to provide this – realities further underlined by today’s National Audit Office report.[1]

For families the pressures in the system mean months waiting for assessments; progress slowed by staff vacancies or illness; children denied education through absence or exclusion; and what feels like a constant battle for support played out in a growing number of appeals tribunals.[2]  For overstretched staff it means frustration at not feeling able to respond as they would like; being faced with Education, Health and Care plans that are undeliverable because schools can’t afford enough support assistants; and the stress of encountering exasperated families who come to meetings anxious and angry, ready to fight for their entitlements. If ever there was a recipe for conflict, this is it.

What also came across from the event was that restorative practice, with its focus on relationship building, deep listening, understanding underlying needs and working with people to find solutions, can be an important part of our services ‘repair kit.’  Participants talked about how restorative approaches can ensure families feel heard, create safe spaces for difficult conversations, enable ‘radical honesty’ about what’s achievable and help agree ways forward that everyone’s signed up to. Examples were given of plans that fell short of what had been ‘mandated’ but in practice worked better for the young person concerned.

Of course this is not a ‘magic bullet’ but restorative practice can play a part in taking the heat out of an over-heated system. It’s encouraging to see others advocating for relational practice (of which restorative practice is an example) as an important aspect of service transformation.[3] Here’s to working together to share this vision and help put it into practice!

The Differences Between Restorative Justice and Family Mediation

by Christine Plews

Many people know me as an Accredited Family Mediator with an interest in how our life experiences impact us in the mediation room. However, not many people will know that I am also a Trustee at The Mint House which is the Oxford Centre for Restorative Practice, and I can deliver training in restorative practice for people working in criminal justice or other settings.

Therefore, it is not surprising that I often reflect on what the differences are between the two disciplines, which are so alike in many ways with their emphasis on the individuals involved coming together and listening and being heard.

The main difference between the two is that family mediation is task specific. The participants come together to resolve the issues that they have between them arising out of their separation. There does not need to be conflict but there often is and there can be high emotion.

It is very much future orientated, and settlement driven with expectation of practical solutions. The issues are ‘live.’ The emphasis is rightly on dispute resolution and there is no aim of ‘personal growth or understanding’ although this might occur as a result of the mediation.

In contrast, the emphasis in restorative meetings is on repairing past harm and mending relationships. The issues are likely to be in the past but there may be ongoing conflict. This means that a lot of time is devoted to looking back at the harm that needs to be repaired and it is dialogue driven. It is hoped to be transformative.

It is helpful in the mediation room if past wrongdoings can be acknowledged but the lack of an acknowledgement is not necessarily a bar to progress. In contrast, a restorative meeting will seek an admission of responsibility, although the harm maybe disputed, or an acceptance of joint responsibility.

Although this is changing in family mediation, traditionally there was little preparation for joint sessions and the emphasis is mainly on the encounter itself with little emotional preparation for the participants. However, prior to restorative meetings the issues will have been fully rehearsed ahead of the meeting and feelings taken into account.

A key part of family mediation is that there is Facilitator neutrality. However, whilst the Facilitator is neutral in restorative meetings, they do have to be sensitive to a victim not being re-victimised. With Domestic Abuse screening and safeguarding being a hot topic in Family Mediation, there could be some learning points here.

The different nature of the two sessions shows up in what a ‘good outcome’ looks like in each. In family mediation, the Memorandum of Understanding will, by necessity, involve both participants whereas the Action plan following a restorative meeting maybe one sided.

However, the right timing is a factor shared by both mediation and restorative meetings. If either of these processes start too early, then they can be of limited help. In both these situations, people have to do ‘the work’ of allowing some emotional space to enable a conversation to take place.

Finally, in restorative meetings it is said that there comes a point in a session where is a softening or ‘a quickening’ where the mood shifts and there is empathy and understanding. Whilst family mediation can conclude without such a softening, the power of human connection and communication does mean that there are also tipping points where there is insight, and a way forward is found. Ultimately, that is what both disciplines are looking for.

Christine Plews is a leading Family Mediator and has a national reputation. She specialises in mediation which is therapeutically informed and routinely sees children as part of a mediation. She is part of The Mint House training team which delivers Restorative Practice Training for use in a variety of settings.

ALL OF US: a note from the playwright

by Rebecca Abrams

Growing up in the 1960s and 70s in what would these days be called a ‘blended family’, I was by turns the youngest child, eldest child and middle child in a complex, ever-evolving tangle of parents and siblings. Perhaps this explains why, as a writer, I’ve always been so interested in family dynamics and family conflict. Visible or not, these themes run like stubborn threads through nearly all my writing, even in works that superficially have little in common.

Over two thousand years ago, Sophocles put the same themes centre stage (quite literally) in his scorching family tragedy, Electra, which I first encountered as an undergraduate and have been captivated by ever since. I’d wanted for some time to revision the play into a contemporary drama, but couldn’t find a creatively satisfying way to do so. In 2018, during a playwriting course with theatre director John Retallack, the solution arrived.

Tinkering around one day with an exercise on voice and monologue, I found myself writing about a young woman coming to the end of a custodial prison sentence and fantasising about how her life will pan out after her release. The character took root in my imagination, and over the next few weeks was joined by a frightened mother, an abandoned brother and a dead father. Three quarters of the way through writing the first draft, I suddenly realised who they were.

Like its Ancient Greek template, All of Us anatomises the tragic consequences of engrained cycles of domestic violence and toxic familial dynamics, and revolves around a mother-son-daughter triad. But in place of the traditional Greek chorus standing on the sidelines, passively commenting on the action, there is now a restorative justice facilitator who actively offers the other characters a chance to divert fate, not blindly repeat it.

I’d got to know a bit about Restorative Justice thanks to to a close friend, Angie Kaye, a documentary film-maker turned restorative justice facilitator.

Over our many walks and cups of coffee, she’d explained how a facilitated meeting works and the painstaking process that precedes it. Through our conversations, I came to understand that much of the vital work of restorative justice takes place before the formal face-to-face meetings, in the silences, in the gaps, in the moments of private reflection.

This realisation led me to the next big creative breakthrough: the decision to structure the whole play around a restorative justice meeting that the audience never actually sees. As in real life, the play’s action is the process; the outcome resides in an unknowable zone of possibility.

But how do you go about loosening the iron fist of anger, pain, grievance and vengefulness? How do you get people to the point where they are willing to sit in a room and talk to the very person who has shattered their life and hurt them so deeply? Listening to facilitators, victims and ex-offenders speaking about their experiences at The Mint House helped to deepen my understanding, as did visiting HMP High Down, a medium security prison, to sit in on the final session of a Sycamore Programme and talk to a group of current offenders.

One of them told me: “They lock you up and they lock you in and they lock you away, you and everything you did. They don’t do anything with it. They just lock it all up.” A damning and accurate summary of the criminal justice system in 21st century Britain.

Unlocking is central to what restorative justice does: loosening the knots that bind us to a certain way of thinking or feeling. It is slow and delicate work and it takes place not only between people, but within them. In physical and temporal spaces, and also in invisible psychological spaces.

In All of Us I wanted to enact all these different kinds of space. To show the characters’ physical encounters, yes, but also the meetings that only ever take place in their minds and hearts, consciously and unconsciously. I wanted to explore the shifting spaces between and within them, the spaces where they can, hopefully, begin to encounter other ways of thinking and feeling about the past, to loosen its hold on their lives.

Conflict is the pulsating heart of all compelling stories in life as in art. We all understand and recognise the human capacity for conflict, the devastating power it can have over us. Restorative justice, when it succeeds, does something truly remarkable and infinitely precious. It helps people to move beyond the conflict deadlock and break the cycle of violence. It enables them to consider events from other perspectives, to meet those they’ve hurt and been hurt by, and see them in a new light. More than that, it enables them to see themselves in new ways, to encounter different versions of themselves.

Above all else, this is what I wanted to explore in the play, because locking out the possibility of meeting ourselves and others, with all our mistakes and flaws, our shame and guilt, our capacity for compassion and change, ultimately makes prisoners of us all.

Rebecca Abrams is an author, playwright, and journalist based in Oxford. She is the author of eight works of fiction and non-fiction, three stage plays, and a verse play, The Pied Piper of Covid (2020). Her debut novel, Touching Distance (2009), was shortlisted for a McKitterick Prize for Literature and won the MJA Open Book Award for Medical Fiction. She teaches Creative Writing at the University of Oxford, is a former Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Brasenose College, Oxford and a Gladstone’s Library Writer-in-Residence.

We are hosting a special film screening of ALL OF US at The Old Fire Station on Saturday the 27th of July 2024. More information and tickets can be found here:

Shakespeare’s 'Twelfth Night' and Restorative Justice

by Professor Paul S. Fiddes

Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night opens, like all his comedies, with a situation in which relationships are already disturbed or broken, and in which characters feel a profound sense of loss. The play ends with some restoration of relations and a partial establishing of justice, but we are acutely aware that the process of restorative justice is far from complete. All is not a happy-ever-afterwards. Though often called a ‘happy comedy’, with many amusing scenes, there are dark strains throughout and as in all Shakespeare’s comedies, a shadow is left at the end, despite (in this case) the event of a double marriage.

We discover just how disturbed the situation is in the first scene. We begin by meeting Orsino, the young Duke of Illyria, who is—it seems—deeply in love with the Countess Olivia who is failing to reciprocate his persistent, ardent advances. She has, we learn, refused the company of all males for the sake of mourning her dead brother. If this seems an unhealthy attitude, it is no more so than Orsino’s, who cannot respect her decision and seems more in love with the idea of being in love than truly knowing what love is. Olivia’s household is also marked by tensions, with a simmering war between her steward, an efficient but puritanical figure named Malvolio and her cousin, Sir Toby Belch, who is a drunken reprobate who resents Malvolio’s influence in the house and the restraints he is placing on his behaviour. Sir Toby is encouraging his companion, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, a pitiful wastrel, to think he has a chance of marrying Olivia in order to get money from him. This inadequate couple are aided and abetted by Maria, the shrewd waiting-woman of Olivia and Feste, Olivia’s fool or household jester who speaks wisdom in his nonsense. On this scene there arrives the young woman Viola who is suffering her own broken relationship; she believes that she has lost her twin brother, Sebastian in a storm at sea, and finds herself unable to re-start a normal life; she is accompanied by the virtuous sea-captain of the wrecked ship who has been acting as her protector.

In a way typical of all his comedies, Shakespeare works towards a restoration of loss and brokenness by making the situation even more disturbed. It appears that a strong dose of confusion is needed to shake things up, to break open the surface of things, and to show characters the truth that is hidden deep beneath. The world is turned upside down to show people that it was the wrong way up all the time. In Elizabethan comedy the basic tool of confusion is deception and pretence. Viola makes the fundamental act of pretence, playing a trick which is to affect everyone’s lives in Illyria: she adopts the disguise of being a page-boy—taking the name Cesario— and becomes the valued personal servant of Orsino, quickly falling in love with him but barred by her position from declaring it openly. When he sends her to woo Olivia on his behalf, Olivia falls desperately in love with the supposed Cesario. Now Viola loves Orsino, Orsino loves Olivia and Olivia loves Cesario/Viola, but it seems no one can be satisfied. Viola, having inflicted this far-reaching pretence, now refuses any temptation to manipulate people through it and is willing to suffer its consequences herself: ‘Disguise, I see thou art a wickedness …./ Time, thou must untangle this, not I.’

Meanwhile, another pretence is taking place. After Malvolio has rebuked them for drunkenness and loud singing at night, Malvolio, Sir Toby, Maria and Feste hilariously trick him through a forged letter into thinking that Olivia is in love with him. The letter, supposedly from Olivia, instructs him to show his response to her by wearing the outlandish garb of cross-gartered yellow stockings and by constantly smiling at her. His compliance reveals him to be not only puritanical but an ambitious social-climber. Understandably, Olivia concludes he is either mentally ill or possessed by a demon and has him locked in a dark room for his own protection, where he is mercilessly mocked by Feste and his companions.

The resolution of all this turmoil begins when Sebastian the identical twin-brother of Viola, who has not been drowned after all, turns up looking exactly like the pretended Cesario. He quickly woos Olivia, who marries him supposing him to be Cesario. At the same time he does some injury to both Sir Toby and Andrew Aguecheek who challenge him to a duel, resentful of Olivia’s affections towards him, and again wrongly supposing him to be the fearful and harmless page-boy. Truth dawns when Viola/Cesario and Sebastian meet and are re-united: all realize they are twins and that Viola is a woman. Everyone is pleased since Olivia is perfectly happy with Sebastian, and Orsino is delighted to be able to marry the companion to whom he has become increasingly bound in his affections. Sebastian and Viola are equally satisfied with their partners. Love, in different ways, has grown between them. The disturbing features with which the play began—the breaking of a family in a sea-wreck, the immature love of Orsino, and the unhealthy attitude of Olivia to sex—have been faced up to and resolved. Moreover justice is done in two further ways. First, the play had also begun with social conflicts in the household of Olivia; the trick played on Malvolio is now admitted, and the grievances which lay behind it are exposed: ‘if that the injuries be justly weighed/ that have on both sides passed’. Second, the sea-captain had been deeply hurt by the apparent ingratitude of Viola when he met Sebastian, thinking him to be her, and Sebastian refused to recognize him or return the purse he had loaned Viola. Having been arrested as an enemy to the state, his virtue is now fully recognized by all. 

There are obviously elements of the play which do not fit with what we now know to be the process of restorative justice. Clearly, restorative justice does not operate with tools of pretence and deception. Quite the opposite, transparency and integrity in conversation is essential. But this is a stage-comedy, not an actual RJ process or a model for it.

Watching the play and enjoying the tricks and pretences, we may nevertheless feel the healing power of facing up to the truth of relationships, and the transformative effect of coming to know the truth of a situation that had been hidden from sight but which is now brought to light. The facilitator in an RJ conversation will aim to lead people to this point, but without of course the comedic confusions.

Moreover, there is a key moment when we can feel the restorative power of the empathetic sharing of experience. In Elizabethan stage convention, the putting on of male attire gave a woman character (though of course played by a boy!) social permission to talk frankly and openly with a male character. In the guise of Cesario Viola can express her feelings to Orsino, and unconsciously he responds to them:

Viola. My father had a daughter loved a man,
As it might be, perhaps, were I a woman,
I should your lordship
Orsino.  And what’s her history?
Viola.  A blank, my lord. She never told her love …
Orsino. But died thy sister of her love, my boy?
Viola. I am all the daughters of my father’s house
And all the brothers too, and yet I know not.

Such oblique conversations are the foundation for Orsion’s later realization that he is in love with Viola, enabling him to put behind him his infatuation for Olivia. Practitioners in restorative justice will encourage conversations in which participants have permission to express their feelings about a hurtful situation and are heard with respect.

However, the play shows that even when the truth is revealed, and some relations have been re-made, damage can remain. When the trick is revealed to Malvolio he is not reconciled with the other characters. He storms out declaring ‘I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you’ and Olivia judges that ‘he hath been most notoriously abused’. The sea-captain has also been abused by the sequence of events, and has suffered an injury to his spirit that does not seem to be healed. Even more seriously, perhaps, we are not convinced of an unclouded future happiness for Orsino and Viola; when he thought that she had betrayed him with Olivia he revealed a streak of cruelty (‘my thoughts are ripe in mischief’) that he will need to control in the future.

What is lacking here is the finding together of a path into the future for all concerned, which must be the aim of any true process of restorative justice. But Shakespeare knows what he is doing as a dramatist. For all the ‘feel-good’ factor of the ending, members of the audience are left with a sense that restoration is not complete. They are also provoked to wonder how a fuller restoration might be achieved, and Shakespeare leaves them to work this out in their own conflicts as they leave the theatre for the continuing drama of everyday life.

 

Paul S. Fiddes is the author of More Things in Heaven and Earth. Shakespeare, Theology and the Interplay of Texts (University of Virginia Press).

We are delighted that Wild Goose Theatre are putting on a charity performance of Twelfth Night for us next week (Thursday 27 June, 2024). More information and a link to buy tickets can be found here:

In Search of Redemption and Recognition

by Rosie Chadwick

Recently a burst of spontaneity while in Manchester saw us heading to a preview performance of Lynn Nottage’s prize-winning play, Sweat at the Royal Exchange Theatre, itself an icon of reinvention and creativity.

Based in a steeltown in Pennsylvania in the mid 2000s, and with deep undetones of race discrimination and worker oppression, the play tells the story of three factory worker friends, Tracey, Cynthia and Jessie, whose decades-long relationship is fractured when one friend gets promoted to management and managers lock the workers out in a bid to cut the cost of labour.

Bad turns worse when Oscar, the Columbian-American barman at the women’s ‘local’ breaks the picket-line, attracted by the better money. In an ensuing bar-room altercation violence erupts with tragic results. Stepping in to protect Oscar, bar manager (Stan) suffers traumatic brain injury. Jason and Chris, sons (respectively) of Tracey and Cynthia and perpetrators of the assault each receive an 8 year prison sentence.

The words ‘restorative justice’ don’t feature in the play. Facilitation there is none. But watching the powerful closing scenes I was struck by several themes that are central to restorative justice, among them a deeply human need to be seen and heard, the destructiveness of shame with no way back, and the freeing potential of face-to-face encounter.

Newly released from prison, both Chris and Jason feel stuck. Chris describes waking every morning ‘with the same panic. All I see is a closed door, and when I finally get the courage to open it, it leads to yet another closed door.’  Jason keeps replaying what happened. ‘I ain’t thought about that day in the bar in a long time. Now I can’t get away from it. Every place I walk in this city reminds me of that day, it’s like the whole city was in that bar and got turned upside down in the same way I did.’  Jason also talks about how the blind fury he felt that day is still with him. ‘Someone looks at me wrong, I wanna bash them in the face, and I don’t know why.’  Probation officer Evan puts this feeling down to the crippling effect of shame. ‘Most folks think it’s the guilt or rage that destroys us in the end, but I know from experience that it’s shame that eats us away until we disappear.’  Both young men are also thrown when they bump into each other, hard to avoid in small town Pennsylvania.

A glimmer of progress only comes when Chris and Jason face their deepest fears, visiting the bar where the assault took place and coming face-to-face, first with Oscar then Stan. In an edgy but deeply touching closing scene, Oscar expresses his surprise when Chris calls him by his name, recognition he craves from a lifetime of feeling invisible: ‘Didn’t know you knew my name.’  

Through a series of small but symbolic gestures – Oscar’s offer to turn on the game on TV, comments on the new, and better beer and how the bar’s been smartened up, picking up a dropped cloth, kneeling in front of the severely crippled Stan, appreciation of Oscar’s care for Stan and Oscar’s reply ‘that’s how it oughta be’ – small steps are made towards repair. There is still a chasm to be crossed but a start has been made, underlined by the closing stage directions: ‘There’s apology in their eyes, but Chris and Jason are unable to conjure words just yet. The four men, uneasy in their bodies, await the next moment in a fractured togetherness.’

If you are interested in further exploring restorative justice themes in theatre, please join us at these upcoming events:

Twelfth Night Charity Performance
27 June 2024, 7:30pm

All of Us Film Screening
27 July 2024, 7:00pm

All of Us follows a family fractured and torn apart by violence and incarceration. As one family member comes to the end of their prison sentence, each of them explores how to move on and heal. 

“All of Us is a compelling story with plenty of humour and great dramatic writing.” – Theatreview 

How to communicate Restorative Justice effectively

by Keeva Baxter (Why me?)

Why me? want to see a world where people affected by crime know what Restorative Justice is, know how to access it and can readily explore whether it might be suitable for them with a trained expert. 

However, at the moment, this is not the case. Most people affected by crime don’t know what Restorative Justice is, and even if they are offered it, they may not understand what it looks like or how it could help them. 

There are multiple charities across the UK working hard to spread the word about Restorative Justice, alongside passionate and dedicated Restorative Justice services in each Police and Crime Commissioner area. On top of this, many people who have been through the restorative process share stories of their experience to help inspire and educate others. 

Conversations about restorative approaches are also gaining more traction. Television portrayals such as BBC’s ‘Time’ and ITV’s ‘Without Sin’ and recent commentary in the press can attest to this. Just last week, Jacob Dunne, a Restorative Justice participant who met the parents of a man he killed with a single punch, appeared on BBC Breakfast to discuss a new play created around his story.

However, despite this increased media attention, many people affected by crime are still left trapped in a cycle of trauma as they struggle to get their needs met and their questions answered. So, with all this hard work going on in the restorative sector and beyond, why do most people still not know what Restorative Justice is.

One reason could be that people affected by crime aren’t being told about it by the professionals they encounter on their journey through the Criminal Justice System. From family liaison officers, to probation officers, lawyers and victim support services, there are an enormous number of touchpoints where people can, and should, be informed about their options. 

If we don’t have the buy-in of potential referrers, a huge barrier emerges, meaning people affected by crime don’t get the information they need. 

Why me? commissioned a research project last year, carried out by Equally Ours and Survation, to assess why people in a position to refer participants to a restorative service choose not to. We found that a lack of understanding, misconceptions, seeing Restorative Justice as a “soft option” and punitive attitudes all contribute to criminal justice professionals not telling people affected by crime about Restorative Justice. 

What can we do about it?

On the back of this research, Why me? produced a short guide on ‘How to communicate Restorative Justice effectively’. We hope that this guide is a useful first step that provides people with top tips and guidance on how to talk about Restorative Justice. If criminal justice professionals understood Restorative Justice and felt comfortable talking about it, many more people affected by crime would have access to the resources they need to heal. 

It is crucial to ensure that the transformative power of Restorative Justice, which we see everyday, can be recognised by others. 

By reframing the way we talk about Restorative Justice, organisations and services across the country can use a unified voice to amplify the message. We can address misconceptions and dismantle the barriers to accessing Restorative Justice faced by so many. 

We hope to continue this work, funding permitted, and provide more guidance to restorative organisations, criminal justice professionals and policy makers on how to talk about Restorative Justice to get the best results. 

Some things to consider going forward: 

  • How and when do you use the words ‘Restorative Justice’? 

  • How do you introduce the topic of Restorative Justice when speaking to new people?

  • What are the key concerns of stakeholders you work with? How can you address them without reinforcing misconceptions?

  • What challenges do you face when talking about Restorative Justice?

If you would like to discuss this project or reframing further, please get in touch with Keeva Baxter at keeva.baxter@why-me.org.

Towards A New Vision Of Restorative Practice Possibilities - Building Bridges Project

by Rosie Chadwick

Last week colleagues from around England and Wales - Blackley to Barry, Hull to Hotwalls (Portsmouth) and points between - came together for two days for a fascinating conversation about how restorative practice can become embedded in communities.

A previous set of dialogues, last November, explored how restorative practice can be embedded in organisations, rather than being seen as an add-on or flavour of the month.  

In each case it was good to have involvement from those outside our field, specialists in organisational and leadership development, systems and culture change or (most recently) local community members unfamiliar with restorative practice, helping keep our feet on the ground. Thanks are due to the Westhill Endowment, whose support made the dialogues possible.

Now comes the job of distilling the learning from the dialogues and sharing this more widely. There is a lot to digest, but also some clear emerging themes. These include:   

  • the importance of not limiting restorative practice to a single process.

  • the need to strengthen connections with others working in related fields.

  • the contribution restorative practice can make to supporting service integration and giving communities more say in things that matter to them.

I’m struck by how closely these themes resonate with what David Moore and Alikki Vernon have to say in their book, Setting Relations Right in Restorative Practice, insights from which they will be sharing with us at a network event on 24 April. To quote David and Alikki:

  • ‘restorative processes are more broadly applicable than is realised’

  • ‘the restorative movement has not always adequately engaged with neighbouring ‘ecosystems’

  • ‘restorative processes can be used to coordinate collaboration between agencies that provide complementary services’

  • ‘the restorative movement has the potential to democratise decision-making in a very wide range of contexts where authorities currently manage social conflict by imposing decisions.’

It will be great to explore these issues with them. You can book your place at the event here:

Restorative justice and the asylum system - Post event reflection

Restorative justice and the asylum system - Post event reflection by Rosie Chadwick

It was good to welcome Dr Steve Kirkwood to a recent Mint House network event, where he shared findings from his recent research looking at the potential of restorative justice (RJ) in addressing the harms created by the asylum system?  

Steve gave contrasting examples from Scotland and Belgium, also drawing on interviews with restorative practitioners, refugee support organisations and refugees and asylum seekers. For me, the main takeaways were these:

  • There is a lot of harm to be repaired!  Leaving aside the many and significant harms that may have led to someone seeking asylum in the first place, harms within the system include destitution, detention, the uncertainty that comes with being in prolonged legal limbo, racism and more. 

  • This is challenging terrain for restorative approaches.  Barriers to overcome include language and cultural differences to which it is important to be sensitive, high levels of distrust, the impacts of traumatic experiences and (at a structural level) dehumanising rhetoric and institutions’ reluctance to engage. 

  • For all the difficulties, restorative justice can make an important contribution to addressing harms created by the asylum system. The shape and form this takes can vary, ranging from community-led justice initiatives and formal restorative processes to less formal opportunities for people to share their stories and build mutual understanding. 

  • The benefits are likely to be multiple, extending beyond refugees and asylum seekers to staff who are working in challenging conditions and society at large. In Belgium, more time invested in fostering connections between people made for a much better working and living environment. It also meant less time and money spent on punitive responses.

  • Ample scope exists for restorative justice services to work collaboratively with refugee communities. We can usefully start by getting to know each other better.

  • The true prize is ‘restorative integration’ – integration that begins with looking beyond the label, recognising common humanity and restoring each person’s rights and dignity.



If you’d like to watch the full talk by Steve, you can do so by follow the link below to our YouTube channel.

Building Bridges Project Progress Report, December 2023

The Mint House was grateful and delighted to receive funding from Westhill for a twelve-month programme of research and practice dialogues, exploring challenges and creative opportunities for embedding restorative practice across diverse sectors and in faith institutions.  We think there’s much to be done in this area that can help foster healthy relationships, strengthen connections and prevent and resolve conflict. 

The first two dialogues took place during 27th & 28th November when 20 people came together at Rewley House, Oxford University’s Department of Continuing Education. This number included 14 external guests, 5 Mint House trustees (two of whom were formal dialogue participants) and 1 facilitator. We had a rich mix of participants, combining some highly experienced restorative practitioners, leaders, trainers and researchers with others coming fresh to restorative practice but with expertise in areas including culture change, systems change and leadership development. 

We designed the dialogues with care to ensure equality of voice and good exchanges between people familiar with and new to restorative practice. The conversation was electric!! We are still digesting and processing the fantastic insights shared. However, both at the dialogues and since, participants have shared their appreciation of being part of the discussions, commenting in particular on how unusual – and helpful – they found it to be in conversation with others from diverse disciplines and who brought a fresh  perspective. Here are some examples:




thank you so much for including me and for collating such an interesting group of people

Thank you for the invitation to join the Dialogues. I really enjoyed meeting you, the Mint House team, the community of practitioners and wider critical friends. What a fabulous group of humans you gathered! I particularly enjoyed getting an insight into restorative practice work and its impact. I look forward to sharing my reflections in feedback.

I really enjoyed meeting everyone and getting to learn more about this world, and how it connects to mine!

Day 2 of the dialogue: Belinda Hopkins, restorative practice specialist and pioneer, demonstrates how restorative practice works to bridge gaps in understanding between people.

Thank you Westhill!

New Restorative Justice Article

A Systematic Review of Participant and Facilitator Experiences of Restorative Justice Interventions in the Forensic Secure Estate

Really good to see the recent publication of a systematic review looking at participant and facilitator experiences of restorative justice interventions in the forensic secure estate. The review was carried out by Kathryn Rowsell, Kirsty Pegg, Pete Wallis and Richard Barker, two of whom (Kathryn and Pete) are Mint House trustees.

The studies unearthed in the review aren't plentiful (only 9 in all) but they do use a mix of research designs, making for interesting comparisons. In a nutshell 'the result of this review supports the use of restorative justice within the forensic secure estate.'   Amongst its benefits, restorative justice can help shift  'unhelpful and inaccurate internal narratives' enabling participants to develop a more positive sense of themselves. The best effects are likely to be achieved where restorative justice is introduced with involvement and buy-in of staff at every level, and where the prevailing culture is trauma-informed.

To read the article, you can find it here, though it is behind a registration wall.

Restorative Quiz

BY Geoff Emerson (Mint House Trustee)

Can you imagine what a restorative pub quiz would look like? Well, having taken on the job of setting and running one, I am struggling. The problems are many. My enjoyment of a pub quiz comes from my competitive nature, the prospect of winning and the chance to show off my esoteric and admittedly useless, knowledge of trivia. These are not the aspects of my personality of which I am most proud.

I have to declare a secret from my past. I was hopeless at team sports at school. Yes, I was the one who was usually the last to be picked by the sporty team captains. Even worse when one of them said “I’ll have ‘im and you can have those three.” I was one of those three. So, for me the Pub Quiz has been the chance to try, often not very successfully, to get my revenge. Revenge is very problematic when it comes to restorative quizzing! Not surprisingly, in quizzes the Sport round was my weak spot. Carefully chosen team-mates could help cover the gaps in Science, Sport and Music. So, why are Pub Quizzes and Restorative Practice apparently antithetical? Ruthless competition is the number one problem. Creating winners and losers does not lead to harmonious relationships even if participants are advised not to take it too seriously.

Serious quizzers will wonder what the point is. Conflict is almost built into the format. I have faced many challenges to my authority as a quiz master. One contestant offered to supply me with academic papers to prove her point! To award a half point for an almost correct answer has been known to lead to ill feeling and on occasion to near riots.

Arguments within teams have caused my wife and I to face serious friction after I insisted that the Galapagos Islands were part of Peru and our team lost a point, my wife having rightly, but rather too politely, suggested the answer was Ecuador. Do you push your point, knowing, in my case erroneously, that you are right? Or, do you politely give way because of politeness and a wish for harmony and lose the point?

Prizes, does everyone win a prize? Valuable prizes can be divisive, particularly when you think your team has been denied one unfairly. Maybe we can accept that the honour of winning is what matters. A raffle is always a good idea because you can then have two sets of winners. My mother had a restorative view of competition. When we went to Whist drives and I lost, she would reassure me by saying “Well, if you are not lucky at cards you will be lucky in love.” She was right, my wife doesn’t hold a grudge about the Ecuador issue.

The answers to my difficulties in relation to designing a Restorative Pub Quiz lie in building a sense of shared endeavour; creating opportunities for collaboration; increasing understanding of how restorative processes work; and enabling participants to go home with a sense of shared achievement.

Come to the Mint House Quiz on Thursday 23rd November at 7.00pm in New Road Baptist Church and find out if a Restorative Pub Quiz works for you!

Reimagining Justice: Art Show - Interview


We recently shared on social media how restorative justice may be expressed through creative arts, and one of the resources mentioned was ‘Reimagining Justice,’ a virtual restorative justice art show hosted in 2020 by the National Center on Restorative Justice at Vermont Law School. 

Visitors to the exhibition were invited to vote for their favourite image, and we were delighted to be contacted by Don John Omale, whose image was placed third in the voting.

Don John has kindly shared these further reflections on his entry, the design and what he learned from the competition, including a powerful reminder of what we can learn from Africa.

Why did you enter the exhibition?

The call for submission by Lindsey Pointer of Vermont Law School was an opportunity for me to showcase an afrocentric perspective to the Reimagine Justice Art Competition.


What was your thought process for your design?

My design was and is based on my sociological imaginations of dispute resolution and the sociology of law in Africa. I have often told my international audiences that when it comes to restorative justice, the west needs to learn from Africa as much as Africa needs to learn from them. To us in Africa, restorative justice is like a good old wine served in a new glass. And so to me, the logic and principles of restorative justice are in the old contained and in the new explained. Restorative justice processes and practices have been culturally inbuilt to the models of dispute resolution in most African countries and communities but never known to them as such before now. Growing up in a rural African community in the 70s and 80s It is a common sight to see elders and community members gathered under a tree shade to resolve community disputes brought before them. In my design you can see the people seated in a circle to make contributions to how a conflict brought before them can be peacefully resolved. The blindfolded "justice lady" is an enigma of justice, a facilitator or mediator that dispenses justice or resolves the dispute without fear or favour. It's a representation of impartiality which should be a typical characteristic of most a good mediator/facilitator. I used a woman because in Africa women appear to be more liberal , fair and impartial when it comes to dispensation of justice because the ones who give lives are always inclined to protect lives. Perhaps, that explains why most judges and magistrates in Africa are women. We have more women on the bench than men . I might be wrong though, but that is my perspective on the "African Justice Lady " that I submitted to the Reimagine Justice competition at Vermont Law School which came in third position. 


Has doing your submission and seeing others changed your thinking at all or offered any different perspectives? Has it helped your work or personal experiences?

What I learned from the competition was that people have different and creative imaginations of the concept of restorative justice. The competition also demonstrated that restorative justice is a globally accepted idea judging from the number of submissions to the Reimagine Justice competition. The competition also shows that there are possibilities for global networking of ideas and knowledge sharing around Restorative Justice hence, I am reinvigorated to learn from others’ perspectives as well as continuing to share the African perspective to the international community.



To see the exhibits as well as find out more about the Reimagining Justice: A Virtual Restorative Justice Art Show here - https://www.vermontlaw.edu/rj-art


What’s behind a name?

I am Geoff Emerson, a retired probation officer and one of The Mint House trustees. I will be writing a series of short pieces reflecting on different aspects of restorative practice for the Mint House.

This first piece explores why we are called “The Mint House”. If this interests you, read on. The building in which the Mint House was launched in 2015 – and from which we operate when we need a physical space – is alleged to have been the temporary location for the Royal Mint of King Charles I during the English Civil War in the 1640s. The building was used to mint (manufacture) coinage to enable the King to pay his troops, something he had not been very good at. Paying troops to fight battles is not a very restorative activity. To make matters worse the coinage was minted from silver plate taken from the Oxford Colleges and melted down at the Mint House.

An Oxford Crown. Photo credit to Ashmolean Museum Oxford.

As I write this, I realise I am getting into the murky territory of judging past people and actions using the values of today, restorative values of course! Was Charles I a bad king? Was melting down beautiful objects to make money a bad thing to do? Can it be excused by the good of paying hungry troops who had not been paid for months? Are these just the wrong kind of questions?

To us, adopting “The Mint House” name focuses both on the minting of new things and the freshness of a medicinal and culinary herb which promotes good health and good food. What’s in a word, or two? Whilst it is helpful to understand the past, restorative ways of thinking suggest that we should also look forward with hope and to fresh ways of doing things.

What happened in the Mint House in the 1640s was a part of a difficult history when Parliament was seeking to assert the democratic rights of the people in what became a bloody civil war. The whole country was affected both in terms of painful bloodshed, but also democratic rights achieved. Subsequent history has shown both progress in terms of democratic rights, but also continuing conflict over how human rights can be won in a society where they continue to be abused. The Mint House has a mission to promote restorative practice as a means of resolving conflict peacefully. For us this means finding new and creative ways of communicating what restorative practice is and why it matters, working with partners to introduce restorative practice in new settings – workplaces, colleges, housing complexes and more - and looking afresh at what enables organisations to embed restorative practices in how they do things day-to-day. We’re convinced the resulting ‘currency’ – deep listening, respectful dialogue, understanding needs and peaceful conflict resolution – is one that will benefit us all.

The Mint House today from Bonn Square

Juliet, her Romeo and Restorative Justice

BY PAUL S. FIDDES

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet begins like a comedy, with the first half of the play filled by light-hearted banter, but it ends as a tragedy with the waste of two young lives. Viewed through the lens of the modern ‘restorative justice’ movement, the situation cries out for a restorative justice process throughout most of the play, and shows the first steps being taken in this direction only at the very end. For the story is of two families alienated from one another, nursing ancient grievances which they feel to be real, but which are never actually spoken about and faced openly together.

The feuding families are the Montagues and the Capulets, and the play begins with a street fight in Verona between members of the two households. It is halted by the intervention of the ruler, Prince Escalus, who warns all concerned that they will pay with their lives for any further disturbance of the peace of the city. Romeo, only son of the Montagues, is hopelessly in love with a girl called Rosaline, and his friends Mercutio and Benvolio mock his obsession with her. Nevertheless they persuade him to go to a masked ball at the Capulet’s house where she will be a guest and he will be able to see her. Instead he meets and falls deeply in love with Juliet, the only daughter of the Capulets, and she likewise falls in love with him. Her fiery cousin Tybalt recognizes Romeo and is outraged, taking his presence as an insult to the Capulet family. The fact that the ancient grudge between the families could be resolved if only they would talk about it openly together is underlined by the fact that when Tybalt tells Capulet that Romeo is there, he makes light of it. Tybalt however is deeply offended and the seeds of tragedy have been sown. Juliet laments that the families cannot get beyond the surface appearance of a name to see the true person underneath: ‘O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? … What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other word would smell as sweet.’ 

The very next afternoon, with the help of Juliet’s nurse, Romeo and Juliet are secretly married by Friar Lawrence. They rightly think that at this moment a liaison between the two families would not be welcomed. Not more than an hour after the secret marriage, Tybalt picks a quarrel with Romeo, but Romeo answers him peacefully, assuring him that he loves him for a reason that he cannot yet disclose. Mercutio is astounded by what he considers a ‘vile submission’ by Romeo, and enters himself into a duel with Tybalt. Attempting to stop the fight, Romeo steps between them and Tybalt takes the opportunity to stab Mercutio with his sword, who dies as he had lived with a pun on his lips: ‘Ask for me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man’. 

Romeo had gained a new perspective, viewing the feud as insignificant in light of his love for Juliet, and he had been anxious to restore the broken relationships. But, ingrief and guilt at the death of his friend, he relapses back into the old view of the situation. Crying ‘O sweet Juliet, thy beauty has made me effeminate’, he challenges Tybalt and kills him. From this point, from a failure to talk together about an ancient grudge and the injuries done in the past on both sides, there is a straight road to disaster. For the Prince banishes Romeo instantly from Verona on pain of death, and after spending a single night of passionate love with his bride, he escapes to Mantua.

Juliet now learns that her parents are insisting, against her will, on marrying her to a suitor they approve of, Count Paris. Even her nurse, who knows about the secret marriage to Romeo, tries to persuade her to fall in with her parent’s intentions. Trapped in a patriarchal system, frantic with worry and fear, she turns to Friar Lawrence, who devises a plan: he gives her a drug which will make her appear dead, so she will be interred in the family mausoleum. He will send a letter to Romeo telling him of the trick, and he will come to the tomb and take her away to Mantua when she awakens from her drugged sleep. Unfortunately the messenger is delayed, and Romeo hears only about her supposed death. He procures poison for himself and goes to Juliet’s tomb where he kills Paris who has come to pay his respects, and who attacks Romeo when he thinks the tomb is being violated. Inside, finding Juliet apparently dead Romeo poisons himself; Juliet wakes to find him dead beside her and kills herself with Romeo’s dagger. The two families, now united in grief, finally vow to end the feud.

In various ways a lack of communication between all concerned has precipitated the catastrophe, and the Prince rightly commands that they must ‘go hence to have more talk of these sad things’. Though too late to avert the tragedy, from a modern viewpoint we can say that they now embark on a process of restorative justice and seek to find a way forward together into the future.

Each family will honour the victim of the other, Montague raising a golden statue of Juliet and Capulet doing the same for Romeo. So the story of Romeo and Juliet will be remembered as long as Verona lasts. They have lost their lives to unresolved grievances, but have left a story behind them which will hopefully prevent any renewal of the feud, and which will have a wider effect on the whole community which has been caught up in the families’ dispute. 

Revd Professor Paul S. Fiddes Author of More Things in Heaven and Earth: Shakespeare, Theology, and the Interplay of Texts (University of Virginia Press, 2022)

If you live in or near Oxford and would like to join us for a charity performance of Romeo and Juliet, Wild Goose Theatre Company are allowing us to sell tickets to their dress rehearsal in aid of The Mint House: https://www.minthouseoxford.co.uk/events/shakespeare2023

Restorative justice and unconscious biases

by Rosie Chadwick

Biases are all around us. They’re part of the human condition, developed over millenia and there for a reason, making life easier in many cases. At the same time, we need to be alive and alert to how biases affect our decision-making when preparing for and facilitating restorative encounters. How are we affected by how someone looks or sounds, how articulate they are, how self-aware they seem, how likeable and relatable we find them, by the nature of the crime (without regard to context) by the order in which we meet people, or by the biases in other people’s accounts of the situation?

Our recent Mint House CPD session, led by Dr Kathryn Rowsell and consultant Dr Richard Barker, gave us a great glimpse of the wide range and volume of potential biases, powerfully codified in the Cognitive bias codex:

The session also helpfully suggested some useful mitigations, and some questions we can ask ourselves to help us be more mindful of our biases. (Originally from Athwal-Kooner, P., Ratcliffe, M., & DaSilva, A. C. (2022). See full reference below.)

  Theme

  Question

  Lens

  What is my lens to view the world?

  How have my values impacted on my lens?

  What impact might my lens have on me? On my practice?

  What is the lens of the person I am working with/supporting?

  How does this impact how they view the world?

  Power and Privilege  

  What is my power and privilege?

  How am I using this?

  How do I experience inequality?

  How do I experience other’s experience of inequality?

  How do I respond to this?

  Assumptions

  What assumptions am I making about this person?

  What might be influencing me to make such assumptions?

  Inferences

  What cultural inferences and behaviours am I promoting in my language and behaviour?

  How may others experience this?

  How might this impact on inclusivity in my context?

  Developing my lens

  How am I open to developing my lens?

  What might impact my openness to adapt my lens? (fears/barriers)

  How can I work with this?

  Who is my “critical friend” who can help me reflect about my lens?

​

Thanks to all for a rich discussion, and we’ll look forward to exploring this area further.

References:

Cognitive Bias Codex

Athwal-Kooner, P., Ratcliffe, M., & DaSilva, A. C. (2022). Challenging Bias in the Forensic Context: Lived Experiences. In G. C. Liell; M. J. Fisher; & L. F. Jones (Eds.) (2022). Challenging Bias in Forensic Psychological Assessment and Testing: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Working with Diverse Populations. London: Routledge

Restorative Parenting Podcast

by Joy Bettles

Recently, I have really enjoyed being involved in producing our first ever podcast on the topic of ‘Restorative Parenting’.

Over the past couple of months, Crystena Parker-Shandal, Justine Andreu Darling, Lindsey Pointer, and I have gathered for a series of conversations on our reflections and journeys in incorporating restorative principles in our family lives. It has been so encouraging to connect with other like-minded parents and to discuss the joys and challenges of living restoratively and modelling restorative justice and practice with our children.

In the first episode (released today!), we briefly shared some of what we consider to be key components to restorative parenting, and opened up about some of the highs and lows of restorative parenting.

This and future episodes will cover:

  • What is restorative parenting?

  • Highs and lows of restorative parenting

  • Helping our children develop emotional awareness and vocabulary

  • Working through sibling conflict and rivalry

  • Building our own capacity for restorative responses

We are hoping that this will open up a wider discussion with others of you who also want to share your journey of restorative parenting! Please send us a message on social media or email joy@minthouseoxford.co.uk if you have something to share or if you would like to be invited to future online meetups (we already have one scheduled for the 22nd of May 2023).

In this season of the podcast we gathered around the shared experience of motherhood with young children, but we would love to hear the perspectives of other parents/fathers, as well as those with tweens, teenagers, and grown children!

Please listen at the links below, and follow/subscribe so that you are notified each time a new episode is released:

The Economic Case for Restorative Justice

by Lucy Harris (Why me?)

Restorative Justice (RJ) has the power to change the lives of all those affected by crime. Why me?’s ambassador stories are powerful examples of its impact on individuals. To promote evidence based decision making, these stories need to be combined with data and research on the economic impact of Restorative Justice.

In a unique collaboration between Why me? and economist Frank Grimsey Jones, we have carried out a contemporary, holistic, and generalisable economic evaluation of Restorative Justice. We aim to inform evidence-based commissioning of RJ that will improve funding of, and access to, RJ interventions. The resulting report and economic model has been published on Why me?’s website. 

 

Why is it necessary to demonstrate the economic benefits of criminal justice interventions?

Reoffending has substantial costs for society and the government. It also reduces wellbeing for victims and offenders. Around a quarter of proven offenders reoffend within a year, committing an average of three to four offences each (UK Government Database). In 2016, the total economic and social costs of crime were estimated to be £59 billion (Heeks et al., 2018), with reoffending in the first year of follow-up accounting for £18 billion (Newton et al., 2019). Breaking the cycle of reoffending is crucial to reduce spending by the criminal justice system, and improve the lives of offenders and victims.

 

An Economic Evaluation of Restorative Justice

Our evaluation findings demonstrate that the social return on investment in Restorative Justice is substantial. For every £1 invested in Restorative Justice, there were £14 of social benefits. The direct return on investment for the Criminal Justice System was £4 per £1 invested in RJ. RJ substantially reduces reoffending. In our model each direct RJ intervention reduced the average number of reoffences in the first year from 27 to 19.  Overall, our model suggested that a £5 million investment in RJ, would be associated with total benefits of £76 million, including saving the criminal justice system £17 million.

Although previous research (Shapland et al., 2008; Strang et al., 2013) shows that direct Restorative Justice interventions reduce reoffending, investment in, and access to, RJ remains limited. Our economic evaluation has provided a robust way to demonstrate and model the economic benefit of RJ interventions linked to reduced reoffending and improved wellbeing. Overall, economic evaluations are underutilised in the social sector, but can be a useful and compelling way to influence decision making.

Our economic evaluation provides a significant breakthrough for the economic case for Restorative Justice:

"A key aspect for anyone considering initiatives benefiting victims or encouraging desistance is whether they are value for money. This in-depth economic analysis of restorative justice takes us much further to answer this question - in a positive direction.”

- Joanna Shapland, Edward Bramley Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Sheffield

Our recommendations for future research, policy makers, and Police and Crime Commissioners

Our research shows that Restorative Justice can reduce reoffending, save money and help victims to recover. Following these substantial findings, Why me? continue to demonstrate that increasing access to Restorative Justice should be a policy priority for national and local decision makers within the Criminal Justice System.

Why me? believe that this can be achieved by implementing a series of recommendations which we have laid out in full in our report. Recommendations include:

  1. Improved national data collection. Key metrics should include level of investment, number of referrals, number of direct Restorative Justice interventions, number of indirect Restorative Justice interventions, reoffending rate, victim wellbeing and offender wellbeing.

  2. The right to be given information about and access to Restorative Justice should be enshrined within the primary legislation of the Victims’ Bill. This legislative right should end existing blanket bans on Restorative Justice provision for specific types of cases, so that all victims of crime are able to decide whether to engage with Restorative Justice.

  3. Police and Crime Commissioners should use the model produced by this research to understand the return on investment in Restorative Justice in their area. PPCs should share the model with staff or external providers responsible for Restorative Justice delivery, establish an action plan to ensure consistent data collection and analysis to understand and improve return on investment.

Read the published report and economic model here. If you’re interested in hearing more about the research, or need any assistance with using the model, please get in contact via info@why-me.org.

You can watch the recording of our report launch event on the Why me? Youtube channel:

References:

Heeks, M., Reed, S., Tafsiri, M., & Prince, S. (2018). The economic and social costs of crime Second edition.

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction?: the fourth report the evaluation of three schemes. National Offender Management Service.

Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo‐Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1–59.

Newton, A., May, X., Eames, S., & Ahmad, M. (2019). Economic and social costs of reoffending: Analytical report.

UK Government Database. (n.d.). GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk