Restoring trust in policing

by Rosie Chadwick

It was great to join people from all ‘corners’ of the criminal justice system at a research symposium hosted by the Criminal Justice Alliance for some thought-provoking talks and conversations on the theme of improving trust in the criminal justice system.

Perhaps not surprisingly, much discussion focused on declining trust in the police, with consequences including high levels of under-reporting of crime, declining feelings of public safety (with people not seeing the police as their protectors or confident that they will come when called) and – some argued – a rise in ‘penal populism’ fuelling a steep rise in the prison population.[1]  

Recent surveys underline the decline in trust.  

• In a YouGov survey carried out in January 2023, 51% of Londoners said they didn’t trust the Metropolitan Police very much or at all, while only 6% said they trusted them “a lot”. The gap was even wider when the question was asked of ethnic minority Londoners.   

• Another regular YouGov survey asks people how much confidence they have in the police to deal with crime in their local area. In the latest ‘edition’ of the survey  38% of those responding said they had ‘a lot’ (4%) or ‘a fair amount’ of confidence (34%) compared with 54% who have ‘no confidence (17%) or ‘not very much’ confidence (37%). How much confidence Brits have in police to deal with crime (yougov.co.uk)

So far so depressing. On though to a workshop in the afternoon looking at how particular points of crisis in penal policy can sometimes be a trigger for positive change based on a recognition that ‘something must be done.’  

We clearly need to do something to rebuild trust in the police.  That something needs to be at an institutional level, rather than allocating blame to individual officers or units.  I look forward to hearing more from Kerry Clamp and Paul Mukasa about the role restorative policing might play in this rebuilding effort at our event later this week.

[1] Official projections show the prison population in England and Wales rising from  83,687 currently to 94,400 by March 2025 and between 93,100 and 106,300 by March 2027.

---

You can watch a recording of the event ‘Restorative policing: where next?’ on our event recordings page and YouTube channel:

Restorative justice in prisons: reasons to be gloomy and glimmers of hope

by Rosie Chadwick

Reasons to be gloomy and glimmers of hope: these were my main take aways from the Mint House session recently on ‘Restorative justice in prisons – where next?’ 

Among reasons to be gloomy, conversationalists highlighted:

• the lack of a political appetite for a reform agenda

• learning and commitment lost when staff including Governors moved on

• the challenges of working with a culture where rules and risk aversion are ingrained

• RJ seemingly being dropped from the curriculum of the ‘Unlocked’ leadership development programme for prison officers

• the huge difficulty of accessing prisons currently, so that victims often wait for months if not longer for their case to be progressed

Among glimmers of hope, we heard examples from other jurisdictions of where access to restorative justice has been written into law, though with a wise reminded that organisational challenges remain. We were reminded of good work going on across many institutions involving providers such as Belong, Remedi, Sussex Pathways and others, creating many opportunities for reflection, shared learning and evaluation[1]. And we had the example of HMP Peterborough, which in 2021 became the first prison to achieve Registered Restorative Organisation Status, and the ‘whole prison’ approach to restorative justice now being adopted across all Sodexo-managed prisons.   

Earlier this week I heard someone talking about systems change in health care. The speaker challenged the notion that we should expect radical reform to come from Government, saying ‘We are the people we’ve been waiting for.’  A question for us all is how we can fan the glimmers, turning them into something stronger.

---

You can watch a recording of the event on our event recordings page and YouTube Channel:

---

[1] See, e.g. http://www.belongmakingjusticehappen.co.uk/publications.html and https://www.remediuk.org/case-studies-prison-work/

Evidencing Success: A Call for A National Repository of Restorative Case Studies

by Benjamin Fisk (University of Gloucestershire)

Any practitioner who uses restorative approaches, in whatever setting they are applying them, will tell you that this stuff works. They will tell you that well trained practitioners working for schools, police, social work services, housing, prisons, health and myriad of other areas frequently see multiple types of success at many points along the journey when working with people in this way.

I started a Restorative Justice Council commissioned PhD studentship in October 2021 to explore the evidencing of success and successful in restorative work. My initial review of the academic literature, and the sourcing of service evaluations, reports and policy documents in the public domain highlighted that the definition of “success” in restorative work is nearly as complex as the definition of “restorative practice” itself.

The first strand of my research is to understand how professionals define success in their work, and what they understand “effectiveness”, “efficiency” and “impact” to mean in their context. I have been distributing a survey to capture these views and even at this early stage it is clear that these terms are highly subjective, contextual and can be viewed from multiple stakeholder positions. If you are a professional, academic, practitioner, manager or commissioner reading about this survey for the first time, I would love to hear your views, so I won’t go into further detail about my initial findings now as I do not want to lead your potential responses to my questions.

You can find my survey here: https://forms.gle/CqoFLVLJgUPqHAG29

The next big component of my research has been to explore the templates and documents that services use to capture data about their restorative work. I want to understand where success can be observed, how it is recorded and monitored, what headings and measures are being employed, how this data is then used and where it is reported. I am continuing to collect blank templates and would welcome any submissions from service providers.

In the last 5 months I have been working on a report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group using data submitted to the initial enquiry on Restorative Practice 2021/22, and I am hoping to publish a paper with my initial findings from an analysis of 6 Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) RJ reporting templates. What I can share at this stage is that the language and data categories that services use to collect information about participants, referrals, case management, restorative processes, interventions, and evaluation differs significantly. Whilst it is possible that there may be other templates that align with some of the features six analyzed, if this theme of divergence in measurement were to be evident and perhaps even greater in other PCC reporting templates, then it could be suggested that any conclusions drawn from the comparison of data collected using these templates would lack both reliability and validity to the point that they would be almost unusable.

The big takeaway from this initial research is that greater oversight, guidance and standardization are required. This will enable the meaningful use of quantitative data about the use of restorative approaches to effectively demonstrate success.

It will take time to clarify the different caveats and language variants used for counting that prevent equivalency. Once this is done it must be agreed which will be used universally going forward, and this must be done in a restorative way that includes professional stakeholders and service users, and ultimately enables quantitative comparison that is meaningful.

But despite this challenge, a glimmer of hope appears in other forms of data that are already collected by the majority of restorative services. Case studies are routinely created by services for internal professional development, service evaluation, quality assurance and commissioning requirements. They provide powerful qualitative evidence of success in restorative work that captures the story behind the hard countable outcomes. By offering context that describes the often intangible successes that figures alone can not actualize, these documents can highlight the effectiveness of a well prepared conference as well as the impact the process has on participants and the changes that occur for participants on that journey, whether they reach the point of a face to face encounter or not. Case studies are an avenue that the sector can travel down immediately whilst the complex work is done to agree and employ quantitative measures across services that address the concerns about reliability and validity of sector wide data going forward.

My initial findings call for the creation of a National Repository of Restorative Case Studies. RJ service providers I have spoken with are providing case studies as a component of their regular PCC reporting. From conversations with Family Group Conference providers in both child and adult social work settings, case studies are regularly created and used to demonstrate best practice. Youth Offending Services exist in every local authority and multiple schools across the UK have employed restorative approaches to the benefit of their educational communities. Even at a conservative estimate, if all of these services, schools and organisations could provide one case in the next 12 months alone, we could quickly generate a database of over 350 case studies in one year. This doesn’t even include historical case studies that we know organisations have collected over more than 30 years of practice in the UK.

A database will require funding to manage the data hosting and technical logistics, negotiations between stakeholders and bodies to oversee the project and acknowledge the hard work undertaken by services that gives credit whilst maintaining the anonymity of participants. The repository must be fully functional at launch and use multiple media types that enable anyone who requires specific evidence to search case studies by offence, problem, concern or harm type; the broad geographical area or type of setting such as rural or city; some general detail about the demographics of participants; and the type of restorative approaches used and the types of success that were observed. I genuinely believe that this is something that is achievable, would be beneficial to the entire restorative sector, but would also speak to the heads and hearts of service users, other professionals, commissioners, and decision makers in government whilst other ways to evidence success are negotiated.

I will be presenting more about my research and my initial findings at the Restorative Justice Council conference taking place from November 21st to 22nd 2022 and the International Institute of Restorative Practice World Conference from January 25th – 27th 2023.

If you would like to take part in my research please do not hesitate to contact me by email at benfisk@connect.glos.ac.uk.

---

Benjamin Fisk is a PhD student at the University of Gloucestershire and is a registered social worker.

Can restorative justice play a part in our response to online harms?

by Rosie Chadwick

Almost daily it seems we have painful reminders in the news about the range of online harms, the damage these cause, and the limitations of current responses centred on content moderation and traditional forms of justice.

These messages also come through strongly in a report published by the Victims Commissioner in June this year, based on a ‘call for information’ from people who had experienced online harms. The report lists 20 different types of online harms - along with a catch all ‘other’ category. It points to a similarly long list of negative effects, on mental health, sleep, work, relationships and more. A significant minority (25%) of people sharing their experiences had chosen not to report them to the police and/or internet companies because they thought this would be futile. Where people had reported, satisfaction with the response tended to be low.

Amy Hasinoff is a US academic who (with others) has been leading thinking on whether restorative justice can help us address online harm more effectively. Amy spoke on this topic at the European Digital Rights Conference Privacy Camp in 2021 (summary available here). Her most recent work (available here) looks at whether restorative - and transformative - justice responses can be scaled, reflecting the nature of online harm.

We’re delighted that Amy will be joining us from 7-8 pm (GMT) on 10 November 2022 to share her thinking with us. You can find out more here: https://www.minthouseoxford.co.uk/events/2022/9/27/restorative-justice-and-online-harm.

---

You can watch a recording of the event on our event recordings page and YouTube Channel:

Art-making, gifting, and solidarity in restorative justice processes

by Joy Bettles

We were thrilled to have Dr Clair Aldington (Space2face Shetland) speak at our recent event on her research and experiences in the area of art-making, gifting, and solidarity in restorative justice processes.

Clair is an experienced restorative justice facilitator and has recently completed her PhD at Northumbria University with a thesis titled ‘Drawing a line / the meaning of making, gifting, and solidarity in restorative justice processes’.

At the event, we considered how pieces of art can be powerful and act as conduits of dialogue. Art can be used in situations of indirect restorative justice where there is no face to face meeting and can be an accessible form of engagement in restorative justice for people who struggle to sit still for long periods or find it challenging to express themselves using words.

Clair shared with us several examples of how making and gifting had been used to address harms such as theft, fraud, and assault. It was really interesting to see how different forms of art were used by individuals based on their interests, skills, and what they hoped to convey to those they harmed. Some examples included a garden bench, a tree sculpture, a box with personal messages, and a handmade paper book.

Clair pointed out that in order to engage people with art-making and gifting, it is helpful to not use the word ‘art’ as people often have preconceptions about what ‘art’ means and their ability to produce art. Instead, she suggested that restorative justice practitioners ask participants what they enjoy doing or making and whether they have any hobbies. Using the phrase “Have you made anything before?” opens up a wider pool of possibilities such as candle making, baking a cake, or gardening.

She also encouraged all of us to consider recruiting restorative justice practitioners from a more diverse range of backgrounds, especially the creative industries. Training artists and creators as practitioners would allow them to bring their creative skills into restorative justice work.

Clair’s research will hopefully be published in the near future, so please follow us on social media or sign up to our mailing list for updates!  You can also find more information on Clair’s work on her website: https://www.clairaldington.com/

Communicating Restorative Justice and Practice: My top take-aways from our recent conference

by Rosie Chadwick

We heard some fantastic insights at our conference on Communicating Restorative Justice and Practice. These are my top take-aways. It will be great to hear what others took from the day.

Reframing restorative justice

•  Take on board key techniques that research tells us will help us communicate more effectively. Avoid labels, jargon, fatalism. Don’t overdo the stats. Steer clear of messaging that reinforces myths or triggers negative beliefs.  The more consistently we can all do this the better.

• The recommended messaging framework - sharing a belief, stating the dilemma, offering a solution – is a useful structure to draw on.

• Can more be done to tackle common myths?! One for further discussion.

• Contact Lucy Jaffe to find out more, including what the next phase of work is likely to involve.

Overcoming barriers and gatekeepers to restorative justice

• Think about what the different parties/partners in restorative justice are looking for: they are not all looking for the same thing! Help stakeholders to be explicit about their aims and recognise each other’s aims and where each other is coming from. As restorative practitioners, we should be good at this!

• ‘Case extraction’ works better than referral.

• Orient risk assessments towards different risks and ways of mitigating these. Draw out the risks of not doing RJ as well as the risks of RJ.

• Pay attention to the feedback loop.

• We can usefully do a better job of documenting approaches and researching processes and practices, not just outcomes.

Communicating restorative justice to victims of crime

• A proactive, systematic, inclusive approach works best.

• The offer of restorative justice can be made too late but never too early. It’s important to give victims time to have the conversation.

•  It’s helpful to find out victims’ contact preferences early on. 

• The content of the offer matters: ‘what do you need to repair the harm?’ backed up by a range of options, not ‘do you want to meet the offender?’

• A lack of data inhibits research.

• The whole ethos of an organisation affects how, and how often, RJ is broached with victims.

Communicating restorative practice in the context of neurodiversity

• The statistics on the ‘school to prison pipeline’ are striking: there’s an overwhelming case for acting early.  

• Time is an important factor: taking time to build trust and do things together; allowing decompression and processing time when responding to incidents; managing differing conceptions of time.

• Neurodiversity covers everyone! The important thing is to take a highly personalised approach that recognises each person’s intersecting challenges and needs.

• Restorative practice works well within a wider emphasis on emotional literacy.

• Having involvement from police officers who understand and work with the ethos of the school and who pupils can engage with in a positive way is invaluable.

Communicating restorative justice through film and the arts

• Films have many layers. They can enable a much deeper conversation than might otherwise be reached.  How films are used is important.

• RJ Working has found working with young people to devise films to be extremely powerful. This creates opportunities to ‘make meaning’ and helps young people have a sense that restorative practice is relevant for them in their locality.  

• Asking students at the local art college to help create an animation can help us reach beyond a ‘restorative justice bubble’ bringing students into the process of cultural understanding.

Introducing children to restorative practice through stories

• Like films, stories are a great way to communicate a lot in a little.

• Children’s stories often communicate deep life lessons and can prompt deep conversations. They reach adults as well as children.

• There are many opportunities to supplement stories, for example with circle time/questions and experiential learning. We can look forward to colouring sheets to go with Lindsey’s newly published story! 

•  We can’t teach children about restorative justice without being restorative with them.

Panel discussion

• There’s important work to be done winning over Police and Crime Commissioners and supporting people who have come though RJ to become facilitators.

• Non-verbal communication matters: we need to ‘endlessly model the values we espouse.’

• We should shift the tone - be more confident and less apologetic – ‘have you heard of this great movement…!’

A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Restorative Justice

by Paul S. Fiddes

Shakespeare’s comedy, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, opens on a scene of broken relationships and injustice. Hermia’s father is insisting that she marry a man she does not love—Demetrius—and the Duke of Athens has passed the sentence that if she refuses she must either die or spend the remainder of her life as a nun. Demetrius himself, wanting to marry Hermia, has broken his vows of love to Helena, to whom he was formerly betrothed. The countryside around has declined into disorder, floods and infertility because of a row between the Fairy King and Queen who each want possession of a young Indian boy servant, which whom they both appear to have an unhealthy obsession. Hermia determines to run away with her true love, Lysander, Demetrius pursues them, and Helena pursues Demetrius, with the result that Shakespeare gets all four of them into a wood at night, in which the warring fairy company is also encamped.

How can relations be restored and justice done? On the surface it seems that it will be by way of a piece of instant magic. Oberon, King of the Fairies, instructs his malicious servant Puck to anoint the eyes of his Queen, Titania, as well as the Athenian lovers, with juice from a magic flower. This has the property to make them fervently love whatever they first lay eyes on when they awake. So he plans to bring his erring wife to obedience, since he hopes that the first thing she sees and loves when she awakes will be something hideous, and she will later be overcome with shame. In fact she sees a simple workman, Bottom the Weaver, who has been endowed with an ass’s head by Puck. The lovers, Oberon thinks, will see their proper partners on awakening and be reconciled to each other. So one person tries to restore relations by exercising power over the others, but it is not to be. The plan goes badly wrong. Both Demetrius and Lysander end up chasing Helena, who finds their sudden attentions unnatural, and reconciliation only comes about because the utter confusion caused gives time and opportunity for all the participants to reflect on their situations and listen to the feelings of the others.

Restoration thus does not come by a manipulation of emotions, but by the mysterious growth of love and forgiveness between the persons involved. As Demetrius confesses, “I wot not by what power/ (But by some power it is) My love to Hermia /Melted as the snow”. He now recognizes the unhealthy nature of his obsession, “like in sickness”, and finds he has come back to health in vowing to be “evermore true” to Helena, whom he now realizes he has loved all the time.  Through the night’s upheavals all the characters have together found a way forward, and life can begin again with a double marriage between Hermia and Lysander, Demetrius and Helena, and renewed marital love between Oberon and Titania. It is only to be hoped that Oberon has learned from the experience. The civil law has to accommodate its view of justice to this re-making of relations, and Duke Theseus remits his judgement and approves the marriages, which he combines with his own marriage to his former opponent in war, Hippolyta.

The play is full of images about the eyes and seeing, and it is clear that for most of the time the participants are failing to see each other properly, or have been prevented from doing so by circumstances. When Hermia complains to the Duke,”I would my father looked but with my eyes,” he replies sternly “Rather your eyes must with his judgement look.” Demetrius, when in his state of unreality, “dotes on Hermia’s eyes.” Helena laments the split caused in her former friendship with Hermia by Demetrius’  behavior, again using images of eyes; she complains that while “my ear should catch your voice, my eye your eye,” this is no longer the case. Laying the magic juice on sleeping eyes cannot instantly cure this eye-problem: it will only be resolved when people have learned to look at others as they really are, with genuine love. This will take time, some open speaking and some painful experiences.

Shakespeare weaves into this play a quotation from the New Testament scriptures that underlines what is going on. On awakening after his wonderful night with the Fairy Queen, Bottom absurdly misquotes the Apostle Paul who had once written that “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.” While Paul is talking here about love for God, we know that Paul thinks this can never be separated from love for our fellow human beings. In Bottom’s confused version of the text, he confesses that he has had a supremely mysterious experience in which “The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report what my dream was.” By muddling up the physical senses like this, Bottom only deepens the sense of mystery about what has happened to him, which is finally the mystery of love. All the characters, we feel, have gone through a similar transformation. Surely we may say that in any event of restorative justice, something mysterious is going to happen between the persons involved which cannot be rationally arranged or completely planned beforehand, but which will open up healing and hope for the future.

Revd Professor Paul S. Fiddes' recent book, More Things in Heaven and Earth. Shakespeare, Theology, and the Interplay of Texts, is published by the University of Virginia Press.

---

If you live in or near Oxford and would like to join us for a charity performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 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/shakespeare

‘Shifting the dial’ on the offer – and take-up – of restorative justice

by Rosie Chadwick

Produced by the Victims’ Commissioner, the Victims Statistics 2020 include this striking graphic.

Victims statistics, year ending March 2019: victims services, restorative justice, and information, advice and support (Victims Commissioner for England and Wales, 2020)

Some of the sample sizes are small, and you could argue about the wording of the questions, but the overarching messages seem clear: there’s lots more we could and should be doing to make a reality of victims’ right to receive information on RJ; and there is demand for this from victims.

It will be great to hear more from our conference contributors next week on what can be done to ‘shift the dial.’  

Changing the conversation: reframing restorative justice

It’s often said that storytelling is at the heart of restorative practice, so it’s ironic that communicating restorative justice and practice – if you like, telling our own story – often feels to be an uphill struggle.

The good news is that there are tried and tested ways to tell our story more effectively. The FrameWorks Institute has spent the last twenty years looking at how to talk about social issues and their Framing 101 resource has lots of top tips, of which these are some:

• Don’t overdo the doom and gloom: you risk feeding leaving people feeling that nothing can be done.

• Don’t go in for myth-busting: you risk reinforcing the very myths you want to bust.

• Don’t beat people over the head with statistics: yes, facts are helpful but they only take you so far.

• Do offer solutions: practical steps that we can take.

• Do use metaphors: these help put things in a new light.

• Do think about the order you say things in: start with values, put cause before effect, and big ideas before the details.

Why me? reframed restorative justice messaging is evident on their Twitter feed and website where, for example, they focus on positive messaging and avoid overuse of statistics.  Why me? participated in a reframing programme facilitated by Transform Justice (focused on changing messaging around criminal justice) which led to a desire to develop work specifically on reframing restorative justice.

We’re excited by the chance to look more deeply at how we ‘frame’ restorative justice and practice, and delighted that Lucy Jaffe, Director of Why me?, will be joining our 14 June 2022 Conference on Communicating Restorative Justice and Practice to help us look at what ‘reframing’ our messaging means in practice.  Restorative practitioners well understand the importance of what you say and how you say it, which I think gives us a head start. And if we tell our story well, we can change the landscape. In the words of the FrameWorks Institute: ‘When we change the story and how we tell it, we can change the world.’

If you want to be part of this reframing conversation do come along to our Conference – it will be an inspiring day!

---

Communicating Restorative Justice and Practice (One Day Conference)
Tuesday 14 June 2022
9:30am - 4:00pm
Online

More information and booking: https://www.minthouseoxford.co.uk/events/2022/6/14/commmunicating-restorative-practice-conference

Restorative Teaching (RJ World Conference 2022)

by Rosie Chadwick

Fabulous session from author and restorative practitioner Leaf Seligman at this week’s RJ World e-conference. Leaf was talking about restorative teaching. Here’s a little of what she shared, illustrated with stories from a writing course she teaches:

Start with yourself – i.e. the importance of inner work and self-care: ‘you can’t offer students what you don’t have as a resource for yourself.’

See your students as co-learners: ‘They’re my teacher as much as I am theirs.’

Remember the 4 verbs:

• Notice – be aware of what’s going on for you and for others

• Wonder – be curious rather than rushing to judgement

• Acknowledge – acknowledge where you make mistakes and acknowledge what’s true for others

• Appreciate – both in the sense of showing gratitude but also in the sense of understanding more deeply.

Give co-learners agency – ask learners ‘What do you need to learn? What will be satisfying to you as learners?

Challenge hierarchies of learning: ‘the written word is not always someone’s first language.’

Don’t be afraid of discomfort, whether that’s from making yourself vulnerable or from conversations that you might be tempted to shut down: ‘Discomfort is not the same as danger.’ What’s more, ‘teaching restoratively requires us to be willing to sit in the complicated messy space of being human together.’

It’s OK to take incremental steps. Read the room. Invite humility.

Above all: ‘If relationships are at the centre of our pedagogy then we know we’re on the right track.’

You can find the whole thing here:

RJWorld 2022 Restorative Teaching Video – Leaf Seligman

Happy listening!

Writing "The Meeting Room" - A Stage Play About Restorative Justice

by Rebecca Abrams

When The Mint House generously offered to host a performance reading of my play The Meeting Room, I said yes without a moment’s hesitation. A few weeks later, on a gorgeous June afternoon in 2019, it was performed in front of an invited audience of about fifty people, with unscheduled musical accompaniment from a busker outside on his electric guitar.   

Inspiration for the play came from several sources. As a writer of both fiction and non-fiction, I’ve always been interested in family dynamics and family conflict. The themes of justice and forgiveness have also long fascinated me. And I’d been wanting for some time to write a modern version of the Greek tragedy, Electra, which so powerfully addresses all of these issues.

The idea of writing about the restorative justice process specifically took shape in response to conversations over several years with a close friend about her experiences as a restorative justice facilitator. Her work seemed so vital to me - and so difficult!  

How do you loosen the iron grip of anger, pain and grievance? How do you get people to the point where they are willing to sit in a room and talk to the very person who’s hurt them so deeply? 

 To research The Meeting Room I read about the restorative justice process, and attended a fascinating event at The Mint House with facilitators, victims and ex-offenders. I also visited HMP High Down for the final session of a Sycamore Programme, where I was able to talk to offenders about their experiences. All of these fed into the play in its final form.

The play’s action takes place over nine months, from a first request for an restorative justice meeting to the meeting itself.  It centres on a mother and her adult son and daughter. The son has been serving a twelve year prison sentence for killing his father when he was a teenager.

Now due for release, the son wants his mother’s forgiveness. She is torn between a desire to reconcile and a deep fear of reconciliation. The daughter, meanwhile, for reasons of her own, is adamant that there can be no forgiveness for her brother’s actions. 

All three characters are locked into conflicting versions of the events that have so powerfully shaped their lives. Some of those events are indisputable, but others sit in the shadows, unacknowledged and terrifying.

During one of our conversations my restorative justice faciliator friend said something that lodged in my mind. ‘The important work has all happened before the victims and perpetrators actually meet,’ she told me, ‘in the weeks and months leading up to an restorative justice meeting.’  

Loosening the knots that bind us to a certain way of thinking or feeling, she explained, is a slow and delicate process. One that happens not simply between people, but within them. In physical and temporal spaces, but also in invisible psychological spaces.   

In The Meeting Room I wanted to enact all those different kinds of space. To show not only the characters’ physical encounters, but also the internal meetings that take place, in their minds and hearts, consciously and unconsciously. I wanted to explore those shifting spaces between and within them, the spaces where they can, hopefully, begin to encounter other ways of thinking and feeling about the past.

 Conflict is at the heart of every compelling story, and every tragic one. The collision of different needs and different ways of seeing the same situation. The RJ process, when it succeeds, does something truly remarkable and infinitely precious. It helps people to move beyond the conflict deadlock.

It enables them to consider events from other perspectives, to meet those they’ve hurt and been hurt by, and also to meet themselves, and encounter different versions of themselves. 

Above all, that is what I have tried to explore in this play. Because shutting out the possibility of meeting ourselves and others, with all our mistakes and flaws, our shame and guilt, ultimately makes prisoners of us all.

Rebecca Abrams is an author, literary critic, tutor in creative writing, and journalist based in Oxford.

---

NOTE (March 2022): We explored this topic further at one of our network events: Using the arts to engage with restorative justice

---

NOTE (June 2024): The play has been renamed All of Us and we are hosting a film screening of a recording of the play on the 27th of July 2024:

Embedding restorative practice – reflecting on the pieces in the jigsaw and on what we can do together

by Rosie Chadwick

Another year draws to a close, prompting reflection on the journey we’ve travelled and what lies ahead. Looking back, I’m grateful to the many ‘co-travellers’ – event speakers and participants, trainers and trainees, partner organisations and others – with whom it’s been a privilege to work through the year and from whom we’ve taken inspiration, learning and encouragement. As they say at the Oscars - you know who you are: Thank You!! 

Looking forward, I’m conscious of the many different elements involved in embedding restorative practice in and across settings and communities. Here are, for me, some key pieces in the jigsaw. It would be great to hear from others what pieces you would add, any you think don’t belong and what your experience has been of fitting them together!

However, I’m also encouraged by the promise of what we can do collectively. On behalf of the Mint House we look forward to a year of creative collaboration with the shared aim of making restorative justice/practice ‘the way we do things round here.’

Applied Theatre and Drama and Restorative Justice

by Miranda Warner

In 2019, in partnership with NGO ‘Restore’ in Pollsmoor Prison, Cape Town, I facilitated a course which utilised an applied theatre toolkit to engage with restorative justice. The course was attended by men who were soon to be released, and focussed on emotional literacy, anger, empathy, forgiveness, and reintegration.

Restorative justice takes the emotional impact of crime on all parties seriously and sees this encounter with the other and their emotional reality as the locus of healing and restoration. My hope was this this emotional, experiential core of restorative justice might interact fruitfully with the practice of applied theatre; as we used drama activities to explore emotions and to embody and investigate the perspective of ‘characters’ other than ourselves.

In our first week we looked at expanding our emotional vocabulary, and we identified the emotions that we were most familiar with, and those which we felt uncomfortable with or unable to share.  These themes were explored using drama improvisation activities.  The second week focussed on anger and used forum theatre techniques to explore the different ways we can express anger without it leading to violence.  The third week centred around the theme of empathy, utilising freeze frames to imagine ourselves as  victims of crime.  The fourth week explored forgiveness using role play through puppetry.  Restorative conversations were acted by puppets and the place and power of apology was explored.  The final week centred on the participants’ hopes for life outside prison and the obstacles that might stand in the way of those goals; creating and enacting ‘life obstacle courses’ through which the participants could ‘rehearse’ challenges they anticipated facing on release, building confidence as they did so.

Reflections on the programme from participants saw a high value being placed on the practical, action-based approach, on skills and strategies gained for life on release, and for processing emotions differently.  One participant spoke of how his ‘eyes had been opened’ and another said he wanted to return to ‘apologise to each and every person in my street’.  A further participant shared the realisation that ‘my actions have an impact on others without [me] even knowing’.  Almost all of them spoke of ‘brotherhood’ and community they had found in the group, one writing that in this group he had ‘worked with people “together” which I didn’t’ think was possible’.  As an illustration of the potential efficacy of this type of work in restorative practice I shall outline two particularly significant moments from the course in which a meaningful interaction with restorative justice can be clearly identified.

In our third week we staged a still image (like a 3D photograph or a tableau) of a family who returned home from a celebration to discover that their house had been broken into.  The actors froze in position reacting to the realisation of what had happened.  Each participant was asked to remain in character and describe what they were thinking and feeling.  They did this with considerable depth, sometimes breaking into substantial monologues.  One character reported that he felt violated by someone having entered his home, another described themselves as terrified and devastated, and a detailed narrative developed concerning the break-in’s impact on one son.  In addition, one of the participants watching the scene filled in the house breaker’s story, explaining that he ‘wanted his next fix’ which led to a conversation about the impact of drug addiction upon a community.  There was extensive conversation amongst participants about how putting themselves in the metaphorical shoes of those on the receiving end of crime shifted their perceptions.  Participants expressed the emotional weight of this expanded perspective and many shared stories of their own experiences at the receiving end of crime. 

In our fourth week we co-created a scenario in which a man came home to find his friend in bed with his wife.  This man stabbed his friend and later went to prison, whilst the ‘friend’ recuperated.  I suggested that two participants could volunteer to enact and explore what might happen when these men met years later if one or both parties were willing to apologise.  No-one was willing to step into either of these roles as I was told categorically that ‘men don’t apologise’. The next session we returned to this story we had co-created but this time using the medium of puppetry.  Each participant made his own paper puppet and then, in pairs, they carried out a conversation between these puppets.  This approach meant that no-one had to act an apology, nor perform one for an audience.  Each pair was willing to take part in this version of the activity, and to report their experiences, and a wide variety of different conversations and outcomes were reflected on in the group. 

The following week a participant told me that over the weekend his prison gang had required him to assault another member of our group, which he had done.  Afterwards, feeling remorse, and reflecting on the conversations we’d had that week, he went to the other participant, apologised, and sought his forgiveness, which was given.  They left the session that day with one posing the  question; ‘we’re brothers, right?’ and the other giving the response ‘yes, you’ll always be my brother’.  This seems to suggest that exploring a fictional restorative conversation from a safe distance created the opportunity to imagine and risk undertaking such a conversation in a non-fictional setting.

The participants’ willingness to engage fully with the course, and the community we forged as they did so, not only had an impact on them, but also challenged, educated, and inspired me in restorative practice. I am richer for the relationships I forged with these courageous and open-hearted men.

Miranda Warner has an MA in Applied Theatre; Drama and the Criminal Justice System and is Restorative Justice Facilitator for Restorative Justice Nelson in New Zealand.

---

We are exploring this topic further in our upcoming event: Using the arts to engage with restorative justice

What contribution can restorative practices make to the climate crisis?

By Pete Wallis

Ben Almassi, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Governors State University in Chicago and author of 'Reparative Environmental Justice in a World of Wounds’ led a fascinating discussion on this question at The Mint House on Wednesday 13 October 2021. With COP26 fast approaching his talk couldn’t have been more timely.

The need for urgent action by those in power raises questions about the role, if any, of a restorative approach in addressing the crisis that threatens all our futures. Restorative practice involves the slow process of building relationships and the delicate task of finding ways for repair when harm has been caused. It feels unhelpful to label things that are already happening in the global response to climate change ‘restorative’ for the sake of it, and yet Ben acknowledged that there are few tangible examples of restorative approaches being explicitly deployed in the context of environmental damage. As one of the audience said, we want a quick fix. She went on to say that actually it is quick fixes in the past that got us into this mess. If we are to find a way forward, even if no one has done it before, this has to be done together. That means working on relationships.

Ben helpfully mapped out the variety of relationships that could form a focus for reparative environmental justice, including interspecies as well as human relationships, and intergenerational relationships that embrace our predecessors as well as future generations. Lots of the familiar restorative themes emerged from his presentation, for example accountability, interconnection, consequences, needs, collaboration and healing. It got me thinking about whether I am already employing restorative practice in my own response to the climate crisis, and I came up with a couple of personal examples.

For the past five or six years I have been a member of an activist group called Fossil Free Oxfordshire that is trying to encourage the Oxfordshire Pension Fund Committee to divest from fossil fuels. I feel that my restorative background is relevant on several levels; looking out for the relationships within the activist group to avoid burnout and conflict; building positive relationships with the Pension Fund Committee and pension officers to try to work with them towards a common goal of decarbonising the fund; looking closely at the engagement that the committee is committed to with fossil fuel companies to ensure that there are clear metrics and targets in line with the Paris Accord (holding them to account); and encouraging staff who are in the pension scheme to think about where their money is invested. Restorative approaches help in developing and maintaining all of these relationships. Get it wrong with one of the key players and a door could be closed, whilst remaining open to different perspectives feels more fruitful than battering people to do what I think is needed.

My other example is more personal. It is a letter that I intend to write to my granddaughter (who is approaching 11 months old). The joy I feel as a new grandparent is tempered by my anguish and despair at the damage that my generation has wrought on our perfect planet, and fear for the world that she will inhabit as she grows towards adulthood. It may be more about my need for forgiveness for my part in the excesses of the rich West than anything that will help her, but letters of apology nonetheless have a noble tradition in restorative circles.  

We need hope, and if no one has done it before, now is the time to find better ways to work together in healing our world, which as Ben said, has to be through relationships.

---

A recording of the event ‘What contribution can restorative practices make to the climate crisis?’ can be found here: https://www.minthouseoxford.co.uk/events/2021/10/13/what-contribution-can-restorative-practices-make-to-the-climate-crisis

Forgiveness and Restorative Justice: Perspectives from Christian Theology

By Myra Blyth

Forgiveness and Restorative Justice: Perspectives from Christian Theology by Myra N. Blyth, Matthew J. Mills, and Michael H. Taylor.

This book recently released offers perspectives from theology on the meaning and place (if any) of forgiveness in restorative justice. The three authors share a passion for restorative justice and found a powerful impetus for their constructive dialogue in a common core of influential works, including those of restorative justice advocates, Howard Zehr and John Braithwaite; theologians, including Timothy Gorringe and Christopher Marshall; and sceptics, like Annalise Acorn.

Myra Blyth offers two chapters which explore the intersection between ritual, forgiveness and the conference dynamic. In chapter 2 she draws on ritual theory and proposes ways to enhance the potential of the conference script as a “ritual of restoration”.  In chapter 6 Blyth offers an analysis of the conferencing experience based on empirical research with victims, offenders and facilitators carried out during 2019-2020 and contends that the practices of restorative justice will be enriched by adopting a more fluid understanding of forgiveness as defined by participants, and by conceiving forgiveness as a process/journey-oriented practice, i.e. a dynamic and integral component necessary for a process to be ‘fully’ restorative.

In chapter 4, Taylor asks whether forgiveness is a Christian idea, as feared by some who would deny its place within the principles and practices of restorative justice. In fact, he argues, forgiveness is incredibly difficult to define and there is no distinctively Christian concept, even though Christian faith may motivate its adherents to be forgiving. In chapter 7 he looks beyond the conferencing process and towards the social context to ask whether restorative justice carries any responsibility for establishing a more just society; that is, transforming the social reality which gives rise to many of the problems which the conferencing process is meant to address.

Mills offers three reflections on restorative justice principles in the light of historical theology. He draws upon a range of theological sources, especially from the medieval and Catholic traditions, as well as modern philosophy (both ‘continental’ and ‘analytic’);

In chapter 3 he critiques the western intellectual tradition around retribution and the marginalisation of victims. His concern is to give stakeholders “reasons” to engage in a restorative justice conference arguing against a binary view of right and wrong, and for the mutual recognition of wrongdoing (human sinfulness) in both victims and offenders so that mutual acknowledgement of a common humanity can be the starting point for criminal justice processes. In chapter 8, Mills offers a speculative thought experiment concerning the afterlife as a context for restorative justice. Considering both a victim’s right to withhold forgiveness and the limitations of restorative justice for addressing acts of wrongdoing which are regarded as ‘unforgivable’, he considers the possible dynamics of a future (as conceived in the Christian tradition) in which all things are reordered and revisioned.

Whilst the authors come from very different vantage points their essays share core concerns around common themes that are crucial to restorative justice theory and practice. The following extract from the introduction outlines these common themes:

Not only is there a processional aesthetic to the ordering of these contributions – before, during, and after the conference – but a number of themes also run like threads throughout the book. All three of us refer to ‘metanarratives’ or all-embracing stories. Metanarratives give expression to the meaning of life; for Christians, the creative and redemptive drama of which we are a part, and to which we contribute for good or ill, is what life is all about. The metanarrative provides a context and rationale for various teachings or doctrines as they ‘fill out’ the details of the story. For example, doctrines of atonement, some more punitive than others, which try to explain how our redemption was brought about, only make sense within the bigger picture which explains why the redemptive act of the crucifixion was necessary in the first place.

A second common theme is ‘community’, which is important for restorative justice as a whole. It is communities, not just individuals, that need to be ‘restored’ when the moral rules, and with them mutual trust, have been broken; trauma is social. It is communities that are bound together by shared values, reinforce them, and build solidarity. It is com- munities, not just victims, that should have a say as to how wrongs can be righted and may be best placed to do so. It is communities that have a vital, supportive role to play along the road to the restoration of offenders. And it is communities that may or, as many fear, may not be adequate to the task; more of a utopian ideal than a reality.

Thirdly, we all regard ‘moral seriousness’ as essential to the task of restorative justice. The reality of offending, the harm done, the responsibility of the offender, and the need for reparation, must be fully acknowledged and confronted – by way of shaming, for example – and reflected in all attempts to deal with offending in a restorative way. Social policies, for instance, must be realistic and take into account what might be called the darker side of human nature, or what the Christian tradition refers to as ‘sin’, lying at the heart of its metanarrative about redemption and its rituals of baptism, confession, and eucharist. Besides being a costly endeavour, restorative justice involves confrontation with evil, clear-eyed judgement, and an inflexible love.

Writing from a Christian point of view, most of our arguments in favour of restorative justice are made on Christian terms. We state the case, not ‘aggressively’ but convinced that ours is ground upon which others might come to stand as well. We also claim that religious traditions are worth engaging in dialogue, since they offer weighty insights, tried and tested by long experience, into topics highly relevant to restorative justice which may well enrich the wider discussion. Yet, even when one has difficulties with the metanarrative and doctrine of Christianity, perhaps in the life, ministry and martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth, inspiration and justification may still be found. This could help those partners in criminal justice pro- cesses – police, prison services, probation officers, social workers, criminologists, lawyers, and the public – to understand where Christians may be coming from.

Dr Myra Blyth and Prof Michael Taylor are Trustees of The Mint House.

Making the financial case for restorative practice: some ‘big ticket’ items

by Rosie Chadwick

It’s tempting for advocates of restorative practice to think that the benefits speak for themselves, but if we want to make the case to doubters we need to appeal not just to the heart but also to the head and more especially the wallet.

Evidence is frustratingly scarce. When it comes to gathering more of it, we might usefully concentrate on some ‘big ticket’ items where savings can potentially be substantial.  Here are my suggested top 3 candidates. Are there others we should add and/or is there evidence you know of that can be widely shared? If so, please let us know!

1.        School exclusions.

There’s good evidence that restorative practice helps bring down school exclusions. Government data on the cost of school exclusions is quite old but a 2017 study by the IPPR think tank estimated the cost of exclusion at around £370,000 per young person based on a range of factors including the costs of alternative provision, lost taxation from lower future earnings, associated benefits payments, higher likelihood of entry into the criminal justice system, increased likelihood of long-term mental health problems and so on.[1] Total cost for every year’s cohort of permanently excluded young people were put at £2.1 billion, and that’s without adding in exclusions not captured in the official data. Even a modest reduction in exclusions of, say, 1% equates to a saving of £20 million.

2.       Looked-after children

A 2019 study by the Institute for Government found that 47% of local authority spending on children’s care (£7.9 billion in total) went on services for looked after children, with costs and demand both rising steeply in recent years.[2] An evaluation of the Leeds Partners in Practice, published in 2020,[3] found that introducing ‘restorative early support interventions’ generated savings of over £400,000 a month, largely due to a drop in the number of looked after children.  If replicated elsewhere, this may help to ease the acute pressures being felt by children’s services.

3.       Savings in health: the benefits of a ‘restorative just culture.’

Over to health, and research published in 2019 found economic as well as many other benefits when one NHS Trust - Mersey Care – put a ‘restorative just culture’ at the heart of its response to incidents, patient harm and complaints against staff.[4]  The researchers estimate the economic benefits of introducing a restorative justice culture at about £2.5 million, equating to about 1% of the Trust’s total costs and 2% of its labour costs, and with savings arising from less staff sickness absence, fewer suspensions with pay and less spending on legal costs and terminations in employment. With an NHS workforce of 1.2 million and hospital staff sickness rates of around 4% pre-pandemic, tangible benefits like this surely merit all of our attention.

References

[1] Making The Difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion | IPPR

[2] Children's social care | The Institute for Government

[3] Leeds Partners in Practice: Reimagining child welfare services (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[4] (PDF) Restorative Just Culture: a Study of the Practical and Economic Effects of Implementing Restorative Justice in an NHS Trust (researchgate.net)

Communications challenges for restorative practice organisations (Part 3)

by Joy Bettles

(In parts one and two of this blog series on communications challenges for RP organisations we discussed the challenges. This blog continues with some solutions.)

So, how can we communicate restorative practice effectively?

Keep it simple and relevant

• Try to explain restorative practice in simple terms

• Highlight its relevance to everyday life

Focus on values

• Focus on the values behind restorative practice

• Use data and research where these will draw in specific audiences, but don’t rely on it for a general audience

Invest in new forms of media

• Invest resources into communicating restorative practice

• Focus efforts on newer forms of media such as social media to draw in a wider audience. Consider social media integral to the communications strategy rather than an optional bonus.

Share stories

• Share stories which encourage people to connect with the concepts on an emotional level

• Where possible, use photos and video to draw in an audience and illustrate real life situations

Highlight a range of settings

• Communicate the ways in which people from a variety of backgrounds can use restorative approaches in a range of settings

• Share ideas of how restorative approaches can be used in everyday life such as workplaces and families.

Become welcoming to diverse groups

• Put effort into making our organisations a welcoming place for under-represented groups by asking hard questions and taking practical steps to involve people who are different to us

• Signal openness to diversity by using diverse stories and imagery (although take care to not portray an inaccurate image of the organisation in an effort to appear diverse)

Train and resource community workers

• Train and resource people who work in the community in various roles in order to encourage restorative approaches among the people they work with (the report Building Social Support for Restorative Justice suggested “the concept of ‘multipliers’, people or groups who are open-minded and interested in the ideas of restorative justice (doctors, therapists, priests, teachers, trainers, etc.)”[i] who could promote restorative practice in their community.)

We are continuing to think about these issues and the best ways to tackle them, so please contact us if you have any thoughts to share.

(Read Part 1 - Read Part 2)

References:

[i] Brunilda Pali and Christa Pelikan (2011), Building Social Support for Restorative Justice, European Forum for Restorative Justice, p.191.

Communications challenges for restorative practice organisations (Part 2)

by Joy Bettles

(In part one of the blog series on communications challenges for RP organisations we discussed some of the practical considerations in explaining RP to the public. This blog continues with some thoughts on deeper issues)

Data, values, and experience

The evidence base for restorative practice is evolving and robust quantitative evidence is still needed in some areas.  This can be a challenge, particularly when aiming to connect with facts-based audiences. On the other hand, values should not be overlooked.

“The emphasis on values… has often been neglected in RJ communication efforts. We tend to focus on facts rather than on values. Facts are important, but if the dominant frame through which the public sees RJ is that “RJ is too lenient on crime therefore not good for security,” even our most compelling facts will fail to convince people.”[i]

Restorative practice organisations need to focus on communicating why restorative practice and restorative justice is important, not just quote research.

Personal experience is also very powerful in opening people’s eyes to the potential benefits of restorative practice:

“It is often public emotions that define public debates and political initiatives in the field of justice, not public information. Concrete experiences are the most promising path to winning people’s hearts and minds….”[ii]

However, this is challenging as it is not possible practically to enable every person in society to experience restorative justice conferences or restorative circles. Instead, we can aim to encourage individuals to educate themselves and put restorative approaches into practice in their daily lives (and we can enable this through training opportunities).

Connecting with new and diverse audiences

As previously mentioned, connecting with people who are not already familiar with restorative approaches is challenging but necessary if engagement in restorative approaches is to grow.

Restorative practice organisations can be largely mono-cultural, in terms of racial, socioeconomic, or academic background. Ensuring greater diversity is a bigger issue to consider and work through but is essential to making restorative practice accessible and attractive to a wider audience.

If people find it difficult to see how they ‘fit’ within restorative approaches being offered, they will not be interested in engaging with it. Communications messaging needs to consider this carefully but also not paint a picture which is inaccurate: rather, organisations need to work to make themselves a truly welcoming environment for a diverse range of individuals.

On a more practical level, diversifying the type of media used to promote the organization can help to reach new audiences. Using social media (particularly newer apps or sites which are currently popular) can be one way to reach a younger and less academic or practitioner-based audience.

However, social media isn’t a magic key. Social media relies on social interaction and sharing, so it can be a challenge to get organic growth and impact if an organisation’s supporters/practitioners don't use social media themselves as the reach of social media will be limited.

(Continued in Part 3 - Read Part 1)

References:

[i] Brunilda Pali (2011), Media Toolkit for Restorative Justice Organisations, European Forum for Restorative Justice, p. 25.

[ii] Brunilda Pali and Christa Pelikan (2011), Building Social Support for Restorative Justice, European Forum for Restorative Justice, p. 183.

Restorative justice in cases of sexual violence: some reflections

by Rosie Chadwick

Great talk by Estelle Zinsstag last week, for which many thanks – and to the largest ever audience at a Mint House event, involving people from around the world and showing the high interest in the topic.

My main takeaways? Restorative justice in cases of sexual violence is a serious undertaking. It requires highly skilled and specialist facilitation, robust assessment of the safety of the process and victims’ needs must of course be front and centre.  

But... some concerns raised about RJ in cases of sexual violence apply equally to court proceedings. More customary criminal justice processes are patently not working for victims as things stand – as low prosecution rates bring home.  Research suggests that many victims would welcome the option of a restorative response. Plus it’s already happening on every continent, in many cases ‘under the radar.’

Governments therefore need galvanising to make this option more widely available, backing this up with long-term funding, rigorous practice and ethical standards and careful evaluation.

Communications challenges for restorative practice organisations (Part 1)

by Joy Bettles

(This three-part blog series will cover some of the reasons we think communicating restorative practice is so difficult, followed by some thoughts on how we can communicate more effectively. We are really interested to hear from others on this topic so please let us know your thoughts and ideas)

One of the big challenges for restorative practice organisations is “How do we stop preaching to the converted?” and reach out to wider audiences in order to more effectively promote and embed restorative approaches in society.

Challenges of explaining RP

Explaining what restorative practice means can be challenging. The term ‘restorative practice’ is vague:  What does ‘restorative’ mean? What does ‘practice’ mean? Some organisations use terms such as ‘restorative approaches’ or ‘relational practice’ which are slightly easier to understand but are still not obvious.

The term ‘restorative justice’ may be better recognised and understood, however, the connection to criminal justice can lead people to have a very narrow view of what restorative practice can mean for themselves and their communities.

Restorative justice and restorative practice are hard to explain in a sentence or two[i]. This doesn’t lend itself well to current media preferences, particularly social media (think of the rise of short form video such as TikTok, Instagram Stories, and Instagram Reels which use videos of 15-30 seconds or less).

Conveying relevance

Another challenge to restorative practice organisations in communicating with the public is conveying the relevance of restorative practice to everyday life. Restorative practice is not something that is immediately easy to understand (compared to very recognisable causes such as child poverty or cancer research).

Some people misunderstand that restorative practice is limited to restorative justice in criminal justice settings and therefore see it as not relevant to them if they have not been a victim or perpetrator of crime.

In order to support restorative practice, people need to see how restorative approaches can be helpful  in their own relationships.

People also need to recognise the benefits of restorative justice to society and decide that this is something they want to participate in. (The report Building Social Support For Restorative Justice[ii] explores the political and philosophical issues surrounding this in depth).

Lack of resources

Restorative practice organisations are often low on resources. Financial resources in these organisations often go towards funding practitioners or supporting volunteers, rather than communications.

Stories and imagery

Stories and imagery connect with the public as the emotive nature of stories and images makes people more likely to engage with the messages they convey.

“Images that communicate [our message] are crucial. Images and symbols can be critical to conveying a story, therefore we should find images that convey RJ values.”[iii]

Imagery (in both photo and video form) is also essential for content on social media platforms, as social media for many years has been evolving to rely on photo and video content rather than text-based content.

However, restorative practice is personal and can relate to very private and sometimes difficult experiences in our lives. As a result, it is challenging to obtain personal stories and imagery. Even if people are happy to share their stories, it’s often not appropriate or possible for a photographer to be present in these moments.

Restorative practice organisations often end up relying on stock photos and abstract images which don’t have the same impact as photos or videos of people in real life situations. The lack of real-life imagery can make it difficult for people to visualise what restorative approaches look like in practice.

(Continued in Part 2 and Part 3)

References:

[i] Brunilda Pali (2011), Media Toolkit for Restorative Justice Organisations, European Forum for Restorative Justice, p. 15.

[ii] Brunilda Pali and Christa Pelikan (2011), Building Social Support for Restorative Justice, European Forum for Restorative Justice.

[iii] Brunilda Pali (2011), Media Toolkit for Restorative Justice Organisations, European Forum for Restorative Justice, p. 25.