Restorative Justice Full project

Restorative Justice, does it work?
A report in to the impact of restorative justice disposals reducing reoffending rates in
young offenders. Carried out in the pre court team at positive steps.
By Ryan Kershaw Bsc (Hons) Sociology with Quantitative Methods
Student ID: - 13122379
Supervisors: - Paul Gray & Graham Smyth
1

Acknowledgements
I would firstly like to thank both of my fantastic supervisors, Graham Smyth & Paul Gray for
all of their efforts and support throughout the process of the dissertation. I would also like to
thank all members of staff at positive steps for being so welcoming to me and making the
time to make sure I was settling in.
2

Contents Page
Title page ……………………………………………………………Page 1
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………...Page 2
Contents ……………………………………………………………..Page 3
Foreword …………………………………………………………….Page 4
Executive Summary ………………………………………………..Page 5
Background ………………………………………………………….Page 6
Key Literature ………………..……………………………………..Page 7 – 13
Project methodology ……………..…………………………..…….Page 14 –19
Key findings …………………………………………………………Page 20 – 38
Discussion …………………………………………………………...Page 39 – 41
References …………………………………………………………..Page 42 – 43
Appendix 1 …………………………………………………………...Page 44 – 60
3

Foreword
This project has played a vital role in understanding the effectiveness of restorative justice in
reducing reoffending rates in young offenders across Oldham. The project has given a true
insight into what could be done to deal with first time young offenders effectively and has
given recommendations to improve the way restorative justice is used overall. The project
has also shown what can happen to a young person if they are not processed efficiently.
4

Executive Summary
The overall project was to establish the effectiveness of restorative justice disposals
reducing reoffending rates in young offenders. One objective looked at was, what is causing
young offenders to reoffending after they have been given a restorative justice disposal.
Another objective was to unearth what could happen to a young offender if a restorative
justice disposal given to them is not processed effectively. Another objective, was to see
what type of criminal behavior restorative justice is used for and if restorative justice is an
effective way of dealing with young offenders.
Research was carried out to obtain an insight in to these objectives. Three months of
restorative justice disposals that were given to young offenders in the Oldham area were
accessed. The time scale of RJ disposals given to young offenders was August – October a
positive steps employee who was able to use the police data base gathered the RJ
disposals. The RJ disposals were then anonymized and put in to an SPSS format, the
integrated youth support service (IYSS) was accessed. This showed whether or not the
young offender had been referred to positive steps after being given the disposal. Moreover,
a three month follow up period from November - January was used to establish if a young
offender had reoffended after the restorative justice disposal. Furthermore, the IYSS system
was used to gain an insight in to a young offender’s previous crossings with the law. This
showed if restorative justice had been an effective way of reducing reoffending rates.
Key findings from the project show that restorative justice can be an effective way of
reducing reoffending rates in young people, provided that it is the young offender’s first
offence. In addition to this, evidence shows that once a young person has been referred to
positive steps they are less likely to reoffend when compared to a young offender who has
not been referred to positive steps. Evidence in the findings section shows that if a young
offender is given a restorative justice disposal for a serious crime, they are more likely to
reoffend when compared to a young offender who has committed a lower level crime.
Therefore, restorative justice should only be used for low level crime.
One recommendation made is that, a young person who is given a restorative justice
disposal must be referred to a youth justice / offending team. Expanding on
recommendations, better communication between the police and the appropriate youth
justice / offending team is needed. This will ensure that a young person is not falling through
the cracks, better communication will also ensure that the young person is processed
5

effectively.
Background
Positive steps Oldham, is one of ten YOT’s in Greater Manchester. Positive steps provides a
wide range of support, information, advice, guidance and a rage of targeted integrated
services for young people in the Oldham and Rochdale area. Helping them in a stable and
smooth transition in to adult life. This is done through services delivered through schools,
colleges and in the local community.
Positive steps offer a range of services that focusses upon improving life styles and goals in
young people. Through youth inclusion projects to identify issues and concerns to prevent an
individual from committing further crime in the Oldham area. Although positive steps has a
wide range of service, there are occasions where young people do get in trouble with the
law. Positive steps has an intervention scheme that provides services to help young people
who may have unfortunately crossed paths with the law.
Positive steps helps individuals to adapt their behaviours and receive the specific individual
support necessary to them. Some of the support offered to young people in the Oldham area
is available by choice, but some services are imposed by the police or court system if a
young person has had an encounter with the law.
At positive steps Oldham, they work with the individual and their family to help them get back
on the right track and try to ensure that the offender does not end up back in court as this
could lead to more criminal behaviour. If this does occur and the young person breaks the
sanctions imposed on them they will unfortunately go to court, positive steps gives them the
support and advice to help them through the court system.
The overall objective was to gather some quantitative analysis in relation to the effectiveness
of RJ interventions in the Oldham area. One other objective when working in positive steps
was to Analyse the number of out of court disposals received by young people in the
Oldham area and establish if these out of court disposals have an effect on the young
person’s criminal activity. The aim of the out of court disposal was to reduce the amount of
crimes committed by young people in the Rochdale and Oldham area. Expanding on this
there was also the opportunity to establish issues surrounding the irregular notifications of
out of court disposals given to positive steps by those who imposed the out of court disposal
on a young person in the Oldham area.
6

The project carried out at positive steps shows what is being done in the youth justice
system and the effectiveness of out of court disposals such as RJ’s have on criminal activity
in young.
Key Literature review
Introduction
Restorative justice will be discussed in relation to its effectiveness in reducing reoffending
rates among young offenders. The main point will be discussing how restorative is used in
addition to how effective it is. There will also be criticisms of RJ disposals and how they
might not be seen as an effective way of dealing with young offenders. Further expanding on
this point, there will be evidence suggesting that early intervention techniques such as RJ
disposals are not always a means of reducing crime but can lead to further criminal activity.
There will also be evidence suggesting that restorative justice is not always the best way of
dealing with criminal behaviour and sometimes is given out when a more severe punishment
is needed.
Overview
The key principle of restorative justice is to solve a problem that has occurred and then
move forward from the issue (Marshall, 1999). Restorative justice allows both the victim and
offender to understand the impact of the crime that has taken place, it also allows an
opportunity to recover from the crime. It gives the victim an opportunity to tell the offender
the real impact of the crime. To get answers from the offender and receive and apology.
Expanding on this, RJ disposals allow the offender to understand the impact there actions
have had on a victim. More importantly, restorative justice allow both the offender and victim
to move on. This allows the reintegration of the offender back in to society (London, 2014).
Restorative justice can take place in any in many different situation. They might occur
without, before, during or after a sentence has been given (Donoghue, 2014). Restorative
justice might also occur in court or within the community. Restorative justice can be an
alternative disposal to having a young offender go through the criminal justice system;
arguably restorative justice is an effective way of keeping young people out of the criminal
justice system (Hirsch et al, 2004). Evidence suggests that restorative justice can be an
effective means of reducing reoffending rates, on an average of 27%. In addition to this
restorative justice can be vastly effective in reducing reoffending rates with violent crimes
(Shapland, 2008).
7

Development of Restorative justice
In relation to the work of Barnett (1977) the term ‘Restorative Justice’ arose through
mediation between an offender and a victim. The core principles of this were developed over
time in relation to changes within the Criminal Justice System (Marshall, 1999). Through
experience of what works in terms of impact on the offender and the satisfaction of victims,
restorative justice became the ideal method of dealing with low level crime committed by first
time offenders (Losel, 2013). Severe punishment was seen as counterproductive when
dealing with an offender and achieving victim satisfaction as it did not fully resolve the
problem. Further expanding on this, restorative justice was also seen as a cost and time
effective way of dealing with crime prevention and social control. The development of
restorative justice allows the offender to see the effects of their actions without being
formally put in to the criminal justice system.
Restorative justice in the police
Restorative Justice (RJ) is a resolution technique which is primarily a victim focused
resolution (Shewan, 2011). RJ’s hold young offenders directly accountable to their victim and
can bring them together in a meeting where by the offender can see the impact that their
actions have had on the victim. Moreover they are nationally recognised for the resolution of
any type of offence through informal agreement between the two parties involved (Youth
Justice Board, 2013). Also used as a tool to enable the police to make decisions about how
to deal more effectively with low level crime but only used in this way. RJs are primarily
aimed at first time offenders this is seen to be the most effective way of dealing with first time
offenders usually where there is an admission of guilt (Losel, 2013). Guidelines state that a
police officer who has given out an RJ must inform the YOT (Tudor, 2007). This is to ensure
that the young offender can be put in to the youth justice system which in turn is aimed to
prevent them from committing any further offences. Working on the basis of Hirsch (2004)
this is known as ‘nipping crime in the bud’ (Hirsch et all, 2004).
Restorative justice also allows the police to use their professional judgement, to assess an
offence and establish if an RJ disposal is appropriate (Tudor, 2007). Arguments have been
made that restorative justice disposals are an effective technique in reducing reoffending
rates among young offenders. It gives them the capability to see the effect their actions have
had. Expanding on this, literature suggests that restorative justice disposals could be seen
as a cheaper way of dealing with first time low level criminal activity when compared to in
court disposals (Nacro, 2010). Additionally, Penning’s report on out of court disposals
supports the idea that restorative justice allows the police to use their professional
8

judgement. In an ideal situation the crime must meet certain standards for an RJ disposal to
be given out (Shewan, 2011). Restorative justice as a crime disposal should be flexible, this
is to ensure that the disposal meet the needs of the victim. The overall outcome of an RJ
disposal should allow offenders to make amends for the harm caused (Shewan, 2011). This
might be something requested by the victim such as community service or a letter of
apology. In the process of recording crime it is essential that crimes and incidents are
recorded in order to establish the reoffending rates among young offenders this should be
done to establish quantitatively the amount of crimes resolved through RJ disposals and if a
young offender has been given a previous RJ disposal or have committed any previous
offences. Correct recording of RJ disposals given out is necessary as it allows report on RJ’s
in the annual data return process (Shewan, 2011).
RJ disposals can be seen as an effective way of resolving low level crime for first time
offenders as it gives the offender an insight in to the effect their actions have had this should
then reduce the chance of reoffending (Youth Justice Statistics, 2015). In addition to this
some offenders may be given an RJ disposal when a harsher consequence may have been
needed such as a youth caution (Home affairs, 2015). Expanding further on this, RJ
disposals are victim focused but in some cases are used when a young offender has been
found in possession of drugs. Being in possession of drugs does not consist of a victim so in
this case it is not appropriate to give an individual an RJ disposal as there is no one to
apologise to. However being given a RJ disposal could be seen as a caution for being in
possession of drugs.
How restorative justice works
The way in which restorative justice works is by preventing offenders from formally being
taken in to the criminal justice system and reintegrating the offender back in to society
(Tudor, 2007). This is done by an offender taking responsibility for their actions and
apologising for them (London, 2014). One way this is done is through arranging victim and
offender meetings, this is only done if both parties agree to meet. This empowers the
offender as it allows them to repair the harm they have caused the victim (Doolin et al.,
2011). Further expanding on this, it also allows the victim to move on from the crime (Tudor,
2007). This repair extends further than just financial compensation to the victim. There might
also be an apology and an explanation from the offender as to why the crime was
committed. This allows the offender to understand the impact of their crime and repair what
harm might have been caused be that physical or psychological (Renshaw, 2002). The
offender will then listen to the victim’s story in to how the offence made them feel and what
impact it has had on their life (Renshaw, 2002). Restorative justice therefore gives the
9

offender a chance to obtain a face to face reality of what they have done (Tudor, 2007). In
some ways the realisation of their offence and the face to face interaction with the victim can
better prepare an offender for the reintegration in to mainstream society. Working with an
offender and victim in this way opens up a dialogue between both parties allowing them to
discuss what the best option to resolve the offence is (Renshaw, 2002). Furthermore, using
restorative justice in this way can be seen as a diversion method from the criminal justice
system preventing the offender from spiralling down a criminal route (Becker, 1997).
Out of court disposals such as RJ’s can be seen as an effective method of reducing crime in
young offenders (Youth Justice Board, 2013). Restorative justice gives an offender the
opportunity to meet the victim and explore the real impact of the crime (Tudor, 2007).
Restorative justice holds the offender accountable for their actions; this allows them to take
responsibility for the crime they have committed and the impact it has had on the victim.
Mainly used in early intervention, restorative justice aims to keep young people out of the
criminal justice system. In addition, this improves life chances and reduces demands on the
police (Nacro, 2015). Previous government research demonstrates restorative justice
provides a 14% reduction in reoffending rates (Ministry of Justice, 2012). These statistics will
be taken into account throughout the report in order to establish the effectiveness of RJ
disposals. Although restorative justice can be seen as an effective way to tackle young
offenders, there is evidence to suggest that they are not the best technique to be used as a
way of dealing with young offenders.
Criticism
Criticisms have been made that restorative justice is not an effective means of dealing with
young offenders. Some offenders may be given a restorative justice disposal incorrectly
when a harsher sentence such as a conditional youth caution might be needed (Home
affaris, 2015). Some individuals might be given multiple disposals which is not an effective
way of dealing with a young offender (Goldson & Muncie, 2006). If a young person has been
given multiple restorative justice disposals it could lead to them believing that they are
getting away with their actions (Tudor, 2007). Furthermore when an officer has given a
young offender an RJ disposal, they are required to input this in to the police data base and
notify the youth justice system to deal with the young offender. However reports by Nacro
(2015) suggest that this is not always done and some young offenders are repeatedly being
given restorative justice disposals (Nacro, 2015).
10

Benefits and effectiveness of RJ disposals
As stated earlier, restorative justice can be seen as an effective method of dealing with
young offenders as they arguable save time and money (Merton, 1996). It could be
suggested that restorative justice is an effective way of managing time (Shewan, 2011). In
relation to the police if they spend less time dealing with low level criminal behaviour they
are able to focus on more serious crimes. A study conducted in Surrey found that restorative
justice led to an 18% reduction in reoffending (Restorative Justice Council, 2015). The
reduction rates could be because of the face to face interactions with the offender and the
victim, where by the offender was able to see the impact there crime has had on an
individual.
Evidence through the restorative justice guidance suggests that RJ disposals can improve
victim satisfaction by directly engaging both parties involved in the incident. Victims are
empowered and are able to make suggestions about how the offender can acknowledge the
impact their actions have had (Shewan, 2011). In relation to reoffending rates restorative
justice can be an effective means of reducing reoffending. This is because offenders are
more likely to understand the effect that their behaviour has had in a face to face conference
with their victim.
Restorative justice is not always effective
However, reports by the home affairs committee suggest that out of court disposals such as
restorative justice disposals are incorrectly given out for serious offences such as sexual
assault, which arguably would need to be dealt with in a harsher manner. Furthermore,
guidelines state that restorative justice should not be used as a means to deal with repeat
offenders as they are not truly dealing with the problem (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection,
2011). Repeatedly giving out disposals to young offenders could lead them to believe they
are getting away with a certain crime, especially one that might be considered a serious
offence (Tudor, 2007). Moreover issues arise when the police do not refer an RJ disposal to
the appropriate youth offending team. If the police do not notify the YOT, the youth offending
team are not able to process or flag up an individual when they are given an RJ disposal.
This could have a detrimental effect on the young person because no intervention or support
is given to them resulting in a possible re-offense.
11

There are arguments supporting the effectiveness of RJ disposals as an early intervention
method. However, research conducted by (McAara & McVie, 2007) through the Edinburgh
study of youth transitions; suggest that early intervention is not the best technique. They
state that the best policy in some cases is to do nothing. Labelling theory suggests that if a
young person is told they are a criminal, and are told this by whom they might perceive as
powerful individuals. This could lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy, where by the young person
believes that they are a criminal and are expected to behave in a certain way, this in turn
results in them committing further offences. Furthermore, if a young person is defined by
others as being a criminal this will lead them to become a criminal, because they are
defining themselves through the perceptions of others (Blumer, 1969). This suggests that
RJ disposals are not an effective method in reducing re-offending rates. If a young person
thinks they are a criminal they will become a criminal. McAra & Mcvie are also suggesting
that the way to deal with young people is minimal intervention and maximum diversion. This
way of dealing with a young offender prevents them from gaining entry in to the criminal
justice system at an early age. However, if they are not dealt with at an early age it could
result in them committing more serious offences as the young offender believe they can get
away with the offence without any consequence. This could severely affect the young
offender and result in them reoffending because they do not see any real consequence in
their behaviour (Renshaw, 2002).
Summary
Critics argue that restorative justice is not an effective means of dealing with young
offenders. Some offenders may be given multiple restorative justice disposals this leads to
them believing that they are able to get away with a certain type of crime because they are
not being formally processed (Shewan, 2011). In relation to the work of Goldson & Muncie
(2006) they suggest that restorative justice disposals are being given out for multiple
offences where guideline state that they should be given out for first time offenders. When a
young person is given multiple amount of restorative justice disposals it is not effectively
dealing with them (Goldson & Muncie, 2006). In addition to this arguments have been made
that restorative justice is sometimes not the most effective way of dealing with a certain
crime because a harsher measures are needed such as a youth conditional caution (Home
affairs, 2015).
12

As a whole restorative justice is an effective way of dealing with low level criminal activity
and first time offenders. Restorative justice is an effective method in reducing stigmatisation
of an offender and opens up a dialog between the offender and the victim. The mediation
between both parties allows the offender to see the effect that their actions have had,
evidence suggests that restorative justice is an effective way of reducing reoffending rates.
Moreover RJ disposals are a beneficial disposal as they save time and money for the police
(Merton, 1996). These resources can be used more effectively in tackling more serious
crimes. However restorative justice is not always a suitable option when dealing with certain
crime. In some cases RJ’s are given out for more serious criminal behaviours such as sexual
assault (Home affairs, 2015). This type of offence should be dealt with in a different way.
Restorative justice can be a constructive way of dealing with young offenders. That being
said the police must inform the local YOT when a disposal is given out. This however is not
always the case and sometimes a young offender might not be referred to the YOT leading
them to obtain multiple RJ disposals and progressing further in to the criminal justice system.
13

Project methodology
Introduction
This section of the report will be looking at the methods of research chosen and why the
methods chosen were more beneficial when compared to others. There will also be
discussion of how the data used throughout this report was accessed and what type of
sample was used. Moreover, Issues that where come across throughout the research will
also be addressed. How these issues where overcome will also be brought up later in this
chapter. Data cleaning will also be discussed in relation to what extent the data needed to be
recoded before analysis was carried out. Furthermore, in this chapter ethical issues will be
looked in to and how they will be addressed. The final part of the chapter will be reflective,
where by there will be an examination of what could have been considered in different
circumstances.
Quantitative Vs Qualitative
Quantitative research was used for this report, quantitative research allows the generation of
data that can then be used to quantify attitudes and behavioural trends, the data can then be
analysed and trends discovered (Bryman, 2015). In this report quantitative data was used to
quantify the effectiveness of RJ disposals in reducing reoffending rates. Moreover
quantitative data was used because it allows the collection of a large amount of data, a
vastly larger amount of data when compared to qualitative data. Furthermore, quantitative
date arguably is more effective when compared to qualitative methods for formulating facts
and uncovering patterns (Field, 2013). Additionally, the collection of quantitative data
arguably is much more structured when compared to qualitative data (Bryman, 2012). It
does not require as much direct contact with a participant as qualitative data does.
14

Arguments suggest that quantitative data can be seen as being more scientific when
compared to qualitative data (Dantzker & Hunter, 2006). The collection of quantitative data is
more structured when compared to qualitative data, this results in a reduction of time spent
collecting data (Bryman, 2012). Although quantitative data is time effective there are some
issues with this method of collecting data. One issue associated with quantitative data is
that, although it allows trends and attitudes to be established and generalised it is unable to
establish thoughts and opinions in a problem (Bryman, 2012). Quantitative data does not
give rich in depth information about a problem when compared to qualitative data (Bryman,
2012).
Access & Sample
Access
In order to acquire the necessary information the police database needed to be accessed, to
obtain information on RJ’s from the appropriate time scale. Due to vetting issues it was not
possible to gain access on to the police data base. Therefore, the necessary data needed
for the research was collected by a member of the positive steps team who were vetted and
obtained the raw RJ crime report for the project. This was time consuming as the individual
who could access the police data base was not always in the office. After the data on the
RJ’s was collected it was anonymised and inputted to an SPSS format.
Another access issue that arose and needed to be addressed during the time at positive
steps was logging on to the positive steps system. In order to get a better insight into the
young offenders and their past offences as well as offences that were committed after the
original RJ disposal had been give out. The IYSS system needed to be accessed, this was
to establish if participants had committed any previous offences or offended after the original
Restorative justice disposal had been given. Access was needed so that it would be possible
to use the system and complete the research. This issue was overcome quickly and
effectively through the IT team. However, the positive steps system did not have SPSS
software, the data had to be transferred and analysed on a laptop which had SPSS. Taking
the data out of the office was agreed with the placement supervisor, provided that the data
was anonymised and put on a secure password protected folder.
Sample
15

In terms of the sample used it was agreed that historical RJ’s from a three month period
would be accessed and analysed. The individuals that were on the RJ crime report were
then cross referenced with positive steps IYSS system, this was to establish if any previous
crimes or crimes after the original RJ disposal had be committed. With regards to sampling
there was no specific sampling technique. The cases accessed where restricted by a time
frame. This was one main limitation. In relation to the sample size (Joyce, 2009). The team
member of positive steps was not always in the office this external factor could not be
controlled. If this factor was not an issue the sample size would have been larger and further
analysis could have been made
Type of Data
The type of data used consisted of both primary and secondary. The data set was created
through RJ disposals provided and information access through the IYSS system. The data
provided was collected by Positive steps through the police data base; this had huge
advantages in relation to cost. Good quality data was acquired through positive steps at a
fraction of the price primary research may have cost if it was carried out. Expanding on the
advantages of the type of data used, a wide time scale in to the past could be analysed
through the IYSS system this was used to establish how many RJ’s had been issued to a
young offender. This was beneficial to the project as it was possible to establish if young
offenders came in to the system or commit any previous or further offence after being given
the RJ. Moreover, because the data collection was secondary it meant that it did not take a
vast amount of time to collect when compared to primary data collection. Accessing the RJ
data was done through a member of the positive steps team. The data was rich and of a
high quality. However there was no familiarity of the raw data, this lead to some issues about
what variables to use to establish the effectiveness of RJ’s and how to work around the data
before inputting it to SPSS and creating the data set.
There were some issues with the data, the data needed to be cleaned up before analysis
could be carried out. The data was in a crime report format. This type of format was not
suitable for establishing the effectiveness of RJ’s. In depth assessment of the data found
that there were unnecessary variables in the crime report for the research objective, these
where taken out. Further expanding on this point, in order to use the data it needed to be
anonymised. Originally before the data set was created the data was in a crime report
16

format. The crime report format had personal information on it, making it unsuitable to
analyse. To comply with the data protection act the data was anonymised. As previously
stated in this report there were some restrictions of the data, it was not possible to collect it
alone. This then lead to some difficulty when trying to collect other data on the IYSS system,
to cross reference individual crime reports and gain a better understanding of what other
offences where committed or if the RJ disposal positively affected the young person.
Accessing the data was extremely time consuming as individuals who were vetted and could
access the data where sometimes not in the office. This then resulted in the data set taking
a lot longer to construct and input to SPSS. However a benefit of using this type of data was
that it was already provided if the issue of access was lifted it would have been less time
consuming to construct the data set.
Issues / Recoding / Sampling
Issues
An issue that had to be tackled was gaining access to the building for this to happen a
Disclosure and barring service was required. The DBS check was necessary although
analysing the effective of RJ’s in Oldham was the main area of study there where various
opportunities to go on home visits and in to schools to observe RJ intervention lessons.
There were some issues with the disclosure and barring service, as the first certificate was
sent to the wrong address. This resulted in some opportunities being withheld. However
another certificate was developed soon after through MMU widening participant support.
This took up a larger than expected time scale but was an essential part of the placement.
Recoding & Cleaning
Recoding was not done on a large scale, because the variables were developed throughout
the inputting of data it allowed recoding to be done while the data set was being developed.
This was an efficient use of time because it did not mean going back over the dataset and
recoding it (Field, 2013). One variable which was recoded while the data was being inputted
was ethnicity, instead of having a vast amount of ethnicity values they were condensed
down to White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Other and missing. Furthermore, cleaning the data was
not a time consuming task, because the data was inputted as it was accessed it resulted in
the dataset being cleaned as the data was inputted (Field, 2013). The main aspect of
cleaning the data was ammonising participant’s personal details. Additionally the data was
raw and needed to be cleaning up as the format it was on was not suitable for analysis.
17

Data Analysis
Analysing the data was important in assessing the effectiveness of RJ disposals in the
Oldham area. Variables where developed in relation to the 3 months of RJ crime reports and
data collected through the IYSS system. Variables that where developed consisted of. Age,
sex, ethnicity, disposal, referral, reoffending and date. These variables where important in
assessing the effectiveness of RJ disposals.
After the raw data had been inputted in to SPSS, statistical tests were carried out. Cross
tabulations where done to see what effect being referred to positive steps will have on a
young offender committing any further offences. Moreover, Cramer’s V and Chi-square test
were also carried out. Chi-square was carried out to see if there was a relationships between
the two variables provided if the significance level was less than 0.05 it suggests there is a
relationship between the two variables. Cramer’s V was then carried out to establish the
strength of the relationship.
Key analysis was of the variables number of previous referrals and number of previous
convictions. This was analysed as it gives an understanding of offender’s behaviour in the
past and if the original RJ disposal was a one off or if they are prolific offenders.
Furthermore, analysis will be made in to referrals and reoffending rates this will establish
whether RJ are reducing reoffending rates in young people. Expanding on this, in depth
analysis and literature will be linked to these findings.
Ethical issues with research
One ethical issue that arose during research conducted at positive steps consisted of the
data protection act 1998 (Great Britain, 1998). This was an issue that needed to be dealt
with while research was being composed with positive steps as the data given to myself had
individual’s personal details, name, number and address. To comply with the data protection
act 1998 (Great Britain, 1998) the sample was anonymised when inputting it in to SPSS
(Field, 2013). After the data was inputted the original paper copy with the offender’s details
on it was destroyed. This was done to prevent any trace of participants in the data set and
ensure the data protection act was followed.
Another issue that arose was Informed consent (Bryman, 2012). In order to use the data
informed consent was given by the positive steps YOT team. Getting permission to use the
data was important to give the organisation so that they knew what would be needed in
terms of research material. Furthermore informed consent was needed to gain access on to
the premises without informed consent it would not have been possible to have access in to
positive steps or to analyse the data in relation to the effectiveness of out of court disposals.
18

In this piece of research there were no major risks or hazards to participants. No physical or
mental harm came to participants when collecting the data. The data was collected through
the police data base, therefore there was no need to contact the offenders directly.
Contacting the offender directly could have caused psychological harm to them (Bryman,
2012). Furthermore, it could have resulted in the offender being upset about their actions or
feel worse in relation to their actions. As earlier stated, the data used was anonymised when
put in to a SPSS format, this was done to protect the participant’s identity and comply with
the data protection act 1998 (Great Britain, 1998). If this was not done it could have resulted
in a form of metal harm to participants, if their identity was to come up in this type of
research. Due to the nature of the project it can be assumed that participants would not want
their identity to be shown as it could have negative implications and impact of their life
(Bryman, 2012).
In relation to the dissertation being carried out on the premises of positive steps, a
memorandum of understanding was developed between Manchester Metropolitan and
Positive steps. This was to ensure a healthy working relationship between both parties with
an agreed overall research objective.
One other ethical issue that arose during placement at positive steps was in order to take the
data offsite permission was needed from the pre-court manager. The crime report
documents which had personal information where left in the positive steps office in a locked
cupboard which only members of staff who had the key where able to access. Before the
data was taken off sight it was anonymised and then inputted to SPSS, the document was
then put in to an encrypted folder. Furthermore the data itself was anonymised before being
taken off sight ensuring positive steps guidelines were followed.
Reflective section
If time was not a constraint throughout the project, a larger sample would have been
collected. A larger sample of the target population would have led to a more accurate
understanding of the effectiveness of restorative disposals in reducing reoffending rates in
young offenders (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, if a larger sample size was possible to
construct it would have been much easier to identified outliers such as prolific offender
(Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, if possible more sophisticated inferential statistics would have
been carried out such as a parametric two way ANOVA (Field, 2013). Again, this was not
possible because there was a limited amount of time to construct a larger data set.
19

Key Findings
The main aim of this chapter is to establish whether or not restorative justice disposals are
effective in reducing reoffending rates among young people.
In addition to this, there will be analysis on if restorative justice disposals are being used
effectively. Further analysis will be made to establish if RJ disposals are being given out
correctly. Finally there will be an insight in to young offenders that are given multiple RJ
disposals and why they might be given multiple disposals.
Demographics
Sex
Frequenc
y
Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Male 59 73.8 73.8 73.8
Female 21 26.3 26.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
20

Age
Frequenc
y
Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
7.00 1 1.3 1.3 1.3
10.00 2 2.5 2.5 3.8
11.00 1 1.3 1.3 5.0
12.00 8 10.0 10.0 15.0
13.00 18 22.5 22.5 37.5
14.00 11 13.8 13.8 51.3
15.00 15 18.8 18.8 70.0
16.00 9 11.3 11.3 81.3
17.00 14 17.5 17.5 98.8
18.00 1 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
21
73.8
26.3%
In the variable ‘sex’ (73.8%) of individuals where male and
the other (26.3%) of individuals where female. This shows
that in this sample there where over double the amount of
males when compared to females.

ethnicity
Frequenc
y
Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
White 51 63.8 63.8 63.8
Black 1 1.3 1.3 65.0
Asian 23 28.8 28.8 93.8
Mixed 4 5.0 5.0 98.8
Other 1 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
22
22.5%
1.3%1.3%1.3%2.5%10%13.8%
18.8%
11.3%
17.5%
The highest amount of offenders fall in to 13-15. The age
that occurs the most is 13 (22.5%). The ages that occur the
least are 18, 7 & 11. This could mean that there is a peak in
teenager life when an individual is likely to offend.
1.3%

offence
Frequenc
y
Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid section39 Assault 18 22.5 22.5 22.5
section47 Assault 15 18.8 18.8 41.3
shoplifting 12 15.0 15.0 56.3
possession 3 3.8 3.8 60.0
Damage 19 23.8 23.8 83.8
Other theft 5 6.3 6.3 90.0
Threats 3 3.8 3.8 93.8
23
63.8%
1.3%
28.8%
5%
In the variable ‘Ethnicity’ a vast proportion of the sample
where white (63.8%) then Asian (28.8%) the other (7%) was
made up of mixed black and other types of ethnicity

Sex assault 1 1.3 1.3 95.0
Section 4A public
order
1 1.3 1.3 96.3
missing 3 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
24

25
22.5%
18.8%
15%
3.8%
23.8%
6.3%3.8%
1.3%1.3%3.8%
In the variable ‘offence’ it can be seen that a vast
amount of offences by young people in the Oldham area
are damage and section 39 assault.
There are some offences that occur but arguably are not
appropriate for an RJ disposal (Home affairs, 2015).
These are sexual assault and section 4A public order
and possession.

Bivariate analysis
Hypothesis: - Being referred to positive steps will not have an effect on the amount of re-
offenses an individual has.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
referal * Number of
reoffences
80 100.0% 0 0.0% 80 100.0%
referal * Number of reoffences Crosstabulation
Number of reoffences Total
0 1 2
referal
Yes
Count 10 0 0 10
Expected
Count
9.5 .3 .3 10.0
No
Count 66 2 2 70
Expected
Count
66.5 1.8 1.8 70.0
Total
Count 76 2 2 80
Expected
Count
76.0 2.0 2.0 80.0
26

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .602a
2 .740
Likelihood Ratio 1.098 2 .578
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.532 1 .466
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .25.
27

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi .087 .740
Cramer's
V
.087 .740
N of Valid Cases 80
The graph above shows that those who are referred to positive steps after the original RJ
disposal was given did not reoffend. This suggests that when the police follow the RJ
disposal process correctly, they can be effective in reducing reoffending rates. (Tudor,
2007). In addition to this, working on the basis of Hirsch (2004), statistics show that
restorative justice can be an effective way of nipping crime in the bud and reducing
reoffending rates. Further expanding on this, these statistics highlight the issue that
restorative justice is arguably an effective way of integrating a first time offender back in to
society (London, 2014). Moreover, it could be argued that when a young offender is referred
to positive steps they do not reoffend because they are able to see the impact of their crime
(Shewan, 2011). When they see the true impact of their actions it allows them to make
amends with the victim, arguably this then reintegrates the offender back in to society
(London, 2014).
However, analysis shows that the individuals that were not referred to positive steps did re-
offend. Out of the sample of eighty, only two reoffended once after the original disposal and
another two individuals reoffended twice. This raises the question, why are these individuals
reoffending after being given a restorative justice disposal? The offenders that have
reoffended, after the original RJ disposal was given out, might have done so because they
are prolific offenders. It could therefore be argued that restorative justice is not an effective
means of dealing with some offenders because they feel as though they are getting away
with the crime (Tudor, 2007). If these individuals are reoffending after the original restorative
justice disposal, it could be argued that stricter disposals such as a youth conditional caution
might be needed (Home affairs, 2015). The data shown above is a follow up period of three
months and those individuals that have reoffended might have previous crossings with the
law.
Evidence suggests that restorative justice disposals are not suitable for individuals who are
prolific offenders (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011). In addition to this, restorative
28

justice disposals should only be used for low level crime by first time offenders (Losel, 2013).
Consistently giving a restorative justice disposal to a young offenders could lead them to
believe they are getting away with a certain crime, especially one that might be considered a
serious offence (Tudor, 2007).
Further statistical analysis in to chi square shows that there is no significance between the
two variables, referral to positive steps and the amount of reoffences an individual has. This
is because the chi-square significance level (0.740) is higher than 0.05. This analysis
suggests that being referred to positive steps actually has a direct effect on the amount of
re-offenses an individual has.
Expanding on this, there is also a weak association between the two variable. The Cramer’s
V value is 0.087, this shows a very weak association between the two variables because it is
less than 0.1.
With this in mind, the operational hypothesis can be rejected. It can therefore be assumed
that being referred to positive steps does have an effect on the amount of reoffences an
individual has. The statistics above show that those who were referred to positive steps are
less likely to reoffend than those who are not referred to positive steps. One factor that could
be causing this, is that being referred to positive steps can be an effective way of the young
offender realising the impact there actions have had on a victim (Renshaw, 2002). Positive
steps is a natural space and allows the victim to meet the offender. Expanding on this it
allows the victim to explain how the crime effected them. Allowing the offender to see the
true impact of their crime can be an effective way of reintegrating them back in to society
(London, 2014). Once they have seen what their actions have done and realised the true
impact of the crime, they are able to move forward from the problem (Marshall, 1999).
Reintegrating the offender back in to society reduces the effect of a self-fulfilling prophesy
because the young person’s criminal activity has been nipped in the bud (Hirsch 2004).
Nipping crime in the bud reduces the possibility of a young offender being processed
through the criminal justice system. This results in the offender moving away from the label
of being a criminal (McAra & Mcvie, 2007). . The shift away from being labelled as
criminal could also be an effective way of reintegrating them back in to society and reduce
reoffending rates (McAra & Mcvie, 2007).
Hypothesis: - Young people that have previous offences are more likely to be referred to
positive steps when compared to first time offenders.
The follow up period was three months, arguably this is not as reliable as a larger time scale
(Bryman, 2012). In order to get a better insight in to the effectiveness of RJ disposals
reducing reoffending rates, previous offences were also looked at. The previous offences
29

were then cross referenced with the original disposal to establish if this was a reoffence or if
the young person was a prolific offender and has a string of offences. This could give a
better insight in to the effectiveness of RJ disposals when compared to just looking at re-
offenses.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
referal * Number of previous
convictions
80 100.0% 0 0.0% 80 100.0%
referal * Number of previous convictions Crosstabulation
Number of previous convictions Total
0 1 2 3 5 8
referal
Yes
Count 10 0 0 0 0 0 10
Expected
Count
8.3 1.1 .3 .1 .1 .1 10.0
No
Count 56 9 2 1 1 1 70
Expected
Count
57.8 7.9 1.8 .9 .9 .9 70.0
Total
Count 66 9 2 1 1 1 80
Expected
Count
66.0 9.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 80.0
30

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.424a
5 .788
Likelihood Ratio 4.140 5 .529
Linear-by-Linear
Association
1.135 1 .287
N of Valid Cases 80
31

a. 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .13.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi .174 .788
Cramer's
V
.174 .788
N of Valid Cases 80
The graph above shows that young offenders have been referred to positive steps for
previous offences that they have committed, this was shown via the positive steps IYSS
system. However, analysis shows that these individuals who have been referred to positive
steps in the past have not been referred to positive steps for the disposal accessed via the
police data base.
Restorative justice as an early intervention technique is not always an effective way of
dealing with young offenders. Developing on the theory of McAra & Mcvie (2007) individuals
who are given a restorative justice disposal by an authority figure arguably are labelled as
criminal. This could then lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy, whereby a young person believes
that they are a criminal and commit more criminal behaviour. Further expanding on this, a
young person will define themselves through how others see them. If others see them as a
criminal they are likely to become criminal. Expanding on this point if a young person is
being given multiple disposals it can therefore lead to them to committing and is not truly
dealing with the problem (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011).
This raises the issue, why have these individuals been referred to positive steps in the past
but have not been referred when they have offended again? As stated in the literature
chapter, a restorative justice disposal should be used for first time offenders of low level
crime (Losel, 2013). The reason why a young person has been given multiple restorative
justice disposals could be the result of a police processing issues. An officer might have
given a young person an RJ disposal but has not then preceded to inform the youth
offending team (Tudor, 2007). To be consistently giving a young offender an RJ disposal can
have a detrimental effect on them being rehabilitated and integrated back in to society
(Goldson & Muncie, 2006). If a young person is constantly being given a restorative justice
disposal and they are not being processed correctly it could result in them committing a vast
amount of criminal activity.
32

When further analysis is taken in to consideration the Chi-square significance level (0.788) is
greater than 0.05 this shows that the two variables are unrelated.
Analysis of the Cramer’s V value is (0.174) this shows that there is a weak association
between the two variables.
With this in mind the operational hypothesis can be rejected. It can be assumed that those
who have been referred to positive steps in the past are not more likely to be referred again
for another criminal activity the commit in the future. This then raises the question, what
impact could not being referred to positive steps have on a young person.
The table below shows what can happen to a young person when they are not being dealt
with effectively.
P a r t i c i p a n t x
5
4
5
1
3
8
What can happen
Damage convictions
Section 39 Convictions
RJ Disposals
Triage
Youth caution
Referals
As shown in the graph above participant X is what is known as a prolific offender. This graph
highlights what can happen when a young offender is not correctly dealt with. Although the
procedure has been followed (Tudor, 2007). The young offender has been referred to
positive steps. However as shown, this has not prevented them from reoffending. The main
aim of the first restorative justice disposal was to allow participant x to see the impact of their
crime on the victim (Renshaw, 2002). This should have prevented them from committing any
other offences as the first disposal could be seen as nipping crime in the bud (Hirsch et al,
2004).
33

Aim: - Is restorative justice being used effectively and is being given out for the correct
crime?
Cases
Valid Missing Total
offence *
Reoffence
80 100.0% 0 0.0% 80 100.0%
offence * Reoffence Crosstabulation
Count
Reoffence Total
Yes No
offence
section39 Assault 0 18 18
shoplifiting 2 10 12
possession 0 3 3
Damage 1 18 19
Other theft 0 5 5
Threats 0 3 3
Sex assault 0 1 1
Section 4A public
order
0 1 1
missing 0 3 3
Total 4 76 80
34

The graph above shows what type of crime when committed by a young person, increases
the chance of reoffending. If a young person commits a shoplifting offence, they are the
most likely to reoffend when compared to any other type of crime committed by a young
person. These findings highlight the issue that restorative justice disposals are sometimes
not suitable for certain crimes, as it can lead to offenders believing that they are getting away
with it (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011). This idea of them getting away with a certain
crime could have a direct effect on a young person reoffending (Tudor, 2007). Further
analysis of the above graph states that the second highest crime that leads to re-offending
rates among young people is section 47 assault. This could be considered a serious offence
because actual bodily harm has been caused, arguments published by the home affairs
(2015) suggest that restorative justice cannot be used effectively for serious crimes.
Expanding on this, if a young person has been given out multiple disposals for previous
offences it is not an effective way of dealing with them (Goldson & Muncie, 2006). In addition
to this, if a young person has been given multiple disposals for an offence such as a section
47 assault. It will give them the idea that they are getting away with a certain type of crime.
35

Expanding on this point, restorative justice can lead a young offender to believe that they
are getting away with a certain crime, this is because they feel as though they are getting
away with a certain type of crime. The main aim of restorative justice is to divert a young
person away from the criminal justice system (Becker, 1997).
However diverting a young person away from the criminal justice system could lead them to
believe that they are getting away with a certain type of crime (Tudor, 2007). The crime that
holds the highest value of not reoffending is a section 39 assault. The graph below shows
that those that are given a restorative justice disposal for a section 39 assault are more likely
to be referred to positive steps than any other crime. This highlights the issue that being
referred to positive steps has a direct effect on reducing reoffending rates in young people.
This therefore suggests that when restorative justice is used effectively and a young person
is referred to the youth offending team it can reduce reoffending rates.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
offence *
referal
80 100.0% 0 0.0% 80 100.0%
offence * referal Crosstabulation
Count
referal Total
Yes No
offence
shoplifiting 1 11 12
possession 1 2 3
Damage 2 17 19
Other theft 0 5 5
Threats 2 1 3
Sex assault 1 0 1
Section 4A public
order
0 1 1
missing 0 3 3
Total 10 70 80
36

The graph above clearly states that a lot of young offenders are not being referred for their
criminal behaviour. This raises the question, why are young offenders that commit certain
types of crimes not being referred. In relation to the findings published in Nacro (2015) police
are not processing restorative justice correctly, one main processing issue that arose in the
Nacro report, is that officers are not referring young offenders to a youth offending team. The
evidence in the graph above suggests that police are firstly not notifying positive steps
efficiently when an offence is committed by a young person. In addition to this, the graph
suggests that the police are especially not referring young offenders for damage offences. A
reason why this might be happening is that the police deal with the situation themselves,
without going through the formal process and referring a young offender to positive steps.
The damage caused by the young offender might be a minimum amount, therefore the
37

police resolve the situation there and then with the offender and victim. This can be done by
the offender apologising for their actions.
In addition to this, analysis shows that those who commit a section 39 assaults are the
second highest individuals who are not being referred to positive steps. This raises the
question, why are these individuals not being referred to positive steps. One factor that might
result in these individuals not being referred is that just like a damage offence the police
might use their own judgement to decide how to process the offence (Shewan, 2011). The
officer might not feel that it is necessary to notify the youth offending team because the
offence has been dealt with on the day. However, this could result in the young person
reoffending. As earlier established in this chapter, if a young person is referred to positive
steps it reduces their change of reoffending. Being referred to positive step for a first time
offence is vital as it allows the young offender to understand the impact there actions have
had on a victim (London, 2014).
Although it might look like young people are not being formally processed they might in fact
be dealt with outside of the youth offending team by the police. This shows that restorative
justice allows the police to use their own judgement to deal with a situation (Shewan, 2011).
However, guidelines do state that once a restorative justice disposal has been given out by
an officer they must notify the youth offending team so that the young person can be flagged
up (Tudor, 2007). As a whole, both graphs above show that the crimes that had the highest
rate of none referrals where more than likely to have a higher amount of reoffending rates,
when compared to crimes that had a lower rate of none referrals.
Summary
As a whole, restorative justice can be an effective way of reducing reoffending rates in young
offenders, provided that the RJ disposal is being processed correctly by the police. The
findings in this chapter clearly state that if a young person is referred to positive steps, they
are less likely to reoffend when compared to a young offender who has not be referred. The
reason for this could be that positive steps is an environment where a victim and offender
can meet. This gives the offender the chance to see the impact of their actions (Hirsch et al,
2004). Arguably this insight in to the impact there actions have had can reintegrate them
back into society (London, 2014).
In addition to this, analysis shows that restorative justice can be an effective means of
reducing reoffending rates in young offenders, provided that it is not a serious crime. The
findings in this chapter show that restorative justice is not as effective when used for serious
38

offences such as a section 47 assault. Offenders that were given an RJ disposal for a
section 47 assault where more than likely to reoffend when compared to those that
committed the less serious section 39 assault. This evidence shows that restorative justice
should only be used for low level crime (Losel, 2013).
Furthermore, this chapter also shows what can happen to a young offender if they are given
multiple restorative justice disposals. Giving an offender multiple restorative justice disposals
is not an effective way of dealing with them (Goldson & Muncie, 2006). The data shows that
those with previous offences prior to the accessed RJ disposal are likely to reoffend.
Analysis suggests that it could be because the young offender believes that their actions do
not have a real consequence and feel as though they are getting away with the crime
(Goldson & Muncie, 2006).
A recommendation to overcome the issue of reoffending once a restorative justice disposal
has been given, is to ensure that the police notify the youth justice team once a young
person has received an RJ disposal. Evidence in this chapter suggests that referring a
young offender to positive steps is an effective way of reducing reoffending rates. Expanding
on this, to ensure that restorative justice disposals are used effectively they should only be
used for first time offenders, this is something that is in the guidelines (Tudor, 2007).
Analysis suggests that this is not always the case as restorative justice disposals can be
given out to individuals that have already offended in the past. Further analysis shows that
young offenders who are given multiple disposals are more likely to reoffend than those who
are not. This issue shows that restorative justice can lead to a young offender believing that
they are getting away with a crime (Goldson & Muncie, 2006).
Although these findings give an insight in to how restorative justice is used and its
effectiveness in reducing reoffending rates there are some issues. One issue that comes to
light is that the follow up period is only three months. This relatively small follow up period
makes it look as though reoffending rates are relatively low, a longer follow up period could
be used to give a better insight in to reoffending rates after a RJ disposal is given.
However, the data does shows that after only three months there are some young people
that reoffend. It can be assumed that there would have been a higher proportion of
individuals that reoffended if a larger follow up period was accessed. To overcome this issue
previous offences were also looked at in order to establish if the accessed RJ disposal was
the young offender’s first offence or if they had multiple crossings with the law. This was
used to assess the effectiveness of restorative justice disposals reducing reoffending rates.
39

Discussion
Returning to the original research question, is restorative justice an effective way of reducing
reoffending rates in young offenders. It can be assumed that restorative justice can be an
effective way of reducing reoffending rates. There are however, some key elements that
need to be followed to ensure that restorative justice is used in the most effective way.
One key element that should be followed to ensure that restorative justice is used effectively,
is that it must be the young offender’s first offence. Referring back to the findings, they
highlight the issue that if a young offender is given multiple restorative justice disposals they
have a greater chance of reoffending. This in turn can cause them to have reduce chance of
being reintegrated back in to society (Tudor, 2007). Expanding on this point, if a young
person has been given multiple disposals and is consistently reoffending it can be assumed
that they believe that they are getting away with criminal behaviour and do not see the
impact of their actions (Goldson & Muncie, 2006). This can then lead to further offences and
the possibility of more serious offences. Findings also suggest that restorative justice is an
effective way of diverting a young offender away from the criminal justice system but is not
effective when dealing with repeat offenders (Becker, 1997).
Further expanding on what could be done to ensure restorative justice is used effectively to
reduce reoffending rates, the young offender should be referred to the appropriate youth
justice / youth offending team (Tudor, 2007). This is in the guidelines of what should be
done once a restorative justice disposal has been given to a young offender (Tudor, 2007).
The findings chapter of this report highlights the issue that if a young person is not referred
to positive steps, they have a higher chance of reoffending when compared to young
offenders that have been referred to positive steps. This evidence therefore suggests that
nipping crime in the bud can be an effective way of reducing further offences (Hirsh et all,
2004). Furthermore, reintegrating a young offender back in to society and diverting them
away from the criminal justice system, could reduce the effect of them being labelled as a
criminal and them partaking in any further criminal activity (McAra & Mcvie, 2007).
Evidence support the idea that being referred to a youth justice / youth offending team, is an
effective use of a restorative justice disposal because it reduces reoffending rates. With this
in mind, another possibility that being referred to a youth offending team could have is that it
40

allows the offender to meet the victim (Youth Justice Board, 2013). Furthermore, referring
the young offender to positive steps allows a dialog to be opened up between the offender
and the victim (Renshaw, 2002). This meeting can be seen as an effective way of reducing
reoffending rates because it allows the young offender to see the impact of their actions
(Youth Justice Board, 2013).
Evidence in the findings chapter suggests that restorative justice given out in passing to
young offenders are not always being processed correctly. The findings chapter raises the
issue that only ten young offenders out of the eighty in the accessed sample had been
referred to positive steps. It could be suggested that the reason why the ten individual that
where referred to positive steps did not reoffend because they had the opportunity to see the
impact of their actions (Shewan, 2011). The realisation of the impact there behaviour has
had on an individual can be an effective method in reducing reoffending rates.
In addition to these points the restorative disposal must be suitable for the crime. Arguably
some offences are given a restorative justice disposals when a harsher sentence such as a
youth conditional caution is needed (Home affairs, 2015). Data in the findings chapter shows
that restorative justice has been given out for a sexual assault and possession of drugs
arguably a restorative justice disposal is not suitable from these types of crime (Home
affairs, 2015). Sexual assault is not a low level crime and should be dealt with in a different
way. Expanding on this point, the aim of restorative justice is for the offender to apologies for
their actions to the victim and open up a dialog between both parties involved (Renshaw,
2002). There is not a victim with the possession of drugs and a restorative justice disposal is
not an effective way of dealing with a young person who is in possession of drugs. The
findings chapter also shows that reoffending rates are higher in crimes which are seen as
serious such as a section 47 assault, this evidence shows that when restorative justice is
used for a serious crime the young offender does not see the true consequences of their
behaviour (Renshaw, 2002).
Recommendations
Moving forward one key recommendation would be that the police should notify the
appropriate youth offending team / youth justice team as evidence shows this is the most
effective way of reducing reoffending rates.
A young person should not be given a multiple restorative disposals as this can have a
negative impact on them reintegrating back in to society. To ensure that a young offender is
not given multiple disposals there should be better partnership between the appropriate
youth offending team and the police. The lack of communication between both organisations
can lead to young offenders falling through the cracks of the criminal justice system
41

(Shewan, 2011). Expanding on this, if young offenders are not being referred to positive
steps it means that the organisation is not being used effectively.
Another key recommendation from this report is to ensure that the crime meets the criteria of
a restorative justice disposal. The project highlights the issue that restorative justice can
sometimes be given out for serious offences such as sexual assault. Guidelines state that
restorative justice should be used for low level first time offenders (Losel, 2013). To ensure
the best outcome of a restorative justice disposal, more guidance should be given about
what crimes are deemed appropriate for a restorative justice disposal.
42

References List
Association of Chief Police Officers (2011) Restorative Justice Guidance and Minimum
Standards (Online) Available at
https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/ACPO%20restorative
%20justice%20guidance%20and%20minimum%20standards.pdf (Accessed 07 December)
Barnett, R (1977) Restitution: a new paradigm of criminal justice. Ethics 87:4, pp 279–301
Becker, H (1997) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. (New York: Free Press).
Blumer, H (1969) symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood cliffs, NJ :
Prentice-Hall
Bryman, A (2015) Social Research Methods: OUP Oxford 5th
edition.
Bryman, A (2012) Social Research Methods: OUP Oxford 5th
edition.
Criminal justice joint inspection (2011) Exercising Discretion: The Gateway to Justice A
study by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution
Service Inspectorate on cautions, penalty notices for disorder and restorative justice. (online)
Available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/CJI_20110609.pdf (Accessed 08 December 2015)
Dantzker, M and Hunter, R (2006) Research Methods for Criminology and criminal justice: a
primer: 2nd
ed. (Jones and Bartlett publishers)
Donogue, J. (2014) Transforming criminal Justice?: Problem-Solving and court
Specialisation (Routledge).
Doolin, K et al. (2011) Whose Criminal Justice?: State or Community?: (Waterside)
Field, A (2013) Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: SAGE Publications Ltd; 4th
Revised edition.
Great Britain (1998) Data Protection Act. London: (Stationery Office)
Hirsch, A et all. (2004) Ethical and Social perspective on situational crime prevention. (Hart
publishing)
House of Commons. (2015) Home Affairs Committee Out-of-Court Disposals. (Online)
Available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/799/799.pdf (Accessed
08 December 2015)
Joyce, P (2009) Criminology and Criminal Justice: A study guide (Willan; Stg edition)
London, R (2014) Crime, Punishment and Restorative Justice: A framework for Restoring
Trust. (Wipf and Stock)
Losel, F (2013) Young Adult Offenders: Lost in Transition? (Willan)
MacIntryre, A. (1985) After virtue: A Study in moral theory, 2nd
ed. London Duckworth
43

Marshall, T (1999). Restorative justice an overview. A report by the home office research
development and statistics directorate: Home office London
Mcara,L & Mcvie, S. The Impact of System Contact on patterns of Desistance from
Offending. European Journal of Criminology. 2007:Vol4, 315-345
Merton, R 1996. On social structure and science. (The university of Chicago press).
Ministry of Justice (2012) RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ACTION PLAN FOR THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. (Online) Available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217311/restor
ative-justice-action-plan.pdf (Accessed: 29th
March 2016).
Nacro, the crime reduction charity. 2015. Response to home Affairs Committee Inquiry into
Out of court Disposals. (Online) Available at
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-
affairs-committee/out-of-court-disposals/written/17626.html (Accessed 04 January)
Nacro. (2010). National centre for restorative justice
Penning, M. (2014) out of Court Disposals Consultation Response. (Online) Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370053/out-of-
court-disposals-response-to-consultation.pdf (Accessed 08 December 2015)
Renshaw, J. (2002). Restorative justice Source document: (London, YJB)
Restorative Justice Council. (2015) Restorative justice in youth offending teams. (Online)
Available at:
https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/kn1b_info_packs
%20(2)%20yot.pdf (Accessed 29th
March 2016)
Shapland et al (2008) Does restorative justice affect reconviction? (London MOJ)
Tudor, B. (2007) The Pocket Guide to restorative Justice (Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd)
Youth Justice Board (2013). Youth Out-of-Court Disposals Guide for police and Youth
offending Services (Online) Available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/438139/out-
court-disposal-guide.pdf (Accessed 07 December 2015)
Youth Justice Board (2015) Youth Justice Board/ Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin.
(Online) Available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399379/youth-
justice-annual-stats-13-14.pdf (Accessed 04 January 2016)
44

Variable Values
Value Label
Sex
1.00 Male
2.00 Female
offence
1.00 section39 Assault
2.00 section47 Assault
3.00 shoplifiting
4.00 possession
5.00 Damage
6.00 Other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
9.00 Section 4A public order
99.00 missing
Ethnicity
1.00 White
2.00 Black
3.00 Asian
4.00 Mixed
5.00 Other
99.00 missing
Referal
1.00 Yes
2.00 No
Disposal 1.00 RJ
Month
1.00 August
2.00 September
3.00 October
Typepreoff1 1.00 Section39 Assault
2.00 Section47 Assault
3.00 Shoplifting
46

4.00 Drug possession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assaults
10.00 No previous offence
99.00 missing
typeofpreconvic
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
3.00 Youth conditional caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoffence2
3.00 Shoplifting
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofpreconvic2
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoff3
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 possession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofpreconvict3 1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
47

4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoff4
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 Drug posession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofpreconvict4
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoff5
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 posession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofpreconvict5
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoff6 1.00 Section39 Assault
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 possession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
48

typeofpreconvict6
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoff7
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 Drug posession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofpreconvict7
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
typeofpreoff8
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 Drug posession
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofpreconvict8
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
Numberprev .00 0
1.00 1
2.00 2
49

3.00 3
4.00 4
5.00 5
6.00 6
7.00 7
8.00 8
9.00 9
amountofprefeferal
1.00 1
2.00 2
3.00 3
4.00 4
5.00 5
6.00 6
7.00 7
8.00 8
reoff
1.00 Yes
2.00 No
typeofreoff
3.00 Shoplifting
4.00 Posession
5.00 Damage
6.00 Other theft
7.00 Threats
8.00 Sex assault
typeofconvictreoff
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
referalreoff
1.00 Yes
2.00 No
3.00 N/A
typeofreoff2 1.00 Section39 Assault
3.00 Shoplifting
5.00 Damage
6.00 other theft
7.00 Threats
50

8.00 Sex assault
9.00 Section 4A Public order
99.00 N/A
typeofconvictreoff2
1.00 RJ
2.00 Youth caution
4.00 Charge
5.00 Triage
99.00 N/A
referalreoff2
1.00 Yes
2.00 No
3.00 N/A
noofreoff
.00 0
1.00 1
2.00 2
51

Q-Step project Memorandum of Understanding
This describes the arrangement between Manchester Metropolitan University’s Q-
step project, A report in to the impact of restorative justice disposals reducing
reoffending rates in young offenders. Positive steps (ORGANISATION). Ryan Kershaw
13122379 (STUDENT)
Student’s name & contact details:
Ryan Kershaw. Email :- Ryan.kershaw95@hotmail.co.uk
Contact within organisation & contact details:
Positive steps (Oldham) Claire : - 0161 621 9400
Q-Step tutor & contact details
Paul Gray P.Gray@mmu.ac.uk & Graham Smyth G.Smyth@mmu.ac.uk
Brief outline of project
The overall project is to establish the effectiveness of restorative justice disposals reducing
reoffending rates in young offenders.
52

MMU is one of 15 Q-Step Centres. ‘Q-Step aims to promote a step-change in
undergraduate quantitative social science training in the UK, encouraging the
development of new and exciting ways of teaching that will attract and enthuse
and signalling the importance of quantitative training to a wide range of payers
across the education sector’. Students will conduct data analysis and primary
research for partner organisations; gaining real world experience of quantitative
research and developing a range of skills to make them career-ready.
The Organisation has agreed to allow the Student to work at its premises as part of
the Q-Step Project and the Student’s undergraduate degree. The Student’s
attendance will be based on the requirements of the organisation and the scope of
their Q-Step project, necessitating their attendance on site to conduct their
research. The Q-Step team will inform the organisation of the course requirements
and the course objectives and a minimum level of attendance will be agreed
between the parties. As the research develops, it will be the responsibility for the
student and organisation to discuss attendance over and above the minimum
requirement.
The Q-Step team must ensure that research conducted within the organisation
provides adequate opportunities for the student’s learning outcomes to be
achieved, and that this opportunity meets academic guidelines and the relevant
policies of the University. Equally, the Organisation will want to ensure that it is
receiving the maximum benefit of enthusiastic and capable students. Most
importantly, the Q-Step team must ensure that the research conducted within the
organisation offers a safe and secure environment for the Student. A member of the
Q-Step team will monitor, at regular intervals, the Student’s progress whilst they are
conducting research within your organisation. This may include on- site visits on
reasonable notice.
MMU expects that the Organisation will require students to abide by its policies,
procedures and codes of practice including those relating to disciplinary rules and
health and safety, and will provide copies and an appropriate induction to the
Student.
The Student will provide the organisation with a Report of the outcomes upon
completion of the placement (precise requirements in this respect to be agreed at
the outset of the placement).
53

A. Ryan Kershaw agrees to:
1. Conduct the specified piece of research at the organisation named above for the
minimum number of hours specified.
(Please specify number of hours) 8
2. Produce/submit a Report by 03/05/2016
3. Use reasonable endeavours to meet all agreed deadlines for project work (both
interim and final).
4. Abide by confidentiality and data protection agreements provided by the Q-Step
project or MMU. At all times, use reasonable endeavours to safeguard and protect
the confidentiality of the data of the Organisation and Q-Step Project following any
specific instructions provided by the Organisation.
5. Securely store, password-protect, and back up all data and material provided or
collected for your Q-Step project in accordance with the directions given to you by
your Q-Step tutor. Data must be not be stored on any portable storage devices.
6. Inform your Q-Step tutor and the above-named Organisation at the earliest
opportunity if there are any circumstances which may hinder the progress of the
Project.
7. Attend all scheduled meetings held by the Q-Step team and your Q-Step supervisor.
8. Attend all training sessions identified as necessary for your Q-Step project.
9. Treat all individuals fairly and not discriminate on the basis of (for example) age,
ethnic or racial origin, gender, sexual orientation, social background, religion,
disability.
A. The Q-Step Team agrees to:
1. Explain the standards, procedures and deliverables expected of students.
2. Provide encouragement and support to help students achieve the Project outcomes.
54

3. Provide students with appropriate and timely skills training.
4. Address any problems and difficulties raised by students in a timely manner.
5. Communicate clear deadlines for work and provide regular supervision sessions for
students.
6. Contact organisation and arrange to visit placement if appropriate in December
2015 and February 2016 in order to ascertain that the placement is running smoothly.
7. Treat all students in accordance with Manchester Metropolitan University’s equal
opportunities policy (http://www.mmu.ac.uk/equality-and-diversity/).
A. Positive steps agrees to:
1. Provide appropriate supervision and support for the Student.
2. Provide a named contact/supervisor for the Student.
3. Undertake a risk assessment on behalf of the student prior to the start of the Project
and provide a copy to the Q-Step team. The Organisation is responsible for the health
and safety of students on placement. At the very start of each placement the
Organisation must provide the student with an appropriate induction on health and
safety and provide all necessary health and safety information and equipment. The
Organisation warrants that
it has not been in receipt of any health and safety improvement or prohibition notices
or convictions.
4. Provide the necessary organisational training to enable the Student to work on the
Project.
5. Maintain contact with the named Q-Step tutor to provide progress updates, and to
report any concerns about the progress of the Report, or conduct of the Student.
6. Provide the Student with access to all the necessary resources required for the Project
to be completed.
7. Provide the Student with an appropriate working environment (if agreed).
55

8. The Organisation acknowledges that the Student’s principal purpose shall be to
enhance, develop and further their educational knowledge in relation to their
undergraduate studies and such educational progression is of paramount
importance.
9. Students will go through the MMU ethical approval process prior to commencing their
research work.
10. To insure the Student whilst they are conducting the research for your organisation in
the same way you would an employee and provide appropriate details to MMU, if
requested. Specifically, this should include employer’s liability and public liability
cover.
11. The Organisation must ensure that it complies with all legislation and codes of
practice which may be relevant in the workplace as regards the students. This will
include health and safety and anti-discrimination legislation. If a student wishing to go
on placement has a disability to which the Equality Act 2010 applies, the University will
(if it is able) inform you in good time and will provide you with all relevant information
in order to maintain the health and safety of the student and to enable both parties
to comply with the Act. However, you should note that the University will only be
aware of a student’s disability if the disability has been disclosed to it, and may be
prevented by the Equality Act or Data Protection Act 1998 from passing details on to
you.
A. The Data
All Parties will comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and any modifications and
amendments thereto.
Please identify whether the student is / is not able to work on the data outside of the
organisation and notify the Q-Step Tutor prior to the research commencing.
Any data, collected or provided, will be kept on a secure, password-protected network.
Only named members of the Q-Step team will have access to this data, and students will
only be able to access data relating to the project on which they are working.
This Memorandum of Understanding does not give any licence or right to use the University’s
pre-existing intellectual property rights. As a general rule, the Student will own any
intellectual property rights they create, subject to any term in this Memorandum of
Understanding to the contrary.
56

The Organisation will retain ownership of any pre-existing data that it owns but grants MMU
and the Student a royalty- free licence to use such intellectual property or data for the
Project and for any future use as specified within this MoU. Data collected as part of the
Project shall be jointly owned by MMU and the Organisation (“Foreground IPR”). Ownership
of the Report itself is shared between the Student, the Organisation and the Q-Step team
(MMU). The Foreground IPR and Report shall be known as the Results of the Project. The
Student notes this exception from MMU’s Intellectual Property Policy.
The Organisation shall be entitled to use the Foreground IPR and the Report for its own
internal business purposes and to support funding applications subject to the Organisation at
all times acknowledging the provisions of clause E. The Sociology Department’s Q-Step team
and the Student shall be entitled to use the Foreground IPR and the Report for academic
teaching and research and as part of the wider Q-Step project. The Student shall be entitled
to use the Foreground IPR and/or Report for his/her studies and for submission for
examination. The Q-Step team and the Student shall be entitled to discuss work undertaken
as part of the Project in University seminars, tutorials and lectures and publish the Results
(which may include any Background IPR of any Party) subject to any approvals required in
accordance with the terms of this MoU.
To safeguard access to the data, the Q-Step team ask for exclusivity of access to data
provided or collected for use in the Q-Step project until we are advised that you no longer
wish to participate in the Q-Step project.
Publication of the Results will be subject to consultation between the applicable parties
owning such part of the Results named above (no one party has the right to publish without
the approval of the others) save that the Organisation acknowledges that the Student may
wish to publish some or all of the results of the Project, Foreground IPR or Report as part of
his/her studies. This MoU shall not prevent the Student from submitting any data or the Report
for examination; the disclosure of such information, conclusions or Report to any examiner;
and the lodging in MMU’s Library of a copy of the Report or other material in accordance
with MMU’s regulations.
The Student’s and the Q-Step team’s input must be appropriately credited in any
publications resulting from research they have undertaken in connection with this MoU.
B. Outcomes
Whilst MMU will endeavour to see that the Project is carried out in the expectation that
useful results are forthcoming, neither MMU nor the Student shall in any way be liable in
respect of the nature of any results of the Project or the Report and in particular MMU
shall not be in any way liable in the event that the Project does not yield any results that
are of value to the Organisation or for any reliance placed upon the results. Any
conditions or warranties (whether express or implied by statute or common law) as to the
manner in which the Project is to be performed are hereby expressly excluded. The
University’s maximum liability to the Organisation in relation to this MoU will not exceed
£100,000.
F. Duration and Termination
57

This MoU shall remain in place for as long as the research lasts. If either the Student, the
Organisation or the Q-Step team wishes to end its involvement with the Project, they will
give at least one month’s notice (and the Organisation will allow any existing or
committed research projects to be completed).
If the student or the organisation is unhappy with the progress of the Project, they should
speak to the Q-Step team as soon as possible so that this can be negotiated with a view
to finding a resolution as quickly as possible.
General
The terms of this MoU may only be amended in writing, signed by each Party.
This MoU is subject to English law and (if mediation fails) the jurisdiction of the English
courts.
This MoU is only enforceable by its parties. No third party (including for the avoidance of
doubt any student) has the right to enforce or rely upon any term of this letter under the
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
58

59
Claire Taylor: - 0161 621 9400
Ryan Kershaw: - 0784 9481 383
Paul Gray: - 161 247 3456

Restorative Justice Full project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Restorative Justice Full project

Similar to Restorative Justice Full project (11)

Restorative Justice Full project