Partnership working

Most practitioners identified partnership working as essential for effective restorative justice work. However, the general consensus was that this was not currently happening. As expressed by PR 10, restorative justice is ‘missing a trick’:

“There are little pockets of restorative justice, it’s so not joined-up though at the moment. You know, the police are doing their bit, but that tends to be pre-sentence, and then you’ve got … a housing association …

and they have their own sort of restorative justice team, so they’re doing a little. And then there’s me in probation, but I’m the only person coordinating it … So you’ve got these little pockets, and I’m sure that’s the case up and down the country, but there are various [organisations], but there’s no joined up thinking on it at the moment. It seems like we’re missing a trick!” (PR 10: PROB)

There were some examples of good practice within the data where there was linked-up working, practices of sharing information and clear referral mechanisms. Though there were some limited examples of it in other sections, good linked-up multiagency working was especially identified in the youth section of the data. In the youth sector restorative justice sat in the context of multiagency team working, where for example a team would consist of a mental health worker, a substance abuse worker and an educational worker. There were also clear overlaps between restorative justice working and other work with the young person, including special packages for working with females. The value of this type of multiagency working came through very clearly in the data. The prominence of this theme in the youth section of the data gives clear support to previous research showing that young people have better access to mental health support and drug and alcohol interventions than adult populations in criminal justice (Marder, 2013).

Recognising the themes highlighted in section 3.1.1 regarding the need for specialist skills to unpick complex needs, several practitioners emphasised that this area particularly needed good partnership working. For example:

“It must be done in partnership … For the police to get it right they have to be working with people who are already doing it well, with the right skillsets.” (PR 3: POL)

The skillsets required for treating complex needs and performing restorative justice are likely to be rather different, and restorative justice workers should not be expected to fulfil all roles. Arguably this makes good referral and signposting practices, situated in the context of partnership working, even more important. As exemplified by PR 7:

“I think what it could do is that it could provide, a restorative justice practitioner could provide a catalyst for a referral … That’s what we need to do, rather than just, just go back and revisit it once whatever it is that’s going on has been dealt with.” (PR 7: POL)

Indeed, some practitioners recognised restorative justice as an opportunity for women to be linked in to appropriate support. As also suggested by PR 3:

“A lot of these women offenders to turn their life around, or get some

support, or break away from it, they need a bit more … A lot of them will need encouragement for the chaotic lives they have going on as well, so it’s a case of, you know, this is your opportunity to stay out of prison, to get some support, to think about your children, to think about yourself.” (PR 3: POL)

As expressed clearly by a significant majority of the practitioners, due to the complexity in their lives, restorative justice is likely to be one of many mechanisms that can offer positive change for female offenders.

3.6.1 The role of women’s centres

To echo Miles’ (2013) findings, this study found major scope for partnership between women’s centres and restorative justice facilities. As noted by organisation such as Clinks (2014) and AGENDA (Scott and McManus, 2016), gender-specific services are more likely to offer service provision that is gender-responsive, and have the right expertise to identify and effectively treat complex female needs. Situated in a safe, familiar and supportive space, women, and those supporting them towards change, are more likely to make informed decisions about suitable processes. The value of ‘one-stop-shop’ working with women in the criminal justice system was recognised in a small section of the practitioner data. As noted by PR 10: “The things outlined in the Corston report as being the most effective of treating women offenders, and absolutely it does work! It’s quite extraordinary what difference it makes. So women are already using this centre and are familiar with the fact that, you know, it’s a one-stop-shop, where you can go to get help with housing, with debt, with getting a CV, with anything … There’s so many things happening in this one building, so when they actually get sentences to do the women’s programme, they’re going somewhere they’re already familiar with … And as a result, offending rates are reduced … It really does make a difference” (PR 10: PROB)

A small number of practitioners in this sample had attempted to liaise with women’s centres, but with little success. There were hints in the data of a reluctance from professionals in women’s centres to engage with restorative justice, potentially due to them working at a highly stretched capacity. Indeed, many of the centres contacted for this study had lost their funding, or were so overwhelmed with work that they could not engage with the study. However many expressed an interest in the development of some form of partnership working in the restorative justice area. It is suggested that this would offer a good opportunity to deliver effective and ethical forms of restorative justice with women who have committed an offence.

Findings:

Female offenders’