RJC principles of restorative practice

Results of 2015 consultation

The consultation

As part of the 2015 standards and guidance review, the RJC sought views from members on a proposed new version of the RJC Principles of Restorative Processes, a document published in 2004 aimed at setting out the core values of restorative practice. The consultation ran for a month and elicited 41 responses.

The consultation paper set out the 28 principles drafted in 2004 and compared them with the principles of other similar organisations such as the Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and National Family Mediation. The consultation document explained that for reasons of accessibility and clarity it was important that the RJC principles should be reduced to a set of no more than 10 bullet points which encapsulate the key ethical and guiding philosophical concepts underpinning the practice area.

The consultation proposed the adoption of sixprinciples relating to the core elements of restorative practice, each directly related to the 2004 principles:

  1. Restoration – the primary aim of restorative practice is to repair harm.
  2. Voluntarism – participation in restorative processes is voluntary and based on informed choice.
  3. Neutrality – restorative processes are fair and unbiased towards either participant.
  4. Safety – processes and practice ensure the safety of all participants and create a safe space for expression of feelings and views about harm that has been caused.
  5. Confidentiality – processes are confidential, subject to the requirements of the law.
  6. Accessibility – restorative processes are non-discriminatory and available to all those affected by conflict.

Members were asked whether or not they agreed with the proposed principles and whether there were any areas or principles they would like to see added that were not covered.

The results

Forty-one responses were received. They were a mixture of completed survey responses (34) and emails (seven). Many respondents only answered specific questions and left others out. The charts below show the level of support from respondents to each principle in turn. Each principle is discussed with reference to the comments and suggestions made by respondents.

1.Proposed Principle 1 - Restoration - the primary aim of restorative practice is to repair harm

The majority of respondents were in favour of this principle. Some respondents commented that ‘restoration’ may mean different things to different people and that the word may not have a single unambiguous meaning outside of the restorative practice community. ‘Reparation’ was suggested as an alternative. However, given that this word has a different meaning (and could have the unintended consequence of implying that restorative practice is solely aimed at the offender making amends in a tangible way - for example, paying compensation) it was decided to retain the word ‘restoration’ as an acceptable fit.

A respondent suggested that the principle be amended to read: “the primary aim of restorative practice is to address and repair harm”. This suggestion was accepted as a sensible way of reflecting the fact that restorative processes are aimed at allowing those who have been harmed a way to address the harm before any possible repair can be discussed.

2.Proposed Principle 2 - Voluntarism - participation in restorative processes is voluntary and based on informed choice

The vast majority of respondents were in favour of this principle. One respondent (citing practice in some parts of America) commented that there might be occasions where an offender could be compelled to take part in a restorative process. The RJC does not consider that participant (whether victim or offender) involvement in any restorative process should ever be compelled. The principle that those who take part in a process do so of their own volition is an important one and key to achieving the best possible outcome for those involved.

3.Proposed Principle 3 – Neutrality – restorative processes are fair and unbiased towards either participant

The majority of respondents agreed with the neutrality principle. Seven respondents,however,did not agree with this principle. There was a sense amongst those who disagreed that restorative processes should be victim focused and therefore cannot be said to be completely neutral. One respondent stated that their difficulty with the principle stemmed from the fact that practitioners themselves cannot be completely neutral and will naturally be affected by human bias. This is a perfectly valid observation.These are principles of practice, however, and as it is important that the processes are impartial, the principle was retained.

One respondent suggested changing the name of this principle to ‘equally partial’, another suggested changing it to ‘multi-partial’. Having considered these suggestions, it was felt to be important that the principles are simple to understand, clear and accessible to both those working in the field and the general public. For these reasons neutrality (as a largely well understood concept) has been retained rather than replaced by terms which could cause confusion in their interpretation.

Three respondents suggested replacing the word neutrality with ‘impartiality’. This was discussed at some length.The decision was taken to retain the word neutrality, however, which it was decided could be more properly associated with restorative practice as opposed to impartiality which is a competence or skill that practitioners should have and is covered in the RJC Practitioner Competency Framework and handbook.

4.Proposed Principle 4 - Safety - processes and practice ensure the safety of all participants and create a safe space for expression of feelings and views about harm that has been caused

The vast majority of respondents agreed with the principle of safety and many commented that they thought this principle to be of paramount importance. One respondent commented that the principle of safety should be balanced with the need to avoid extreme risk aversion. Excessive risk aversion (perhaps an overestimation of participant vulnerability) may lead practitioners to reject cases that they are perfectly capable of running. A sensible and proportionate approach to risk and safety is recommended.

One respondent commented that safety can never be ensured and that the principle should be amended to reflect this. The point was considered a sensible one and so the principle has been amended to: “Safety - processes and practice aim to ensure the safety of all participants and create a safe space for the expression of feelings and views about harm that has been caused”.

5.Proposed Principle 5 - Confidentiality - processes are confidential, subject to the requirements of the law

This principle provoked considerable discussionin the responses received with some respondents raising the valid concern that restorative processes cannot always be confidential and that there will be instances where a participant may wish to share their experience of the process publicly and that practitioners could not (and should not) prevent them from being able to do this. Confidentiality, therefore, cannot ever really be guaranteed unless all participants request and agree to it. It is accepted that such agreement may not be possible to reach in many cases.

Another example given was that of ‘street RJ’which by its very public nature is a form of restorative process that is almost impossible to keep confidential.

For these reasons confidentiality has been removed from the principles. Practitioner skills relating to the need to respect privacy and maintain confidentiality when this is desired by participants is covered in the RJC Practitioner Competency Framework.

This issue will be covered and there will be an opportunity to comment again when the handbooks for trainers, practitioners and service providers go out for general consultation in September 2015.

6.Proposed Principle 6 - Accessibility -restorative processes are non-discriminatory and available to all those affected by conflict

The vast majority of respondents were in favour of this principle. One respondent stated that in reality restorative processes are not as accessible as they should be and that therefore in their view accessibility is a principle that does not reflect reality. This was considered, but it should be remembered that these are high level principles of restorative processes to be aimed for- they are not necessarily going to reflect the reality of every restorative intervention.

One respondent suggested amending the principle to reflect the fact that processes should be open to those affected by harm as well as conflict. This was accepted and so the principle has been amended to: “Accessibility - restorative processes are non-discriminatory and avilable to all those affected by conflict and harm”.

7.Additional areas and principles suggested via the consultation

Respondents were asked if there were any areas of restorative practice or principles that were not covered in the original consultation document and that should have been covered. A number of areas were suggested. RJC discussions on these additional areas were mindful of the need to avoid:

  • duplication
  • adding too many further principles
  • ambiguity or lack of clarity

The suggested additional areas and the RJC’s consideration of them are dealt with in turn below.

a)Respect - a substantial number of respondents suggested that the principle of respect should be added as a core value and requirement of any restorative intervention. After consideration of this point it was decided to add respect as a principle and this is reflected in the final set of principles below.

b)Equality - one respondent suggested this area butthe RJC considered it to fit within the principle of accessibility detailed above.

c)Reconciliation - it was decided not to include this as a specific principle on the basis that reconciliation is an unrealistic aim for restorative processes in many cases. To include it as a principle may give participants unrealistic expectations and place an unnecessary burden on practitioners to achieve something that may be unachievable.

d)Reintegration - as above, this will not be achievable in many cases. Arguably it is not the aim of restorative processes although it may,on occasion, be a positive outcome from a process.

e)Problem solving - this is more of a skill than a principle of restorative practice.

f)Empathy - this was considered in detail but has not been taken forward due to the fact that these principles cover restorative processes rather than practitioner characteristics and skills.

g)Accountability -respondents suggesting this area did not elaborate on what this might specifically entail. Accountability of the practitioner may be relevant but these are principles of process rather than individual practitioners. It was not possible to draft a principle of accountability that could apply to restorative practice as a practice area.

h)Risk management - the ability to assess, manage and mitigate risk is an important practitioner skill and is reflected in the RJC Practitioner Competency Framework ( where it is considered to more properly sit, as opposed to within the practice principles.

RJC principles of restorative processes

Following consideration of all the points made above during the consultation with the profession, the finalised set of sixprinciples of restorative practice are set out below:

  1. Restoration - the primary aim of restorative practice is to address and repair harm.
  2. Voluntarism- participation in restorative processes is voluntary and based on informed choice.
  3. Neutrality- restorative processes are fair and unbiased towards either participant.
  4. Safety- processes and practice aim to ensure the safety of all participants and create a safe space for the expression of feelings and views about harm that has been caused.
  5. Accessibility- restorative processes are non-discriminatory and available to all those affected by conflict and harm.
  6. Respect- restorative processes are respectful to the dignity of all participants and those affected by the harm caused.

Restorative Justice Council

August 2015

1