Evidencing Success for Subjective Stakeholders in Restorative Justice

This paper outlines research findings from a survey and interviews with restorative justice (RJ) practitioners on their definitions and processes for evidencing success in RJ. Despite a robust and global evidence base, RJ has ebbed and flowed in terms of use and popularity. RJ is a transformative approach within criminal justice and has been applied in sectors as diverse as schools, prisons, and social work. RJ focuses on relationships, involving the harmed, those who have caused harm, and their community stakeholders. RJ emphasises healing, learning, and reconciliation over punitive forms of traditional punishment. This research asks the question, what needs to happen to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of RJ interventions to support their expansion. RJ service evaluation was identified as a key challenge by the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on RJ (APPG-RJ). Academics have critiqued the subservience of RJ to dominant reductionist discourses within public and human service commissioning that are grounded in new public management approaches. Demands for an adherence to standards that do not align with the core values of RJ have resulted in the ineffective measurement of processes and outcomes. Resultantly, quantitative measures of cost-benefit and offender recidivism have been the prevailing metrics. This research turned to practitioners with lived experience to investigate qualitatively how they define the evaluation metrics of ‘effectiveness’, ‘efficiency’, and ‘impact’ in their practice. The findings of a thematic analysis of interview and survey data identified multiple subjective definitions, which can be mapped across invested stakeholders using a socio-ecological systems theory approach. This paper outlines research findings from a survey and interviews with restorative justice (RJ) practitioners on their definitions and processes for evidencing success in RJ. Despite a robust and global evidence base, RJ has ebbed and flowed in terms of use and popularity. RJ is a transformative approach within criminal justice and has been applied in sectors as diverse as schools, prisons, and social work. RJ focuses on relationships, involving the harmed, those who have caused harm, and their community stakeholders. RJ emphasises healing, learning, and reconciliation over punitive forms of traditional punishment. This research asks the question, what needs to happen to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of RJ interventions to support their expansion. RJ service evaluation was identified as a key challenge by the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on RJ (APPG-RJ). Academics have critiqued the subservience of RJ to dominant reductionist discourses within public and human service commissioning that are grounded in new public management approaches. Demands for an adherence to standards that do not align with the core values of RJ have resulted in the ineffective measurement of processes and outcomes. Resultantly, quantitative measures of cost-benefit and offender recidivism have been the prevailing metrics. This research turned to practitioners with lived experience to investigate qualitatively how they define the evaluation metrics of ‘effectiveness’, ‘efficiency’, and ‘impact’ in their practice. The findings of a thematic analysis of interview and survey data identified multiple subjective definitions, which can be mapped across invested stakeholders using a socio-ecological systems theory approach.