Update on the development and delivery of restorative justice within the MPS

Report: 11
Date: 7 April 2011
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Operations, (ACTP), on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report summarises the progress of Restorative Justice within the MPS, together with an update on the pilot at Greenwich.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members note the contents of this report on the progress of Restorative Justice to date.

B. Supporting information

Background Information

1. Restorative Justice, (RJ), is a victim focused resolution to incidents of crime or non-crime. It can hold offenders of all ages directly accountable to victims and can bring them all together in a facilitated meeting. RJ can be an alternative disposal to, or complement, the formal criminal justice system (CJS). The RJ process is flexible and can be used to address many types of conflict, both for crime and for non-crime related incidents.

2. Within neighbourhood policing it can help problem-solve by providing another disposal outcome which is victim-centric. In regard to low impact crime, it can offer a proportionate response with tangible outcomes for victims.

3. Restorative Justice also offers those who have suffered harm (the victim), the opportunity to have their harm or loss acknowledged and amends made with meaningful actions. For example: repair; reparation; an apology; or works within the community. Police will explain in detail to victims the limits of police engagement, particularly in relation to reparation and recompense, as these forms of intervention will neither be supervised nor guaranteed by police.

4. From the victims perspective RJ can provide:

• An opportunity to explain the impact of the crime
• An acknowledgement of the harm caused
• A chance to ask questions
• Peace of mind about the future
• An agreed apology, reparation or recompense.

5. From the offender’s perspective RJ can provide:

• An opportunity to explain what happened
• The opportunity to make reparation
• The opportunity to consider the impact
• An opportunity to re-integrate into the community

The MPS Position

6. On 26th July 2010, TP Chief Officer Group agreed that the MPS approach to RJ would be to develop an RJ program incorporating the first two levels of RJ intervention. The final level of RJ intervention is to be developed whilst Levels I and II become embedded. The levels of intervention are:

• Level I interventions- On-street interventions.
• Level II Interventions - More complex cases for conferencing.
• Level III Interventions -Interventions that run alongside formal disposal options at court, for example post-sentence and on release from prison.

The guidance for officers in identifying offences for which RJ can be used

7. The MPS RJ Guidance has been developed in line with ACPO minimum standards and consultation with the Restorative Justice Council (RJC). It provides an introduction to and the principles of RJ with details of qualifying criteria and necessary considerations. Currently, Level I (street interventions) can be considered for the following offences:

• Theft up to £100
• Criminal Damage up to £300
• Common Assault
• Section 5 Public order Act
• Section 4 Public Order Act

The majority of Level II interventions are expected to initiate from custody, or other arenas such as schools, or a community environment. These will be for similar offences to Level I and where conferencing is required to deal with the issues in greater depth. The mechanisms and protocols for Level III, such as whose role it will be to undertake such interventions, will be developed as the project progresses.

An overview of training officers will receive in implementing RJ

8. The national voice for restorative practice, the RJC, recommend that training be delivered by staff familiar with facilitating RJ, (for example, those with previous practitioner experience). In line with recommendations from the RJC, the Project Team have developed an MPS Level I & II RJ training package. All training is currently being delivered within RJC guidelines.

9. Level I training is currently a one-day classroom based course, to be delivered to all front-line operational staff, such as response teams and safer neighbourhood teams. Level II training is currently a three day classroom based course, and is primarily aimed at community-based officers, such as: Safer Schools; Youth Offending Teams; and Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

10. The basic learning outcomes for Level I are:

• Define Restorative Justice
• To gain an awareness of restorative interventions
• Identify the qualities and skills a facilitator needs
• Identify the benefits of Restorative Justice
• Identify suitable cases
• Explain the model of Restorative Justice used by the MPS
• Identify the needs of all parties involved
• Conduct a risk assessment prior to facilitating a restorative intervention
• To facilitate a restorative intervention
• Correctly complete the restorative intervention administrative process

11. Level II explores these outcomes in much greater depth, where the emphasis is on conferencing. Level III will be developed whilst levels 1 and 2 are embedded.

How RJ interventions will be recorded, including diversity strand data.

12. Incidents involving crimes that are to be notified to the Home Office will continue to be recorded on the MPS crime information recording system, (CRIS). For the purposes of the pilot, four local CRIS RJ flags have been made available to track offences. The flags will allow the MPS to later differentiate for statistical purposes, between Level I and Level II offences and those incidents occurring within a schools environment. The flags will also enable the search of recorded diversity strand data. This will allow for monitoring and scrutiny of any dis-proportionality within RJ interventions. Incidents that do not require notification will be recorded on the MPS criminal intelligence system, (CRIMINT).

13. The Project team have developed a Book 131 for recording Level I street interventions, and a Form 131 for Level II interventions, both include self-defined ethnicity data. Further discussions are taking place to develop an appropriate and cost effective CRIS recording solution for the future full roll-out. This includes working with the MPS Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate, (DCFD), to ensure all diversity data is captured. An RJ category for MPS call handling system, (CAD & CHS), is also under development, and is likely to be available by the summer of 2011.

An update on the Greenwich ‘Proof of Concept’ operation, (pilot)

14. The initial pilot site is within the Borough of Greenwich. Due to significant operational commitments over the Christmas and New Year period the training delivery schedule was delayed, and training did not begin until January 2011. To date 60 officers are now trained to deliver a combination of Level I & II interventions. It is anticipated that a total of 200 officers will have received training by the end of March 2011. The conclusion of the pilot will be the end of June 2011.

15. Although several interventions have taken place to date, the feedback from Greenwich officers on the pilot is that the scope of the offender profile may be too restrictive to encompass many of the low level offenders they come into contact with. In our pilot, the MPS have initially interpreted eligibility as no previous offending history at all. This may result in too few RJ interventions in order to: effectively evaluate the pilot; fully realize the benefits from RJ; or provide an appropriate return on training investment. ACPO minimum standards state the previous record of the offender should be taken into account when deciding whether to consider RJ. It goes on to state that Police Services should take a flexible approach as to how many RJ disposals it will allow. Other Police Services have interpreted eligibility for an RJ in slightly different ways. For example, one county allows for no offending history within the last 2 years, whereas another county allows those who would be eligible for a caution, final warning or reprimand to be considered for an RJ intervention.

16. The MPS eligibility criteria is therefore being examined in light of the feedback from Greenwich officers and is being addressed by the Project Board. Should approval to change offender scope be granted, the mid term and full term evaluations will capture any differences in the quantity of interventions made.

An overview of the monitoring, measuring and evaluation processes for RJ

17. As previously stated in paragraph 11. RJ interventions will be recorded on the CRIS and CRIMINT systems. Local use of RJ as a disposal will be closely monitored at the pilot site by the nominated single point of contact, the Criminal Justice Unit Chief Inspector, and the Project Team. Full evaluation criteria are currently being researched by the Project Team along the MPS Strategic and Research Unit, (SRAU). In any event, the evaluation is likely to include: engagement with both victims and offenders; satisfaction levels; re-offending rates; dis-proportionality; and cost savings. Learning gained from the evaluation will then be taken forward and incorporated into any future roll-out.

An overview of the communication strategy, (internal and external)

18. The Project Team have been working closely with the MPS Directorate of Public Affairs and the local Greenwich Borough Press Liaison officer to develop an appropriate strategy. Key messages have been developed which include:

• Promoting that RJ empowers the victim to ask “Why me?”
• Improves victim and public confidence.
• Encourages the professional use of discretion.
• Other Forces with RJ provide evidence that support the fact that RJ reduces re-offending, and reduces first time entry into the Criminal Justice system.
• Similarly, evidence also supports the reduction in time taken for officers to deal with low level offending, thereby increasing further visibility through patrol.
• Aspiration to use Level II and III to run along-side formal criminal justice disposals.

19. The internal target audience includes mainly Borough police officers and police staff. The external audience includes: partner agencies; London Criminal Justice System partners; local media; and local communities.

20. A local steering group, whose members include town centre, local authority, and local Hate crime panel, has been established. It meets monthly to discuss emerging issues and enable community engagement and scrutiny.

An overview of the planned aftercare for the offender, (Harmer), and the victim, (Harmed).

21. It is recognized by the RJC, and others, that the RJ outcome may repair harm. However if an offender fails to comply with an agreed outcome, whilst reversion to a civil process can be explored, this may not succeed therefore police cannot guarantee the repair of harm to the victim. During training the need to manage the expectations of the victim, (harmed), is strongly reinforced. Within the confines of the pilot it will be possible to follow up on outcomes. However, a balance will need to be struck in any future roll-out due to potential volume and resource implications. It is anticipated that dip-sampling will still enable further learning to take place, such as satisfaction levels and process improvements. ‘Victim’ should also be considered in its widest sense, to include communities, any longer term community need and impact should be considered as part of any RJ.

22. Similarly, the needs of the offender, (harmer), must be managed. Any risk assessment of the victim should apply to the offender and any potential support identified and dealt with as necessary. All offenders will be informed that information regarding the RJ may be disclosed if they are subject to an enhanced check by the Criminal Records Bureau. This will reveal any RJ interventions recorded on the CRIS or CRIMINT systems.

The funding source, cost of Greenwich Proof of Concept, (pilot), and anticipated cost of a full roll-out

23. In January 2011 £32,000 was made available from TP Criminal Justice Department for the introduction of RJ within the MPS. The pilot so far has been realised at minimal cost, with £2,000 spent to date and a further projected £1300 spend anticipated before the end of the financial year. The spend has been kept low largely due to the training being both developed and delivered ‘in-house’ by the MPS, rather than buying in ‘external’ training and materials. The bulk of costs, as will be the case with a full roll-out, are the opportunity costs associated with officers attending the training and officers delivering the training.

24. The anticipated cost of a full roll-out is difficult to quantify with certainty at this time. This is in large part due to the imminent change in the method of training delivery within the MPS. This is set to change in April 20011 from Borough-based training to delivery at a number of Regional centres. The Project Team are in discussion with the developing training project to keep abreast of changes. The impact on RJ training, subsequent timelines for roll-out and costs will need to be finalised once the restructuring is complete.

25. However, what can be said at this time is that it is currently estimated that 22,000 front-line officers will require the Level I course and 550 officers will require the Level II course. This equates to a total of 23,650 staff training days.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. The impact of Equality and Diversity has been considered throughout the development of the project, and the initiation of the pilot. The MPS Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate, (DCFD), sit on the RJ Project Board and have been continuously consulted on the development of the pilot. The Greenwich Hate Crime Panel has also been engaged throughout the process. An initial screening Equality Impact Assessment, (EIA), was initiated prior to the start of the pilot. This is currently being revised and expanded now the pilot is operational.

2. As already stated at paragraph 20. A local steering group, whose members include town centre, local authority, and local Hate crime panel, has been established. It meets monthly to discuss emerging issues and enable community engagement and scrutiny.

Consideration of Met Forward

3. Restorative Justice supports all three key outcomes of Met Forward.

• It empowers victims thereby improving confidence.
• It delivers value for money by reducing the time taken for officers to process low level offenders on the street.
• It is proven to reduce re-offending, thereby reducing crime and criminality.

4. Met connect: By dealing with crime in a restorative way RJ allows victims to confront perpetrators. This empowers them and increases their confidence in their neighbourhood and the police. RJ reduces the time spent processing low level offenders, thereby enabling more police presence on the streets. There are also considerable societal benefits for both offenders and victims if offending can be stopped at the first offence. This will include fiscal benefits throughout the criminal justice system.

5. Met partners: Successful RJ means effective joint engagement with our partner agencies and local communities. It builds on existing relationships and offers active involvement and scrutiny.

6. Met support: Is a key consideration in every area of MPS business today, the drive to achieve more from less. There is strong evidence that RJ is effective in reducing front-line police costs.

Financial Implications

7. The cost of the existing pilot has been managed within existing TP budgets. There exists some uncertainty at this time concerning the financial impact of the new training delivery regime in the forthcoming period. Further work will be required to identify the impact on training budgets if a decision is taken to introduce RJ across the MPS.

Legal Implications

8. There are no direct legal implications arising from this paper, which is presented for information only. For note: subject to agreement from the Home Office, it is likely that RJ interventions will become ‘Sanctioned Detections’ under the Home Office Counting Rules. There is currently national debate and consultation at ACPO level on this issue.

Environmental Implications

9. There are no environmental implications in respect of this report.

Risk (including Health and Safety) Implications

10. The RJ Project Board maintains a Risk & Issues register where any emerging and existing issues are discussed for action. The Project Team has also consulted with the MPS Safety and Health, and Insurance branch, where all aspects of the restorative processes have been discussed.

11. The impact of urgent operational policing matters on training schedules may continue to be a risk. This will have to be managed effectively to ensure RJ introduction continues within acceptable parameters.

12. There are potential risks within the newly proposed training regimen. Firstly, unless RJ training is approved internally as ‘business critical’ it will not become a ‘mandatory’ course for priority delivery at the regional training centers. If it is not, there could be considerable delays in any roll- out and the full realisation of RJ business benefits. Secondly, there are potential reputation risks if it is decided to train with single Omni- competent trainers, as per new model, without the accompanying practitioners as recommended by the RJC in their minimum model of guidance.

D. Background papers

None

D. Contact details

Report author: DCI Tim KNIGHT

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback