A Tale of Two Projects: Reflections on
using Restorative Approaches in
Schools and Children’s Residential
Care
Carol Hayden
ICJS, University of Portsmouth
[email protected]
The Research Projects
• Family Group Conferences in Schools
(see Hayden, 2009)
Focus on school attendance, behaviour and exclusion
from school. All schools in one local authority.
• Restorative Justice in Children’s Residential Care
(see Hayden and Gough, 2010)
Focus on conflict and offending behaviour. All 10
children residential homes (for children without
disabilities) in one local authority.
Source: McCold and Watchel (2003)
Research Designs and Data Collected
FGCs (2003-2004)
RJ (2006-2008)
Design
Quasi experimental
(FGC and comparison
group, EWS)
Natural experiment
(before and after, informed
by a realist approach)
‘Outcomes ‘data
Attendance %; exclusion %; Offending %; incident
Strengths & Difficulties
records; police call outs;
Questionnaire (SDQ)
out of hours service;
cohort study
Staff viewpoints
Referral agents (n=60)
EWS staff team (n=9)
FGC co-ordinators (n=20)
Care staff
(2006: 99; 2007: 71)
Managers
(2006: 10; 2007:8)
Young people’s viewpoints
YPs experiences of an FGC
(n=27)
YPs experiences of staff
responses to conflict
(n=43)
The two approaches: ‘FGCs’ and ‘RJ’
The Model
FGCs
RJ
Formal Full Conference
Continuum of approaches; mostly
informal
Focus on the individual child.
‘Victim’ and ‘Offender’? ‘Victim’ and ‘offender ‘not the
focus.
Roles
Blurred; not always clear.
‘Victim’ and ‘offender ‘ not seen
as appropriate terms.
External mediator
Independent co-ordinator from
‘pool’ across the Local Authority
No external staff. Some homes
had staff that specialised
Reparation
Not the focus
Often, but not always
Cultural change in
institutions
Not the focus
Strong focus
Links across agencies
Support services to schools; pool
of co-ordinators crossed other
services (eg social care)
Local Authority Steering group;
links to Youth Offending Team;
Police protocol developed about
use of RJ.
The Models and focus of Change
• FGCs
Referral to an external agency that used independent co-ordinators
(from a local authority ‘pool’) to set up and run the conference.
Focus: The individual child, for whom an external service or
‘mediator’ was used with the school, family and significant others.
• Restorative Justice (later referred to as RAs)
All staff in all 10 residential homes trained in an RJ approach, with
refresher training one year later for manager and RJ co-ordinator.
Initial training emphasised the scripted conference. Refresher
training focussed on informal uses, referred to as ‘Street RJ.’
Focus: Whole service/whole staff approach. RJ used primarily as a
way of resolving everyday conflict.
Problem Construction and
Performance Indicators
• FGCs
Attendance/behaviour/ exclusion from school
More broadly – schools and partnership working
with families
• RJ
Offending and conflict/ relationships and quality
of life
More broadly -relationships and quality of life in
children’s homes
Data types and sources
CONCLUSIONS FGC RESEARCH
Outcomes data
FGCs not successful overall in increasing attendance
or preventing exclusion; but some successes in
individual cases.
SDQ (Strengths & Difficulties
Questionnaires) on individual
children
No real change in total difficulties score, but a better
appreciation of problems
Reduced ‘sense of burden’
Increases in pro-social behaviour
Appreciation of the process
Referral agents
Often positive about the idea.
Outside help popular with schools.
EWS team (comparison in the
research)
Saw the potential and wanted FGCs as an option in
some cases.
FGC co-ordinators
Last resort status of the FGC in schools.
Relies more on individual change of the child, than other
used of FGCs.
Children
Self conscious - didn’t like the number of adults in
meetings, especially adults from schools. Wanted a friend
in the meeting, some schools would not allow in school
time.
Data types and sources
CONCLUSIONS RJ RESEARCH
Care staff and managers
(questionnaires and
interviews)
Positive shift in attitudes towards the approach (statistically
significant). Managers more positive than care staff.
RJ mostly used informally, full conferences rare. External
facilitators not available.
Divisions in some staff groups more obvious at second visits.
Reparation not a feature of around a third of encounters.
Children
(questionnaires and
interviews)
Staff expectations about behaviour – understood by the majority.
Staff accessibility and support - most felt that staff would talk
things through or help, as needed.
Clarity of rules and staff fairness – views were divided.
Understanding of RJ - 42.1% knew what RJ meant, rest didn’t or
were unsure; more showed an intuitive understanding when giving
examples of how problem were dealt with/should be
Context and Process
(observations during fieldwork and in
meetings and presentations with staff)
Big changes across the service in a one year period. This
included two home closures; another home under investigation in
relation to the use of physical interventions and in others changes
in residents (that were more or less volatile). Change in the
management of one home.
Despite some loss of momentum staff did have refresher
training and meetings continued in relation to promoting the
approach across the service.
Outcomes for children
(cohort study and case files)
High levels of offending and incidents in homes.
Importance of education amongst those NOT in trouble.
Use and impact of RJ variable at the individual level.
Organisational change: outcome
indicators (organisational trend data
on: offending, police call-outs, incident
records and out-of-hours service)
No change in rate of offending.
Positive change in all other respects.
THE SCHOOL
As a referral agent –
requesting the help and
expertise of an outside
agency
ADHERED TO FORMAL
MODEL
EXTERNAL: FGC Facilitator brings together key
adults, the child and supporters to develop and
agree a plan to address the attendance/
behaviour problem (s) that are presenting in
school. Limited or no impact on school culture.
100s of referral points. Formal event, takes place
about 6 weeks after ‘referral’.
THE RESIDENTIAL
HOME
INTERNAL: staff skills developed.
Cultural change mostly limited to within the
residential home. RJ as everyday
communication – ‘corridor’ or ‘stand-up’ RJ.
Impromptu conferences common –
immediacy.
No external facilitators –
all staff trained in an RJ
approach. Mostly used
within the home
PRAGMATIC
Source: McCold and Watchel (2003)
Values and Practices: some
questions to consider
• Managing behaviour or managing relationships
within organisations?
• Independent co-ordinators/skills and the
conference model – where/when is this useful?
• RAs as a whole school/organisation approach –
what about the principle of ‘voluntarism’
• Voluntarism, organisational ethos and fairness
• Organisations ‘owning conflict’
• Transferability, pragmatism and RAs