• About the Forum
• Background
• Constitution and regulations
• Structure
• Membership
• Activities
• Conferences
• General Meetings
• Seminars
• Summer schools
• Training
• Pool of trainers
• Training for legal practitioners
• Projects
• Publications
• News
• Short news
• Newsletter
• Calendar
• Country information
• Reading room
• Links

Activities

Projects - COST A21

COST Action A21: Restorative Justice Developments in Europe - Objectives and Scientific Programme

• Objectives
• Scientific Programme

Objectives

The main objective of Action A21 is to enhance and to deepen knowledge on theoretical and practical aspects of restorative justice in Europe, with a view to supporting implementation strategies in a scientifically sound way.

In order to reach this general objective, a network of researchers has been created to:
1) exchange and discuss research needs, methods and results;
2) co-ordinate research projects in the respective countries as far as possible and desirable;
3) stimulate or support further (common) research projects.

The expected benefits can be situated on different levels:
1. Scientific benefits:
Developing an analysis of practices, research, legislation and policy enhances the knowledge on what restorative justice is (not), how it can be evaluated and what the possible benefits and disadvantages are. The theoretical discussion on the concepts, as well as ways to evaluate good practice can be developed. Also, researchers can get a better view on what topics with regard to restorative justice theory and practice have to be studied more in depth. Restorative justice is a relatively new field and thus new practices and domains within which to implement restorative practices are still to be discovered.
2. Policy benefits:
Getting an overview of different policies with regard to restorative justice in the various countries leads to a better understanding for policy makers on what the possibilities are and what works best. Having a look at different legislative initiatives can broaden the view on what legislation is possible, as well as on the effects on actual practices. EU policy making can be better informed about lacunas and how to accommodate these.
3. Practice benefits:
An overview of best practices can guide practitioners in developing their own practice. They can learn from other solutions thus working out what could work best for their own programme. Working together with different agencies can be difficult and it is always good to know what solutions can be found to enhance the co-operation. Thus, referrals as well as follow-up of the restorative processes and outcomes are enhanced.
4. Benefits for specific training initiatives:
An increasing number of universities and European organisations (e.g. ERA, European Police College) are setting up training sessions for their students or target groups. These initiatives will also benefit from the results from this research project.

Scientific programme

The scientific programme of the COST Action can be split up in three parts or domains. Each domain is being dealt with by a Working Group.

1. Evaluative research on restorative justice practices
This domain focuses on completed or ongoing research in the respective countries on victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing. Attention will be paid to the research questions, the design, methodologies and findings. Three sub-domains can be discerned.

1. 1.1. Study of the process and the effects of victim-offender mediation and conferencing
   Different models of the victim-offender mediation or conferencing processes can be analysed. The effects to be studied relate to the psychological, material and legal consequences for the victim and the psychological and social impact on the offender (e.g. on re-offending). The study can also include the financial cost of particular practices, the impact on the functioning of the criminal justice system and the influence on the perception of crime and criminal justice by persons involved and others.
   This work will allow to:
   a) get a better understanding of the kind of research being carried out in Europe
   b) get a better understanding of the mainly qualitative methodologies being used for such research, and their respective strengths and weaknesses
   c) create an objective overview of the results of these evaluative research projects, from which conclusions could be drawn to support policy development in the restorative justice field
   d) discern gaps in the scientific research in this field for Europe, and to set up a research agenda for the future
   e) achieve agreement on the methodological framework best suited to carry out specific types of research projects

1.2. Study of national (annual) recording systems of data
This rather quantitatively oriented research study can be seen in the perspective of harmonising national recording systems. Comparative research is made difficult because of the lack of, or differences between such national recording systems, but also because of language issues, the differences in legal context and the different definitions being used. It is clear that figures cannot be compared unless they measure the same thing. This part of the research will allow to:
a) get an idea about what data collection system is being used in which country
b) get an idea about what information can be and is collected in the different countries
c) set up common criteria to stimulate all countries to collect comparable information, which will - in the long run - allow for interpretation and further research in a comparable and reliable way
d) compare data once common criteria are used

1.3. Study of organisational features, job evaluation and satisfaction
Elements that will be looked at include the legal status of restorative justice services and facilitators and mediators, the internal organisation of restorative justice services, the task perception and educational and professional background of practitioners. The creation of such an overview will allow to get a better view on the organisation of restorative justice services, the strengths and weaknesses of the different organisation types, the content of the work of facilitators, their view on and satisfaction with their work.

2. Policy oriented research on restorative justice developments
Several developments in national and international policymaking demand that one should get a better view of how exactly the restorative justice field is organised in the different European countries. Just to give one example: the European Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings stipulates in articles 10 and 17 that Member States should adapt their national laws in order to implement mediation by the year 2006. With the current state of affairs, Member States have little guidance on what works and what doesn't in the restorative justice field in terms of organising the practice. This research domain intends to give a better view of just this. Again, the domain can be split up in several sub-domains.

2.1. Comparative study of national legislation in relation to victim-offender mediation
National regulation can be present in criminal law, criminal procedure or specific statutes. Besides positive law, also lower guidelines and instructions can be of importance. This research domain will allow to:
a) study the different kinds of legislation used
b) make a common framework for analysis, to be able to compare legislation in the broad sense
c) compare the presence of legislation in general on restorative justice
d) study the lacunas in the legislative framework supporting restorative justice
e) study the effect of the introduction of legislation on the restorative justice practice
f) put national legislation against international standards of juridical or practical nature

2.2. Study of the relation between criminal justice and restorative justice practices and agencies
Even with national legislation in place, the restorative justice field is still dependent on the co-operation of the criminal justice practitioners. Since in Europe most of the criminal justice systems are legalistic, restorative justice projects depend on the criminal justice system to get their referrals. A good referral procedure is therefore crucial. Research, however, shows that it is difficult to get enough referrals. Another crucial aspect is the follow-up of cases. Lack of good co-operation is suspected to be the main reason for the under-use of restorative justice measures. That is why it is intended to make an analysis of the different kinds of referral procedures and schemes for following-up mediation dossiers within criminal justice procedures. This will allow to:
a) study the types of relationship between restorative justice programmes and criminal justice
b) draw conclusions on how co-operation agreements can best be set up to improve the use of restorative justice practices
c) analyse what types of referral procedures work best and why
d) analyse whether agreements reached in a restorative justice scheme are referred back to the criminal justice system
e) analyse which effect the agreements reached in a restorative justice scheme have on the further criminal justice procedure (are they taken into account? do any other measures follow? which measures?)
f) study how criminal justice practitioners and restorative justice practitioners experience the relation they have, and how they feel this relation can be improved.

2.3. Study of training models and experiences of training legal professionals in the restorative justice area
Linked to the previous item is the fact that legal authorities (prosecutors, judges) and lawyers are often hard to convince or to motivate to co-operate in restorative justice programmes. Training on knowledge, attitudes and skills is of the utmost importance in order to involve this crucial group. For that reason, some examples of good co-operation will be selected, on the basis of which conclusions might be drawn on the kind of training needed for these legal professionals. This will allow to:
a) get a view on whether training for criminal justice practitioners exists, in what form and on what level
b) get a view on whether criminal justice practitioners are motivated to follow such training

2.4. Study on new restorative justice models and applications
The restorative justice field is in continual development. New models and applications are being experimented with. It is important to get a good overview of these new developments in order to make sure that the restorative field does not stagnate in a particular country. New models, such as family group or community conferences should be discussed on their objectives, concepts, processes and first results. Moreover, the application of restorative justice methods in particular settings, such as prison, police services, schools and within the family context offers new perspectives. An overview of these new developments can be an impetus for other countries to broaden their view on restorative practices. This study will allow to:
a) get a better view of new methods being applied in the restorative justice field in Europe and on when to use them
b) get a better view on the possibility of implementing restorative justice in other domains

3. Theoretical research
Looking at all the domains mentioned above, it is clear that practice and policy development influence theory and vice versa. All these domains cannot be studied loose from the theoretical conceptualisation of restorative justice. More theoretical research is needed to guide the development of practice, policy and legislation. A need is felt to clarify and further theoretical concepts, approaches and frameworks on restorative justice. The key questions concern the relation of restorative justice to criminal law and punishment, to crime prevention and rehabilitation, and to societal developments in general. This domain is to be studied from the perspectives of legal theory and philosophy, ethics, sociology of the law, pedagogy and social psychology and criminology.

4.Restorative justice, violent conflicts and mass victimisation
Recently large scale violence and mass victimisation have been a reality for many people living in troublesome and insecure countries such as the Balkans, Israel, Palestine, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Central Africa (DRC, Rwanda, Sudan), East Timor, etc. As a result of some rapid political, economic and social changes occurring mainly as a consequence of the fall of communism (1989), various political conflicts, wars, (inter)ethnic disputes and disagreements on a national or international level started spreading quickly. Consequently, a number of innocent people have been trapped in-between these violent and inhumane conflicts. In these hyper dynamic times where every country is desperately trying to find its place in the ‘global village’, ordinary people remain the main victims of ‘wrong’ political agendas. For these and other reasons there was a lot of interest shown by practitioners and academics in the last years to explore the possibilities of restorative justice in dealing with mass victimisation and violent (state) conflicts.
The intention of the Working Group is to provide a better view on how restorative justice can help in bringing more valuable solutions aiming to support people living in (post)conflict areas. The Working Group will mainly analyse various ‘restorative approaches’ to deal with the aftermath of violent conflicts. Some of the key activities that this group will undertake are the following:
a) collecting existing research (ongoing or completed) on the main theme and conducting a meta-analysis;
b) identifying possible journals or other scientific fora where the working group can exchange its work-in-progress and, occasionally, submit articles;
c) identifying important research gaps in a European context, both in respect to the contents and the methodology of the research;
d) exploring research funding possibilities, and – where possible - applying for direct research funding.