JRC conferences almost always ended with an outcome agreement being made and these were usually signed by all parties attending. We were able to look at the outcome agreements for all conferences in both Phase 1 and Phase 2, not just those we observed. There was a conference agreement in 346 JRC Phase 2 conferences (98 per cent)76, all adult caution
conferences and 98 per cent of Phase 1 conferences77. In observed conferences, there was
an agreement in 208 (96 per cent) Phase 2 conferences and all adult caution conferences. The agreement was signed at the end of the conference by all participants present in 83 per cent of conferences with an agreement. Agreements to be sent on to participants and signed later and conferences where there was no mention of signing occurred occasionally in all RCTs, but most commonly in the Northumbria final warning RCT (only 77 per cent signed at the conference).
JRC outcome agreements consisted of a list of numbered items, normally filled in on a special form. Some RCTs used the original TJA form they received during their training; others had kept the same wording but used their own heading. Each item included details of who was responsible for its supervision or assistance and a space for that person to sign to agree they would do this, as well as spaces for completion date and completion status. Using this format worked well.
At the end, conference participants had a space to sign the agreement. The victim's agreement or lack of agreement with the outcomes was specifically noted on some RCTs' forms. It might also be specified that a named person could agree to modification of the proposed outcomes in special circumstances. Where a special form was used (for example, in London), the agreement also gave details of who might receive the outcome agreement (for London: JRC researchers, sentencing court, Crown Prosecution Service, Probation Service, offender's legal representative). Outcome agreements were entered onto a separate database in all JRC sites and were normally then updated electronically and follow-up information/completion added.
Chapter 3 explains that following up outcome agreements was slow to develop during Phase 2 in JRC sites. Once London JRC started to do a considerable amount of work to follow them up, they adopted the acronym SMART PS to describe the ideal outcome agreement: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timed, Proportionate and Supervised. This started to feed back into later practice, so that the completion of later agreements can be measured more precisely (for example, with specific actions to be accomplished by a certain date, to be monitored by a certain person). Earlier agreement items were more 'woolly' in terms of what the offender or others were supposed to do, for example, 'to be good from now on' or not stating how long the offender had to achieve a place on a programme. The adoption of SMART PS (which subsequently influenced practice in Thames Valley as well) flowed also from a growing appreciation that offenders might not be able to deliver easily the life-changing statements they promised and that victims might appreciate what offenders had done more easily if there were a set of simple milestones, from which they could receive documentary proof. Some important practice points for the future are that (a) outcome agreements need to be as specific as possible, in terms of what action will be taken by which participant by which
76 There was a conditional agreement, dependent upon an element not within the offender's control, such as being in a prison running a drug programme, in a further three cases.
77 The unit for our analysis of outcome agreements and their follow-up is the offender, rather than the case, because separate outcomes were agreed for each offender.
66
date, checked by whom; and (b) stress needs to be put on following up outcome agreements from the beginning of the scheme.
Table 4.1 Items included in outcome agreements for JRC Phase 2
Outcome agreement item Percentage of agreements including this item any apology, of which
verbal apology written apology
offender accepting responsibility for offence/behaviour
62 53 10 1 to pay compensation (including court-ordered compensation) 11) other reparation to victim or work for community 7) victim expressing hope offender will not do it again 4 other specific victim-related item 9 offender promising to stay out of trouble or prison/not do it again 16 offender promising to avoid previous peers/not mix with the wrong
crowd 5
to apply to or attend drug programme, of which CARAT specified
Narcotics Anonymous specified
28 7 1 to apply to or attend alcohol programme 7 to stay away from/abstain from drugs/alcohol 12 other specific drug/alcohol-related item 7 to attend anger management/aggression replacement programme 5
to attend counselling 8
to attend Enhanced Thinking Skills programme 2 to attend victim awareness programme 0 to engage in education, of which:
whilst in prison
when released from prison whilst in the community
15 9 2 4 to seek or maintain employment, of which
whilst in prison
when released from prison whilst in the community
14 3 6 5 to get involved with a sport/social activities 3 to move away from area or sort out problematic housing 5 offender's family agreeing to support offender/maintain family
relationships 6
other specific family-related item 8 participants promising to get on with/acknowledge each other 5 participants agreeing to ignore each other if/when they meet 2 praise for offender/acknowledgement of offender's worth 4
other specific item 17
Total number of outcome agreements 349
The number of items in JRC outcome agreements varied from 1 to 8, with the means for Phase 2 ranging from 2.7 for Northumbria adult court cases (SD 1.3) to 3.6 for Thames Valley community cases (SD 1.4). Adult caution cases had fewer items (mean overall 2.3, SD 1.0) and there was little difference between Phases 1 and 2. The overall time scale for items to be reviewed ranged from on the day itself (for example direct reparation, apology) through to over 12 months for Phase 2, but most items with time scales were for less than 6 months (83 per cent). There was a distinct increase in items which had deadlines for accomplishment between Phase 1 and Phase 2 (from 48 per cent to 70 per cent).
The types of items included in JRC Phase 2 outcome agreements are shown in Table 4.1. The most common was an apology to the victim(s) and possibly to offender supporters (62 per cent). Other victim-related elements included payment of compensation (11 per cent) and
forms of direct or indirect reparation (7 per cent), as well as participants agreeing what would happen if they were to meet in the future, or promises by the offender to keep away from the victim or the area. For JRC, the victim’s reaction to the apology was noted on the outcome agreement. Facilitators in Phase 2 might, if the victim had not explicitly accepted the apology throughout the conference, ask the victim directly whether they accepted the apology or not - a forced rather than natural acceptance. This was similar to one of the REMEDI mediation cases where the victim was asked whether they accepted the apology. In two of the REMEDI mediation cases an apology resulted in the victim explicitly forgiving the offender.
After apologies, the next most common category, reflecting what was said during the conference, concerned addressing problems that were seen as affecting offenders' lives and their potential to reoffend. The most prevalent category was drug or alcohol problems, which were concentrated in London conferences. So, 63 per cent of London burglary conference agreements contained a specific item about attending or applying to attend a drug programme, as did 55 per cent of London street crime conferences, but only 7 per cent of Northumbria adult magistrates' court conferences. Part of this may have been facilitators' knowledge about and suggestions of such programmes, but it may simply reflect the extent of drug problems among the London RCT offenders. Items relating to participation in alcohol programmes, or other forms of programme addressing particular difficulties, such as anger management, were far less common The lack of suggestions may have reflected participants' and facilitators' lack of knowledge of where the offender might be in the next few months and what might be available there. Education and employment issues were also important in London.
The potential of restorative justice stems partly from its ability to move beyond the 'typical' response to offending, to include items for the future which reflect the participants' particular circumstances. This occurred in all sites, with imaginative forms of reparation and resolution of family conflicts particularly apparent in Northumbria youth final warning cases, practical steps in anger management in Northumbria adult court cases, victim-offender interaction in Thames Valley prison cases (reflecting the emphasis on post-release issues) and specific offender problems in Thames Valley community cases.
Outcome agreements were rarer in REMEDI direct mediations. The emphasis was on the victim and offender setting the agenda themselves and answering questions each had of the other, rather than specifically thinking about the future. We found 11 written agreements from 35 mediations (4 from adult cases and 7 from youth cases). There was no special outcome agreement form and agreements tended to have relatively few items, between 1 and 4 (mean 1.9), relating to any continuing difficulties between victim and offender which had arisen during the mediation. Items included the offender writing to a relative of the victim, not going near the victim's house, being able to contact the victim, direct reparation, leading a drug free lifestyle, and not getting into the circumstances which led to the offence. There were no outcome agreements after CONNECT direct mediations.