1. What are the organisational and individual understandings of restorative justice: how is „restorative justice‟ defined by a police force and understood by its staff? 2. What are the key opportunities with regards to successful restorative justice policy implementation?
3. What are the constraints and limitations when implementing restorative justice policy across a police force?
This concluding chapter will synthesise the main findings of the research, addressing each of the research questions in turn to consider these findings in relation to the literature discussed in Chapters Two, Three and Four. It will discuss the ways in which this research contributes to knowledge and the practical implications of the findings whilst considering some of the limitations of the study and how the research could be developed in the future.
Summary of main findings
Research Question 1: Understandings of restorative justice
This study explored some of the multi-faceted ways in which restorative justice is
understood across a police force both in policy and practice. In doing so it built on previous research that demonstrates the importance of recognising the impact of police culture when implementing policy. It argues that this is particularly important when applied to concepts that lack a precise definition, such as restorative justice policy, due to the way in which it is reliant on frontline workers to interpret and carry out directives (Lipsky, 2010). This is particularly problematic in the context of a police force due to the different understandings that can occur, especially in relation to the hierarchical nature and orientation of different ranks and roles of officers towards different aspects of policy. Using Farkas and Manning‟s (1997) model of police culture this thesis puts forward a „continuum of understanding‟ to
193 demonstrate how subtle differences between different ranking officers leads to a large disparity between frontline officers and top command. The research also showed potential cultural differences particularly across officers‟ functional roles, demonstrating that detective constables working in traditional „crime fighting‟ roles (such as crime and justice command) found restorative justice less relevant than their colleagues in „peace-keeping‟ roles (such as police constables working in neighbourhood command). The way in which officers are culturally orientated impacts on the way in which they absorb, understand and ultimately action new policy.
This study found that in general (and with the exception of the more nuanced understandings presented by top command) police understandings did not reflect academic understanding. The main divergence between police and academic definitions is the lack of consideration by police officers to the way that different processes potentially offer different outcomes: particularly in relation to issues of restorativeness. This is exacerbated by the way that ACPO guidance presents restorative justice processes as „Level 1‟, „Level 2‟ and „Level 3‟, as described on page 76-77. This study found that frontline officers offered little distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 conferencing; the only difference of note was recognition regarding the amount of time it took to deliver. This is surprising given the volume of academic writing surrounding restorative processes and it demonstrates a failure to acknowledge recent concerns that Level 1 lacks restorative value (O'Mahony 2012, Parker 2013). This is further exacerbated at an organisational level as police staff training presented claims surrounding the benefits of restorative justice as being equal, regardless of whether a Level 1 or 2 process is used, this is despite the lack of empirical evidence in relation to the benefits of Level 1 conferencing (Slothower, Sherman et al. 2015).
Academic research is just beginning to explore the nature of these different „Levels‟ of restorative justice and how police officers are using them: previous research has shown that officers are preferring to use Level 1 conferences, and there is a continuum of approaches in operation rather than two distinct models of use (Meadows, Albertson et al. 2012). This study adds to the growing literature by highlighting some of the reasons why this blurring between Level 1 and Level 2 is taking place. Crucially it argues that frontline officers are not necessarily ignoring the benefits of Level 2 conferencing and opting to use Level 1 to save time: rather there is no recognition of a difference in the level of restorativeness offered by either approach. Officers are not opting to use a less restorative option; instead they are merely operating as street-level bureaucrats do (Lipsky, 2010) by using the most familiar options that are the quickest to administer. This distinction is important as it provides hope that officers are not against the use of restorative justice per se. They are merely following organisational (and national ACPO policy guidance) that allows for the use of Level 1
194 instant restorative disposal: a process that places little emphasis on restorativeness and is not reflective of true restorative values. The way in which restorative justice has been packaged to fit within the criminal justice system, to fit within police force policies and to be
understood by frontline officers is therefore potentially flawed.
At a practical level this research has demonstrated how the key values of restorative justice can become „lost in translation‟ across a police force. There is a need for the principles and values of restorative justice to be provided in a manner that recognises the different
interpretations that exist across a force and caters to officer‟s needs. Translating restorative justice principles and values to all officers through specific training is key to their
subsequent understanding; officers who had experienced the most in-depth training had the most nuanced understandings of restorative justice and were able to incorporate these values into their police officer duties. Training may be costly but the benefits of restorative justice are dependent on staff being sufficiently trained to ensure the process adheres to restorative principles (Bonta, Jesseman et al. 2006). Yet police training in general suffers from a lack of time and investment despite officers being unable to have the time to search for information in addition to their day-to-day activities and are unlikely to develop their knowledge of restorative justice „on the job‟ (Lipsky 2010). This is reflected in the general understandings of restorative justice that featured both in dialogue and across some areas of organisational policy and the examples of „restorative justice‟ put forward by police officers in this study that often did not reflect a fully restorative interaction. While, in practical terms, restorative justice cannot only be applied to „ideal‟ situations (Doolin 2007); it needs to be grounded in restorative values and ensure that all officers leave with a firm understanding of restorative principles. By neglecting to provide sufficient training to frontline workers then police forces can only expect to achieve modest results.
The limited understanding of restorative values also manifested itself by the lack of attention towards the role of the community. The research findings highlight how community
involvement in restorative justice processes and outcomes did not feature in officer discussions, nor was it referred to in force policy. Whilst these policy documents did indicate a shift in understanding over time with greater recognition towards some of the key values of restorative justice, including mutually agreed resolution and reparation, still the community and general understanding towards the need to build social capital remained neglected areas. This is problematic as the introduction of restorative policing is hyped as being effective in reducing reoffending, yet the reintegration of the offender back into the community constitutes much of the theoretical basis as to why restorative justice may have a positive impact on recidivism rates. Furthermore the lack of understanding in relation to the importance of the community as a key stakeholder meant that despite the investment by the
195 force in relation to the reimplementation of restorative justice, little attention was paid to involving the community in the process; the community, as well as victims and offenders were ignored throughout the process of implementing restorative justice. This is a
disappointing finding as the reimplementation was once-again driven in a top-down fashion. Whilst understandings of restorative justice were explored as a separate research question in this thesis it is clear that this is not a discrete factor and organisational understandings of restorative justice were cross-cutting to many of the constraints in implementing policy. Fundamentally if officers do not fully understand the principles of restorative justice, then how can they „do‟ it? Therefore many of the findings to research questions 2 and 3 are inter- related to many of the issues raised in this section.