Restorative justice: policy and practice framework

20. Assessment of risk and strengths

20.1 The assessment of risks and strengths should be dynamic and continually revisited by the RJ facilitator and all parties to RJ throughout each stage of the process. This ensures any changes to risks, strengths, mitigation of risks and safety can be quickly identified and responded to.

20.2 There are risks in both participating in RJ and choosing not to participate, thus it is important to assess and aim to mitigate risk in every RJ process undertaken. To achieve this, a RJ facilitator should use their skills to engage all parties in dialogue to understand their suitability, needs, strengths, risk and readiness for RJ. An RJ service may use a ‘risk and strengths assessment’ or ‘screening tool’ to achieve and document this. These can be designed by the RJ service and should additionally consider any relevant information from partner services, with the free and informed consent of the relevant party to RJ. To adhere to the aims of GIRFEC, where either party to an RJ process is a child, then any assessment or planning process relating to RJ should be integrated into the wider plan for that child, as far as possible.

20.3 The assessment should cover basic details for all parties, an understanding of the harm experienced as well as its impact and the outcomes parties to RJ wish to achieve from any process. It should also include information about the stage any case is at within the justice system.

20.4 The assessment should also cover the following:

• Participants feelings, attitudes and behaviours
• Their motivation for being involved
• Substance abuse and mental health issues
• Any physical or learning disabilities, mental impairment or ill health
• The emotional resilience of individuals and ability to cope with the process
• Any previous history between the participants
• Details of any dependent children, their needs and understanding of the process
• Any power imbalances between individuals

20.5 It is important that the RJ process is accurately recorded at every stage, and that the risk management plan is shared with participants, and forms part of the formal consent process. Specific risk assessments, such as the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) in cases of domestic abuse, should be used in relation to this harm type in order that risk is identified consistently and accurately.

20.6 The assessment of risks and strengths should be dynamic and continually revisited by the RJ facilitator and all parties to RJ throughout each stage of the process, to ensure any changes to risks, strengths, mitigation of risks and safety can be quickly identified and responded to. When children are involved, the multi-agency team responsible for the Child’s Plan must regularly review the impact of involvement in RJ on the wellbeing of that child and ensure that the child’s voice is heard as part of the ongoing monitoring process.

20.7 Where risk cannot be managed or mitigated and in discussion with appropriate parties to RJ, the process should be paused until it is safe to proceed or terminated at its earliest and most appropriate point. The RJ service and RJ facilitator should recognise and act appropriately to any clear risk to a participant’s physical or mental safety.

20.8 Where risk can be managed or mitigated, the facilitator should work with all parties to RJ, other RJ practitioners, supervisors and/or professionals to achieve this, in line with the strengths and needs also identified. Methods to achieve this should always be considered in discussion with all parties to RJ, but may include:

• Selecting what type of communication will be safe at each stage of the process
• Sequencing direct or indirect forms of communication to ensure safety
• Selecting venues for any meetings that will maximise participants’ safety and minimise their worries and concerns
• Managing and balancing the presence or absence of supporters who can influence the emotional and physical risks of the process and its outcomes

20.9 The research paper Mitigation and Risk in Restorative Justice[xx] provides more information on this approach, and a number of recommendations to improve practice in this area.