Restorative justice: policy and practice framework

26. Monitoring and evaluation

26.1 To underpin learning and continuous improvement and change, RJ services and stakeholders delivering RJ should maintain accurate records of referrals and cases taken on. RJ practice, services and cases should also be monitored and evaluated before, during and after their conclusion.

26.2 Monitoring and evaluation activity gives an audit trail of decisions and their rationale. It will also help to ensure the RJ approach taken is implemented as intended and particularly, people are experiencing it as person-centred and trauma informed. This will highlight what is working well and what can be improved. Evaluation of detailed records can also help services understand the impact of the RJ process on the parties involved, including an assessment of whether it met their initial desired outcomes and any other change that has taken place because of the RJ process.

26.3 As referred to in section 17, the National Strategy for Community Justice: Delivery Plan[xxii], sets out priority action six to, ‘ensure restorative justice is available across Scotland to all those who wish to access it by promoting and supporting the appropriate and safe provision of available services’. As part of this, progress towards improved understanding of RJ across stakeholders, and the engagement of local services with RJ providers to support a needs-led service, will be monitored for the life span of the strategy. This should also include evaluation of how RJ services are promoted to those who have been harmed, including how this is accessed on a local basis.

26.4 It is advisable for RJ services and providers to develop monitoring and evaluation practices. Evaluation and monitoring practices should satisfy the following:

• Establish what is to be evaluated and how outcomes can be measured
• Compare actual outcomes with intended outcomes
• Identify results and recommendations
• Share and use the results and recommendations

26.5 Some examples of quantitative and qualitative measures which may be useful to routinely collate are set out in 26.6 – 26.14. All measures should be aligned to the desired outcomes of the RJ service, its staff, stakeholders and those who experience it. Agreed measures should also best reflect the impact achieved by the service for those who experience it, in partnership with relevant stakeholders.

26.6 Methods for raising awareness and understanding of RJ and local provision across the community

• Consideration to a range of methods which meet the evidenced needs of local communities. Development of approaches to monitor engagement and improvements in understanding and awareness.

26.7 Methods for raising awareness and understanding of RJ and local provision across stakeholders

• Consideration to a range of methods which meet the evidenced needs of stakeholders. Development of approaches to monitor engagement and improvements in understanding and awareness.

26.8 RJ referral process

• Number of cases referred to an RJ service. This can be broken down by age, gender, postcode, harm type, additional needs, desired outcomes and referral route.
• It is also important to monitor consent and use of information sharing protocols throughout.

26.9 Risk assessment use, engagement and practice

• Monitoring the use, update and stakeholder/participant engagement within the risk assessment process. This includes measures taken to identify risk, evidence the use of any risk assessment process or model, to mitigate risk, to engage with relevant services and the overall management of risk assessment as a dynamic tool.
• It is also important to record cases which did not go ahead because of identified risks and why. This should capture those identified at the risk assessment stage, during an ongoing process and any actions taken to ensure the safety of those involved should the process be halted.

26.10 Case preparation

• Monitoring the levels of engagement with participants, documented changes and consideration to needs and the type, nature and practice of any RJ process to follow.

26.11 RJ practice and delivery

• Recording the type of RJ or practice used, reasons for this, methods used, stakeholder involvement and all trauma-response approaches taken.

26.12 RJ conclusion, aftercare and feedback loop

• Measuring the journey from desired outcomes to outcomes achieved, capturing learning recommendations, completing feedback processes with participants and how this is communicated, and understanding approaches taken to aftercare and further referrals/activity with local services to support ongoing needs.

26.13 RJ case studies

• The collation of RJ case studies and how these are utilised to ‘debrief’ within the service and/or with participants following an RJ process or practice. Monitoring the use of case studies internally and externally, including any media engagement, and ensuring the anonymity of participants.

26.14 RJ service and staff training and development

• Monitoring attendance and completion of courses in RJ and related specialisms, attendance at events aimed at improving practice and development, and attendance and completion of refresher training and/or training in advanced practice.

26.15 Further support to self-evaluation, evaluation and monitoring in community justice approaches can be found within A Guide To Self-Evaluation For Community Justice in Scotland.