Diversifying the restorative sector
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter.
A new report, ‘Diversifying the Restorative Sector: Lessons from Practitioners’, has recently been published, exploring how the Restorative Justice sector can be diversified in order to better represent the people it serves, and the communities and cultures that the restorative principles are rooted in. The authors, Anamika Twyman-Ghoshal, Jonathan Hobson, Anna Gregory, Clair Aldington, Monica Morris, Abby Hare and Franki Grant, share what they have learned through conversations with restorative practitioners from minoritised groups.
To anyone working in the restorative sector, the lack of diversity that the report identifies will not come as a surprise. As a sector heavily reliant on the work of volunteers, the range of people that restorative work is accessible to is limited. There is a clear discrepancy between having a discipline rooted in Indigenous practices from around the world, yet carried out by a profession which still does not fully incorporate minoritised communities. Recognising the power imbalance that is created by a predominantly White, middle-class and educated profession is key to addressing the inequality this creates.
Restorative Justice itself is rooted in the principles of neutrality, respect, empathy, listening and inclusivity. But, if we don’t take the time to highlight the experiences of minoritised practitioners, and the people who could benefit from Restorative Justice, we are not ‘practising what we preach’.
Among their findings, the authors call for better training, specific consideration of the needs of the minoritised groups, and a re-evaluation of language and accessibility. Ultimately, in order to influence policy and leadership in the restorative sector, and make the offer of Restorative Justice more accessible, the diversity of the professionals delivering the work must first be addressed. Creating a more diversified sector will benefit everyone, leading to a more authentic and value-led process, a richer understanding of the principles underpinning our work and a system that is more accessible to those who need it most.
We welcome this report and the recommendations it raises, and look forward to continuing to work towards a more inclusive and representative sector that truly supports people affected by crime.
What does the report say?
The aim of the project was to “centre the voices of practitioners in both identifying challenges and providing potential solutions for a more inclusive and representative sector”.
The report begins by outlining how “minoritised populations are overrepresented in the criminal justice system” and that “institutional racism is established, ingrained and pervasive”. As a result, they argue that Restorative Justice, which sits within and adjacent to the criminal justice system, “‘is informed by racist structures, institutions, and individual bias’”.
“The nature of restorative justice as an approach is broad, including some practices that have emerged from Indigenous populations in the Americas, Africa and Australia, which makes ‘the existence of all-White restorative spaces […] difficult to justify in view of restorative justice principles, especially those that embrace inclusivity’”
“The ongoing inequalities of historical and institutional racism create challenges for the way in which restorative services are delivered, where the overrepresentation of ‘racial, ethnic and Indigenous peoples in the justice system most directly raises the question of how these communities and individuals are to “own” the conflicts’.”
In their discussions with minoritised practitioners, the researchers found that five key themes emerged. We have picked some key points from each theme below:
Underrepresentation and Discrimination
The participants of the research believed that “the lack of representation was to the detriment of the field, as diversity in experience impacts on both the practitioner’s ability to engage with different groups but also the group’s willingness to engage with the practitioner”.
They also commented that Black people, particularly Black men, were “noticeably absent from restorative sector leadership and policy making.”
“Practitioners stressed that it is ‘not just the responsibility of the marginalised’ but the responsibility of everyone, including those working at senior levels within the restorative justice sector to ensure a more inclusive environment.”
Awareness of and Access to the Sector
The research highlighted that “becoming a practitioner required both awareness of the sector and access to it in order to participate. For those in historically marginalised groups, this was a barrier to participation”.
“The lack of community awareness around restorative justice work, especially within marginalised communities, has implications for who has access to restorative justice and thus contributes to underrepresentation.”
Language
The research participants discussed the implication of language in three distinct ways:
- Terminology within restorative practice
- The wording used in recruitment and advertising for practitioners
- The language used around professional standards and registration.
“People thought there was a middle-class approach in terms of the language and the way work is conducted in the sector. This translated into advertising and recruitment material which created barriers to access. Practitioners saw a need to revise some of the language used in the sector to make it more accessible, to promote a shared vocabulary, to improve intelligibility and to make communication more visual”.
Resources and Structures
They also felt that the restorative sector, more than other support services, “relied on the use of volunteers for large parts of service delivery. The consequences of this were that it reduced participations from certain groups, including those that ‘cannot afford to be philanthropic’. Practitioners explained that this resulted in ‘most of the volunteers [being] middle class’; ‘not many from the Black community’ being involved; and ‘younger generations’ being excluded.”
They went on to explain that this led to a ‘postcode lottery’ due to “the varying affordability of childcare, travel, accreditation, professional development fees and the ability to take time off work.”
“Practitioners were clear that the sector involved specialist and demanding work, and therefore those working in the field should be ‘remunerated appropriately’.”
Leadership
Finally, the practitioners “made it clear that conversations about broadening the representation in leadership and policy development were fundamentally underpinned by a broader need for the field of restorative justice to become more inclusive.”
What do they conclude?
In summary, the authors of the report conclude the following:
“It is important to ensure that an understanding of power as it relates to Whiteness is critical for the restorative sector so that some of the harms restorative justice… seeks to amend are not reproduced… One of the first steps to achieving this is to ensure that there is a recognition of the challenges faced by practitioners from minoritised backgrounds and to engage proactively in addressing the issues raised.”
They put forward the suggestions of the practitioners that they interviewed, including training for senior leaders in restorative practice, diversity and cultural awareness, thoughtful and creative recruitment, projects co-produced with those who have lived experience and starting with a listening approach.
We look forward to seeing the impact of this report, and to supporting the sector to strive towards inclusivity and representation.
