Breaking down barriers to working restoratively in prison: The problem with ReHub
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter, and our CEO, Sara Dowling.
Why me? has written to Lord Timpson to ask for urgent action to be taken to reduce the barriers to RJ experienced by people in prison and probation.
We have received a wealth of feedback from the sector about the impact that ReHub is having on access to Restorative Justice in prisons. As a result, we have been collecting evidence on what this barrier looks like and how we can begin to dismantle it. We have been working closely with other restorative organisations, the All Party Parliamentary Group for Restorative Justice and policy-makers to campaign for change in this area. Ultimately, Why me? have now raised the issue directly with Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation and are awaiting news on his next steps.
This is a long standing campaign for Why me?. For those who aren’t familiar, ReHub sits within HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), and is involved in decision making about Restorative Justice cases where one potential participant is in prison or probation. Whilst the intention is to streamline the delivery of Restorative Justice in prisons, facilitate connections and ensure the safety of everyone involved, the reality looks very different. The feedback we have received demonstrates that ReHub has become a blockage in the system, preventing many cases from going ahead, failing to keep up with the caseload and leading to enormous delays and further harm to participants who are left without answers. We are calling for policy-makers to implement long-awaited change to this ineffective system, and to remove the barriers that prevent people in prison and probation from accessing the transformative tool of Restorative Justice
We believe that effective delivery of Restorative Justice in prisons will transform the restorative sector, reducing delays and barriers to access, and ensuring that more people affected by crime can access the support they need.
What is the problem?
The main problems that we have identified with the delivery of Restorative Justice for people in prison or on probation are as follows:
- Risk management – ReHub are excessively risk averse, not trusting Restorative Justice experts to risk assess and make decisions about the cases they are managing. This leads to the unnecessary prevention of many cases going ahead. There is also an inefficient use of resources, as ReHub is duplicating work already undertaken by MoJ funded local Restorative Justice services.
- Collaboration – ReHub are ‘gatekeeping’ cases, mandating that services refer cases to them, and then making decisions on their behalf, sometimes without consulting the facilitators leading the case or the participants.
- Communication – ReHub are failing to communicate effectively and there are enormous delays to their responses, with some reporting over 12 month waiting times for decisions.
- Transparency and accountability – ReHub do not always give reasons behind their decision-making, meaning participants are told their cases are being shut down without explanation. Services are left unable to give information to participants, in some cases leading them to withdraw from the process. In addition, there is no transparent or published appeals process.
- Resourcing – There is inadequate capacity and staffing within ReHub to deal with the volume of cases.
The Evidence
We have held multiple forum events on ‘working restoratively in prison’, inviting the views of the sector and gathering evidence. Here are some examples of the barriers you raised with us:
- “Lack of communication and response, risk averse”
- “Timescales with ReHub”
- “Probation will no longer discuss any RJ with us unless it has been through ReHub”
- “Not being allowed access to have the initial conversations with prisoners to assess risk ourselves”
- “We have been holding a case for over 12 months waiting for a decision from ReHub”
- “ReHub delays, and in one case this led to the victims (who initiated the process) dropping out, feeling re-victimised”
- “The panel meetings with ReHub are dreadful. I’ve had personal comments made about my voice by the ReHub chair during meetings, in front of other professionals”
- “Unwillingness to interact with victims to explain decisions”
- “ReHub/probation staff deciding RJ process is not appropriate without asking the Harmer the question”
- “ReHub making a decision without listening to the need of the victim – some don’t want or need an apology from the Offender”
- “ReHub telling the practitioner why the process cannot go ahead but the practitioner not being allowed to feed that back to the victim as don’t have consent”
- “No transparency on policy. Blanket ban on RJ on secondary victims of sexual abuse of a minor U18. No accountability for decisions”
- “Delays causing further harm to the victim”
- “Panel meetings – you wait for months for the them to arrange a panel meeting for them to just say no it’s not appropriate at this time – which they could have emailed months before”
We have put together an evidence briefing of your quotes and experiences and shared it directly with Lord Timpson. This includes the long form testimony of a victim of crime affected by a decision made by ReHub and this example, shared by a Restorative Justice service:
“ReHub have just closed one of our cases down, it was due to go to conference January 2024, but was stopped by ReHub. Since then there have been a couple of meetings, where they kept stalling, no minutes were taken or provided, and last week they wrote with no explanation, no discussion, to say that they have closed it. Both parties wanted to meet and still do.”
We were also pleased to contribute to the Restorative Justice Council’s ‘State of the Restorative Sector 2025’ report. The criminal justice segment of the report includes a recommendation to ‘establish a dedicated improvement task force to address significant issues with ReHub’. They suggest that the primary objectives of this taskforce will be “to conduct a thorough review of existing ReHub processes, enhance communication protocols, streamline approval timelines, advocate for additional staffing and resources, and establish an appeals framework to address decisions and complaints.” We support this recommendation and will work with the RJC to campaign for it.
What would we like to see?
Why me? are calling for the following:
- A review of ReHub, its purpose and its jurisdiction, made clear publicly, to include:
- ReHub’s policy framework, including their policy on managing risks, to ensure it is fit for purpose and exists to support access to Restorative Justice.
- ReHub’s capacity and resourcing, and whether it is sufficient to serve ReHub’s purpose.
- Improved communication from ReHub, ensuring that decisions are made promptly and communicated efficiently to services and the people they support, within transparent and published timeframes.
- An established and transparent appeals process, with published monitoring and evaluation data.
- In the meantime, urgent action must be taken to manage the backlog of cases and reduce the blockage to people affected by crime accessing Restorative Justice in prison.
What are our next steps?
We will continue our communication with Lord Timpson, HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice on this issue, and follow up to understand his actions moving forward. We will keep you updated on our progress throughout so make sure you are signed up to our newsletter so you don’t miss anything. We will continue to collaborate with other organisations in the sector to raise awareness of this issue and ensure that something is done about it.
What is your experience?
We are still collecting evidence on the impact of ReHub. If you are willing to share your experience in order for us to share it with policy-makers and demonstrate the extent of the problem, please get in touch via info@why-me.org. We can keep all submissions anonymous when we share them.
Thank you all for your ongoing support and contributions.
