Vince Mercer AIM Project - PowerPoint Presentation

1. Vince Mercer AIM Project www.aimproject.org.uk ‘Restorative Approaches to addressing adolescent HSB’aim

2. What I hope to cover….The background to AIM restorative work in child/adolescent SHB casesStrengths and weaknesses of this approachThe importance of assessmentPractice standards

3. A long walk across the street….

4. A combination of two elementsAIM PROJECTFocus upon creation of good practice toolsRooted in combination of practice/research knowledgeEmphasis upon assessmentNeed to address HSB in holistic sense, inclusive of victim/family perspective GM YJT Family Group Meetings ProjectFocus upon serious/complex casesEmphasis upon engagement with social ecology of offenderModel of FGM with planning needs for both Victim and Offender

5. RJ in HSB????? Nightmare on Restoration Street……..

6. Exercise 1In Groups list what are the types of restorative nightmares we would wish to avoid in cases of HSB when attempting to bring ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ together in dialogue. Group these under the headings;Victim NightmaresOffender NightmaresFacilitator Nightmares

7. Exercise 1.2On the flip chart sheet indicate whether they are ‘nightmares’ to be identified in assessment, addressed in preparation, or managed in the meeting

8. Area’s of restorative potential….. Familial/ relational contextPrevious exclusion of real victim perspectivePossibility to link into victim support serviceBenefits to offender intervention programmeCongruence of interest between victim/offender/family

9. Relational contextIn cases of youth SHB over 96% of offender have some form of relationship with victimIn 40/50 % cases intrafamilial (Ryan) Simons Hackett’s research on family responses to yp displaying SHB 27% were wholly intrafamial and a further 27% were both intra and extra familial (2012)

10. Rationale for including FamilyParents are a source of internal working models for ypParents key role models; relationships/ problem solvingFamily values shape yp values; gender entitlementIts often where the victim is….Critical role in assessment and care planningContinuing influence on yp therefore have a key role in supervisionMost yp return to family

11. Issues that parents may bringNeed to have their ‘story’ heard what it was like for themShock, Trauma, Shame, Anger and Guilt leading to possible invitations to deny/minimise/ reject/marginalise (Letournea 2009, Duane 2002 after Hackett S 2012) Understanding why he ‘did it’Information on prognosis; son’s future risk.Information about impact upon victimWhat they can do?Outlining additional problems/ wider relational fracture/ self blame/ blame other parent/victim

12. Consequences of failing to engage parents and carersFamily left isolatedResentment of and resistant to agenciesMinimising and denial of the problemRejection/ marginalisation of the young person Constricts assessment and planningLack of focus on vulnerable siblings and or other victimsIncreased risk of treatment drop out / recidivism; recent outcome research supports the view that failure to engage /involve families seriously impairs potential for positive outcomes (Letournea 2009 after Hackett S 2012)

13. Inclusion of the Victim?Not directly but through Victim Awareness/Impact work to increase empathic response; National survey of sex offender interventions in the US indicated that 87-95% included victim empathy work Some limited involvement of victim experience through ‘Victim Clarification’ ModelAnxiety about being ‘compromised’ in approach to work with offender if ‘too close’ to reality of victim experienceA limited conception of harmInitial focus upon ‘safe’ cases in developing UK restorative practice Fear of doing more harm.

14. Links into victim services…an unfinished story…Creation/expansion of SARC’s in England/WalesFocus upon good forensic evidence gathering to bridge ‘the justice gap’Support/counselling/advocacy to victimsHospital basedPoor partnership with community servicesStrong sense of victim rescue/crusadeReluctance to recognise the complexity of relational context‘silo’ working and fear of ‘contamination’ with offender perspective

15. Desistance Studies Traditional focus upon why people offend?…more recently on how/why people stop?Key desistance factors; Maturation, Stable employment/training/ Attachment to strong positive social bonds ,(relationships/family). Transformation of personal identityMaruna (2001) identified change in personality/self concept ‘I did a bad thing…now I can do a good thing…’ But the formal CJS offers little in the way of ‘rituals of redemption’ only rituals of stigmatisation/condemnation

16. Shame on you….Shame is not toxic....it is a mark of our humanity…’Schneider,C.D. ‘Shame Exposure and Privacy’, Norton NY, (1992)

17. Strategies to avoid shame lead to..Complete or partial denial of the harmAttempts to mimimise, justify or deny the actionBlaming of othersAttrition of sense of self worth and or capacity to changeWithdrawalAttack others…Attack self….

18. Importance of shame managementAlan Jenkins (1998) recognised that one of the greatest inhibitors to young peoples engagement in therapeutic work on HSB is the intense feeling of shameRuth Mann (2012) identifies shame as a significant factor leading to the suppression of empathic responses by offenders to their victims of sexual harm

19. Compass of Shame ; Derived from D.L Nathanson ‘Shame & Pride;Affect,Sex and the birth of self’ Norton, London (1992)At experiencing an acute sense of shame an offenders response may be described in one of four cardinal points of the shame compass…

20. Stigmatising shame vs Reintegrative approachesBraithwaite's concept of restorative integration, not stigmatisingShame acknowledgment and expression in a respectful/ ethical manner before those who matter most

21. The wider factors the therapeutic worker (with Darren) identified which the restorative approach deliveredEmotional regulationEmotional expressionEmpathyPerspective takingOpenness to victims feelings, thoughts and experiencesFuture focusFamily positionsAcceptance of responsibility remorse expressionShame managementAppreciation of wider impactAwareness of impact on familyForgiveness? Self forgiveness?Understanding meaning and actuality of victimisationUnderstanding why specific individuals were targeted Facilitates partnership work with familyPlan for release/ Victim perspective on parole 

22. Area of cross over/mutual interestVICTIMNeed to be believed and acknowledgedDisown responsibility for offenceTo accept and acknowledge violation caused by offenceTo share acknowledgement of the harm/impact of the offenceOFFENDERNeed to address denial/minimisationOwn responsibility for offenceTo appreciate and acknowledge the extent of harmTo accept the impact of the harm on others

23. And more…VICTIMCreation of a safe environment in which to functionRestoration of sense of self not defined by victimhoodTo explore impact in relational context/restoration of role and relationshipsTo receive apology?OFFENDERCreation of a safe environment in which to safely functionCreation of sense of self not defined by offence, or labelTo understand impact in relation context/creation of safe role and relationshipsTo receive forgiveness?

24. Pressner and Lowencamp said…‘The more the danger that the crime situation entailed for the victim, as in cases of intimate violence, the more urgent is the need for standard assessment’Restorative Justice and Offender screening- Jnl of Criminal justice Vol 27 1999

25. The framework is…To assist in structured restorative practice decision making… informs preparation; Intention is to widen and inform the potential of practice/ not deny and shut it downIt has research/evidential elements but largely based upon 10+ years of patient practice and reflectionFits into requirements of current Best Practice Guidance and assists with professional development of practitioners

26. It requires…Some flexibility/sensitivity in application and interpretationA level of restorative skill/insight/knowledge beyond basic restorative practiceLayered on top of an offender ‘criminogenic’ assessmentWorking to Best Practice standards (HO 2012) NOS 2013, AIM Best Practice Guidance in cases of HSB

27. The HSB RJ Framework isChanging…..Being revised and updated in line with ongoing research/practice knowledgeExtended to cover all SENSITIVE and COMPLEX cases (as per Best Practice Guidance)

28. Issues not covered….Level of restorative skillsAdaptation/amendment of restorative modelsAgency competence to support practitionersVictim led not offender led referral routeEngagement with victim servicesOn going research and EU DAPHNE RJ and SV Project

29. An illustration… Opening the box…. Jo’s account

30. References Hackett, S Balfre, M and Masson, H (2012) ‘Family Responses to Young People who have Sexually Abused; Anger, Ambivalence and Acceptance’ in Children and SocietyAIM Project ‘ Revised Assessment framework for restorative approaches to SHB’ (2013) AIM Project ‘ Best Practice series’ Restorative Meetings and SHB’ (2007) www.aimproject.org.ukMercer, V, Henniker,J: ‘Restorative Justice; Can it work with young people who sexually abuse?’ in ‘Working with Children and Young People who sexually abuse; taking the field forward’ Ed Calder M, (2007) Mann RE, Burnett,G ‘Empathy, Cognition and sexual reoffending’ NOS Management Service 2012Maruna S, ‘Making Good’ (2001) and ‘Virtue’s Door unsealed and never sealed again; Redeeming ,Redemption and the seven year itch’ (2009) in Contemporary issues in Criminal Justice Policy.Jo’s Story in ‘Resolution’ Ed 40, Spring 2011, Restorative Justice CouncilBraithwaite J, 1989 ‘Crime, Shame and Reintegration’