A Social Worker’s View: Restorative Justice in a Child First Youth Justice System

An anonymous blog post sent from a Social Worker

When I completed my social work dissertation over ten years ago, I asked a question that many practitioners were asking at the time:

Does restorative justice reduce reoffending?

Looking back, I think it was the right question for that period in youth justice, although it may not be the only question we should ask today.

Youth justice has changed. The Child First approach challenges us to see the child before the offence. As social workers, this should feel familiar. It reflects much of what our profession has always believed: children should be understood within the context of their relationships, experiences and environments, rather than defined by the worst decision they have made.

During my placement in a Youth Offending Team, I wrote:

“I developed a keen interest in how young offenders viewed restorative justice, their thoughts and views, and whether it helped reduce their likelihood of committing a further offence.”

Even then, I found myself more interested in the child than the statistics.

What surprised me was that practitioners did not always share the same enthusiasm. I reflected at the time that some viewed restorative justice as “just another buzz word” and questioned whether it had much impact in practice.

I still think that observation has relevance today. Policies change, frameworks evolve and new terminology enters practice. However, unless practitioners understand the purpose of an approach, feel some ownership of it, receive good-quality training and have sufficient time to use it properly, there is always a risk that it becomes another phrase rather than meaningful practice.

From a social work perspective, restorative justice has never simply been about reducing crime. In my dissertation, I argued:

“The core values of restorative justice can be linked to the core values within the social work profession. Human rights, dignity, self-worth and social justice are values that social workers practise and adhere to.”

I believe that even more strongly today.

Where social work and youth justice sometimes experience tension is in their starting points. Youth justice understandably asks:

“What offence has been committed?”

Social work often begins with a different question:

“What has happened to this child?”

Neither question is wrong. The challenge is to ensure that one does not overshadow the other.

As social workers, we cannot ignore the harm caused to victims. Equally, we cannot ignore the experiences that often sit behind a child’s behaviour. Holding both truths at the same time is one of the most difficult parts of practice.

That is where I believe restorative justice has real value. It does not remove accountability. It gives accountability meaning by asking children to recognise the effects of their actions, while also recognising their capacity to learn and change.

My dissertation concluded that restorative justice showed promising evidence of improving victim satisfaction, encouraging empathy and contributing to lower rates of reoffending. It also acknowledged that the evidence was complex and that further research was needed.

If I were writing that dissertation today, I think my conclusion would be slightly different. I would still ask whether restorative justice reduces reoffending, but I would also want to know whether it helps children repair relationships, develop a more positive identity and believe that they are more than the worst thing they have done. I would ask whether victims feel heard, whether their questions are answered and whether they have a meaningful voice in the process.

Perhaps, in a genuinely Child First system, these outcomes should matter just as much as the reoffending statistics.