Handbook on Restorative justice programmes

From principles to practice: implementing restorative justice programmes
28 
See: Aertsen et al., 2004; Linden and Clairmont, 1998; and, Sharpe, 1998.
29 
For example: Great Britain: Home Office, 2003; and Thailand: Kittayarak, 2005.
30 
Barton, 2000.

---

44
Organization and location of the programme: Theoretically, a pro-
gramme can be located anywhere within or outside the system. That deci-
sion often depends largely on which agency is prepared to accept a
leadership role, availability of resources, strength of existing partnerships
and relations with the community or political support. Decisions about
the type of restorative process that will be offered by a programme and
about the location of the latter are closely related.
There are two general approaches, one of which is to situate the pro-
gramme within the justice system, i.e. an “embedded programme” and
the other which favours a “stand alone” type of programme that takes
referrals from the system and/or from the community. There are strengths
and potential limitations to each model. A “stand-alone” programme may
have difficulty establishing its legitimacy and getting referrals from the
justice system; a programme that is embedded in the system may run the
risk of being “co-opted” and having its restorative justice orientation
diluted for administrative expediency. On the one hand, it seems that cer-
tain groups may be suspicious of programmes that are operated by the jus-
tice system and may thus choose not to participate. On the other hand, it
is also clear that other groups will see the programme’s close links with the
police or the courts as a guarantee of legitimacy and a source of protec-
tion. In fact, it would seem that the particular perspective depends on the
nature of the relations between these agencies and the community and
their relative credibility in the eyes of the community. Before choosing
one approach over another, one ought to consider the nature of these rela-
tions and how they are likely to affect the future success of the programme.
The advantages and disadvantages of each option must be reviewed care-
fully in each situation and in relation to what is known about what is most
likely to ensure the success of the programme and the development of the
strong inter-agency partnerships that will be required. In most instances,
it will be necessary to pay attention to giving the programme a governance
structure capable of fostering a broad sense of ownership among all stake-
holders. It is usually a good idea to include the creation of an advisory (or
supervisory) committee, with participation of members of civil society
groups and criminal justice officials, that can provide guidance for the pro-
gramme, regularly review the progress in implementing it, identify emerg-
ing issues and provide effective liaison with the various agencies involved. 
Target cases: A programme can never be “all things to all people”.
Designing a new programme essentially involves making choices, prefer-
ably in consultation with all main stakeholders. Programmes should be
designed in a manner that clearly specifies the types of cases it will target
and how the intervention may vary depending on the cases selected. This
is important for every aspect of designing a new programme, but in partic-
ular for developing appropriate referral mechanisms, planning the inter-
vention, and training the professionals involved. Legal classifications of