Atlas›Domain XV · Nature, philosophy, social & rites of passage›Guide 064
Guide XV-064

Restorative justice conferencing

Terry O'Connell1991Wagga Wagga, New South Wales
A 31 · L 55 · M 1423 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: face-to-face restorative justice conferencing (RJC) as tested in the trials of the Campbell systematic review (Strang, Sherman et al. 2013), run on the Real Justice / IIRP conference facilitator script, with the safeguards of the UNODC Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2nd ed., 2020), the Scottish Government's Delivery of restorative justice in Scotland: guidance (2017) and the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (Victims' Code, updated 29 January 2025). Where these differ, the stricter safeguard is given.

What it is. RJC is a justice process, not a psychotherapy. A trained facilitator brings together the person harmed by a crime, the person responsible, and their kin, friends or community, so that together they can decide how the harm should be repaired [source: Strang et al. 2013 abstract]. It is one of the main restorative processes alongside victim-offender mediation (face-to-face or indirect, through a facilitator) and circles; conferencing differs from mediation in drawing in family, friends and sometimes professionals, and in also addressing the responsible person's own relationships [source: UNODC 2020]. In England and Wales the Victims' Code describes restorative justice as bringing those harmed and those responsible into communication, face to face or by letter, recorded interview or video [source: Victims' Code, Right 3].

Origins. Police in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, inspired by New Zealand family group conferences, began holding conferences in place of formal cautions of young offenders; Terry O'Connell, then a police officer there, ran his first formal conference in 1991 and developed the simple script now known as the Real Justice conference script [source: O'Connell 2007, IIRP]. Family group conferences were written into New Zealand youth justice in 1989 [source: UNODC 2020; see guide 066 and V 148].

How change is thought to happen. Howard Zehr's Changing Lenses frames crime chiefly as an injury to people and relationships rather than only a breach of law, so that justice should centre accountability and healing for those harmed and those who caused harm [source: Herald Press description of Zehr, Changing Lenses]. In a conference the responsible person hears the harm directly and takes responsibility; the person harmed is heard, gets answers and often an apology; supporters on both sides speak; and the group agrees concrete repair [source: IIRP script; O'Connell 2007].

Evidence (one line). The Campbell review of ten trials found that offenders assigned to face-to-face conferences committed significantly less repeat crime than controls, with a larger effect for violent than property crime, and victims were more satisfied, less inclined to seek revenge and suffered fewer post-traumatic stress symptoms [source: Strang et al. 2013 abstract].

The psychotherapist's place. The facilitator runs the conference. The therapist's work is to help a client (harmed or responsible) decide whether to take part, assess readiness and safety, prepare, possibly attend as a supporter if the facilitator and all participants agree, and give trauma-informed support before and after. A therapist does not run a conference without restorative justice facilitator training; complex cases (serious lasting harm, bereavement, injury) need specialist training and substantial experience even for facilitators [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 4.2(d)] [synthesis for the therapist role].

2. Framework

The stages below follow the Scottish guidance's steps A–I and the UNODC Handbook; the conference itself follows the Real Justice script. A parallel therapist track is [synthesis].

Stage 1. Referral and information. Either party can start the process [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.2]. In England and Wales victims are entitled to information about restorative justice from the police (adult offender) or Youth Offending Team (offender under 18), within 5 working days of reporting, or 1 working day under Enhanced Rights, and providers must consider at every stage whether the victim would benefit from this information [source: Victims' Code 3.4–3.6]. Therapist track: the client raises it, or it arises in therapy; explore it without steering [synthesis].

Stage 2. Suitability and risk assessment. The responsible person must be prepared to accept accountability; if there is no sign that they understand the harm, the process should not proceed. A formal risk assessment is done at the start and reviewed throughout, and the process is ended safely if risk becomes unacceptable [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B A, C]. Therapist track: with consent, share relevant concerns about the client's stability with the facilitator [synthesis].

Stage 3. Informed choice. Participants receive clear information about the process, benefits, risks, limits, alternatives, confidentiality and record-keeping, with time to decide [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B D]. Participants have the right to consult legal counsel, and children the right to a parent or guardian [source: UNODC 2020].

Stage 4. Preparation. Facilitators usually meet each party separately before any joint meeting, to check the victim will not be re-victimised and that the responsible person accepts responsibility and is sincere [source: UNODC 2020]. Preparation helps participants ask questions, manage anxieties and reflect on their reasons and the harm [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B E]. Therapist track: most of the inventory in section 4 sits here.

Stage 5. Choice of form. Direct (face-to-face conference or meeting, video where in-person is not practical or advisable) or indirect (shuttle dialogue, letters, audio or video messages through the facilitator) [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.2].

Stage 6. The conference. In the Real Justice script: preamble (introductions; the focus is on the act and its effects, not on whether the person is good or bad; the responsible person may leave, with the matter then returning to court or another process); the responsible person's account; the harmed person's account; the harmed person's supporters; the responsible person's supporters; a final word from the responsible person; the agreement phase; closing and informal refreshments, which the script treats as important [source: IIRP script]. The facilitator manages arrivals so participants do not wait together, sets ground rules, monitors wellbeing and watches that the process is not used to intimidate [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B G].

Stage 7. Outcome agreement. Where appropriate, realistic, proportionate and measurable terms, with a written record for everyone [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B H]. Agreements must be voluntary and reasonable; failure to complete them cannot justify a harsher sentence [source: UNODC 2020].

Stage 8. Follow-up and closure. Monitoring of the agreement, evaluation, closure with further support or contact [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B I]. Therapist track: debrief and integrate into ongoing therapy [synthesis].

Session count and format. The sources set no number of preparation meetings; the conference is typically a single meeting [uncertain: not verified as a rule]. No therapy session count is given by any source.

Criteria for moving on. The process proceeds only if the responsible person acknowledges the basic facts, both parties want to take part, and all involved, including facilitators, agree it is safe and appropriate [source: Victims' Code Right 3]. For mediation UNODC lists four conditions: responsibility accepted or not denied, agreement on basic facts, both understand and want to take part, both see it as safe [source: UNODC 2020]. Either party may withdraw at any time [source: Victims' Code; Scottish Government 2017].

3. Guiding principles

Principles 1–12 are the Scottish Government's key principles [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.3]; 13–16 are from UNODC 2020; 17–22 are therapist-side [synthesis] unless marked.

  1. Honest: the responsible person must first acknowledge the basic facts. Practice: no preparation for a meeting while the client who caused harm denies what happened.
  2. Informed: unbiased information about the process, the facilitator's role, support and outcomes. Practice: check what the client has actually been told; correct misconceptions without selling the process.
  3. Voluntary: informed consent; an agreement is optional, never a required goal. Practice: "not taking part" is a fully legitimate outcome of your work.
  4. Safe: physical and emotional safety, risk assessed at start, during and end. Practice: your clinical picture of the client's stability is a relevant input, with consent.
  5. Respectful: a fair, equal chance to speak without interruption, discrimination or intimidation. Practice: rehearse what the client will do if interrupted or belittled.
  6. Accessible: non-discriminatory, with additional support needs met. Practice: flag language, disability, literacy or neurodivergence needs to the facilitator.
  7. Appropriate: rarely suitable for domestic abuse, sexual offences, human trafficking, stalking or exploitation, especially after prolonged coercion. Practice: screen for these before anything else.
  8. Confidential: shared material stays among participants unless they agree, the law requires disclosure, or there is serious risk of harm. Practice: explain these limits alongside your own therapy confidentiality limits.
  9. Not about establishing guilt: when responsibility is accepted, the victim should hear it. Practice: the conference is not a trial; prepare the client not to re-litigate.
  10. Proportionate: reparation matches the harm and the person's capacity, and is voluntarily agreed. Practice: help the client name repair that is realistic.
  11. Empowering and facilitating: the victim can communicate once responsibility is admitted; the responsible person can apologise. Practice: both voices are prepared, neither is scripted for the other.
  12. Future-focused: agreements may set terms for future contact. Practice: explore what contact, if any, the client wants afterwards.
  13. No coercion or unfair inducement to take part or accept an outcome [source: UNODC 2020]. Practice: look for pressure from family, institutions or perceived sentencing advantage.
  14. Non-admission: participation is not evidence of guilt in later legal proceedings, and failure to agree cannot be used against the offender [source: UNODC 2020]. Practice: route legal questions to the client's lawyer.
  15. Power imbalance and cultural difference must be taken into account [source: UNODC 2020]. Practice: assess age, status, dependency, gender and cultural power between the parties.
  16. Facilitator standards: qualifications, training and assessment are set by the programme [source: UNODC 2020]. Practice: confirm the facilitator is trained before preparing a client to meet.
  17. The client's pace governs: victims can ask to take part at a time right for them [source: Victims' Code]. Practice: readiness can arrive years after the offence; you can revisit it.
  18. Therapy is never contingent on participation. Practice: say so plainly, early.
  19. Clinical neutrality about the decision. Practice: explore hopes and fears; do not advocate either way.
  20. Role clarity: the therapist is not the facilitator. Practice: do not run, mediate or negotiate the conference; liaise.
  21. Multiple relationships: APA Standard 3.05 bars multiple relationships that risk impairing objectivity or effectiveness or risk exploitation or harm [source: APA Ethics Code; paraphrased]. Practice: do not treat both parties of the same case; think carefully before attending as a supporter.
  22. Trauma-informed: contact with the person who harmed can have a strong emotional impact, and re-traumatisation must be watched for [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.2, 3(g)]. Practice: stabilisation precedes exposure to the other party.

4. Intervention inventory

The conference procedure belongs to trained facilitators; sources describe it (4.20) but not a therapist's procedures around it. The therapist-side procedures below (4.1–4.19, 4.21–4.23) are therefore [synthesis], each anchored to the stage and safeguard it serves. Example language throughout is illustrative.

4.1 Orienting psychoeducation

  • Purpose / when: first time restorative justice comes up; supports the "informed" principle [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.3].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what the client already knows or has been told. (2) Describe the process plainly: separate preparation with a trained facilitator, a choice of direct or indirect communication, supporters, a possible agreement, follow-up. (3) State the conditions: voluntary, the other person must acknowledge the basic facts, all must agree it is safe, withdrawal is possible at any time [source: Victims' Code Right 3]. (4) Say what it is not: not a trial, not therapy, not a substitute for prosecution. (5) Give the facilitator service's contact route (police or Youth Offending Team in England and Wales) [source: Victims' Code 3.4].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It's a meeting a trained facilitator sets up, only if you and the other person both want it and everyone thinks it's safe. You can stop at any point, including on the day."
  • Watch for: the client hearing it as an obligation or a test of forgiveness; correct that explicitly. Working: the client can describe the process and its conditions back in their own words.

4.2 Exploring hopes, fears and motives

  • Purpose / when: before any decision; ensures the choice is the client's own [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what the client would want to get from it: answers, being heard, an apology, seeing the person as human, closure, reassurance it will not happen again. (2) Ask what they fear: the person's face, minimisation, crying, anger, their own reaction. (3) Separate hopes the process can meet (being heard, asking questions) from hopes it cannot guarantee (remorse, a specific apology). (4) Ask whose idea it was.
  • Example language (illustrative): "If it went as well as it could, what would you walk out with? And what's the outcome you'd most dread?"
  • Watch for: hopes that depend wholly on the other person's response; plan for disappointment (4.17). Working: the client holds realistic hopes and can name what would still make it worthwhile.

4.3 Readiness and stability assessment

  • Purpose / when: before referral and again before a direct meeting; feeds the facilitator's ongoing risk assessment [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B C] [synthesis for the clinical content].
  • Steps: (1) Review current trauma symptoms (intrusions, avoidance, hyperarousal), dissociation, self-harm and suicide risk, substance use and current stressors. (2) Ask how the client copes when reminded of the offence now. (3) Gauge window of tolerance in session while discussing the meeting. (4) Decide with the client whether stabilisation work comes first. (5) With written consent, tell the facilitator what supports the client needs; do not send clinical notes.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When you picture being in a room with them, what happens in your body right now? Let's notice that together."
  • Watch for: escalating symptoms as the meeting nears; acute suicidality (follow your service's risk protocol; crisis lines 988 in the US, Samaritans 116 123 in the UK and Ireland). Working: the client can discuss the offence and the meeting while staying grounded.

4.4 Screening for contraindications and power imbalance

  • Purpose / when: at the outset, before preparing anyone for contact.
  • Steps: (1) Establish the offence type and the relationship between the parties. (2) Restorative justice is rarely appropriate for domestic abuse, sexual offences, human trafficking, stalking or exploitation, especially with prolonged deliberate conduct or coercion [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 3(g); Part B A5]. (3) CEDAW and the Istanbul Convention prohibit mandatory mediation or conciliation in violence against women and domestic violence; where permitted it should be strictly regulated, follow specialist assessment of free consent and no ongoing risk, and be run by specially trained professionals [source: UNODC 2020]. (4) For domestic abuse the Restorative Justice Council says the survivor's safety stays paramount, the survivor controls the process, it must not affect the perpetrator's criminal sanction, and practitioners need specialist coercive-control training [source: RJC, Using RJ in cases of domestic violence]. (5) Assess other power differences: age, dependency, employment, community status, immigration status, disability [source: UNODC 2020 on power imbalance] [synthesis for the list]. (6) If any red flag appears, discuss with the facilitator service before any further preparation.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Before we go further, I need to understand your relationship with this person, including whether they still have any hold over your life."
  • Watch for: ongoing contact, fear of the other person, the other person suggesting the meeting. Working: a documented, shared view that the case is suitable, or a clear decision that it is not.

4.5 Assessing accountability (client who caused harm)

  • Purpose / when: when your client is the responsible person; meets the "honest" principle and the suitability test [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.3; Part B A].
  • Steps: (1) Ask the client to describe what they did, in their own words. (2) Listen for acknowledgement of the basic facts versus denial. (3) Listen for blame-shifting or minimisation; Austrian rules cited by UNODC stop mediation where the offender blames or minimises the harm [source: UNODC 2020]. (4) Explore who they understand was affected and how. (5) Distinguish shame that can be worked with from defensiveness that blocks a meeting.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Tell me what happened as plainly as you can, including the parts that are hard to say."
  • Watch for: wanting to take part mainly for a legal benefit, or to explain themselves; partial acceptance. Working: a factual account without excuses and some understanding of the harm.

4.6 Voluntariness check

  • Purpose / when: before referral, before preparation and before the meeting; the process must be free of coercion or unfair inducement [source: UNODC 2020].
  • Steps: (1) Ask who wants this to happen and who would be disappointed if it did not. (2) Explore family, faith, school, workplace or institutional pressure. (3) For the responsible person, explore expected gains in sentencing or release; remind them participation is not evidence of guilt and failure to agree cannot justify a harsher sentence, and route legal questions to their lawyer [source: UNODC 2020]. (4) Rehearse saying no.
  • Example language (illustrative): "If nobody else had an opinion, would you still choose this?"
  • Watch for: appeasement, agreeing to please the therapist. Working: the client can state the decision and reasons without reference to anyone else's wishes.

4.7 Choosing the form of communication

  • Purpose / when: when face-to-face feels too much, is unsafe, or the client prefers distance.
  • Steps: (1) Lay out the options: a closed face-to-face meeting, a conference with supporters, video, or indirect means through the facilitator (shuttle dialogue, letters, audio or video messages) [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.2]. (2) Explore what each would give and cost. (3) Note that indirect communication is a legitimate end point, not a lesser stage [synthesis]. (4) The client tells the facilitator their preference.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Some people write a letter first and decide later whether to meet. Some never meet. Which of these feels possible?"
  • Watch for: choosing face-to-face out of a sense of duty. Working: a form chosen that the client can sustain.

4.8 Liaison and role agreement with the facilitator

  • Purpose / when: once the client decides to explore participation; facilitators should know which services can support participants [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 4.2(i)].
  • Steps: (1) Obtain written consent specifying what you may share and receive. (2) Confirm the facilitator's training and the service's standards [source: UNODC 2020 on facilitator standards]. (3) Agree roles: the facilitator assesses risk and runs the meeting; you support the client. (4) Agree how concerns reach each other quickly. (5) Ask about record-keeping and confidentiality rules [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B D].
  • Example language (illustrative, to facilitator): "My role is to support my client's wellbeing; the decisions about suitability and the meeting are yours. What would be useful for you to know?"
  • Watch for: pressure to share more than consented; drift into co-facilitation. Working: a clear, recorded division of roles.

4.9 Preparing the harmed person's account

  • Purpose / when: in preparation for direct or indirect communication.
  • Steps: (1) Use the themes the script asks of harmed people: initial reaction, current feelings, the hardest part, how family and friends were affected [source: IIRP script]. (2) Let the client speak or write each part in session. (3) Help them choose what to include and what to keep private. (4) Practise speaking it aloud at a pace that keeps them grounded. (5) Agree a written card they can hold.
  • Example language (illustrative): "They will probably ask what's been hardest for you. Do you want to try saying that now, in whatever words come?"
  • Watch for: flooding during rehearsal; slow down and return to grounding (4.15). Working: the client can deliver the key points with manageable distress.

4.10 Preparing questions for the responsible person

  • Purpose / when: many harmed people want answers only the responsible person can give [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) List the client's questions (why me, what were you thinking, what happened afterwards). (2) Prioritise. (3) Prepare for unsatisfying answers. (4) Pass any that must be answered in advance through the facilitator, who decides whether relaying information could cause harm [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B E].
  • Example language (illustrative): "If you could only ask one thing, which would it be? And what if the answer is 'I don't know'?"
  • Watch for: questions aimed at punishment rather than understanding; explore without judging. Working: a short list the client owns, with a plan for poor answers.

4.11 Preparing the responsible person's account

  • Purpose / when: your client is the person who caused harm and a meeting is likely.
  • Steps: (1) Use the themes the script covers for responsible people, put in your own words: their account of the incident, their thinking then and since, the people affected, and the repair they think is owed [source: O'Connell 2007; IIRP script]. (2) Rehearse each answer without excuses or explanations that shift blame. (3) Work on tolerating shame so it does not turn into defensiveness or collapse [synthesis]. (4) Prepare for hearing the impact statements without interrupting. (5) Clarify that the script's preamble focuses on the act and its effects, not on whether the person is good or bad [source: IIRP script].
  • Example language (illustrative): "When they ask what you were thinking, give the true answer, even if it was 'nothing much'. Then stop. You don't need to defend it."
  • Watch for: rehearsed remorse that sounds performed; anger at the harmed person's account. Working: plain, owned answers and the capacity to listen.

4.12 Apology preparation

  • Purpose / when: for the responsible person who wishes to apologise; victims in conferences were more likely to receive an apology and to rate it sincere [source: Strang et al. 2013 abstract].
  • Steps: (1) Explore what the client is sorry for, specifically. (2) Separate apology from requests for forgiveness. (3) Draft in the client's own words, naming the act and its effects. (4) Remove conditional phrasing ("if I hurt you"). (5) Prepare for the apology not being accepted. For the harmed person: prepare them that they owe no forgiveness [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "What exactly are you sorry for? Let's name it as concretely as you can."
  • Watch for: apology used to close the conversation, or to seek relief. Working: a specific apology with no demand attached.

4.13 Clarifying what repair is wanted

  • Purpose / when: before the agreement phase, in which the harmed person says what they want and the responsible person responds to each suggestion [source: IIRP script].
  • Steps: (1) Help the harmed person list concrete wishes (reparation, an undertaking, information, future contact or no contact). (2) Check each against the proportionate and realistic standard [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.3; Part B H]. (3) Help the responsible person consider what they can genuinely deliver. (4) Prepare both for a specific written agreement with deadlines and follow-up [source: IIRP script].
  • Example language (illustrative): "If they asked you, 'What would help put this right?', what would you say? Is that something they could actually do?"
  • Watch for: symbolic demands that set up failure; the responsible person over-promising. Working: a short, realistic list.

4.14 Choosing and briefing supporters

  • Purpose / when: conferences include supporters on both sides [source: Strang et al. 2013; IIRP script]; their presence affects risk and must be managed [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B C6.4].
  • Steps: (1) Ask who the client would want beside them and why. (2) Consider whether that person will stay calm, will not speak for the client, and will keep confidences. (3) Note that the script invites each supporter to give their initial reaction, feelings, hardest part and view of the main issues [source: IIRP script], so supporters need preparing too, by the facilitator. (4) Pass names to the facilitator.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Who could sit next to you and help you feel steady, without taking over?"
  • Watch for: a supporter with their own agenda (revenge, defending the responsible person). Working: a supporter the client trusts and the facilitator has prepared.

4.15 Grounding and stop plan for the day

  • Purpose / when: before any direct meeting; the process can be stopped at any time [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B C, D] [synthesis for the plan].
  • Steps: (1) Practise two or three grounding skills the client already uses. (2) Agree a signal the client gives the facilitator to pause. (3) Plan travel, arrival and departure; facilitators manage arrivals so parties do not wait together [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B G]. (4) Plan the rest of the day and who the client will be with. (5) Book a session soon after.
  • Example language (illustrative): "If you need a break, what will you say or do? Let's tell the facilitator that in advance."
  • Watch for: the client dismissing the plan as unnecessary. Working: a written plan the client and facilitator both know.

4.16 Planning for withdrawal, and supporting a decision not to proceed

  • Purpose / when: at every stage; either party can withdraw at any time, and support should be offered if someone withdraws [source: Victims' Code; Scottish Government 2017, Part B E].
  • Steps: (1) State that withdrawal is always possible, including mid-meeting. (2) Explore how the client would feel if they, or the other party, withdrew. (3) If the process stops (the other side declines, the facilitator deems it unsafe, the client withdraws), work with the loss, relief or anger, and consider other routes such as an unsent letter in therapy [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Stopping isn't failing. It's a decision you're allowed to make, and we'll work with whatever it brings up."
  • Watch for: self-blame; reading the other side's refusal as a verdict on the client's worth. Working: the client can hold the decision without shame.

4.17 Preparing for disappointment

  • Purpose / when: throughout preparation; the other person's response cannot be controlled [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Imagine the worst plausible responses (flat apology, minimising, silence). (2) Rehearse what the client would do and say. (3) Recall that the facilitator watches that the responsible person does not use the process to intimidate [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B G]. (4) Name what the client gains regardless: saying their piece, asking their questions.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Suppose they shrug. What would you still want to have said?"
  • Watch for: fantasy of a perfect outcome. Working: the client can describe a good-enough outcome.

4.18 Accompanying the client as a supporter (only if agreed)

  • Purpose / when: rarely, where the client wants it and the facilitator and all participants agree; observers require all participants' agreement and must sign confidentiality agreements [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B G2] [synthesis on whether a therapist should attend].
  • Steps: (1) Clarify with the facilitator whether you attend as supporter or observer, and whether you will be invited to speak. (2) Consider multiple-relationship risks [source: APA Ethics Code, Standard 3.05] and whether a family member is the better supporter. (3) On the day, stay in role: support the client; do not intervene in the process except through the agreed pause signal. (4) Afterwards, return to the therapy frame.
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'm here for you, not to speak for you. If you signal, I'll ask the facilitator for a break."
  • Watch for: pulling into advocacy or mediation; your own reactions to the other party. Working: the client experiences you as steadying, and you remain their therapist afterwards.

4.19 Children and young people

  • Purpose / when: a child or young person is harmed or responsible; restorative justice can be appropriate when safeguarding their interests is paramount [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.2].
  • Steps: (1) Follow child protection reporting duties [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 4.1(f)]. (2) Obtain the young person's own informed assent and, where required, parental or guardian consent [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 4.1(e)]; children have a right to a parent or guardian's assistance [source: UNODC 2020]. (3) Use developmentally fitted explanations and indirect forms where helpful. (4) Watch adult pressure in both directions. (5) In England and Wales, information comes through the Youth Offending Team where the offender is under 18 [source: Victims' Code 3.4].
  • Example language (illustrative): "This only happens if you want it. Your mum or dad can help, but you get to say yes or no."
  • Watch for: the young person agreeing to please adults. Working: the young person can explain the choice in their own words. Never identify a young person in any record shared outside the process [synthesis].

4.20 The conference sequence (facilitator-run): orienting the client

  • Purpose / when: so the client knows what will happen; the therapist does not run this.
  • Steps (as the Real Justice script runs it): (1) Preamble: introductions; the focus on the act and its effects; the responsible person's admission noted and the reminder that they may leave, with the matter going back to court or another process. (2) Responsible person answers the questions in 4.11. (3) Harmed person answers the questions in 4.9. (4) Harmed person's supporters speak. (5) Responsible person's supporters speak, often a parent or caregiver first. (6) Responsible person gets a final word. (7) Agreement phase: what the harmed person wants, responses, specific terms read back. (8) Closing, then informal refreshments while the agreement is written, which the script stresses [source: IIRP script]. Facilitation relies on Socratic questioning [source: O'Connell 2007].
  • Example language (illustrative): "The facilitator will ask them to speak first, about what they did and who it affected. Then it's your turn."
  • Watch for: dread of the informal time; the client may opt out of it [synthesis]. Working: the client can walk through the sequence without surprise.

4.21 Debriefing after the meeting or exchange

  • Purpose / when: soon after any direct or indirect contact [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Check safety and current symptoms first. (2) Invite a free account. (3) Explore what surprised, helped and hurt. (4) Notice shifts in how the client sees the other person and themselves. (5) Note new intrusions or nightmares and plan for them. (6) Ask what the client wants to do with what was said.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What's staying with you most since the meeting?"
  • Watch for: delayed distress after initial relief; euphoria followed by a crash. Working: the client can tell the story of the meeting and integrate it into their wider narrative.

4.22 Follow-up on the agreement and aftercare

  • Purpose / when: after an agreement; the service monitors compliance and closes the process [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B I]; in conferencing, family and community often monitor compliance [source: UNODC 2020].
  • Steps: (1) Track how the client feels as terms are met or missed. (2) If terms are broken, encourage contact with the facilitator service rather than direct contact [synthesis]. (3) Mark closure in therapy. (4) For the responsible person, support follow-through without the therapist becoming the monitor.
  • Example language (illustrative): "They haven't done what they agreed. Would you like to raise that with the facilitator?"
  • Watch for: re-opening of grievances; the therapist becoming an enforcer. Working: the client experiences the process as finished.

4.23 Meaning-making and integration into trauma therapy

  • Purpose / when: after the process, or when it was declined or did not happen [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explore what justice means to the client now, using Zehr's lens of harm to people and relationships as one frame among others [source: Herald Press description of Zehr]. (2) Revisit trauma-focused work in light of new information. (3) Address anger, grief, guilt or self-blame. (4) For the responsible person, explore identity beyond the offence and continued accountability.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What has changed in how you understand what happened, and in how you see yourself?"
  • Watch for: pressure to have "moved on". Working: the client describes the offence as part of their story, not its whole.

5. Handling problems

The sources address safety, voluntariness, withdrawal and contraindications; the clinical responses below are [synthesis] unless a source is given.

  • The client feels pressured to take part (by family, a faith community, a service, or by the hope of a lighter sentence). Name the pressure, restate that participation is voluntary and free of coercion or inducement [source: UNODC 2020], and slow the decision down. If the pressure comes from the other party, treat it as a risk signal and tell the facilitator, with consent.
  • The client wants it in a domestic or sexual abuse case. Do not dismiss the wish; many survivors want a voice. Explain that guidance treats these cases as rarely appropriate, requiring specialist assessment and specially trained practitioners, with the survivor in control and no effect on criminal sanctions [source: Scottish Government 2017; UNODC 2020; RJC]. Refer only to a service with that specialist capacity; screen for continuing coercive control. Specialist practice guidance for sexual violence exists (Mercer, Sten Madsen, Keenan and Zinsstag 2015, KU Leuven).
  • Stuck in ambivalence. Use 4.2 and 4.7: list what each option offers; consider indirect communication as a way to test the water; remind the client that victims can ask to take part at a time right for them [source: Victims' Code].
  • Overwhelm during preparation. Pause preparation; return to stabilisation and trauma-focused work; tell the facilitator the timeline needs to move. Re-traumatisation through contact is a recognised risk [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 3(g)].
  • The responsible person minimises or blames in the meeting. The facilitator manages this and can end the process if risk becomes unacceptable [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B C, G]. Afterwards, validate the client's reaction, and separate the other person's failure from the client's worth.
  • Your client (responsible person) resists accountability. Do not prepare them for a meeting; the suitability test is not met [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B A]. Continue therapeutic work on responsibility; restorative participation can be revisited later.
  • Non-adherence to the agreement. Route through the facilitator service, which monitors agreements [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B I]; help the harmed client manage disappointment; help a responsible client address the barriers to follow-through. Failure to complete cannot be used to justify a harsher sentence [source: UNODC 2020].
  • Rupture with the therapist (the client feels you pushed them, or that you did not stop it). Acknowledge, repair, and re-anchor to the principle that the decision is theirs. If you attended as a supporter, review how that shaped the relationship.
  • Multiple-relationship problems. If you are asked to treat the other party, decline and refer. If you are also a trained facilitator, do not facilitate a case involving your own client [synthesis; consider APA Standard 3.05, source: APA Ethics Code].
  • Confidentiality crossings. Material from the restorative process stays among participants unless they agree, the law requires disclosure or there is serious risk of harm [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A s.3]. Keep your clinical record separate; share with the facilitator only what written consent covers; follow your own safeguarding and disclosure duties.
  • Legal anxieties. Participation is not evidence of guilt and failure to agree cannot be used against the responsible person [source: UNODC 2020]; refer legal questions to the client's lawyer, which participants are entitled to consult [source: UNODC 2020].
  • Bereaved families and serious violence. Such complex cases need facilitators with specialist training and substantial experience [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A 4.2(d)]. In therapy, attend to grief, including prolonged grief, and to suicide risk; use safe-messaging practice and crisis lines (988 US; Samaritans 116 123 UK and Ireland).
  • The process is not available or is refused. Work with the loss; offer therapeutic alternatives such as an unsent letter or an empty-chair dialogue within therapy, framed as the client's own work and not as restorative justice [synthesis].
  • Therapist countertransference (anger at the responsible person, rescuing the harmed person, wanting a reconciliation story). Use supervision; check that your wish for a good outcome is not shaping the client's choice.
  • Related processes. For family group conferencing see guide 066 (and V 148); for circles of support and accountability (guide 068), safeguarding comes first and nothing that could identify anyone should be shared.

Sources

← Previous · XV-063Elderhood and spiritual eldering (Schachter-Shalomi)Next · XV-065 →Victim-offender mediation