Addressing and Promoting Safety in Restorative Justice Services That Respond to Sexual Violence: A Qualitative Study of Global Practices

Background and Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) is a significant public health issue that can have negative impacts for those who experience SV and their communities. While most responses to SV follow traditional legal methods, restorative justice (RJ) may be an alternative way to respond to SV while meeting the unique needs of those involved. However, using RJ for SV is controversial, as some argue that these methods are unsafe in situations of sexual harm. As such, this study sought to understand (1) how organizations that use RJ to address SV conceptualize and define safety; (2) how issues related to safety impact RJ processes to address SV; and (3) how organizations that use RJ to address SV attempt to ensure safety in their practices.

Methods: RJ practitioners and researchers were recruited based on their experience in using RJ to address SV and/or with youth and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Informants were invited from around the world, and the final 24 informants represent North America, Europe, and Oceania. Interviews were approximately 75 minutes and explored the interviewee’s experience with RJ, recommendations for offering RJ programs, challenges to RJ services, and how RJ could be used with youth and for prevention. Guided by grounded theory, two team members reviewed transcripts of the interviews and developed an initial codebook with emergent themes. The codebook was then expanded throughout the coding process based on the data. At least two team members coded 7 (29.2%) interviews and came to consensus on coding, and one of these team members coded the remaining interviews, with questions being addressed by a second team member.

Results: In our study, informants did not explicitly define what safety meant to them or their programs. However, informants discussed other topics in conjunction with safety that revealed ways they implicitly understood safety. In particular, informants discussed safety alongside types of cases (e.g., types of SV; relationship between the person who caused harm and person who experienced harm, etc.), participant agency, participant readiness, and confidentiality. Most informants described a variety of ways in which safety impacts RJ services, including participant emotional processes, dynamics between participants, loss of power, and causing further harm. These factors then influence elements of the RJ process, including screening processes and working with youth. To ensure safety within their practices, informants described processes utilized by organizations to keep participants and staff safe. In particular, they described processes of assessing for safety and then keeping people safe. Methods to keep people safe included confidentiality and consent procedures, trauma-informed staff and practices, preparing participants for RJ procedures, and utilizing alternative techniques (such as substitute victims or perpetrators).

Conclusion and Implications: Findings demonstrate that while there may be disagreements regarding the safety of using RJ to address SV, organizations have developed methods to address safety and keep participants safe during RJ processes. These results can support the development and evaluation of RJ services to address SV by demonstrating ways in which RJ programs understand and address safety.