Restorative-justice policy
This criterion assesses whether the organization has developed and implements a formal restorative justice (RJ) policy for addressing harms and conflicts. It evaluates the organization's commitment to justice approaches that focus on healing relationships, repairing harm, and addressing root causes rather than merely punishing offenders. Restorative processes are supplementary and never override safeguarding duties, statutory reporting, disciplinary action, or contractual/HR requirements. Where allegations meet safeguarding or serious incident thresholds, the organization prioritises protection, reporting, and investigation before considering restorative options.
- Does the organization have a formal RJ policy that includes mandatory safeguarding triage and clear exclusion criteria?
- What training standards (including trauma-informed practice) are required for facilitators, and how is their independence ensured?
- How does the organization ensure voluntary participation, informed consent, and the right to withdraw without penalty?
- How does the RJ process interface with formal grievance, disciplinary, and whistleblowing procedures to ensure statutory duties are met?
- What lawful basis is used for RJ records, how is special category data handled, and what is the retention schedule?
- What mechanisms are in place to monitor the effectiveness of the policy (satisfaction, recurrence) and report governance risks to trustees?
- Official Restorative Justice Policy with triage/exclusion criteria and complaints mechanism.
- Anonymized triage logs showing acceptance/decline decisions and safeguarding checks.
- Facilitator training certificates (trauma-informed/RJC-aligned) and supervision logs.
- DPIA, Record of Processing Activities (ROPA), and retention schedule for RJ data.
- Template consent forms and information sheets explaining the process and rights.
- Quarterly/Annual governance reports to trustees covering RJ themes, risks, and metrics.
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Comprehensive policy with excellent implementation, independent facilitation, robust safeguarding triage, and demonstrated positive cultural impact. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Good policy with routine implementation, trained facilitators, supervision, and regular governance reporting. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Defined policy with documented triage/exclusion criteria and basic training, but limited outcome measurement. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Draft or informal policy lacking clear safeguarding thresholds or trained facilitation. |
| 1 | 1/5 | No restorative justice policy or ad-hoc use without safeguards. |
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Full import from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.