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.
| Metric | Restorative Justice Effectiveness Index |
|---|---|
| Target | Defined per metric (e.g., >80% satisfaction) |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Method | Composite: % eligible cases offered RJ, completion rate, satisfaction score, agreement compliance rate |
| Unit | Percentage/Score |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Ad-hoc approach. Conflicts and harms are addressed inconsistently, often through punitive measures or are ignored. There is no formal policy, safeguarding triage, or awareness of restorative justice principles.
Level 2: Developing
Developing approach. There is an awareness of restorative justice concepts. An informal or draft policy exists but lacks clear exclusion criteria for high-risk cases. A few individuals may have received basic training.
Level 3: Established
Defined approach. A formal, documented RJ policy is approved. It includes mandatory safeguarding triage and exclusion criteria. Procedures for voluntary consent, confidentiality, and data protection are documented. Facilitators are trained to a recognized standard.
Level 4: Advanced
Managed approach. RJ is implemented with routine supervision and risk oversight. Effectiveness is measured using composite metrics (satisfaction, recurrence, compliance). Governance reporting to trustees includes themes, risks, and safeguarding compliance.
Level 5: Optimizing
Optimizing approach. A culture of restorative justice is deeply embedded, with independent facilitation and root-cause analysis driving systemic improvements. The organization shares best practices and demonstrates 'adl (justice) and iḥsān (excellence) in all conflict resolution.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Disproportionate for volunteer-run groups; high safeguarding risk without professionally trained facilitators. |
| Small | optional | Formal restorative justice is resource-intensive; informal mediation usually suffices for this size. |
| Medium | partial | Can integrate restorative principles into existing grievance routes, but a full standalone RJ triage system may be too heavy. |
| Large | full | Appropriate for charities with dedicated HR and complex grievance handling requirements. |
| Major | full | Standard best practice for large-scale HR and dispute resolution. |
Applicable When
- The organization interacts with people (employees, clients, beneficiaries, etc.)
- The organization has the potential to cause harm, even unintentionally
- The organization seeks to foster a just and ethical environment
Not Applicable When
- The organization is a passive holding entity (e.g., a waqf holding only financial assets) with no employees, volunteers, or direct programmatic interaction with beneficiaries.
- The organization is a subsidiary or program fully and explicitly governed by a parent organization's comprehensive and binding conflict resolution and restorative justice policies.
- The organization's activities are strictly limited to automated processes or content publication without any direct interpersonal services or community engagement.
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Full import from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.