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.
Compliance 4
-
Documented RJ policy with safeguarding-first triageDocumentation Essential
-
Safeguarding and exclusion criteriaRisk Management Essential
-
GDPR-compliant confidentiality & retentionCompliance Essential
-
Accessibility and reasonable adjustmentsInclusion Important
Good 6
-
Clear procedures for voluntary consent and withdrawalProcess Essential
-
Integration with grievance/disciplinary routesProcess Essential
-
Governance oversight and facilitator supervisionGovernance Important
-
Educational components on Iṣlāḥ ethicsStakeholder Engagement High
-
Parallel speak-up channelsRisk Management High
-
Integration of Islamic ethical principlesExcellence High
Better 6
-
Trained, impartial facilitators (trauma-informed)Training Essential
-
Multiple restorative practices tailored to contextExcellence High
-
Independent facilitator panel with recusal processGovernance High
-
Theme analysis to address root causesContinuous Improvement High
-
Follow-up monitoring of agreements (30/90 days)Continuous Improvement High
-
Trauma-informed approachInnovation High
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Full import from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.