What should we think about when doing restorative justice with justice-involved women?
By Dr. Linnéa Österman, Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, Gothenburg University, linnea.osterman@gu.se
Owing to feminist efforts in criminology, we know more than ever before about justice-involved women (Hine, 2019). We are increasingly hearing about gender-aware, gender-responsive and gender-sensitive practices in criminal justice. This year, England and Wales launched a Women’s Justice Board to ‘provide a vision and direction on how to reform women’s justice to address the distinct needs of women in or at risk of contact with the criminal justice system’ (gov.uk, 2025). This is a marker of the growing recognition of the long-standing marginalisation of women within a criminal justice system ‘largely designed by men for men’ (Corston, 2007: 2). Another such marker is the UN ‘Bangkok Rules’, which provides international standards for gender-sensitive justice policy.
These gender-orientated advancements in criminal justice are hardly reflected in restorative justice. Feminist research on restorative justice, as noted by Cook, Daly and Stubbs (2019: 5) continues to predominantly centre on its appropriateness for partner, family or sexual violence, with little written about how practitioners can meet the needs of women who enter restorative justice after being accused of committing an offence. There are, however, a few exceptions to this rule. One of them is a research study that I and Dr. Isla Masson undertook together with the Restorative Justice Council. With funding from the Barrow Cadbury Trust, we explored sentenced women’s access to and lived experiences of RJ, as well as views and experiences by practitioners who has led restorative conferences with justice-involved women.
Unsurprisingly, aside from a couple of more serious offences, most women in the study had committed acquisitive crime or fraud. Practitioners argued that there are missed opportunities for women to participate because their offence types make them a lower priority, and present more challenges, for many RJ services. From a gender equality perspective – where everyone should be offered similar opportunities regardless of their gender – unequal access to RJ is a problem.
All women in the study had complex needs and circumstances. This included living with the consequences of trauma and physical and sexual abuse, having poor mental health, dealing with challenging childcare and custody concerns, being in volatile housing situations, struggling with alcohol and substance abuse, poor physical health, and financial hardship. With genuine acknowledgment of responsibility considered important in restorative justice, it is notable that none of the women viewed these factors as excusing their offending behaviour or reducing their responsibility for it. However, their complex needs and circumstances affected the process in other ways. For example, mental health issues were viewed by practitioners as more common in RJ processes with justice-involved women, and many expressed a need for this, along with higher levels of guilt and shame, to be both recognised and managed safely. Some practitioners admitted, however, that they did not always feel well equipped to do so.
In parallel, some women expressed challenges in communicating some of the problems they faced, such as being a victim of rape or going through an abortion, to a male practitioner. One of our recommendations was that women should – whenever possible – be offered the opportunity to work with a female RJ practitioner. None of the practitioners who participated in the study had received any training in gender-sensitive approaches, reflecting inconsistent approached to gender-specific issues in RJ delivery. Some basic training in gender-responsive practices within justice-orientated areas could help address this.
There was a general lack of knowledge about RJ among the women; most had not heard of the practice before taking part and all were initially quite uncertain about participation. Taking part was not a decision they took lightly. Most found the pre-conference experience nerve-wracking, leading in some cases to panic attacks. While some women praised the preparation work, others reported that they had not been prepared properly and that they had a limited understanding of what would be involved. The study identified that gender played a role in some aspects of preparation. Beyond challenges with communication noted above, practitioners often viewed preparation as more demanding and time-consuming when done with justice-involved women, due to their complex needs. Some practitioners felt that this was a barrier to engagement: for an effective, ethical conference, more acute factors in the women’s lives needed to be dealt with before moving ahead with the process.
When it got to the actual conference, all of the women found it highly emotional and stressful. Despite the draining aspects of it, in most cases they felt that the process had helped with the alleviation of guilt and many of them said they would recommend it to other sentenced women. From the practitioner side, justice-involved women were viewed as generally having higher levels of emotional intelligence and empathy compared to justice-involved men, which often made the RJ process particularly effective. Overall, then, although it may take longer to get these cases to conference, and it is likely to be more time-demanding, investing that time often leads to more impactful RJ conferences.
When it came to the post-conference phase, while most women felt well supported, a few did not receive adequate support or follow up. For a small number of participants, this had a negative effect on their mental health. We recommend that, for ethical and effective practice, services need to ensure the availability of post-conference follow ups. This is of particular importance when facilitating RJ conferences with individuals with complex needs; a population disproportionately represented in the group justice-involved women. Moreover, referral pathways need to be established in order to ensure that practitioners are able to refer women with complex needs to appropriate mainstream or specialist services, including women’s centres that have expertise in providing support to women. Some women who participated in the study had experiences of such referrals as a part of their RJ engagement and were now receiving what they described as valuable and positive support from such centres. Partnership working with gender-specific services was also a key recommendation from the study.
As the RJ field moves forward in Ireland, it is important to remain aware of how we can provide effective and ethical RJ work to all justice-involved individuals. RJ practices are not exempt from the various power dynamics that exist in our formal as well as informal systems and practices; some of which are based on relations linked to gender. Gender-sensitive approaches may be one way to attend to gender equality within RJ practices, in turn ensuring that everyone is offered equal opportunities to engage with RJ in positive and impactful ways.
Here are our research report and the practitioner guide that RJC published linked to the study. You can also read our academic publications here:
Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2017). Restorative Justice With Female Offenders: The Neglected Role of Gender in Restorative Conferencing. Feminist Criminology, 13(1), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117738326
Masson, I., & Österman, L. (2017). Working with female offenders in restorative justice frameworks: Effective and ethical practice. Probation Journal, 64(4), 354-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517728784