Skip to main

Impact case study database

The impact case study database allows you to browse and search for impact case studies submitted to the REF 2021. Use the search and filters below to find the impact case studies you are looking for.

Search and filter

Filter by

  • The University of Sheffield
   None selected
  • 18 - Law
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
Waiting for server
Download currently selected sections for currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Download currently selected case study PDFs (zip) (generating)
Download tags for the currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Currently displaying text from case study section
Showing impact case studies 1 to 3 of 3
Submitting institution
The University of Sheffield
Unit of assessment
18 - Law
Summary impact type
Legal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Dr Layla Skinns’ research on dignity in police custody for children and adults has had substantial impact on the law, police policy, practice, and the design of police custodial settings.

This ground-breaking research into custody in England and Wales has resulted in legal and policy changes to the procedural and human rights of young suspects. It has contributed to an unprecedented reduction in the number of children being arrested. Legal changes now mean 17-year-olds in police custody are afforded the same rights as children including access to an appropriate adult and their parents/carers being informed of their arrest.

Her research into detainee dignity in custodial settings has changed police codes of practice and been adopted nationally via the National Strategy for Police Custody. Locally, forces have adopted her research and changed policy, practice, and risk assessment processes. The research has had a profound impact on attitudes and practice and led to Dr Skinns being considered the leading voice on police custody.

2. Underpinning research

Skinns’ pioneering research explores the practices and experiences of staff and detainees in custodial settings.

Overnight custody and children 2011

In 2011 The Howard League for Penal Reform commissioned Skinns to conduct research into overnight detention in police cells of those under 18-years. Legally children who are not granted bail (by the police or courts) should be transferred to accommodation managed by local authorities unless it is ‘impractical’ to do so, with secure accommodation also being provided in specific high-risk circumstances. However, a lack of research made it impossible to ascertain if this was happening or if children were in fact being detained in police cells. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and a literature review were used to identify the scale of the issue and its effects. Skinns identified that children were being held in custody overnight far more often than the law required or allowed.  Her research revealed for the first time that in one year there had been 53,000 overnight detentions (19% of all detentions) of children aged under 16 years in England and Wales suggesting that overnight police custody was routinely used in place of accommodation by local authorities [R1]. In addition, she found that there was limited access to appropriate adult services in the evenings/late at night thus increasing the risk of a detention becoming an overnight one [R1]. Skinns highlighted the serious anomaly that 17-year-olds, who are in general treated as minors elsewhere in the criminal justice system, were as a matter of law considered adults for police custody purposes. This meant they were not entitled to additional rights available to those who were 16 and under, including access to an appropriate adult and their parents being informed of their arrest.  Moreover, they could lawfully be detained overnight [R1].

‘Good’ police custody 2013-2018

The demands of police custody are such that staff must continuously balance competing priorities, including safety, security, risk, cost effectiveness, the law, and the requirements of the criminal justice process. Skinns led a five-year ESRC national research study to robustly examine what ‘good’ practice meant in a custodial setting. Phase 1 of the study collected data on police custody delivery patterns from custody managers in nearly all England and Wales police forces. Phase 2 involved detailed observation of and interviews with detainees and staff in four forces in England and Wales. In phase 3, preliminary ideas about what ‘good’ custody means were tested through surveys of nearly 800 staff and detainees across 13 forces.

Skinns found that detainee dignity should be prioritised alongside existing priorities [R4]. Prioritising dignity is beneficial for staff and detainees as it increases detainee cooperation and creates a more humane experience [R5]. Skinns also explored the custodial environment and found that it mattered: a clean, bright, and spacious setting has the potential to lessen the pain of detention and encourage detainees to exercise their due process rights [R3, R6]. In addition, recognising detainee dignity by including equipment in the space to support them, such as reading and writing materials and clocks, improves interactions with staff and can create more satisfying workplaces for staff [ R2].

Skinns developed a series of good practice recommendations launched in 2019 in relation to four interlinked areas: police attitudes and practices; policies, training, and line management; detainee expectation; material conditions and the custody estate.

3. References to the research

Skinns, L, (2011) The Overnight Detention of Children in Police Cells, Howard League for Penal Reform. https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Overnight_detention_of_children_in_police_cells.pdf

Skinns, L., Sorsby, A., & Rice, L. (2020). “Treat them as a human being”: dignity in police detention and its implications for ‘good’ police custody. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(6), 1667–1688. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa051

Skinns, L., & Wooff, A. (2020). Pain in police detention: a critical point in the ‘penal painscape’? Policing and Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1706506

Skinns, L. (2019). Good police custody: Dignity, equal worth, autonomy, decency and legality. Recommendations for practice. Published online at: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/law/research/directory/police

Skinns L, Rice L, Sprawson A & Wooff A (2017) Police legitimacy in context: an exploration of “soft” power in police custody in England. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40(3), 601-613 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

Skinns, L., Wooff, A., & Sprawson, A. (2017). Preliminary findings on police custody delivery in the twenty-first century: Is it ‘good’ enough? Policing and Society, 27(4), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1058377

4. Details of the impact

Background

Sheffield research has driven the debate and provided reliable evidence to allow (a) the Howard League to campaign for the treatment of 17-year-olds as minors and better practice in relation to the use of police custody for all children [R1] and (b) the more dignified treatment of female detainees in custody.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is accompanied by a series of Codes of Practice which set out how PACE should be put into practice. Code C applies to the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects. In April 2013, underpinned by the Howard League’s campaign, the Court of Appeal held that the failure of Code C to distinguish between 17-year-olds and adults was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Changed law and guidance on detention and treatment of children and adults in police custody

In October 2013, the Home Secretary amended Code C to make appropriate adults available to 17-year-olds. The research, and the campaigning based on it, went beyond these (important) amendments to Code C. In 2015, PACE itself was amended to include 17-year-olds in the definition of minors used in the Act. As a result, since October 2015, all arrested 17-year-olds have been treated as minors, not adults. Further amendments were made to Code C to reflect the new law in 2017. This has impacted on the experiences of the approximately 75,000 young people aged 17 who are arrested and detained in police custody each year. They now have access to an appropriate adult and their parents/carers should be informed of their arrest [S1].

In 2017, the Home Office published its Concordat on Children in Custody, citing Skinns’ research. The Concordat set out in strong terms what is required by good practice, in relation to a custody sergeant requesting (secure) local authority accommodation [S2].

Since 2014 there has been an unprecedented reduction in the number of children both arrested and detained in custody. The changes to the law, Code C, PACE and the introduction of the Concordat, all underpinned by the Howard League’s campaigning and based on Skinns’ work, have made a significant contribution to this reduction [S3].  In 2019 there were 71,885 child arrests in England and Wales compared to 129, 273 at the end of 2013 (a reduction of 44%).

The research into dignity in detention [R2, R4] fed into additional substantive amendments to Code C relating to dignity of female detainees. In August 2019, the Government released amendments to Code C (and H, the parallel code for the detention of terrorist suspects). They require that female detainees be given an opportunity to speak to a woman about personal needs, for lavatory and washing facilities, and for staff to have a proper regard to the dignity, sensitivity, and vulnerability of detainees when clothing is removed and strip searching takes place [S5]. The amendments followed an open letter from the Independent Custody Visitors Association (ICVA):

“Dr Skinns’ research has crystalised our messaging and placed us in an excellent position to challenge and ultimately change the law. It is now in law that female detainees in custody are asked if they require menstrual products and if they do these are provided. This impacts on the dignity and wellbeing of female detainees” (CEO, ICVA, S5).

Transformed police force knowledge and practice

In January 2017, the current National Strategy for Police Custody was published. Under its first aspirational category – legitimacy – the National Strategy draws on the language of dignity and respect taken from Skinns’ research [R6, S4]. The strategy is a commitment to advancing the professionalism, efficiency, and efficacy of the custody provision.

In 2019 Skinns launched ten good practice recommendations based on her research into good practice in custody [R4]. They covered police practice, training and policies, detainee expectations, and the physical environment. These were shared at several events including the National Custody Forum in November 2019. The Forum is attended by representatives from all police forces and all other relevant police stakeholders, including the College of Policing, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies, Fire and Rescue and Prisons (HMICFRS, HMIP), ICVA, and the Home Office.

By demonstrating what ‘good’ looks like and the steps required to make improvements, the research has impacted on the knowledge of local police forces. In 2020, Skinns conducted a pilot evaluation with Surrey police force. During booking in, staff utilised an information sheet, based on Skinns’ research, which provided detainees with information about dignified treatment, key rights and entitlements, welfare and vulnerability, and safety and security. The sheet was also distributed to the majority of detainees. Detainees made use of the information provided to request further assistance, in one case from an appropriate adult [S6].

Further large police forces - Essex, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and the UK’s largest the Metropolitan Police Service - have recognised the need for further work in to prioritising detainee dignity and staff development and as a result are committed to piloting the guidelines in 2021 (this work would have happened earlier but was delayed due to COVID-19).

The recommendations have impacted on practice in several local police forces including Norfolk, Derbyshire and Devon and Cornwall. They have all implemented elements of Skinns’ recommendations.

“We moved towards increased detainee dignity, and decency through the reduction in the use of rip proof clothing by enhancing observation regimes which itself led to reductions in assaults on staff, and a focus on inducing “good” behaviours, and a welfare-oriented approach (former Head of Custody” [S7].

Derbyshire’s policy had been to remove all belongings when someone entered custody, but it now risk assesses whether detainees can keep personal belongings. Devon and Cornwall have introduced Distraction Packs which include colouring books, puzzles, jigsaw, and foam footballs. These reduce anxiety and boredom and increase the likelihood the detainee will engage with the process [S5, S7].

Impact on design of buildings and custodial settings

The research [R6] is having a critical impact on the physical design of police custody suites in England and Wales. In September 2019, the Ministry of Justice Estates Cluster published the revised version of the Police Custody Design Guide [S8]. Skinns was part of an expert reference group and ensured dignity was central to the guide. Senior Policy Advisor for the College of Policing and National Police Estate Group states:

“Included in the 2019 practice guidance are important overarching principles. They include designing a suite that can “accommodate detainees safely, securely and enable them to be treated with respect and dignity. This is a shift from the previous design guide which had less emphasis on dignity and more on safety and security” [S8].

Skinns drew on her research to author one section of the document, section 8.7 on “colour, art, painting and finishes”. In addition, Skinns fed into the National Police Estates Group (NPEG, which provides peer review to police forces planning to build new custody suites or renovate old ones. The Custody Lead on the NPEG has consistently used Skinns’ research in undertaking the reviews [S8], and in the design of two new custody facilities in his own home force area, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight. In Hampshire they have incorporated a glazed atrium, flooding the charge room with light.

“The Good Police Custody Study themes (dignity, decency, equality, legality, and autonomy) have been considered in creating national blueprints for custody design” [S8].

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

Changes to law and PACE regarding 17-year-olds Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 (SI 2015/1778); 2017 amendments: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2017.

Concordat on children in custody, 2017 ( https://bit.ly/3bVVFtW).

Child arrests in England and Wales data from the Howard League for Penal Reform ( https://bit.ly/2OMV3hn, https://bit.ly/3lrOOeR).

National Strategy for Police Custody ( https://bit.ly/3bYFbBr), reference to academics from the University of Sheffield.

CODE C Revised Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by Police Officers, August 2019 and testimonial from CEO of ICVA

Skinns, L. and Sorsby, A. Phase 5 of the ‘Good’ Police Custody Study: Putting recommendations into practice in one police force area: An evaluation study. Unpublished report.

Combined source: Emails and testimonials from local forces including Lou Provart Former Head of Custody Norfolk and Suffolk Police and ICVA guest blog from Devon and Cornwall Police Force ( http://bit.ly/2NwG8Ye).

Combined source: MOJ Police Custody Design Guide 2019 and Custody suite design: England and Wales; Testimonial Senior Policy Advisor for the College of Policing and National Police Estate Group.

Submitting institution
The University of Sheffield
Unit of assessment
18 - Law
Summary impact type
Political
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Effective use of health data for research is crucial for innovations in health and wellbeing. There are significant gaps in the legal regimes and policy positions governing the use of identifiable patient data for research. Inconsistent interpretation creates complex and confusing barriers for researchers. Chico and Taylor’s research identified the gaps and contradictions in the legal and governance frameworks. Their work provided clarity on the legal position that has been directly relied on in drawing common policy lines and guidance nationally, internationally and in support of the research response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This clarity has enabled a change in governance facilitating innovations in healthcare to patients in a way that is transparent and maximises public trust.

2. Underpinning research

Chico and Taylor have both been seconded to the UK healthcare research regulator, the Health Research Authority (HRA), whilst also continuing to develop their research. This dual focus has allowed them to identify and respond to gaps in the regulatory and policy landscape that prevent innovative research. Addressing these gaps is key for the HRA to be able to facilitate health research and innovation in a way that maximises public trust.

Chico and Taylor’s research to understand, map and resolve gaps and inconsistencies in healthcare information governance comprises empirical, mixed methods and theoretical research.

Determining the conditions to fulfil the duty of confidentiality

The absence of a legal standard determining when a consent is sufficient to negate an action for breach of confidence can result in risk-averse researchers avoiding beneficial research that requires the use of identifiable patient data. Chico and Taylor investigated the detailed and varied English jurisprudence on valid consent, misuse of health data and conditions to assess adequate consent that negates an action for breach of confidence. They argue the application of a clear legal principle of ‘real’ consent, coupled with an established standard for setting relevant information levels needed to achieve the ‘broad awareness’ required for this. They also provide greater clarity concerning the kind of information that is required to support a valid consent to the use of health data [R1].

A reasonable expectation of privacy as an alternative legal basis for the disclosure of health data

The National Data Guardian (NDG) is the body that advises and challenges the health and care system to help ensure that citizens’ confidential information is safeguarded securely. It has recognised that developments in data-driven technology and the adoption of machine learning in healthcare are putting stress on the traditional concepts for negating a breach of confidence in the use of health data for innovation. Chico and Taylor argued that conformity with a reasonable expectation of privacy could provide an alternative account for the lawful disclosure of confidential patient information for health innovations [R2], and that the role of the independent advisors (HRA Confidentiality Advisory Group) should contribute to these decisions so disclosure for the purposes of public health improvement is transparent and maintains public trust [R3].

Empirical investigation of public attitudes on secondary uses of health data

The public is cautious about the use of confidential patient information outside the provision of care, especially when commercial organisations are involved. However, there was a lack of nuanced consideration of the multiple factors that might impinge on public acceptability of secondary uses of health data. To provide more granular evidence, Chico and Taylor conducted empirical investigation into what influences people’s attitudes towards sharing health data with commercial organisations, where there is both a public and a private benefit. A key finding of the work showed substantial shifts (18%-45%) in the acceptability of sharing with a commercial organisation when people were exposed to further information about the public benefits of commercial use [R4].

3. References to the research

Chico, V., & Taylor, M. J. (2017). Using and Disclosing Confidential Patient Information and The English Common Law: What are the Information Requirements of a Valid Consent? Medical Law Review, 26(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx038

Chico, V. (2019). Reasonable expectations of privacy in non-disclosure of familial genetic risk: What is it reasonable to expect? European Journal of Medical Genetics, 62(5), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.11.013

Taylor, M. J. (2015). Legal Bases for Disclosing Confidential Patient Information for Public Health: Distinguishing between health protection and health improvement. Medical Law Review, 23(3), 348–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwv018

Chico V., Hunn, A. and Taylor, M. (2019). Public views on sharing anonymised patient-level data where there is a mixed public and private benefit. NHS Health Research Authority. https://bit.ly/3rKs5Nt

4. Details of the impact

Chico and Taylor’s research has provided evidence which has been directly relied on to inform legal and policy positions in national and international health information governance.

Impact on the policy and guidance for determining the conditions to fulfil the duty of confidentiality

NHS Digital (NHSD) is the national information and technology partner to the UK health and care system. It has a statutory duty to collect, analyse, publish, and disseminate national health and social care data and issue related guidance. NHSD had no reference point to determine whether a patient’s consent to share their health record was sufficient for NHSD to meet their obligations under common law. The NHSD Research Advisory Group worked with Taylor and Chico using their research [R1] in the guidance document Data Sharing Standard 7b – Duty of confidentiality. The NHSD guidance explicitly directs applicants to [R1] to help them determine when consent is considered sufficient by NHSD to modify the obligation of confidence and enable the use of confidential patient information [S1].

NHSD holds significant health and social care data sets. It also provides a reference point for all other NHS organisations on data protection and confidentiality. Thus, Sheffield research has affected all organisations comprising the health and social care system and anyone who is or will be an NHS patient.

[Text removed for publication].

Eighth Caldicott principle - reasonable expectations of privacy and a disclosure of health data

The Caldicott Principles are guidelines used across health and social care information governance to safeguard people’s data. The increasing use of data-driven technology in health and social care requires access to significant amounts of confidential data. The legal bases for setting aside confidentially are limited, and new practice is stretching current legal bases beyond their authentic interpretation. As the common law cannot act to address this directly, the research [R2, R3] proposed the policy development of a reasonable expectation of privacy as a legal basis for modifying the obligation of confidence. According to the Head of the Office of the National Data Guardian “ The most significant and longstanding impact from Vicky Chico and Mark Taylor’s work on the National Data Guardian (NDG) is on the development of a new Caldicott Principle[S2].

In December 2020, the NDG published Caldicott - Principle 8: Inform patients and service users about how their confidential information is used [S3].Her [Chico’s] research on the common law duty of confidentiality and the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy has allowed her to lead engagement with stakeholders to progress an agreed policy position” (Director of Policy and Partnerships, HRA **[S4]**). Chico worked closely with the NDG on the development of the recognition of the importance of reasonable expectations where confidential health and social care data is used and shared. She “ influenced the wording of the new (eighth) Caldicott Principle, recognising the importance of creating clear expectations, which formed part of a public consultation about revising, expanding and upholding the principles[S2].

All NHS organisations and local authorities must ensure that staff act in accordance with the Caldicott Principles.

Confidence of patient consent in health research

HRA Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) provides independent expert advice on the appropriate use of confidential patient information. All applications to use confidential patient information where consent is impossible or impractical in research must apply to this group. Applications are approved based on whether the study is potentially in the public interest. Taylor, as CAG Chair (2012-2017), used R1 when writing the 2017 paper which sets out CAG’s understanding of the public interest [S5].

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care issued notices that require health and care organisations to share confidential patient information for the purpose of responding to the pandemic. Chico was asked to work with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the NHS to enable healthcare researchers to access data under this notice. Alongside NHSX colleagues, Chico wrote step-by-step guidance to accessing data on COVID-19 for research purposes. “This guidance was published promptly and continues to be supportive to applicants so that they have access to data to support the pandemic”, Head of Stakeholder Engagement NHSX [S6]. Up to 31 December 2020, CAG had approved 203 applications involving research in response to COVID-19, utilising the notice and CAG’s understanding of public interest [S7].

Impact on the underpinning public trust in policy on secondary uses of health data

Chico and Taylor’s research into the public’s views on sharing patient data with third parties including commercial organisations [R4] has informed policy development and practice across health and social care organisations and the technology sector regarding uses of health data for research.

It has shaped CAG’s advice to NHSD on sharing anonymised data outside of the NHS where there is a public benefit but consent is not possible. “ These principles have been applied throughout the CAG advice and continue to underpin CAG considerations when advising on non-consented developing and innovative uses of patient information” (Head of Confidentiality Advice Service, HRA [ S8]).

The research has also had a significant impact on the NDG’s work to fulfil the statutory role to publish guidance about the processing of health and adult social care data in England. The NDG, Sciencewise, the Wellcome Trust and UKRI have used it as a key piece of evidence for the 2020 consultation on how the public understand the benefit of sharing health and social care data for research [S9].

Public attitudes on secondary uses of health data is a barrier to medical innovation globally. As the specialist adviser to the OECD Advisory Expert Groups for health and the digital economy recommendations, Taylor “ helped steer the Group towards a draft Recommendation that treats making personal health information available to serve the public interest and the protection of privacy as twin aims that can be progressed together rather than traded off against each other", Group Member and Deputy Commissioner, ICO, UK [S10]. The recommendation was adopted by the OECD Council in 2016 to enable more countries to benefit from research uses of data in which there is a public interest [S11].

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

Data sharing standard 7b – Duty of Confidentiality. This standard is part of a series of guidance documents to support the various stages of a Data Access Request Service (DARS) application. https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars/dars-guidance/data-sharing-standard-7b---duty-of-confidentiality

Letter from Head of the Office of the National Data Guardian coming Chico and Taylor’s contribution to the NDG on the formulation of eighth Caldicott principle on reasonable expectations

Launch of the eighth Caldicott principle ( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ndg-announces-new-caldicott-principle-and-guidance-on-caldicott-guardians).

Letter from Director of Policy and Partners, HRA describing Chico’s research contribution to public consultation and Caldicott principles.

Confidentiality Advisory Group: understanding public views on using personal data 2017 ( https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/confidentiality-advisory-group-understanding-public-views-using-personal-data/).

Letter from Head of NHSX Engagement confirming Chico’s role in the creation of guidance for access for confidential patient data applications in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

HRA research summaries of COVID-19 application to CAG ( https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/).

Confirmation by Head of Confidentiality Advice Service HRA of use of Sheffield research by CAG when advising on non-consent uses of patient information.

Launch of the National Data Guardian public consultation to explore how people weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of health and social care data sharing for research. ( https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/our-new-dialogue-with-the-public-about-data-for-public-benefit).

Deputy Commissioner, ICO, UK and Advisory Expert Group member statement on contribution to Recommendation on Health Data Governance.

OECD Recommendation on Health Data Governance ( https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-data-governance.htm).

Submitting institution
The University of Sheffield
Unit of assessment
18 - Law
Summary impact type
Legal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Research on the effectiveness of restorative justice and its implementation, through the Restorative Justice Forum, has formed the basis of statutory guidance from the Scottish Government. The research has underpinned the development of this type of justice in Scotland and is impacting on practitioners in England and Wales. In Scotland, this includes a commitment by ministers to create and develop provision at all stages of criminal justice by 2023, published in their Action Plan. In England and Wales, it informs the key guidance on what works to police and has inspired delivery in probation.

2. Underpinning research

In 2001, a research team at the University of Sheffield led by Professor Shapland was awarded a £1.3 million government grant to evaluate three restorative justice schemes in England and Wales in terms of their effects on victims and reoffending. The research was the first major evaluation in the world of the use of restorative justice to promote rehabilitation of adult offenders whilst also considering the needs of victims of serious offences. It also provided the first direct comparison of the relative merits of two types of restorative justice intervention: conferencing involving a meeting of victim and offender with their supporters and with a neutral facilitator (known as “direct mediation” where supporters are absent); and “indirect mediation” in which the mediator shuttles between victim and offender.

The research found [R1-5]:

  • A majority of victims chose to participate in face-to-face meetings with the offender when offered by a trained facilitator.

  • Over 80% of victims who took part were satisfied with the process and outcome.

  • Victims who took part were more satisfied with the criminal justice response than those who did not, and victims of more serious offences found it particularly helpful.

  • Taking part in restorative justice conferencing reduced the frequency of re-offending of offenders.

  • Restorative justice conferencing was value for money, in that the savings in terms of reduced re-offending were considerably more than the cost of running the schemes (£9 savings for every £1 spent).

It also led to further research [R6] funded by the Police Knowledge Fund (2015-2017: Professor Shapland PI; Professor Crawford University of Leeds CI (£336,829)) to work with three police forces, facilitated by a co-production approach, to use the research to inform and improve the delivery of restorative justice at the level of police decision making. This showed:

  • Developing the use and offer of restorative justice means encouraging front-line officers to change away from ‘business as usual’ in response to incidents. This is done through training, structuring discretion, and management backup to give officers the confidence to offer restorative justice to victims.

  • Where officers’ roles involve continuing contact with the public (e.g. Safer Schools officers) this could lead to a wide use of restorative justice.

  • The need to co-locate partners to which referrals are made, use restorative justice ‘champions’ and automate referrals.

3. References to the research

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Colledge, E., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Pennant, R., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2004). Implementing restorative justice schemes (Crime Reduction Programme): A report on the first year. Home Office Online Report 32/04. Home Office. https://bit.ly/38E7Aux

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Colledge, E., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2006). Restorative justice in practice: Findings from the second stage of the evaluation of three schemes. Home Office Research Findings 274. Home Office. https://bit.ly/3rh0l21

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2007). Restorative justice: the views of victims and offenders. The third report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 3/07. MoJ. https://bit.ly/3vpx3Bl

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08. MoJ. https://bit.ly/3eDGHKT

Shapland, J., Robinson, G., and Sorsby, A. (2011). Restorative Justice in Practice: Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203806104. Available from HEI by request.

Shapland, J., Crawford, A., Gray, E. and Burn, D. (2017). Restorative justice at the level of the police in England: implementing change. Sheffield: Centre for Criminological Research, Occasional Paper, https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.743733!/file/DevelopingRestorativePolicing3.pdf

4. Details of the impact

The research has had significant impact on government policymaking in England and Wales prior to 2014 (including statutory provision for restorative justice) which was submitted as an impact case study to REF2014. In the current REF period, the research has impacted on the development of restorative justice policy, statutory guidance and legislation in Scotland, and furthered the implementation in England and Wales.

In October 2014, Shapland was appointed Chair of the Restorative Justice Forum (Scotland) [S1] as a result of the reputation and evidence base established by the research. The Forum brings together senior policy makers from statutory and voluntary sector agencies in Scotland, and relevant Scottish academics, with the Scottish Government and the judiciary as official observers. It is the major body developing restorative justice policy for Scotland, as well as supporting practitioners through a practitioners network and bringing together researchers in a research network.

Statutory guidance and action plan in Scotland

As a result of Shapland’s active involvement in the work of forum members, the Forum was asked by the Scottish Government to help draft statutory guidance on restorative justice envisaged by section 5(2) of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. Drawing on the research base developed by Shapland et al, the Forum played a major role in drafting this first overall statutory guidance for Scotland [S1] and bringing together key agencies in a number of iterations between 2015-2017. The Guidance was issued by the Scottish Government in October 2017 [S2]. It sets out key principles for restorative justice and good practice requirements for restorative justice service providers.

In February 2018, Shapland briefed the Scottish Conservative Justice spokesperson, Liam Kerr MSP, because he was intending to use his opportunity to lead a debate to focus on restorative justice, given the work of the Forum [S3]. The debate (May 2018) majored on the necessity for further development of restorative justice provision in Scotland. Kerr commended the Forum and cited Shapland’s work with approval “ Scotland’s reconviction rate has barely changed in 17 years. According to University of Sheffield research, restorative justice processes significantly reduce the frequency of reoffending[S4]. All the main party spokespeople spoke in favour of the further development of restorative justice advocated by Shapland. The Minister announced a consultation on the making of the section 5(2) duties order, commended the Forum’s assistance with the guidance and gave a number of examples of restorative justice work being undertaken in accordance with the guidance [S4].

In September 2018, the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government was published, making the development of restorative justice services throughout Scotland a priority. An action plan to accomplish this, also developed with the Forum, was published in June 2019 [S5]. Shapland has been involved throughout and is on the stakeholder group implementing the Action Plan [S1], which envisages restorative justice being “ available across Scotland to all those who wish to access it” (p.4) [S5]. The Head of the Victims’ Rights and Vulnerable Witnesses Team of the Scottish Government has said: “ Joanna’s input, and that of the Forum more generally, into the development of the Action Plan was critical” [S6].

As well as meeting with the heads of all the main statutory agencies in Scotland since 2014 to discuss the evidence base for restorative justice, Shapland has enabled Scottish practitioners to learn and discuss more about restorative justice. The Chief Executive of the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, a Scottish community justice organisation, has said: “ Her research and the evidence it provides have without doubt, been central to the strategic development of Scottish Government policy in adopting the European Directive on availability of access to restorative justice[S6]. Other examples of the impact of Shapland’s research are the production of practice-based initiatives such as the RJ Toolkit [S7] and being the main first speaker at the 2017 series of seminars for practitioners funded by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute to provide an overview of the evidence regarding restorative justice internationally [S8].

England and Wales

Shapland, with Crawford, received funding from the Police Knowledge Fund to implement restorative policing in England derived from the research [R1-6]. The approaches to ‘making the offer’ of restorative justice and developing good practice were trialled in three police forces, strongly supported by their senior management. After the pilots the Police and Crime Commissioners for West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire invested an additional £900,000 and £377,912 respectively to continue delivering restorative justice since 2018 [S9]. South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner stated: “ We launched the hub back in June 2015 and have seen some excellent results with direct Restorative Justice conferences occurring from crimes such as burglary, death by dangerous driving and shoplifting. Most victims who take up the offer of Restorative Justice do come away with their questions answered and a feeling of closure[S9].

Shapland’s three reports have been presented to police forces at national conferences. The research is being used to influence service provision in different areas.

The Criminal Justice Alliance, a coalition of charities and service providers aiming to improve the criminal justice system, committed to seeking to secure a legal entitlement to restorative justice – in establishing its case for this, the Alliance published detailed costings of restorative justice which relied on Shapland’s “ widely respected” research [S10]. Practitioners, including probation services in London have relied on the research to develop restorative justice practice, “ your work really helped us to launch RJ in London[S11]. The College of Policing ‘What works’ website - the major source for police forces and senior police officers in terms of crime reduction in England and Wales - has undertaken systematic reviews of restorative justice conferencing and of mediation, in which the research figured prominently [S12]. The research was also cited as a major study impelling the development of a further Recommendation by the Council of Europe in its commentary in 2018 [S13].

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

Confirmation of Shapland’s involvement generally, and specifically research input into statutory guidance and action plan: the then Chief Executive, Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

Scottish Government (2017) Guidance for the Delivery of Restorative Justice in Scotland, at https://www.gov.scot/publications/guidance-delivery-restorative-justice-scotland/.

Confirmation from Liam Kerr MSP Scottish Conservative Justice spokesperson of the research contribution to raising awareness of restorative justice in Scottish Parliamentary debate.

The May 2018 debate: Scottish Parliament Record of Proceedings 22 May 2018, access1706.2019 (Motion debated: That the Parliament recognises what it considers the importance of restorative justice in complementing the traditional criminal justice system in Scotland). http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11548&i=104724

Scottish Government (2019) Restorative justice: action plan, (see particularly Ministerial Foreword, p.3: ‘informed by input and feedback from the Restorative Justice Forum’ and p.8). https://www.gov.scot/publications/restorative-justice-action-plan/

Confirmation from the Victims’ Rights and Vulnerable Witnesses Team of the Scottish Government of Shapland’s contribution to the Action Plan.

Hamad, R., Shapland, J., Kirkwood, S., Bisset, C. and Edginton, E. (2020) Designing and Implementing Restorative Justice in Scotland 2020. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh and Restorative Justice Forum (Scotland) (the Toolkit), http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/277704/Restorative_Justice_Toolkit_121020.pdf

Scottish Universities Insight Institute conferences on restorative justice at https://www.scottishinsight.ac.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=8175 (see dialogue 1 – RJ: the research evidence; and Final conference).

Announce of West Yorkshire PCC investment in restorative justice provision March 2018 ( https://www.restorativesolutions.org.uk/news/restorative-solutions-wins-contract-with-west-yorkshire-s-pcc); and South Yorkshire PCC for RJ services from April 2019 ( https://southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/app/uploads/2019/04/18-036-Restorative-Justice-Service-Contract.pdf).

Criminal Justice Alliance: The Cost of an Entitlement to Restorative Justice ( http://criminaljusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CJA-RJ-Costings-0317-1.pdf).

London Community Rehabilitation Company (London probation) of 15-May-2019.

College of Policing What Works ( https://whatworks.college.police.uk/About/Pages/default.aspx).

European Council recommendation of Restorative justice ( https://www.euforumrj.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/pb_on_coe_rec_general.pdf).

Showing impact case studies 1 to 3 of 3

Filter by higher education institution

UK regions
Select one or more of the following higher education institutions and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No higher education institutions found.
Institutions

Filter by unit of assessment

Main panels
Select one or more of the following units of assessment and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No unit of assessments found.
Units of assessment

Filter by continued case study

Select one or more of the following states and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by summary impact type

Select one or more of the following summary impact types and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by impact UK location

UK Countries
Select one or more of the following UK locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No UK locations found.
Impact UK locations

Filter by impact global location

Continents
Select one or more of the following global locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No global locations found.
Impact global locations

Filter by underpinning research subject

Subject areas
Select one or more of the following underpinning research subjects and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No subjects found.
Underpinning research subjects