000 | 03057nam a2200349Ia 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | 110427 | ||
005 | 20250625151226.0 | ||
008 | 110331s2005 eng | ||
020 | _a0478201958 | ||
040 |
_aWSS _dAFV |
||
100 |
_aPaulin, Judy _91882 |
||
245 |
_aThe Rotorua Second Chance Community-managed Restorative Justice Programme : _ban evaluation _cPaulin, Judy; Kingi, Venezia; Huirama, Tautari; Lash, Barb |
||
260 |
_aWellington _bMinistry of Justice _c2005 |
||
300 | _a110 p. ; computer file : PDF format (544Kb) | ||
365 |
_a00 _b0 |
||
520 | _aThis report, produced by the Ministry of Justice, re-evaluates the Rotorua Second Chance Programme (RSCP). This programme facilitates a restorative system for offenders and victims of domestic violence and other violent offences. The purpose of this evaluation is to ascertain the effectiveness of the tikanga-based (Maori customs and values) restorative justice process and to identify best practice principles. A description of the programme, including the objectives, cultural aspects, referral and restorative justice procedures is outlined. The evaluation shows that the objectives around community and victim participation in the restorative justice process were met with approximately 83% of participating victims 'satisfied' with the process and outcomes. The programme was not effective in reducing re-offending rates as findings show that a one-year reconviction rate is similar between the participants in this programme and a comparison group matched for offending history, offence characteristics and demographic features. This report identifies that relevant stakeholders thought very highly of the RSCP staff; and the links between the programme, Te Arawa Maori Trust Board and the community were valued. Best practice areas, in accordance with the Ministry of Justices' principles, are evaluated and four areas of improvement are identified. These are: that victims remain updated throughout the process; that victim informed consent be obtained prior to beginning the process; that safety and supports for all participants be maintained; and that programme staff receive ongoing supervision and training. Particular issues around using a restorative process for family or sexual violence are analysed as this is a sensitive and important consideration, especially when the victim is a child. | ||
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aOFFENDERS _9413 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aRESTORATIVE JUSTICE _9502 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aVICTIMS _9622 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_9357 _aMÄ€ORI _2FVC |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_9431 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _2FVC |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_9458 _aPREVENTION _2FVC |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_9103 _aCHILD ABUSE _2FVC |
651 | 2 | 4 |
_aNEW ZEALAND _92588 |
700 | 1 |
_aKingi, Venezia _91494 |
|
700 | 1 |
_aHuirama, Tautari _91396 |
|
700 | 1 |
_aLash, Barb _91534 |
|
856 | 4 | _uhttp://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/The-Rotorua-Second-Chance-Community-Managed-Restorative-Justice-Programme-An-Evaluation.pdf | |
942 |
_2ddc _cREPORT |
||
999 |
_c2787 _d2787 |