British Journal of Social Work (2011) 41, 1372–1382

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr131
Advance Access publication September 6, 2011

Data Recording and Social Work: From

the Relational to the Social
Lieve Bradt*, Rudi Roose, Maria Bouverne-De Bie, and
Maarten De Schryver

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

Lieve Bradt is postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Social Welfare Studies at Ghent
University (Belgium). Rudi Roose is Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Welfare
Studies at Ghent University and Associate Professor at the Department of Criminology at
Free University Brussels. Maria Bouverne-De Bie is Professor at the Department of Social
Welfare Studies at Ghent University. Maarten De Schryver is scientific researcher at the
Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology at Ghent University.
*
Correspondence to Lieve Bradt, Ghent University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences, Department of Social Welfare Studies, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
Social workers operate in an increasingly informational context (Parton, 2008, 2009). In this
context, registration and data recording are becoming an important condition for the
funding of social work organisations (Jones, 2001). In this article, we argue that the
debate on data recording and social work mainly focuses on the question of whether
data recording is a threat to or an opportunity for the relational aspects of social work prac-
tice. Based on an analysis of the data-recording system of victim–offender mediation for
adult offenders in Flanders (Belgium), the article shows that recognising the social dimen-
sion of social work demands that social work approaches data recording not only as a way
to show the activity of the social workers, but also as an instrument to reflect critically on
how social work intervenes in—and therefore defines—social problems.

Keywords: Data recording, the informational, social work practice, victim–offender

mediation

Accepted: August 2011

Introduction

Literature on social work has recently paid a lot of attention to manageri-

alism and its possible negative effects on the practice of social work (e.g.

# The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
 Data Recording and Social Work 1373

Clarke and Newman, 1997; Tsui and Cheung, 2004). It is stated that man-
agerialism curtails the discretion of front line workers, focusing on follow-
ing procedural guidance. The emphasis in social work shifts from front line
work to management (Parton, 2008) and the knowledge base of social work
is dominated by managerial knowledge, rather than the knowledge of front
line workers (Tsui and Cheung, 2004). Parton (2008, 2009) argues that this
central role of managers results in a growing emphasis on information in
social work. Forms of knowledge have become more formalised ‘and
subject to a whole series of different and detailed forms—literally. Forms
came both to represent and constitute the nature and form of knowledge
which lay at the centre of front line practice’ (Parton, 2008, p. 260). In

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

this context, registration and data recording is increasingly becoming an
important condition for the funding of social work organisations (Jones,
2001)—a development that has even become more evident with the
growth of technology and ICT-based instruments.
Some scholars consider this growing emphasis on gathering and proces-
sing information in social work as a threat to social work, downsizing its
professional status. Web (cited in Parton, 2008, p. 262), for example,
refers to the emergence of ‘technologies of care’, which are based on the
logic of the database and focus on informationality resulting in a decrease
in the relational aspects in social work. It is argued that data-recording
objectifies clients rather than seeing them as subjects, as ‘categorical think-
ing based on the binary either/or logic, dominates, which puts individuals
into categories and, in the process, obscures any ambiguities’ (Parton,
2008, p. 263). According to Lash (2002), the information that is gathered
for databases is qualitatively different from discourse or narrative and is
more interested in operationality than in meaning. Also, Pithouse (1998)
argues that the procedural demands can easily obfuscate rather than
reveal the practice of social work, as it cannot grasp the true nature of
the responsive and unpredictable practice of social work. Moreover,
research revealed that, for social workers, record keeping can cause a
sense of alienation from their work or identity, which is precisely seen in
working with their clients (Burton and van den Broek, 2009).
Other studies, however, report that some social workers actually
welcome tools for data recording, such as assessment tools. They believe
that these tools will improve the quality of their assessments and, as such,
will enhance their professionalism (Robinson, 2003). Still others argue
that the managerial developments do not necessarily erode professional dis-
cretion, as social workers can develop a critical stance towards these devel-
opments (Aronson and Smith, 2010) and can find ways to resist and work
with managerial demands (Moffat, 1999; Healy, 2000; Spratt, 2001;
Stanford, 2010). Pithouse (1998), for example, refers to social work teams
manipulating caseload statistics to safeguard organisational interests, such
as the increase of staff and financial means.
1374 Lieve Bradt et al.

The debate on data recording, however, mainly focuses on the question

of whether data recording is a threat to or an opportunity for the relational
aspects of social work practice in terms of the responsiveness from the
social worker to the client. It is then claimed that data recording either
decreases/ignores these relational aspects in social work or improves the
work with clients. Although we deem this question very important, it
might cause the debate on data recording and social work to remain self-
referential, as it approaches data recording merely as an instrument to
show/improve ‘the work’ of social workers. Social work is, however, not
only about building constructive relations between social workers and
clients. The social refers to a social dimension, which implies the recog-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

nition that social work cannot distance itself from social, political and his-
torical processes, evolutions and contexts (Lorenz, 2007). Valuing the
social dimension of social work within data-recording practices, then, not
only demands gathering information on what social workers do in their
relations with clients, but also demands building knowledge on the
meaning of social work interventions in terms of both how social work prac-
tices intervene in social problems and who is included and excluded from
these interventions. As a case to illustrate the possible self-referential
nature of data-recording practices, we analyse the computerised
data-recording system of victim – offender mediation for adult offenders
in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium).1 Based on this analysis,
we will argue that social work should not reduce data recording to showing
the work of social workers, but should also approach data recording as a
way to reflect critically on the ‘social’ dimension of social work practices.
In what follows, we first describe victim – offender mediation for adult
offenders in Flanders. This description is necessary to understand the
social dimension of victim – offender mediation. Next, we describe the
data-recording system in terms of what is recorded by the mediators,
after which we analyse what is left out of the picture. Finally, implications
for the debate on data recording and social work are discussed.

Victim–offender mediation for adult offenders in Flanders

Victim– offender mediation is one of the most widely used expressions of
restorative justice (Coates et al., 2004). Restorative justice is about a ‘para-
digm shift’ (Roach, 2000, p. 256)—referred to by Zehr (1990) as ‘changing
lenses’—providing a very different way of understanding and responding to
crime (Umbreit et al., 2005). It understands crime as ‘a conflict to be
resolved between the persons directly involved rather than as a conflict
between the state and the accused’ (Schiff, 1998). Instead of taking the pun-
ishment of offenders as the focus of criminal justice processes, its aim and
guiding norm are restoring relationships (Walker, 2006). Conflicts are not
‘stolen’ from the parties directly involved (Christie, 1977), as restorative
 Data Recording and Social Work 1375

justice ‘turns those traditional observers of the criminal justice system—

victims, offenders, and their families and friends—into participants’
(Roche, 2003, p. 9).
Victim – offender mediation is ‘a process which provides interested
victims . . . the opportunity to meet the offender, in a safe and structured
setting, with the goal of holding the offender[s] directly accountable for
their behavior while providing assistance and compensation to the victim’
(Umbreit, 1999, p. 215). Mediation can be either direct or indirect. In
direct mediation, victim and offender meet face to face in the presence of
a mediator. Since direct contact is not always possible or desired by the
parties, indirect mediation in which the mediator meets with the parties sep-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

arately and successively is also widely used (United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime, 2006).
The mediation practice for adult offenders in Flanders was developed as
a project in 1993. This project was inspired by the restorative justice theory
and criticised the criminal justice system for being too punitive, too alienat-
ing and for paying too little attention to the victim. From the start, the
initiators argued that the mediation process should not be limited to the
individual intervention in the relation between victims and offenders, but
should also be focused on setting up a dialogue with and between the differ-
ent professionals involved in the criminal justice system (Bradt and
Bouverne-De Bie, 2009). With effect from 22 June 2005, the Belgian parlia-
ment passed an act that added mediation to the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, defining victim – offender mediation as a voluntary offer to
victims and offenders that can be initiated at the request of all persons
with a direct interest in the criminal procedure and at any time during
the criminal justice process, including after trial and during execution of
the sentence. The act prescribes that the criminal justice system has to
make sure that all parties have access to mediation at all stages of the crim-
inal justice process, including after sentencing, and that it has the responsi-
bility to inform all parties. Information on the mediation process and
outcomes can only be communicated to the prosecutor or the judge, with
the explicit consent of both victim and offender. In the latter case, the
judge must mention this in his/her sentence (Aertsen, 2006). Victim –
offender mediation is thus conducted independently from the criminal
justice system, but can simultaneously influence it.
Mediation offices for adult offenders are operating in all fourteen
Flemish judicial districts (one office per district) and each district has its
own local partnership. In total, there are twenty mediators for adult offen-
ders. All of them are professionals; there are no lay mediators. The
mediation offices in Flanders are all operated by one independent NGO,
Suggnomè, which is recognised by the Ministry of Justice and financed by
the Federal Department of Justice and by the Department of Welfare,
Health and Family of the Flemish government.
1376 Lieve Bradt et al.

Analysing the data-recording system

In the following, we go into our analysis of the data-recording system of
adult mediation. This system was developed by the mediation service
itself without regulations from the government. This makes this case par-
ticularly interesting with regard to the main focus of our article, as social
workers often position themselves as victims of the managerial develop-
ments (Bar-on, 2002). Our analysis focuses on two questions: (i) what is
recorded? and (ii) what is not recorded?

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

What is recorded?

All mediators for adult offenders in Flanders collect data on their

mediations by means of a common computerised data-recording system.
At the beginning, data were recorded according to the referrals received
from the public prosecutor or court (Suggnomè, 2002). One referral,
however, could contain one offence with one offender and one victim, or
it could involve several offences committed by several offenders on
several victims. Recording according to referral was therefore considered
to be insufficient, as it did not show all the work that mediators were actu-
ally doing. To meet these objections, it was decided in 2002 to record data
per mediation process, that is every mediation between one offender and
one victim as part of one or more offences in which both parties were
involved. Hence, one offence with two offenders and three victims was
recorded as six mediation processes. Besides this, a differentiation was
established between ‘potential’ mediation processes and ‘real’ mediation
processes. If there is, for example, one offence with one offender and
three victims, two of whom are willing to mediate, then the numbers of
potential and real mediation processes are respectively three and two. Con-
sequently, data are collected not only on real mediation processes, but on
each one-to-one relation in which mediation is offered, even if (one of)
the parties does not respond to or are (is) not interested in victim – offender
mediation.
In 2006, the data recording was again slightly changed and extended as a
result of the legalisation of mediation (see the act of 22 June 2005) and of
the definitions used within this act, the implementing orders and the subsidis-
ing norm. From this moment on, mediation processes were referred to as
‘mediation files’. According to the federal government, this concerns every
one-to-one relation in which both offender and victim have indicated at
least an interest in mediation (Suggnomè, 2006). The mediators, however, con-
tinued to record data on all one-to-one relations, also including those in which
there was no response to and/or interest in the offer of mediation. Hence, the
data recording is broader than that defined as a mediation file by law.
 Data Recording and Social Work 1377

These changes and developments resulted in a data-recording practice

that currently for each mediation process collects information on the
(i) application, (ii) victim, (iii) offender and (iv) mediation process. The
first part records data such as application number and date, judicial district,
type of application, applicant, level of referral and whether or not the appli-
cation is accepted by the mediation service. The part relating to the victim
records data on the name, sex, birth date, by whom the victim was informed
about the existence of mediation, if the victim responded to the offer and if
s/he was interested in the offer (and, if not, the reason). The part relating to
the offender gathers data on the name, sex, birth date, situation of the
offender, by whom the offender was informed about the existence of

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

mediation, if the offender responded to the offer and if s/he was interested
(and, if not, the reason). The last part collects data on the victim, offender,
the nature of the relation between victim and offender, type of offence, date
of offence, date of interest, whether or not the mediation was generated
(‘actual’ versus ‘non-actual’ mediation and, if it is non-actual, the mediator
can choose between reasons of offender/victim/mediator), date of closing,
reason for closing, type of agreement and whether the mediation was
direct/indirect (and, if direct, the number of direct meetings between
victim and offender).

What is not recorded?

As the abovementioned description of the data recording shows, the

recorded data mainly provide information on the (potential) mediation pro-
cesses. Even though it can be argued that this offers a good overview of the
work each mediator undertakes, it also shows that the data-recording
system is, in essence, service-driven, as its point of departure is the activity
of the mediator (how many mediation processes took place, how many
agreements were reached, how long did it take before a mediation
process closed, etc.). In doing so, however, this data-recording system
leaves out important information, which could broaden the discussion on
mediation not only as a ‘relational’ practice, but also as a ‘social’ practice.
First, it is not recorded how many, if any, other people were involved in
the mediation process besides victim and offender, such as significant
others or professionals, nor who these people were. Involving significant
others, however, is often stressed in restorative justice literature (cf.
Bradt et al., 2007), as these people can play an important role in supporting
victims and offenders in their search for meaning making of what has
happened.
Second, no data are collected on the number of contacts mediators have
with victims and offenders during the whole mediation process (which
seems to run contrary to the service-driven nature of the data recording).
Hence, the mediation service is unable to know, for example, what the
1378 Lieve Bradt et al.

relation is between the intensity of the mediation process on the one hand
and the kind of offence or the characteristics of offenders and/or victims on
the other hand. As Shapland (2009) argues, however, such data are not just
for the benefit of governments wanting value for money, but also of
mediation services themselves, as they can help them to gain insight into
the ‘cost’ of mediation and whether or not this is legitimate.
Third, mediators do not collect data on reasons for drop-out during
mediation, or for failure to respond to the offer of mediation. We realise
that such information is difficult to trace. Given the importance that the
mediation practice attaches to the meaning making of the parties, it is,
however, crucial to know why people did not respond and/or had no

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

(longer any) interest in mediation. Do people not respond because they
think the harm is not worth it or because they are offended by getting the
offer to mediate? Gehm (1998) and Kirkwood (2010) have also pointed
out that we know little about the factors that account for non-participation
or drop-out, or even why individuals choose to participate (McCold, 2008).
Fourth, mediators do not record data on the social context or ethnicity of
victims and offenders, even though computerised data could assist in iden-
tifying whether particular groups are (not) receiving services (cf. Garrett,
2005). Hence, it is impossible for social workers to ascertain whether or
not their practice contributes to exclusion mechanisms. This is an important
shortcoming, as Levrant and colleagues (1999) have pointed to the risk that
‘larger inequalities in society are likely to be reproduced within the frame-
work of restorative justice’ and that ‘restorative justice programmes may
have unintended class and racial biases that work to the disadvantage of
poor and minority offenders’ (Levrant et al., 1999, p. 16).
Fifth, the recording system offers no link between the recorded data and
the overall inflow of cases dealt with by the criminal justice system.
Although this is not the sole responsibility of the mediation service, as
this would require the involvement of the larger judicial system in the
process of recording data, this is an important shortcoming of the
data-recording system, since it makes it impossible for mediators to
reflect on the meaning of their practice in relation to the criminal justice
system. For example, it would be interesting for social workers to
examine which kind of cases and which kind of offenders/victims of all
eligible cases/parties do end up in mediation. In some ways, the data
recording partially initiates such an examination, since the mediators also
collect data on mediations in which there was no response to and/or inter-
est in the offer of mediation. This relates, however, only to these cases that
reached the mediation offices and not the cases that were eligible but were
not referred to mediation. Including such data into the data-recording
system could, again, stimulate mediators to critically reflect on the question
of whether their practice is subject to selection mechanisms, moving certain
offences into mediation whilst excluding others.
 Data Recording and Social Work 1379

Additionally, the discussion on what is left out of the picture not only
refers to the question of which information is gathered (and which is
not); it also refers to the level on which data are recorded: the mediation
process (one-to-one relations) or the file as it is referred to by the judge
(which can include several relations between several offenders and
victims). A research2 of a small sample of the data gathered on adult
mediation processes showed, for example, that, when the data were ana-
lysed at the level of ‘referral’, most mediations occurred in personal
crimes. When these referrals are fragmented into one-to-one relations,
the analysis showed, however, that most mediations concerned property
crimes. Even though a bigger sample is needed to confirm this finding,

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

what we wish to illustrate here is that shifting the starting point of gathering
information can already be a way for social workers to pay attention to the
social dimension of their interventions.

Discussion

We started this article with the observation that the debate on data record-
ing and social work mainly focuses on the relational aspects of social work
practice and therefore risks to remain self-referential. We illustrated this
argument with an analysis of the data-recording system of victim – offender
mediation for adult offenders in Flanders. This analysis shows that, while
the underlying concept of VOM stresses the challenging task and the struc-
tural dialogue between the different professionals and rationalities involved
in the criminal justice system, the data recording seems to be mainly tuned
to making visible what the individual mediators are doing on an individual,
relational level. However, through focusing exclusively on showing the
activity of the social workers, the link between this particular social work
practice and the problem it is supposed to resolve—namely challenging
the way the criminal justice system deals with crimes—is abandoned. This
can be clearly seen in the case of victim – offender mediation, as the
data-recording system is not linked to the in and outflow of cases in the
criminal justice system. Without this link, however, the data recorded
offers the mediators no insight into how, if at all, they take up their under-
lying principles and their challenging task.
The case of victim – offender mediation reveals—and at the same time
illustrates—thus a pertinent tension between recording the activity of the
social worker versus recording how social work intervenes in social pro-
blems. Whereas the former is inspired by concerns of showing/proving effi-
ciency and effectiveness, the latter can support social workers in recognising
and reflecting on what we referred to as the social dimension of social work.
This is important, as social work is never a neutral activity, given its task to
consider the rights and aspirations of individual citizens and collective
welfare, freedom and equality in a democratic society. As we argued, this
1380 Lieve Bradt et al.

social dimension demands opening up the focus on building constructive

relations between social workers and clients to the link with social, political
and historical processes, evolutions and contexts (Lorenz, 2007). Recognis-
ing this social dimension requires a social work practice in which the open-
ness to keep exploring—in a never-ending story—a myriad of ways and
strategies to define, construct and support social problems becomes an
essential element (Fook, 2002). This approach implies a delimitation of
the boundaries of social work (Roose et al., 2010). Applied to the debate
on data recording, this means that social work should not only look at
‘the order’—such as people who get in the service, problems that are
dealt with within the service, the satisfaction of clients—but also look at

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

what is ‘out of order’ (Biesta, 2011).
Data recording is ‘an essential feature of social work practice’ (Allen-
Meares and Lane, 1990, p. 452) and a key task of social workers (Pithouse,
1998; Ames, 1999; Roose et al., 2010). In times of heightened accountability
and increasing expectations to ‘measure’ (Carrilio, 2008), the challenge for
social work lies in not reducing this task to the relation between social
worker and client, but to broaden the debate on data recording to a focus
on how social work intervenes in—and therefore defines—social problems.

Notes
1. Belgium’s Constitution embodies three communities: the Flemish, the French and the
German.
2. This study was conducted by the first author as a part of her Ph.D. research and con-
cerned 669 mediation processes that were all closed between 1 January 2007 and
31 March 2007.

References

Aertsen, I. (2006) ‘The intermediate position of restorative justice: The case of Belgium’,
in I. Aertsen, T. Daems and L. Robert (eds), Institutionalizing Restorative Justice,
Devon, Willan Publishing.
Allen-Meares, P. and Lane, B. A. (1990) ‘Social work practice: Integrating qualitative
and quantitative data collection techniques’, Social Work, 35(5), pp. 452 – 8.
Ames, N. (1999) ‘Social work recording: A new look at an old issue’, Journal of Social
Work Education, 35(2), pp. 227 –38.
Aronson, J. and Smith, K. (2010) ‘Managing restructured social services: Expanding the
social?’, British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), pp. 530 – 47.
Bar-on, A. (2002) ‘Restoring power to social work practice’, British Journal of Social
Work, 32(8), pp. 997– 1014.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2011) Learning Democracy in School and Society: Education, Lifelong
Learning, and the Politics of Citizenship, Rotterdam, Sense Publishers.
 Data Recording and Social Work 1381

Bradt, L. and Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2009) ‘Victim – offender mediation as a social work
practice’, International Social Work, 52(2), pp. 181 – 93.
Bradt, L., Vettenburg, N. and Roose, R. (2007) ‘Relevant others in restorative practices
for minors: For what purposes?’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
40(3), pp. 291 – 312.
Burton, J. and van den Broek, D. (2009) ‘Accountable and countable: Information man-
agement systems and the bureaucratization of social work’, British Journal of Social
Work, 39(7), pp. 1326 – 42.
Carrilio, T. (2008) ‘Accountability, evidence, and the use of information systems in social
service programs’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 8(2), pp. 135 – 48.
Christie, N. (1977) ‘Conflicts as property’, British Journal of Criminology, 17(1),
pp. 1 – 15.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State, London-Thousand Oaks-New
Dehli, Sage Publications.
Coates, R. B., Umbreit, M. S. and Vos, B. (2004) ‘Restorative justice systemic change:
The Washington county experience’, Federal Probation, 68(3), pp. 16 – 23.
Fook, J. (2002) Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice, London/New Delhi, Sage.
Garrett, P. M. (2005) ‘Social work’s “electronic turn”: Notes on the development of infor-
mation and communication technologies in social work with children and families’,
Critical Social Policy, 25(4), pp. 529 – 53.
Gehm, J. R. (1998) ‘Victim– offender mediation programs: An exploration of practice
and theoretical frameworks’, Western Criminology Review, 1(1), available online at
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n1/gehm.html.
Healy, K. (2000) Social Work: Contemporary Perspectives on Change, London/Thousand
Oaks/New Dehli, Sage Publications.
Jones, C. (2001) ‘Voices from the front line: State social workers and new labour’, British
Journal of Social Work, 31(4), pp. 547 – 62.
Kirkwood, S. (2010) ‘Restorative justice cases in Scotland: Factors related to partici-
pation, the restorative process, agreement rates and forms of reparation’, European
Journal of Criminology, 7(2), pp. 107– 22.
Lash, S. (2002) Critique as Information, London, Sage.
Levrant, S., Cullen, F. T., Fulton, B. and Wozniak, J. F. (1999) ‘Reconsidering restorative
justice: The corruption of benevolence revisited?’, Crime & Delinquency, 45(1),
pp. 3 – 27.
Lorenz, W. (2007) ‘Practising history: Memory and contemporary professional practice’,
International Social Work, 50(5), pp. 597 – 612.
McCold, P. (2008) ‘Protocols for evaluating restorative justice programmes in a
European context’, British Journal of Community Justice, 6(2), pp. 9 – 28.
Moffat, K. (1999) ‘Surveillance and government of the welfare recipient’, in
A. S. Chambon, A. Irving and L. Epstein (eds), Reading Foucault for Social Work,
New York, Colombia University Press.
Parton, N. (2008) ‘Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the “social” to
the “informational”?’, British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), pp. 253 – 69.
Parton, N. (2009) ‘Challenges to practice and knowledge in child welfare social work:
From the “social” to the “informational”?’, Children and Youth Services Review,
31(7), pp. 715 – 21.
Pithouse, A. (1998) Social Work: The Social Organisation of an Invisible Trade,
Aldershot, Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
1382 Lieve Bradt et al.

Roach, K. (2000) ‘Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on
the rise’, Canadian Journal of Criminology, July, pp. 249 – 80.
Robinson, G. (2003) ‘Implementing OASys: Lessons from research into LSI-R and
ACE’, Probation Journal, 50(1), pp. 30 – 40.
Roche, D. (2003) Accountability in Restorative Justice, London, Oxford University Press.
Roose, R., Mottart, A., Dejonckheere, N., van Nijnatten, C. and De Bie, M. (2010)
‘Participatory social work and report writing’, Child & Family Social Work, 14(3),
pp. 322 – 30.
Schiff, M. (1998) ‘Restorative justice interventions for juvenile offenders: A research
agenda for the next decade’, Western Criminology Review, 1(1), available online at
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n1/schiff.html.
Shapland, J. (2009) ‘Evaluating restorative justice’, in D. Balahur and M. Kilchling (eds),

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 1, 2015

Directions of Restorative Justice in Europe, Brussels, Office for Publications of the
European Communities.
Spratt, T. (2001) ‘The influence of child protection orientation on child welfare practice’,
British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), pp. 933 – 54.
Stanford, S. (2010) ‘“Speaking back” to fear: Responding to the moral dilemmas of risk in
social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), pp. 1065 – 80.
Suggnomè (2002) Jaarverslag 2002 vzw Suggnomè—Forum voor herstelrecht en bemid-
deling, [Annual Report 2002 - Forum for restorative justice and mediation] available
online at www.suggnome.be. (abstract in English).
Suggnomè (2006) Jaarverslag 2006 vzw Suggnomè—Forum voor herstelrecht en bemid-
deling, [Annual Report 2006 - Forum for restorative justice and mediation] available
online at www.suggnome.be. (abstract in English).
Tsui, M. and Cheung, C. (2004) ‘Gone with the wind: The impacts of managerialism on
human services’, British Journal of Social Work, 34(3), pp. 437 – 42.
Umbreit, M. S. (1999) ‘Victim– offender mediation in Canada: The impact of an emer-
ging social work intervention’, International Social Work, 42(2), pp. 215– 27.
Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B. and Lightfoot, E. (2005) ‘Restorative justice in the
twenty-first century: A social movement full of opportunities and pitfalls’, Marquette
Law Review, 89(2), pp. 251– 304.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006) Handbook on Restorative Justice
Programmes, New York, United Nations.
Walker, M. U. (2006) ‘Restorative justice and reparations’, Journal of Social Philosophy,
37(3), pp. 377 – 95.
Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice, Scottsdale, Herald
Press.