Authors compared restorative cautioning with traditional means

A Home Office report out on Monday found that "restorative cautioning" has little effect on reconviction rates.

It suggested that the positive findings of a previous study on the scheme were due to police making an extra effort because researchers were present.

Authors compared restorative justice in the Thames Valley with traditional cautioning in Sussex and Warwickshire.

They examined how many offenders who had received a restorative caution were "resanctioned" - either convicted, cautioned or given a final warning or reprimand by police - within the next two years.

Initially, Thames Valley appeared to have a lower resanctioning rate of 30%, compared with 34% and 35% for the other police forces.

But when other factors were taken into account, they wiped out Thames Valley's lead, researchers said.

The report concluded: "Within Thames Valley the type of caution was not a significant predictor of resanctioning rates.

"There was insufficient evidence to suggest that restorative cautioning was more effective than traditional cautioning in terms of reducing resanctioning rates," it said.

"There was also no evidence that restorative cautioning had increased resanctioning rates."

Offenders were given cautions for a wide range of offences, including theft and handling (33% of the total), violent crimes (17%) and drugs (17%).

But the authors said that their findings did not mean restorative cautioning was valueless.