Bullying and Victimisation in Schools: A Restorative Justice Approach

Abstract

Bullying at school causes enormous stress for many children and their families, and has long-term effects. School bullying has been identified as a risk factor associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour. Bullies are more likely to drop out of school and to engage in delinquent and criminal behaviour. The victims are more likely to have higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression and illness, and an increased tendency to suicide. This paper reports on a restorative justice program that was run in a primary school in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), but whose lessons have wider application. Early intervention has been advocated as the most appropriate way to prevent bullying. This paper outlines a framework based on restorative justice principles aimed at bringing about behavioural change for the individual while keeping schools and communities safe. The aim of restorative programs is to reintegrate those affected by wrongdoing back into the community as resilient and responsible members. Restorative justice is a form of conflict resolution and seeks to make it clear to the offender that the behaviour is not condoned, at the same time as being supportive and respectful of the individual. The paper highlights the importance of schools as institutions that can foster care and respect and provide opportunities to participate in processes that allow for differences to be worked through constructively. It recommends that schools be resourced and supported to address bullying because of the debilitating effect of this problem.

Full text

A U S T R A L I A N I N S T I T U T E
O F C R I M I N O L O G Y
t r e n d s
&
i s s u e s
No. 219
Bullying and Victimisation
in Schools: A Restorative
Justice Approach
Brenda Morrison
in crime and criminal justice
February 2002
ISSN 0817-8542
ISBN 0 642 24252 6
Australian Institute
of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT 2601
Australia
Tel: 02 6260 9221
Fax: 02 6260 9201
For a complete list and the full text of the
papers in the Trends and Issues in
Crime and Criminal Justice series, visit
the AIC web site at:
http://www.aic.gov.au
Disclaimer: This research paper does not
necessarily reflect the policy position of the
Commonwealth Government.
Adam Graycar
Director
Bullying at school causes enormous stress for many children and their
families, and has long-term effects. School bullying has been identified as a risk
factor associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour. Bullies are more
likely to drop out of school and to engage in delinquent and criminal
behaviour. The victims are more likely to have higher levels of stress, anxiety,
depression and illness, and an increased tendency to suicide.
This paper reports on a restorative justice program that was run in a
primary school in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), but whose lessons
have wider application.
Early intervention has been advocated as the most appropriate way to
prevent bullying. This paper outlines a framework based on restorative justice
principles aimed at bringing about behavioural change for the individual while
keeping schools and communities safe. The aim of restorative programs is to
reintegrate those affected by wrongdoing back into the community as resilient
and responsible members. Restorative justice is a form of conflict resolution
and seeks to make it clear to the offender that the behaviour is not condoned, at
the same time as being supportive and respectful of the individual.
The paper highlights the importance of schools as institutions that can
foster care and respect and provide opportunities to participate in processes
that allow for differences to be worked through constructively. It recommends
that schools be resourced and supported to address bullying because of the
debilitating effect of this problem.
In the last decade or so there has been increasing awareness that
bullying is a serious, and insidious, form of violence that plagues
the school system (Rigby 1996). Internationally, there are countless
tragic stories to be told. There is also building empirical evidence of
the consequences of bullying’s ill effects. Those who bully are more
likely to drop out of school, use drugs and alcohol, as well as
engage in subsequent delinquent and criminal behaviour
(Farrington 1993). Children who are bullied have higher levels of
stress, anxiety, depression, illness and suicidal ideation (Rigby
1998). For both, this cycle becomes an obstacle to learning, self-
development and effective citizenship. The consequences affect not
only the individuals themselves, and their families, but also society
at large, for it is society that supports those in the justice and health
care systems.
In Australia, research has identified school bullying as a risk
factor associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour (National
Crime Prevention 1999). Early intervention has been advocated as
the most appropriate way to break this cycle (Tremblay & Craig
1995). Schools may be the most appropriate institutions to focus on
reducing antisocial and criminal behaviour patterns in children,
while promoting health, resilience and social responsibility. Schools
bring together many people who influence and support children,

Australian Institute of Criminology
2
including parents, grandparents,
teachers, instructors and coaches,
as well as children’s peers. As a
microcosm of society, schools
have the potential to nurture and
integrate individuals within
society. However, they also have
the potential to stigmatise and
exclude (Morrison 2001).
Finding solutions to the
problem of bullying, and other
forms of school violence, is not
easy. In the past, various methods
have been tried, swinging from
communitarian approaches of
rehabilitation to conservative
approaches of punishment.
Broadly, the former values
compassion, while the latter
values accountability. Both
approaches aim to achieve
behavioural change for the
individual while keeping schools
and communities safe. However,
evidence is mixed as to which
approach works best. Tensions
between the advocates of each
approach are not uncommon. Is it
possible to incorporate both
compassion and accountability in
the sanctions we impose when
dealing with school violence?
Advocates of restorative justice
answer a tentative “yes” to this
question. Restorative justice is
about building communities of
care around individuals while not
condoning harmful behaviour; in
other words, holding individuals
accountable for their actions
within systems of support. This
paper presents a framework—one
based on restorative justice—to
better understand and address
school violence. The focus is on
school bullying, and the
intervention presented and
evaluated is the Responsible
Citizenship Program, which can
be tailored to the needs of
different schools and communities.
A Framework to Understand
and Address Bullying
and Victimisation
There is no single path that leads
a child to bullying others or to
being bullied, however poor social
adjustment is a common element.
A number of risk factors have
been identified which generally
fall into the categories of
individual differences, family and
school. These have been well
documented in a number of
studies (Farrington 1993; Rigby
1996). What is lacking is a solid
framework for understanding the
relationship between these
different risk factors, to help focus
the development of effective
interventions. A recent study has
found that many of the known
risk factors in predicting bullying
are mediated by one central
factor: how individuals manage
shame over a wrongdoing
(Ahmed et al. 2001).
Shame management can be
adaptive or maladaptive (Ahmed
et al. 2001). Poorly managed
shame can interfere with the
development and functioning of
an individual’s internal
sanctioning system, which
regulates the consistency and
appropriateness of social
behaviour. Briefly, shame comes
to the fore when we behave
inappropriately in relation to a
community of support, such as
our family or school. Through
taking responsibility for the
wrongdoing and making amends,
the shame can be acknowledged
and discharged. Through this
process, our feeling of
connectedness to the community
affected by our wrongdoing
remains intact. Shame
management can be maladaptive
when the functioning of an
individual’s internal sanctioning
system begins to break down and
shame is not effectively
discharged. Shame that has not
been discharged remains
internalised, and can be expressed
as anger. The reason why a child’s
internal sanctioning system may
not be operating optimally,
promoting mutual respect
between individuals, is
multifaceted. Simply, self-
regulation of relationships has
become ineffective. The
community that has evoked the
shame can contribute further to its
negative manifestation if the
individual is subjected to further
feelings of rejection from that
community. Individuals can lapse
into a mode of self-protection that
can lead to further breakdown of
social relationships, risking
harmful backlash.
Shame management has been
found to vary with four different
categories that characterise
bullying and victimisation
(Ahmed et al. 2001):
•non-bullies/non-victims—
acknowledge shame and
discharge it;
•victims—acknowledge shame
but are caught up in cycles of
self-critical thinking, through
ongoing feelings of rejection
from others, so their shame
becomes persistent, despite
acknowledgment of the
wrongdoing;
•bullies—are less likely to
acknowledge shame, with the
shame over wrongdoing being
displaced onto others, often
manifest as anger and other
forms of antisocial behaviour;
and
•bully/victims—feel the shame
but, like bullies, fail to
acknowledge it and further,
like victims, they are caught up
in cycles of self-critical
thought.
In summary, shame can be
conceptualised as an individual’s
social thermostat, mediating the
state of social relationships.
Adaptive shame management
strengthens social relationships;
maladaptive shame management
weakens social relationships.
Restorative Justice: Theory
and Practice
Social relationships are important
for regulating social life. This is a
central tenet of the practice of
restorative justice. Reintegrative
shaming theory supports this
practice. Braithwaite (1989) has
argued that there are two main
features inherent to restorative
processes. First, to achieve
successful reintegration the
process must involve the presence
and participation of a community
of support for the offender and
the victim. This community
would be made up of the people
who respect and care most about
these two (or more) people.

Australian Institute of Criminology
3
Second, the process of shaming
requires a confrontation over the
wrongdoing between the victim
and offender within this
community of support. The
process is restorative in that the
intervention:
•makes it clear to the offender
that the behaviour is not
condoned within the
community; and
•is supportive and respectful of
the individual while not
condoning the behaviour.
The first point constitutes the
shaming aspect of the
intervention while the second
point provides the basis by which
the shaming process is of a
reintegrative (rather than a
stigmatising) nature.
The aim of restorative
programs is to reintegrate those
affected by wrongdoing back into
the community so that they may
become resilient and responsible
members of the community,
upholding its laws and values. A
restorative justice conference,
which brings together victims,
offenders and their respective
communities of care, is one such
intervention program. As
Braithwaite states (1999, p. 47):
Restorative justice conferences
may prevent crime by
facilitating a drift back to law-
supportive identities from law-
neutralising ones.
This process has been found to be
effective in schools, particularly in
addressing bullying (Cameron &
Thorseborne 2001). Despite this,
the use of restorative justice
conferencing in schools has
received mixed reviews and the
uptake of the practice has been
slow (Morrison 2001). The current
evidence suggests that what is
needed is broader institutional
support, in the form of a culture
shift that supports the process
(Ritchie & O’Connell 2001).
Culture shifts require
proactive interventions. The
Responsible Citizenship Program
is designed to meet this need. The
aim is to provide participants
with skills to work through
wrongdoing and incidents of
harm. While programs aimed at
creating culture shift need to
target all members of the school
community, the Responsible
Citizenship Program was
developed for students in primary
school as part of an early
intervention strategy. Ideally, the
program should complement a
range of restorative practices in
schools. Through engagement
with the program, teachers,
parents and other members of the
school community can also
develop their skills. It is hoped
this approach will address some
of the broader institutional
barriers that currently limit the
use of restorative justice in schools.
The Responsible Citizenship
Program: An Introduction
In practice, restorative justice is a
form of conflict resolution.
Conflict resolution programs have
been found to give students
important skills in reducing
harmful behaviour in schools
(Johnson & Johnson 1995). The
Responsible Citizenship Program
aims to incorporate a range of
related processes for maintaining
healthy relationships, including
community building, conflict
resolution and shame
management, under one
conceptual umbrella. Each
component is introduced
successively, beginning with a
community-building process that
rests on principles of restorative
justice.
Throughout the program
students are given space to voice
and express their views. Initial
emphasis is placed on creating a
safe place where concerns and
stories of harm at school can be
voiced. At the same time the
program aims to be fun and
engaging for students. As
relationships within the
community strengthen, students
are given an opportunity to learn
productive conflict resolution
skills through a focus on the
feelings associated with conflict
and how to resolve those feelings.
In this way the shame
management aspect is integrated
into the conflict resolution
component. Another important
aspect of the program is the peer-
to-peer learning focus, which aids
in the development of a culture
shift within the school.
Goleman, in his research on
emotional intelligence (1995),
argues that children need lessons
in coping with a repertoire of
emotions, particularly the
emotions involved in conflict, as
these are the ones that are often
masked. Becoming aware of
emotions, acknowledging them,
speaking about and acting on
them, are healthy skills to
develop. Through building this
awareness, escalations of conflict
and associated violence can often
be prevented.
Program Principles
The Responsible Citizenship
Program is grounded in a number
of principles of restorative justice,
including community building
and conflict resolution. In his
conceptualisation of restorative
justice, Braithwaite (1989) argues
that restorative justice is a
participatory process that
addresses wrongdoing while
offering respect to the parties
involved, through consideration of
the story each person tells of how
they were affected by the harmful
incident. Playing on the
program’s acronym (RCP),
respect (R), consideration (C) and
participation (P) become the core
program agreements. They are
developed through the learning
opportunities that the program
provides.
While these core principles
remain relevant throughout the
program, a second set of
principles is used to develop
students’ strategies on how to
resolve conflicts productively.
These principles can be applied to
a range of harmful behaviours in
schools. In the context of school
bullying, they are:
1. bullying and being bullied are
ways of behaving that can be
changed (Rigby 1996);
2. addressing wrongdoing, such
as bullying, concerns actions
and should not involve the
denigration of the whole person
(Moore & O’Connell 1994);

Australian Institute of Criminology
4
3. the harm done by bullying to
self and others must be
acknowledged (Retzinger &
Scheff 1996);
4. reparation for the harm done is
essential (Retzinger & Scheff
1996); and
5. both bullies and victims are
valued members of the school
community whose supportive
ties with others should be
strengthened through
participation in communities
of care (Bazemore & Umbreit
1994).
These five principles underpin the
conflict resolution process
developed for the Responsible
Citizenship Program. They are
introduced as the REACT keys, to
emphasize that resolving conflict
requires active participation.
Building on each letter from the
word REACT, the five principles
are presented to the students as
follows:
•Repair the harm done
(Principle 4: Reparation);
•Expect the best from others
(Principle 1: Change is
possible);
•Acknowledge feelings/harm
done (Principle 3:
Acknowledgment);
•Care for others (Principle 5:
Building communities of care);
and
•Take responsibility for
behaviour/feelings
(Principle 2: Responsibility for
act without denigration).
In essence, restorative programs
are about nurturing positive
feelings (interest and excitement)
and providing avenues to
discharge negative feelings
(shame). Restorative practices
should lead to further
engagement with the community,
as evidenced by enhanced or re-
established community
participation. In order for this to
be sustained, for shame to be
effectively managed, individuals
need to develop skills for working
through differences. Through
these processes individuals can
build and renew productive
relationships, forging a resilient
and responsible community.
Program Workshops
The curriculum for the program
was developed for Year 5
students. The students spent one
hour with the facilitators twice a
week over five weeks (10 hours in
total). The ideas and concepts
were introduced through the use
of poster-making and role-
playing, working towards the
development and production of a
short video that told the story of a
conflict within the school and
how the students used the
REACT keys to resolve the harm.
Table 1 shows how the 10
workshops came together.
It is important to note that for
the workshops to be effective, the
facilitators must have knowledge
and experience of principles and
practices of restorative justice.
Further, for the learning outcomes
of the program to be sustained the
ideals must be integrated into the
wider school culture.
Program Evaluation
All Year 5 students in an ACT
government primary school (aged
10–11 years; n=30) participated in
the program. Two different
sessions were held so each group
was a manageable size (n=15).
These sessions ran in two
different terms. The program was
evaluated using a number of
quantitative and qualitative
methods. Quantitative data were
collected using the Life at School
Survey (Ahmed et al. 2001), which
was administered at the
beginning and the end of the
school year (pre- and post-
intervention). Further quantitative
measures were taken at the end of
each session through
questionnaires completed by
students and facilitators.
Qualitative data were also
collected through post-program
responses from the students,
teacher, principal and facilitators.
Two particular measures
within the survey are noteworthy
here:
•students’ feelings of safety
within the school community;
and
•students’ use of adaptive and
maladaptive shame
management strategies.
Students’ feelings of safety within
the school were measured on a
four-point scale and increased
significantly over the course of
the year (from 2.9 to 3.8). This is
an encouraging shift but, with
only pre- and post-measures, it is
hard to know what accounts for
the change. The shame
management data offer clearer
insights.
Shame management was
measured using Ahmed’s (2001)
scale, which measures students’
use of adaptive and maladaptive
shame management strategies.
Students are presented with four
hypothetical scenarios, in which
they perpetrate an incident of
harm. The strategies are then
presented and students indicate
what they would do, answering
“yes” or “no”. The results showed
a small overall increase in
students’ reported use of adaptive
shame management skills: a shift
from 83 per cent to 87 per cent of
students reporting using these
strategies. The more interesting
Table 1: Responsible Citizenship Program workshop curriculum
Activity
1. Introduction of the Responsible Citizenship Program Posters
2. Developing RCP agreements: respect, consideration, participation Role play
3. Creating responsible citizenship at our school Posters
4. Working with our feelings—OOPS & OUCH Role play
5. Introduce REACT keys Posters
6. Video—school-based example of OOPS & OUCH & REACT keys Video
7. Planning a RCP video Video
8. Rehearsing a RCP video Video
9. Making a RCP video Video
10.RCP wrap-up and Responsible Citizenship Charter Posters

Australian Institute of Criminology
5
finding was that the use of
maladaptive shame management
skills decreased significantly, in
terms of both feelings of rejection
by others and displacement of
wrongdoing onto others. While
initially 33 per cent of students
reported they would feel rejected
from others following
wrongdoing, following the
program only 20 per cent
reported they would feel this
way. Further, while 27 per cent of
students reported using shame
displacement strategies before the
program, only 13 per cent of
students reported using these
strategies following the program.
In other words, students’ use of
strategies became less
characteristic of victims (who
typically feel they would be
rejected by others following
wrongdoing) and less
characteristic of bullies (who
typically displace their shame and
anger onto others). Overall, the
results are encouraging, as
students’ shame-management
skills became less maladaptive.
While developing shame
management skills was a central
aim of the program, without a
control group it is hard to make a
strong claim. However, the other
measures, both quantitative and
qualitative, are encouraging and
support the positive effects of the
Responsible Citizenship Program.
Measures of respect,
consideration and participation,
the core principles of the
program, were taken at the end of
each session. Students were asked
three questions, answering on a
seven-point scale. How many
people in the group:
•showed you respect during
today’s activities?
•considered your feelings
during today’s activities?
•gave you an opportunity to
participate in today’s
activities?
The two facilitators also
independently rated each
student’s behaviour in terms of
respect, consideration and
participation. A number of
patterns emerged from these data.
Although the students’ ratings
were generally higher than those
of the facilitators, the overall
pattern is consistent. The average
ratings for all three measures
increased from the start to the
finish of the program. The greatest
change was for consideration (3.4
to 5.2 for students; 3.0 to 4.7 for
facilitators) and participation (4.3
to 5.7 for students; 4.2 to 5.8 for
facilitators), and least for respect
(5.0 to 5.2 for students; 3.7 to 4.9
for facilitators), although the
measures of respect were already
quite high, particularly for students.
Interestingly, there was a
systematic drop in measures of
respect and consideration a few
workshops into the program. The
measures then increased again
until the completion of the videos.
This is not surprising, given that
the program aims to challenge the
way students interact in terms of
upholding the respect/
consideration/participation
principles. In summary, the
results are positive, indicating the
students put into practice the
program’s emphasis on building
respect, consideration and
participation.
The post-program qualitative
data mirror this positive result.
All parties involved in the
development of the program
found it to be of benefit to the
students. This included the
teacher, the principal, the
facilitators and the students
themselves. The teacher wrote:
I began noticing the use of
particular jargon associated with
the program in everyday
situations…The program was a
great success.
The principal offered:
The practical approach allowed
students to develop strategies to
cope with real-life situations.
The class climate created…was
one of support and respect for
other students…The most
important aspect of the program
was giving students appropriate
strategies for coping with
conflict.
One student summed up what it
means to be a responsible citizen
at school:
It means that if you do
something wrong, or if others
do something wrong, you know
how to fix things.
Six months after completing the
program, the students clearly
remembered important aspects of
the program. One student said:
The leaders…were all positive
and helped us understand how
other people felt. We learnt what
to do if we did hurt someone or
someone hurt you.
The responses received suggested
the benefits of the program. In
particular these data indicate that
the program was able to create a
shift in the way students interact
with one another in terms of the
core components of respect,
consideration and participation.
Further, students’ reported shame
management strategies became
less maladaptive. While tentative,
the results of this initial pilot
program are encouraging.
The adaptability of this
program needs to be stressed. The
principles upon which the
Responsible Citizenship Program
is based are more important than
the program per se. It can be
customised to meet the needs and
resources of different schools. As
the teacher put it:
I could see this program
operating very effectively in
school and could be modified
simply to start at an earlier age.
The program thus provides a base
from which other programs can
grow and adapt. This is important
to the long-term research and
development that now needs to
be done. A more rigorous
evaluation is needed across a
range of programs and
populations. It is hoped this initial
step is sufficient to encourage
others to embark on the
development of their own
program that fosters responsible
citizenship in their school through
engagement with principles
grounded in restorative justice.
Implementing Restorative Justice
in Schools
Restorative justice, through
valuing relationships, challenges
everyone involved. This is
important. To sustain any shift in
the way schools operate lies in
each party questioning, in the
most fundamental way, their own

Australian Institute of Criminology
6
General Editor, Trends and Issues in
Crime and Criminal Justice series:
Dr Adam Graycar, Director
Australian Institute of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
Note: Trends and Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice are refereed papers.
beliefs and practices. The central,
dominant theme to be addressed
is the use of punishment and
control in achieving behavioural
compliance. These practices value
domination. In contrast,
restorative justice values
relationships of non-domination.
As Cameron and Thorsborne
(2001, p. 183) have noted:
School behaviour management
plans have focused largely on
what should happen (penalties
and tariffs) to offenders when
(school) rules are broken, with
only limited understanding of
the impact on those in the school
community of the offending
behaviour. Restorative justice in
the school setting views
misconduct not as school-rule-
breaking, and therefore a
violation of the institution, but
as a violation against people and
relationships in the school and
wider school community.
Emphasis on behavioural
education rather than control goes
a long way to achieving
behavioural compliance. The aim
should be to take a student, and
their community of support,
through a process by which they
can understand the consequences
of their behaviour for themselves
and others, to develop relational
thinking and to bring
understanding to a collective
level. Punishment instils a
narrow, selfish way of thinking;
the focus is on oneself rather than
others. Shame can only be
managed in healthy ways when
individuals are part of healthy
communities—communities
which foster care and respect,
consideration of different
possibilities and ideas, and
opportunities to participate in
processes that allow people to
work through their differences
constructively. Schools, as
society’s primary developmental
institution, have an important
agenda to take up here. It is vital
that they are resourced and
supported to address this
debilitating social problem
because, in the end, bullying and
victimisation is a problem that
affects everyone.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Valerie
Braithwaite, Barbara Grant and an
anonymous reviewer for their comments on
this paper. Thanks must also go to the
Criminology Research Council for their
financial support of this project, and the
students and teachers at Hawker Primary
School, who agreed to work with us on this
pilot project. Particular thanks go to Jeff
Sheridan, the principal, Jan Spencer, the
Year 5 teacher, and the engaging Year 5
students who participated in the program.
Special thanks must also go to the two
facilitators, Jonathan Hawkes and Alisa
Walters, whose dedication to making the
Responsible Citizenship Program a fun and
enjoyable learning experience for the
students was an inspiration to all.
References
Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J. &
Braithwaite, V. 2001, Shame
Management Through Reintegration,
Cambridge University Press,
Melbourne.
Bazemore, G. & Umbreit, M. 1994,
Balanced and Restorative Justice:
Program Summary, Balanced and
Restorative Justice Project, United
States Department of Justice and
Delinquency Prevention,
Washington DC.
Braithwaite, J.B. 1989, Crime, Shame and
Reintegration, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
——
1999, “Restorative justice: Assessing
optimistic and pessimistic
accounts”, in M. Tonry (ed.),
Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 25, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–127.
Cameron, L. & Thorsborne, M. 2001,
“Restorative justice and school
discipline: Mutually exclusive?” in
J. Braithwaite & H. Strang (eds.),
Restorative Justice and Civil Society,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 180–94.
Farrington, D.P. 1993, “Understanding
and preventing bullying”, in
M. Tonry & N. Morris (eds.),
Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 17, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 381–
458.
Goleman, D. 1995, Emotional Intelligence,
Bantam, New York.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 1995,
“Why violence prevention
programs don’t work—and what
does?” Educational Leadership,
vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 63–8.
Moore, D.B. & O’Connell, T.A. 1994,
“Family conferencing in Wagga
Wagga: A communitarian model
of justice”, in C. Alder &
J. Wundersitz (eds.), Family
Conferencing and Juvenile Justice:
The Way Forward or Misplaced
Optimism? Australian Institute of
Criminology, Canberra, pp. 45–86.
Morrison, B.E. 2001, “The school
system: Developing its capacity in
the regulation of a civil society”,
in J. Braithwaite & H. Strang
(eds.), Restorative Justice and Civil
Society, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 195–210.
National Crime Prevention 1999,
Pathways to Prevention:
Developmental and Early
Intervention Approaches to Crime in
Australia, Attorney General’s
Department, Canberra.
Retzinger, S.M. & Scheff, T.J. 1996,
“Shame and the social bond”, in
D. Parker, R. Dalziell & I. Wright
(eds.), Shame and the Modern Self,
Australian Scholarly Publishing,
Melbourne, pp. 6–20.
Ritchie, J. & O’Connell, T. 2001,
“Restorative justice and the
contest between the relational and
institutional paradigms”, in
J. Braithwaite & H. Strang (eds.),
Restorative Justice and Civil Society,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 149–64.
Rigby, K. 1996, Bullying in Schools: What
To Do About It, Australian Council
for Education Research Limited,
Melbourne.
—— 1998, “The relationship between
reported health and involvement
in bully/victim problems among
male and female secondary school
students”, Journal of Health
Psychology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 465–
76.
Tremblay, R.E. & Craig, W.M. 1995,
“Developmental crime
prevention”, Crime Justice, vol. 19,
pp. 151–236.
Dr Brenda Morrison works at the
Centre for Restorative Justice,
Research School of Social Sciences,
Australian National University.