< PreviousINTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 20 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 The Diana Unwin Chair in Restorative Justice The Diana Unwin Chair in Restorative Justice was established in 2014 and sits within the Victoria University of Wellington School of Government. The role of the Chair is to provide academic and professional leadership to a team of researchers and practitioners and facilitate collaborative engagement between public sector agencies and civil society organisations on restorative justice issues. While Restorative Practices Aotearoa and the Diana Unwin Chair are predominantly funded by the MoJ, many other agencies and NGOs also provide funding. By financially supporting these bodies, we strengthen the sector and provide support to the “movement” aspect of restorative justice as well as helping with service delivery. Restorative Justice Services Review The MoJ is currently reviewing the RJ service. The review is an information-gathering exercise to understand how the service is currently meeting the needs of participants. Completing the review is the first step in helping ensure that the RJ service remains an appropriate and flexible justice service for New Zealanders. Te Pae Oranga – Iwi Justice Panels Iwi panels provide an alternative justice resolution process for all people who commit low-level offences (with a penalty of less than six months imprisonment, not methamphetamine or family violence-related), who are aged 17 years or older, and have accepted responsibility for the offence. The arresting officer may recommend that the person attend an iwi panel as opposed to going through the courts. Te Pae Oranga began in 2013, when panels were established in the Hutt Valley, Gisborne, and Manukau. There are currently panels in 17 locations run by iwi or tribal providers and police to address low-level offending while keeping participants out of the mainstream justice pipeline. They are underpinned by Māori customs and values. All those impacted by the offences are invited to participate in a panel, also made up of community members, including local iwi representatives. Victim representation is encouraged but not required. Iwi panels could be considered a form of RJ. The panels are designed to encourage people to be accountable for their actions while addressing the causes of their offending and the harm caused. An evaluation conducted in 2019, showed Te Pae Oranga reduced harm from reoffending by 22% (Martin & Li, 2020). One distinct priority of iwi panels is to provide the wrongdoer with a wide range of community-based support and other tools (for example, referral to a driver training programme) which may be used to address the specific underlying causes related to the offending. In this way, further wrongdoing may potentially be prevented, thus breaking patterns of reoffending. Conclusion RJ in New Zealand is evolving. Institutionalizing RJ has provided many opportunities for the practice and the movement. Government and providers of RJ in New Zealand fundamentally share the same vision: to heal harm, reduce crime, reduce victims, and impacts and strengthen communities. Mike Hinton, General Manager of Restorative Practices Aotearoa, shared some pearls of wisdom regarding his thoughts on how RJ is operating in New Zealand. While he acknowledges the challenges, he feels that the embedding of RJ in our legislation “destigmatises RJ as a left-wing hippie thing” and “gives it mana (status/pride)” (Hinston, personal communication, 2021). In his view, RJ aims at making a more caring and compassionate society, and having it embedded demonstrates a commitment to this goal. He acknowledges that it may currently be quite process driven but says “we can work on that.” And we are.21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE References MacKenzie, H. (2018). Standing Together: Partnership and Restorative Justice in New Zealand. [Keynote speech]. The12th Annual Alberta Restorative Justice Symposium, Alberta, Canada. Mansill, D.B. (2013). Community empowerment or institutional capture and control? The development of restorative justice in New Zealand’s adult systems of social regulation, control and punishment. Auckland University of Technology. Martin, S., & Li, J. (2020). Iwi community justice panels reduce harm from re-offending. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 15(1), 75-92. DOI: 10.1080/1177083X.2019.1642921 Maxwell, G. & Morris, A. (2001). Family group conferences and reoffending. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell (Eds.) Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, mediation and circles. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK, p 243- 263. Maxwell, G., Kingi, V., Robertson, J., Morris, A, & Cunningham, C. (2004). Achieving effective outcomes in youth justice: Final report. New Zealand Ministry of Social Maxwell, G. & Hayes, H. (2006). Restorative justice developments in the pacific region: A comprehensive survey. Contemporary Justice Review 9(2): 127-154. New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2013). Restorative justice: Practice standards for family violence cases. New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2016). Restorative justice victim satisfaction survey New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2017). Restorative justice best practice framework. New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2018). Restorative justice: Practice standards for New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2019). Maori Victimisation Report; Cycle 1 and 2 (March 2018-September New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2021). Hapaitia Key Oranga Tamariki Act. (1989). New Zealand. Quince, K. (2016). Maori Disputes and Their Resolution. In H. Tuso and M. Flaherty. (Eds). Creating the Third Force: Indigenous Processes of Peacemaking. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books Radio New Zealand News. (2020). Chief District Court Judge announces new approach to how Sentencing Act. (2002). New Zealand. INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 22 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 Wijeysingha, V. (2018). Reconsidering the Aotearoa New Zealand Criminal Justice Policy Wood, W. R., Suzuki, M., Hayes, H., & Bolitho, J. (2021). Roadblocks and diverging paths for restorative justice in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. In Comparative Restorative Justice (pp. 197-221). Springer, Cham. Workman, K. (2016). Restorative justice in New Zealand prisons: Lessons from the past. UK Prison Service Journal, (228), 21-29. Author Bio Nyree Lewis is a Principal Practice Adviser - Probation for New Zealand’s Department of Corrections. She began with the Department in 2010 as a probation officer and quickly became interested in “probation practice.” She has been a practice leader and has been in the probation practice team since 2016. In 2020 she completed a post-graduate certificate in Restorative Justice Practice. She is an active member of the Restorative Practice Network–a cross-sector group of agencies with a passion for raising the profile and practice of restorative practices in New Zealand. She is passionate about growing restorative justice in the post- sentence space in her agency. INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 24 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 RECOVERY-ORIENTED WORK: FROM PRISON TO SOCIETY A. GEERTS AND M. LIEBREGTS25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Key words: evidence-based practice, inter-agency coordination and cooperation, victim awareness According to John Braithwaite (2004), a distinguished criminology professor at the Australian National University, restorative justice is a process where all stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. Crime hurts not only the immediate victims, but indirectly many more. Also, the individual perpetrating the crime can be hurt. Justice should heal and create possibilities to heal (Shapland, 2013). It follows that conversations and activities are necessary between those who have been harmed and those who have inflicted harm. In the process of restoration, individuals get a chance to take responsibility for their actions and to understand the harm they have caused. They are given an opportunity to redeem themselves and are discouraged from causing further harm (Sherman and Strang, 2007). When such individuals feel regret or have feelings of guilt, the process of restoration has already started. But what if individuals are not able to reflect on their own behavior? Or are unwilling to look at the consequences of that behavior? Or are unaware because they just never learned to show empathy or to look at the consequences? In those cases, it is hard for them to share their experience of what happened or to truly have insight into who was harmed by the crime and how. Accordingly, such individuals don’t achieve an understanding of what they need to do to repair the harm from the offense that was committed. Not only does this add to the risk of re-offending when they leave the penitentiary institution, but it also means the victims and the community don’t have the opportunity to be restored after having harm done to them (Hoeve, Van der Laan, Van der Laan, & Loeber, 2016). In the Penitentiaire Inrichting Dordrecht (or PI Dordrecht, meaning Penitentiary Institution of Dordrecht, the Netherlands), the question arose how the professionals of their organization could not only guide the process of reintegration on the field of housing, employment and the social network but also motivate their detained citizens to take responsibility for their crimes using their time in detention to become a full, active citizens and create opportunities to repair the harm for all stakeholders who have been affected by an injustice. Another question was how to make sure that the process of restorative justice could be sustained after detention. Over the past decades, Western European countries have gone through a shift from welfare states to participation societies. In the participatory society the freedom of citizens is promoted, and society is strengthened by people being more considerate of others (Movisie, 2015). Another aspect of the participatory society is that citizens are encouraged to take more responsibility for the needs of the people around them. In doing so, citizens are asked to provide their own solutions for challenges, with a major focus on informal care and social networks. The recovery-oriented approach for detained citizens is geared toward ensuring they achieve full, active citizenship at the time of reintroduction into society. Naturally, the detainees themselves have major responsibility in achieving this goal, but society, social networks, and victims—both in the perspectives they adopt and the actions they take--are also be involved in the reinstatement of dignity and social position (Claes, 2019). The connection between voluntary and legally imposed reintegration and aftercare for ex- detainees poses a challenge both domestically and internationally. In practice this means that for many ex-detainees the process of restorative justice stops upon release. Research Within Detention Settings In order to answer questions such as those raised above, various researchers have been looking into how recovery-oriented and victim- aware work can contribute to detained citizens’ recovery, their social network, and increased well-being of victims and society (for example, INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 26 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Key points include reinforcing the position of the detainee in their reintroduction into society and minimizing the risk of recidivism. In addition, a study about inmate-based recovery-oriented work was conducted at Penitentiaire Inrichting Dordrecht by researchers from Avans Research, and this will be described in detail in this paper. The focus of the PI Dordrecht study was to obtain information that would contribute to building a recovery-oriented, victim-aware model for work in penitentiary institutions. What is the best way to bring the world into the walls of prison and give detained citizens the opportunity to participate in society mentally as well as physically, and what happens if that is done? Working, for example, starts inside the walls of prison. Feeling part of a society is important in not feeling excluded and helps with the reintegration process. The PI Dordrecht study also looked at the development of affiliations and collaborations, i.e., chaining, with partners at the national level. It will be beneficial to increase understanding of how chain partnerships of justice and care can work together when it comes to the recovery of detainees, their victims, and their network. Indeed, some of the tools utilized in the model used in the study were developed in collaboration with chain partners such as Reclassering (the Dutch organization for social rehabilitation) and municipalities. During the research, we interviewed practitioners and clients from the PI Dordrecht on all levels, including management, security, case managers, reintegration officers, and detained citizens in different stages of detention. Interviews with victims and professionals from affiliated partners like municipalities, probation, care institutions, and organizations on employment and reintegration were helpful in understanding the difficulties and challenges in the interagency cooperation. The researchers took part in the daily life in PI Dordrecht. Many conversations with the detained citizens were during activities. This resulted in interviews and open conversations about many subjects like family, life stories, and also their victims. During the interviews with the detained citizens, many expressed that the attitude of the practitioners working with them is very important. Being heard and listened to and being seen as a person with many facets were viewed as important by many participants, as was working with practitioners who were clear and supportive in which steps can be taken and who gave information about possibilities. From the perspective of the practitioners, the need to address the gaps in practitioners’ practical apparatus, such as obtaining tools and instruments they can use daily, was mentioned. The most difficult subject to talk about, they reported, was the immediate victims of the offence. Besides that, knowledge about restorative justice, steps that can be taken, and need for clarity about roles and tasks in the restorative process were themes expressed by practitioners. During the interviews, it became apparent that two issues were having a major impact on the detainee’s possibilities of recovery. The first was the detained citizen’s social capital and social connections outside of detention. Social capital, which consists of social relationships, group membership, formal and informal social networks, shared norms, trust, mutualism, and contributions to the community, allows the detainee to receive help from others during recovery, improving their chance of success. These resources are nurtured by things like community activities, social support, and opportunities for participation. The detained citizen’s human capital also plays a major role in recovery. Their inventory of competencies, knowledge, and social and personal skills, including creativity, determine the recovery paths available to them. The manner in which someone works toward recovery is embodied by their ability to participate in society in a positive way (Zehr, 2005). It is important for the detainee to be able to be a part of society, both inside the penitentiary institution and outside.27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Fig. 1. Model of recovery in detention (Geerts & Liebregts, 2020) The model is designed to incorporate reflection, inspiration, mobilization, and evaluation as returning methodological components for both detainees and workers at PI Dordrecht. As detainees go through the process of recovery, their needs, ambitions, and wishes may change. The process is ongoing, after all. This will require certain competencies from the workers. The worker’s proficiency in recovery-oriented work is part of the handbook. Alongside the detainee, all workers at the penitentiary institution have a role to play, from correctional workers to case managers, psychologists, and workers from the labor and exercise department. Security workers can also contribute to a recovery-oriented culture (Wilken & den Hollander, 2019). Along with them, family members, neighbors, employers, colleagues, and chain partners are to be involved and play a role in the entire recovery process. The researchers concluded from their results that a culture of restoration was needed, including tools, training, and coaching of both detained citizens and practitioners. Restorative justice is not just one activity, but a process that can be different for each detained citizen, and it has to be part of their daily life. In cooperation with the different practitioners participating in the study, different tools and instruments to address service gaps have been and are being developed. That development is an ongoing process. Model of Recovery in Detention The main goal of the model of recovery in detention is to distinguish the steps a detained citizen has to take in advancing personal recovery along with the recovery of their network, the victim, and society. For every step, instruments, activities and tasks are outlined that fit the step and perspective for recovery. These are intended to assist both the detained citizen and the practitioner in achieving the steps. The model, shown in Figure 1, and as elaborated in the book Recovery-oriented work; from prison to society, is based on theoretical investigation and interviews with workers and detainees at PI Dordrecht, workers at justice and care chain partners, and municipalities. Tool development has also involved workers and detainees. By the end of 2022, a paper and digital version will be published for use by workers at penitentiary institutions and detainees in various interviews and activities. This model, which is further detailed in a handbook, will by that time be integrated into existing systems, like the detention and reintegration plan and the detainee’s personal reintegration file. INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 28 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 Steps in the Model The model comprises the following steps: 1. Mapping 2. Discussing 3. Informing 4. Motivating 5. Stimulating 6. Activating 7. Evaluating The first step of the model entails mapping out the detainees’ wishes, needs, and ambitions by interviewing them and observing them during labor and exercise activities. The goal is to get a clear view of the detainee’s capabilities and wishes and to learn in which way they need or ask to be supported. Using the information obtained in step 1, step 2 can commence, which involves holding a discussion with the detained citizen about risks, strengths, and possibilities as well as how to transfer these possibilities into concrete goals that the detained citizen can work on while in prison. Step 3 is informing the detained citizen about possibilities in prison (what training is available, which tools can be used, and which support can be given). Accompanying tools like questionnaires, observation lists, and conversation maps that are included in the handbook help the staff to motivate (step 4) the detained citizen to work on goals, to stimulate (step 5) more development, and to keep the detained citizen active on their individual change (step 6). During the whole process, the changes in behavior and thinking patterns should be evaluated (step 7): what is working and what has to be changed? Each step comes with a set of instruments, tasks, and process reflections. These steps are all part of the detainee’s personal plan, which helps make clear why they are participating in a given activity, what the desired result of the activity is, and how they can translate the result into the next step. The preliminary process, the activity itself, and the evaluation process are all components of the overarching recovery process. A crucial aspect of the model is that it puts the person at the center, rather than the crime. In the first step you look at the needs, wishes and ambitions of the person--not the crime itself. Also, strengths and possibilities are mapped, as are risks in regard to re- offending. It is largely geared toward looking at what can be developed and the detained citizens’ opportunities for growth. The aim is to empower detained citizens, creating opportunities to take their lives in the direction of contributing positively to themselves, their immediate surroundings, and society. It should be future-oriented, with an eye for desistance. By approaching this from the perspective of the detainee’s needs and wishes, we increase intrinsic motivation, improve the chance of meeting goals, and reduce the risk of a relapse. Research on effective interventions shows that control-oriented interventions without complementary training or other interventions have little to no positive effect on reducing recidivism. Interventions geared toward making a positive impact on criminogenic factors are shown to be far more effective in curbing recidivism. In general, interventions aimed at improving social skills, aggression management, improving cognitive skills, reducing usage of substances, and influencing antisocial attitudes and relationships are effective (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007), with the most effective one being the cognitive behavioral approach (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007). Interventions are generally more effective when they are implemented on a societal level. Collaboration both inside and outside the walls of the prison—what can be called transmural collaboration--is a key component of the model. For example: during the stay in prison the detained citizen works on goals and positive change. The goals set can also be prolonged during the supervision of the probation afterwards. In many cases, the goals during imprisonment are not automatically taken 29 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Activities The model is focused on addressing the domains, as well as on the various perspectives of recovery, along with the opportunities for the detainee and practitioner to work on recovery. For every detained citizen, there are tools and activities that fit their possibilities and motivation, allowing everyone to choose a path to recovery. A key purpose is served by the penitentiary institution--helping to resocialize the detainee while reducing the chance of post-detention recidivism. At this moment, activities and tools on the area of building a restorative justice culture, the description of the tasks of different professional in and outside detention and process guidance have been developed. Examples of the developed activities or tools are the “talking about victims” instruction cards for practitioners, with prescribed questions that practitioners can use in their conversations with the detained citizens. It is helpful in bringing a difficult topic into daily conversations. Another activity is the photo and storytelling activity “Insights.” Refer to Figures 3-7 to see some examples of photos that may be used. For many detained citizens it is hard to reflect on their life and important life events, and it is also hard to tell others about them. Individuals use photos to tell their life story, talk about their history, the present, and the future, providing insights on what was and is important in their life, what was influenced by the fact that they are in detention, and what is important for the future. One of the long-term detained citizens mentioned that hope (shown in Figure 3, light at the end of the tunnel) is always important and that one of his hopes is that he can help youth entering prison and use his life story to help them to go in another direction. Another individual described that boats used to be an important part of his life when free, and that looking at the water from his prison cell and not being able to go to the over by another social support organization or probation. By working together, the detained citizens are able to work on their goals also after imprisonment. Another important part is the detainee’s internal control, which increases their ability to self-regulate, to reduce impulsive behavior, to control the urge to seek out sensation, to take considered decisions, and to resist outside influences (Hoeve et al., 2016) The research has yielded seven domains which influence recovery in regard to the four perspectives, and all seven domains have been incorporated in the model. They are mental well-being, physical well-being, quality of life, meaning of life and autonomy, social connections, daily functioning, immediate and indirect victims. After each domain has been mapped, goals are set for the detained citizen to work on during and after detention. The model synthesizes the theoretical framework of restorative justice, social and human capital, and desistance (Farrall & Calverley, 2006) into one practice approach with the same chances and possibilities for all detained citizens and victims who have been hurt by the offences committed by these detained citizens. This also extends to the families and communities of the detained citizens. Fig. 2. Step 1 of model of recovery in detention (Geerts & Liebregts, 2020) Domains Mapping Mental well-being Risks Needs Ambitions Goals Physical well-being Quality of life Meaning of life and autonomy Social connections Daily functioning Immediate and indirect victimsNext >