< PreviousINTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 30 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 water was making him aware of the consequences of his behavior (Figures 5 and 6). Also pictures of family are important. The fact that one inmate’s whole family moved to another city just to be close to their partner and father created awareness of the fact that detention is not just for the individual, but effects whole families (Figure 7). One detained citizen said that this created awareness of the consequences of his behavior. Creating life stories through this activity helped the participants become aware of the influences of the past as well as what can be restored in the future. Another tool is the “Trauma-sensitive working” observation list for practitioners. The recognition and acknowledgment of traumas in their own past helps detained citizens to recognize the traumas that they inflicted on others—the immediate victims but also their own family. The observation list helps practitioners to recognize behavior that is related to trauma and use this information in the guidance process. The development of tools and training is an ongoing process. Many detained citizens mentioned that they don’t know how they can show others that they used their detention for a positive change in their lives (Lipsey, et al., 2007), and their official record focuses on the negative part before detention. At this moment, the tool “Piece of proud” is being developed as a collaborative effort of probation agencies, municipalities, and detained citizens to respond to the question of how a detained citizen can show positive changes and still give the institutions after detention all the needed information. If someone takes responsibility for their own life, they also should be able to show that responsibility in a way that fits them. Also, for victims it can be healing to notice that an individual has taken responsibility for prior actions and has used detention to lower the risks of re-offending. All these, and other tools and training, will be part of the model, as elaborated in Recovery-oriented work; from prison to society. Conclusion If we want all stakeholders affected by an injustice to have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair Figure 7. Photo of one family’s hands overlapping. Figure 4. Key without keyhole, keeping the chains Figure 3. Photo of “light at the end of tunnel”. Figure 5. Photo of water and ships, and an individual’s focus on the outside. Figure 6. Photo of an individual looking outside the prison window.31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE the harm, a culture of restorative justice needs to be created. Practitioners in detention have an opportunity to influence detained citizens. They are in the position to stimulate, motivate, and guide detained citizens in taking responsibility for the harm done. Citizens who are detained do not automatically work on restoration of harm just because they are imprisoned (Gade, 2020). Practitioners inside and outside of detention have to support them with that. To be able to do that effectively, however, practitioners need guidance themselves. Development of knowledge, attitude, and skills is needed, as are tools and training that are supportive of restorative justice goals. To perpetuate the gained steps during detention and to make sure the restorative justice process can be prolonged, interagency cooperation is necessary. By giving the detained citizen the possibility to make further steps in the restorative process after detention, the effect on desistance from crime will be larger, and all stakeholders, including the detained citizen, victim, family, and community, will be able to make more steps in the process of restoration. In the coming year, research results from the PI Dordrecht study will be used to develop more tools, training, and culture elements that can be used in detention. Different tools and activities will be tested, and at the completion of the research a process guide will be written that includes tools and training, with a main focus on restoration of the detained citizen, victims, family, and society. References Braithwaite, J. (2004). Restorative Justice and De-Professionalization. The Good So- ciety. 13 (1): 28–31. doi:10.1353/ gso.2004.0023. ISSN 1538-9731. S2CID 143707224. Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. (2006). Understand- ing desistance from crime: Emerging theoretical directions in resettlement and rehabilitation. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Claes, B. (2019). Transmuraal herstelgericht werken. Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 19(2), 30–46. Gade, C. B. N. (2020). Is restorative justice punishment? Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Geerts, A. & Liebregts, M. (2020) Model of re- covery in detention, Penitentiary institution of Dordrecht (intranet). Hoeve, M., Van der Laan, P. H., Van der Laan, P. H., & Loeber, R. (2016). Persisters and Desisters in Crime from Adolescence into Adulthood. Taylor & Francis. Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The Effec- tiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3(1), 297–320. Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of Cognitive ‐Behav- ioral Programs for Criminal Offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3(1), 1–27. Movisie (2015), Hoofdnavigatie, De voordelen van de participatiesamenleving. Shapland J. (2013). Implications of growth: Challenges for restorative justice. Interna- tional Review of Victimology. 20: 111– 127. doi:10.1177/0269758013510808. S2CID 145088610. Sherman, L. W. & Strang H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence (PDF). University of Pennsylvania. Wilken, J. P., & den Hollander, D. (2019). Hand- boek Steunend relationeel handelen, werken aan herstel en kwaliteit van leven, Uitgeverij SWP, Amsterdam. Zehr, H. (2005). Changing Lenses – A New Fo- cus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale PA: 2005 (3rd ed), 271. 33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE BUILDING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE TAKES THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY BY JULIE HILTINTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 34 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 on the lives of many juveniles in the community (and their families) by successfully diverting them from involvement in the justice system, and, importantly, gives victims a better chance at obtaining closure and receiving restorative justice. JCAP has some ancillary benefits that are noteworthy. A referral to JCAP reduces demands for services from the police, courts, and probation personnel. In addition, JCAP meets the needs of parents and guardians, who greatly appreciate the opportunity for their child to be held accountable in a way that educates and allows the minor to remain at home and in school. JCAP removes much of their stress and worry over having a child in contact with the juvenile justice system. Restorative Justice The methodology of the JCAP program is guided by the principles of restorative justice as devised by Howard Zehr (2002). Zehr pioneered work in the field of restorative justice in the 1970s to address weaknesses within the justice system, particularly with regards to accountability and lack of inclusion of those who have been harmed. He defined restorative justice as a common sense understanding of wrongdoing. According to Zehr: · Crime is a violation against people and interpersonal relationships · Violations create obligations · The central obligation is to put things right There are three stakeholders in restorative justice. They are: · The person(s) harmed by a crime · The person(s) responsible for the crime · The community of those who have been impacted by the crime The bottom line for Zehr is that when harm Repairing harm, restoring relationships, and building communities are the three components of the vision of Alternative Restorative Communities, a community-based organization located in Solano County, California. In 2016, the opportunity arose to collaborate with Solano County Probation to design a program that would use restorative practices to support youth with a first or second offense and those they had harmed. This collaboration created the Juvenile Community Accountability Program (JCAP), which provides a response to harm that allows for active participation by all who have been impacted as a result of wrongdoing. JCAP recognizes that justice is best achieved by building or repairing relationships between those who have been harmed and those responsible. The JCAP approach trusts that those directly affected by a crime know what they need for a successful resolution of the harm caused, and getting them involved gives them back their power and voice. With regard to those who have perpetrated a crime, JCAP seeks to interrupt their entry into the juvenile justice system by ensuring that these youthful offenders are held accountable in real time by an intervention that helps them connect their actions to the harm caused by those actions. At the same time, that intervention provides them opportunity to acknowledge that accountability, express remorse, and have a say in how they will repair the harm that they have caused. It is also notable that JCAP’s restorative response allows incidents to be resolved swiftly as well as positively. The typical time from point of referral to completion of an accountability contract is two to four weeks. Building community resilience takes the entire community. Thanks to the huge contributions of Solano County Probation staff, the JCAP program was designed in a way that contributes to that resilience. It takes place in the community, makes use of trained community members, has a positive impact 35 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE has been caused to an individual or the community, those responsible for causing the harm have an obligation to make things right. In keeping with Zehr’s restorative justice principles, the JCAP program aims to provide a framework of support so those in its target population (youths referred to JCAP after being cited for low-level crimes) get an opportunity to follow through on that important obligation to make things right. Program Design JCAP is designed so that the restoration process takes place in the community and is facilitated by members of the community who are trained in restorative practices. Program practitioners must be at least 21 years of age, have a high school diploma, and pass a LiveScan background check. Training is provided by JCAP, and practitioners attend ongoing skills-based training as required. Practitioners are required to complete a minimum of six hours of training in basic restorative practices, including but not limited to creating accountability contracts, developing cultural competence for communities served, and facilitating restorative conferences between parties. JCAP practitioners also meet regularly to review their case load and share ideas. Support is provided by the libraries in the county, who allow JCAP facilitators to reserve private rooms for meetings. Libraries are the sites for many, although not all, meetings, but at no time does the young person enter a government building other than a library or meet with anyone in uniform. Figure 1 So How Does It Work? Solano County Probation Juvenile Intake refers those with citations for misdemeanor offenses to JCAP to be diverted from formal processing and handled restoratively. Participation in JCAP is voluntary; the young person must accept responsibility for the harm and the parent/guardian must give consent for the youth to participate in the program. Upon receipt of the referral, the case is transferred to one of JCAP’s facilitators, who will prepare the participants and manage the process. The person (or persons) harmed is invited to participate in a restorative conference with the young person responsible as well as supporters for both sides, such as parents, friends, or other family members. The facilitator will seat those present at the conference in a circle to instill a sense of equality and belonging. All participants have an opportunity to speak and have their story heard, but the facilitator ensures that the meeting is carried out in a safe and respectful manner.INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 36 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 A series of questions is posed to each participant: Person Responsible for the Harm: • What happened? • What were you thinking at the time? • What have you thought about your actions since? • Who has been affected by what you have done and in what way? • What do you think needs to happen to put things right? Harmed Person(s): • What did you think when you realized what had happened? • What impact has this incident had on you and on others? • What has been the hardest thing for you? • What do you think needs to happen to make things right? Everyone has the opportunity to come up with ideas about how to deal with what has happened. The facilitator then creates an accountability contract that meets the needs of all participants. If those present are unable to reach an agreement that meets the needs of all concerned, the case is referred back to the probation department. To date, however, all cases have reached a successful conclusion. Upon completion of the accountability contract, the young person retains a clean record and can move forward in life empowered by having taken responsibility to put things right. What Are the Benefits of Participating in a Restorative Conference? A truly restorative program leaves those who have been harmed with an increased sense of satisfaction by including them in the development of the resolution. Those responsible for the harm leave with a greater sense of personal responsibility, understanding, and belonging to the community in which they live. Taking a restorative approach is about ensuring community members receive the support they need. This strengthens community ties and fosters the well-being of its members, resulting in healthier and safer communities. Providing a space for those impacted by harm to be heard, get answers, and express themselves offers opportunity for peace of mind and reduces the fear of such an experience happening again. The young people responsible for harms are empowered to communicate and think for themselves, and they are also shown how to respond to challenging situations in a positive manner. These are valuable skills that will serve them well in life. By preventing their entry into the juvenile justice system, this process can exponentially improve the life chances for these young individuals. What Happens If the Harmed Person Does Not Wish to Participate? Even if victims do not wish to directly participate in a restorative conference, they can still provide input and help determine how the young person will be held accountable by expressing their needs to the facilitator. This can be done at an in-person meeting, over the phone, or in writing. The facilitator will then incorporate those needs into the accountability contract and confirm when the young person has successfully completed the contract. How Is the Young Person Held Accountable if the Harmed Party Is Not Present? The facilitator meets with the young person and parents/guardians to go over the reason for the referral. The young person is encouraged to talk about what was going on at the time and to 37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE explain what precipitated the harmful actions. The meeting will include discussion about the impact of the harm caused and how the youth can make it right in a manner that meets the needs of all concerned. Taking all this into account, and using SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely), the facilitator writes up an accountability contract that directly ties the nature of the wrongdoing to the accountability sanctions. It is very important that the young person responsible is able to connect the consequences of the harmful actions with how amends are going to be made. JCAP Facilitator Joyce Martinez, meeting a young person to review a completed accountability contract on the patio of a Barnes and Noble. Case Studies The sample cases below show how we are able to tailor the accountability contract in a way that meets the needs of all involved. Case #1 Fourteen-year-old ET was arrested for possession of a weapon on school grounds. Another student in class saw what appeared to be a gun in his backpack and reported him to the teacher. The police were called and discovered in the backpack an airsoft gun that had the weight of a real gun and didn’t have an orange tip. The District Attorney reviewed the case and agreed to give ET an opportunity to participate in the JCAP in order to resolve the matter. No harmed persons were listed on the citation. A restorative practitioner from JCAP contacted ET and his mother and arranged to meet them at their local coffee shop. At the meeting, the three discussed the reason for the referral, and an accountability contract was drawn up with input from all present: 1. ET was provided with a link to view the documentary Fake Gun, Real Dan- ger (Edmonton Police Service, 2016), as the weapon that was actually found on his person was an airsoft gun. He was to write about what he learned and how the information in the docu- mentary related to his offense. 2. ET was provided with a worksheet on understanding school safety, and he was required to write an essay on how his behavior at school affected others. 3. ET was provided a behavior reflection worksheet to complete. A date was set for a second meeting in order for ET to review and discuss his assignments with the facilitator. At the meeting, the facilitator was amazed when she saw what ET presented to her. She wrote: He was so concerned about what could have happened to him and/or others had people believed he had a real firearm, he was inspired to convince the school that students needed to become more aware of these types of situations either through “speakers/lectures” or mandatory classes. He was motivated to conduct his own research and discovered several agencies that offered gun safety programs and even wrote their names down! He noted he was involved in Boy Scouts and also volunteered for Valcor, which he could use as a platform to have general discussions with others about such dangers. I had never seen a juvenile react so passionately about wanting to put an action plan in place based on what they had learned from their mistakes.INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 38 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 Case #2 Sixteen-year-old JW was arrested for pulling a fire alarm at school without cause. In addition, he had two citations for fighting. The facilitator contacted JW and his mother and arranged to meet them in their local library. The individuals listed as the persons harmed in both fighting citations were contacted, but both the parents and students declined to participate. However, all agreed a letter of apology would suffice. The community fire department was also contacted, as JW’s actions had wasted community resources. The fire chief agreed to participate and offered to have JW complete volunteer hours at the fire department. At the meeting with JW and his mother, they discussed the reason for the referral, and an accountability contract was drawn up with input from all present: 1. JW was to watch The David Cassai Story (STOP. One Punch Can Kill, 2013) and write an essay about what he learned. 2. JW was to complete an Alternative Choic- es worksheet. 3. JW would write three apology letters. 4. JW would complete four volunteer hours at the local fire department. JCAP’s restorative practitioner wrote: When we had our second meeting, I was totally surprised to hear him talk about how much he wanted to work for the Fire Department. He met with the Fire Chief, took a tour and learned a number of things while there. In addition, he was put to work performing clean-up duties. As a result of JW’s enthusiasm and ‘excellent’ clean up skills, the Fire Chief invited JW to join in on ”ride alongs.” JW eagerly accepted the invitation. I certainly will never forget the amazing conversation I had with him about his desire to be a part of such an important field of work for our community as a result of his experience. Case #3 Sixteen-year-old JM confronted 15-year- old JC as he came out of class. JM was angry about a text JC had sent the previous evening indicating he was seeing a girl that JM liked. JM started pushing JC and saying things to goad him into fighting. JC attempted to walk away, at which point JM punched JC in the head several times. JC did not hit back. The school nurse cleared JC to go home with his mother. He had a large contusion on his head and a swollen ear. JM was cited for battery. Other significant aspects of this incident are that JM was 6’ 2” tall and weighed 210 pounds. JC was 5’ 6” tall and weighed 145 pounds. In addition, it was learned that JM had arranged in advance for a friend to take a video of the encounter, and that video quickly went viral on social media. The facilitator contacted the boys and their mothers (both boys lived in single-parent households). JC’s mother stated that he did not have any significant injuries, but she was extremely upset that her son was beaten up. Both JC and his mother were keen to participate in a restorative conference. JM’s mother was also concerned about her son’s actions towards JC and was very responsive to participating in a restorative conference. JM expressed remorse for his actions and also agreed to participate in the conference. At the conference, JC stated he was just friends with the girl that JM liked and that they were working on a school project together. He said this female student told him she had made this clear to JM and that she was not romantically interested in either boy. JC’s mother spoke directly to JM and expressed the fear she felt after receiving the phone call to come to the school to pick up her son, not knowing exactly how badly injured he was. She said she was a single parent, that JC had an absent father, and she was struggling with raising a son on her own without a positive male role model. She drew JM’s attention to the fact that he was a significantly larger young man than JC and asked him to consider that he 39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE could have killed her son, given his size and strength. She also asked him to address the fact that he had pre-planned this to the extent that he had a friend ready to record the event. She maintained her composure for the most part but was tearful at times. JM spontaneously apologized to her and explained that his anger and perceived humiliation from thinking that this girl preferred someone he considered weaker got the better of him. The video was intended to maintain his reputation, he said, and had been taken down the same day. JM expressed remorse, apologized to JC, and assured him this would not happen again. He confirmed the girl had spoken to him and that JC’s account was correct. He also said he was struggling with his parents’ divorce and felt pressured by both his father and grandfather to be an “alpha male.” He recognized that he had anger issues. JM’s mother addressed JC and his mother, separately and together. She was mortified about what had happened and apologized profusely for her son’s actions. She stated that her son’s father and grandfather had been college football players and were pressuring him to do the same. She felt they had dysfunctional ideas of what it means to be a man and was struggling with being a single parent trying to counteract the pressure the two men were placing on JM. In response to the incident, she had immediately enrolled JM in counseling. The two mothers connected, and all present engaged in an in-depth discussion. An accountability contract was drawn up with input from all participants: 1. JM would watch the One Punch Can Kill documentary (STOP. One Punch Can Kill, 2013) and write an essay about what he had learned and how it applied to his actions. 2. JM would volunteer at a local ther- apeutic animal farm that uses ani- mal-assisted therapy designed to pro- mote improvement in human physical, social, emotional, and/or cognitive functioning. 3. JM would continue to actively partici- pate in counseling. The meeting concluded with the boys shaking hands and the mothers exchanging contact numbers, as they planned to meet again in support of one another as single parents with teenage sons. How Well Does It Work? From July 2016 to date, 589 young people have been referred to JCAP, and 520 have successfully completed the program. This means 520 entry points into the juvenile justice system were interrupted by providing an opportunity for those responsible to take accountability for their actions and repair the harm they had caused. It is worth noting THE JCAP APPROACH: • Meets the community’s need to know that something meaningful has taken place • Includes those directly impacted • Helps those directly impacted find common ground • Holds the young person accountable in real time • Provides the young person with a way to put things right • Is handled in the community by trained community members •Builds community connections • Interrupts the cycle of entry into the juvenile justice system!Next >