< Previous20 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE means the process must only occur if all prospective participants, after having received appropriate information about how the process will work, freely give the facilitator permission to organise and facilitate the process. 3. The principle of inclusion Each individual restorative process is carefully designed and facilitated to fit the needs and capacities of the participants and will be accessible, sensitive, and adapted to the diversity of the participants’ gender, domestic responsibilities, racial or ethnic origin, language, disability, religion or belief, age, and sexual orientation. 4. The principle of participation Restorative processes must sustain the safety, respect, and fairness required for participants to speak and express themselves freely, honestly, and in their own way. No party should dominate the process and restrict the participation of others. Research supports the argument that restorative processes are most genuine and satisfactory when parties can meet directly. 5. The principle of commitment Parties involved in the process are held accountable and supported to fulfill the commitments and complete the actions agreed upon through a restorative process. 6. Theprincipleofconfidentiality While there are specific exceptions to confidentiality, this principle provides a space in which the participants feel safe to engage in a truthful dialogue, ultimately encouraging mutual understanding. But does restorative justice work? When someone asks this question, it often means they want to know if restorative justice reduces re-offending. However, to some extent that question originates in a different paradigm—the criminal justice paradigm focused on public protection through managing risk, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Restorative justice is designed to address and restore what has been lost, damaged, or violated by a specific harmful incident to the satisfaction of all parties. So, what does the research say? If engaged skillfully, victims, perpetrators of harm, and those in the community generally want to participate in restorative justice. Victims will meet those who have offended against them for many reasons, including to ask questions, seek reparations (Shapland et al., 2011), advance their healing, and, in some cases, see if they can prevent reoffending and hopefully lead to a safer society (Van Camp, 2017). Most offenders wish to repair the harm that they have caused (Vanfraechem et al., 2010) and want to express their remorse (Shapland et al., 2011). Sometimes the offender is motivated by wanting to avoid prosecution (Vanfraechem et al., 2010). The community’s understanding of the crime can result in the reintegration of offenders and more support for victims, and the participation of people from the community may persuade the offender to take more responsibility (Vanfraechem et al., 2010). Using restorative justice processes, victims and offenders usually have a much more satisfactory experience of justice. Restorative processes engage the participation of victims and perpetrators more effectively than the 21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE traditional justice system (Laxminarayan, 2011). Victims’ needs and interests are taken into account (Vanfraechem et al., 2010). Offenders also believe that they are treated more fairly than through traditional justice (Strang, Barnes, Braithwaite & Sherman, 1999). Both parties associate restorative justice with fair treatment (Latimer et al., 2005). Offenders appreciate the opportunity to meet the victim, to actively participate, and to express remorse (Shapland et al., 2011). They have been found subsequently to have a more positive attitude towards police and law (McGarrell et al., 2000). Restorative justice often helps offenders to strengthen relationships with their friends or relatives (Shapland et al., 2012), encouraging desistance processes (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2015). Restorative justice saves money. It reduces the costs of reconviction (Shapland et al., 2008). Victim-Offender Mediation takes a third of the time needed for non-mediated cases (Umbreit et al., 2001). Moreover, meeting with the offender has been shown to have long-term health benefits such as reducing the post-traumatic stress symptoms of victims and providing therapeutic benefits for family members of homicide victims-- both of which can reduce health costs (Sherman & Strang, 2007). Also, in case you were wondering, restorative processes result in positive outcomes. Research has found that restorative justice was more successful in improving victim and offender satisfaction, decreasing recidivism of offenders, and increasing offender compliance with restitution when compared to more traditional criminal justice programmes (Latimer et al., 2005, Shapland et al., 2011). Studies consistently state that restorative processes achieve at least 85% satisfaction among victims (Shapland et al., 2011; Jacobson & Gibbs, 2009; Beckett et al., 2004; Strang, 2002; Strang et al., 2006; Umbreit & Coates, 1993; Umbreit et al., 2001). They also reduce the victim’s fear of further harm (Morris & Maxwell, 2001). Studies confirm that restorative justice stimulates desistance from offending (Morris & Maxwell, 2001; Shapland et al., 2008; Sherman et al., 2000; Robinson & Shapland, 2008; Schütz, 1999; De Beus & Rodríguez, 2007; Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Latimer et al., 2005; Shapland et al., 2011). This is due to feelings of remorse, not being made to feel one is a bad person, feeling involved in decision making, agreeing with the outcome, and meeting and apologizing to the victim (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2015). The restorative process can be said to confirm a pro-social identity in many cases. Comparisons between the practice of restorative justice and probation practice I spent 25 years working with the Probation Service during a period of extremely violent civil conflict in Northern Ireland. I worked in the community, courts, and prisons. I thought it was the greatest job and felt privileged to engage with such a diverse range of people struggling to find a way to live in society without harming others. Towards the end of my career, I became involved in the movement to base probation practices on research and empirical evidence (Chapman, 1995; Chapman & Hough, 1998). I have very happy memories of attending the APPA conference at Norfolk, Virginia, in 1998 to present a program that I co-designed, Stop, Think and Change. 22 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE I left probation to take up a career in training and research, a career which eventually led to a full-time position as a lecturer and director of the Masters Programme in Restorative Justice at Ulster University. Since then, I have focused my teaching and research on restorative justice. In view of pertinent legislation in 2002 as well as Ulster University’s design and delivery of a practice model with training, Northern Ireland is one of the world’s leaders in this field. Yet after many years I have not lost my fascination and affection for probation. I want to conclude this article with some reflections on some of the distinctions between restorative justice practices and probation practices. As a probation officer I spent a great deal of time with offenders but hardly ever met a victim. I never thought that this was strange, because this was normal throughout most of the criminal justice system. We assume that victims wish to be protected, and consequently we keep offenders apart from them and often from society in general, whether through custody or risk management techniques. It was disconcerting to learn that, once they feel safe, many victims want to meet those that have harmed them. They want to make sure that perpetrators know how much harm they have caused, and they want to ask questions that only their perpetrator can answer. As I observed these encounters, I realized that in my role as a probation officer I could never hold individuals so accountable for their actions. I have also seen how relieved victims have been after their meetings and how they feel that they have reclaimed the power and control so cruelly stolen by the offender. Of course, I was also interested in the effects on the perpetrator of participating in the restorative process. I realized that I had spent much of my time trying to get offenders to understand the consequences of their past actions and to take responsibility for their behavior. In doing so, these consequences were often subject to imagination, cliché, and exaggeration for effect and I was focusing on responsibility for actions in the past which were irreversible. In a restorative meeting the consequences of harm do not have to be represented because they are presented by those who have suffered from them. The nature and severity of these harms are often idiosyncratic and impossible to imagine, even by the most empathetic among us. As one young man told me while waiting to meet his victims, “I will not know what I am sorry for until I listen to them.” Evidence-based practice is founded on general principles that provide a guide or map for what you can expect and how to respond. Practice- based evidence is the real territory and requires responses to actual situations. The restorative process starts with responsibility for past harm but focuses more on active responsibility for future actions to repair the harm and avoid harming others in the future. I also noticed that when an individual makes a promise to do something in the presence of those who were hurt as well as significant members of their family and the community, that promise is much more likely to be kept. As a probation officer, I struggled to get 60 to 70% of people through their order. The figures for the completion of agreed action through restorative justice in Northern Ireland were 90 to 95%. Intrinsic commitment is far more effective than extrinsic compliance. 23 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE I believe that at the core of these distinctions lies a philosophical orientation. The criminal justice system and its agents act as if the problem is the person. And that person is the criminal who must be caught, tried, and punished through a combination of retribution, risk management, or rehabilitation. For restorative justice the focus is on the harm that people inflict on each other. The people affected—the victim and perpetrator and those close to them—become the solution, determining what needs to be restored and what action needs to be taken for restoration. This process of restoration can be carried out at any stage of the criminal justice process, including as prevention, as part of diversion from prosecution, during the pre-sentence stage, while a sentence is being served, or during reintegration. It also can be done to address historic injustices. It can be done irrespective of the seriousness of the offense. My current research is into victims of sexual crime, domestic violence, and other grave offenses, and the outcomes for the victims have been extraordinary. I have learned that this reorientation requires a different kind of professionalism. I find the metaphor of scaffolding useful. What if the outside of a house needs to be repaired, but the crack is high up in the wall? The job requires scaffolding to provide a strong and safe platform on which to carry out the repair work in an area that otherwise would be difficult and dangerous to reach. The restorative practitioner provides the scaffolding so that the victims, perpetrators, and those close to them can engage in this difficult task with confidence that the process will be safe, controlled, respectful, and just. Let me present one last distinction that was inspired by Miles Davis, a jazz genius who also had his share of run-ins with the forces of law and order. After a member of his band played the wrong note at an important concert, Miles said: “When you hit a wrong note, it’s the next note that you play that determines if it is good or bad.” (Hancock, 2016). Our culture condemns people for their wrongful actions and is very slow to forgive or forget. Restorative justice places the focus on “the next note” and asks us to judge people by what they do to clear up the mess of their wrongful actions.24 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE References Beckett, H., Campbell, C., O’Mahony, D., Jackson, J., & Doak, J. (2004). Interim evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conferencing Scheme: Research and statistical bulletin 1/2005. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Bradshaw, B., & Roseborough, D (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: The impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Federal Probation, 69(2), 15-21 Caldwell, B (2002, July 8). Déjà vu fo r law student; Lecture refers to ground-breaking case involving him. The Record (Kitchener, Ontario). Chapman, T. (1995). Creating a culture of change: a case study of a car crime project in Belfast. In J. Maguire [Ed.], What works: Reducing re-offending. Chichester: Wiley. Chapman, T. & Hough, M. (1998). Evidence based practice, a guide to effective practice. London, Home Office Publications Unit. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. The British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1-15. De Beus, K., & Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 337- 347. Hancock, H. (2016, April 12). Herbie Hancock on Miles Davis [Video]. Jacobson, J., & Gibbs, P. (2009). Out of trouble. Making amends: Restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland. London: Prison Reform Trust. Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144. Lauwaert, K., & Aertsen, I. (2015). Desistance and restorative justice. Mechanisms for desisting from crime within restorative justice practices. European Forum of Restorative Justice. Laxminarayan, M. (2011). Accessibility and Initiation of Restorative Justice. Final Report of Project JUST/2011/JPEN/2968. European Forum for Restorative Justice. McGarrell, E. E., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning Justice to the Community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment. Hudson Institute. Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Robinson, G., & Shapland, J. (2008). Reducing recidivism. A task for restorative justice? British Journal of Criminology, 48, 337- 358. Schütz, H. (1999). Die Rückfallshäufigkeit nach einem Außergerichtlichen Tatausgleich bei Erwachsenen. Österreichische Richterzeitung, 77, 166-169. Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., ... Sorsby, A. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08 Shapland, J., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2011). Restorative Justice in Practice: Evaluating what works for victims and offenders. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Sherman, L., Strang, H., & Woods, D. (2000). Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. 25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: The Adam Institute. Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., Braithwaite, J., & Sherman, L. (1999). Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian National University. Strang, H. (2002). Repair of revenge: Victims and restorative justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 290-292; Strang, H., Sherman, L., Angel, C. M., Woods, D. J., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., & Inkpen, N. (2006). Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice experiences: A quasi- experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 281-306. Umbreit, M., & Coates, R. (1993). Cross-site analysis of victim offender mediation in four states. Crime and Delinquency, 39(4), 565-585. Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2001). The impact of victim-offender mediation: Two decades of research. Federal Probation, 65(3), 29-35. Van Camp, T. (2017). Understanding victim participation in restorative practices: Looking for justice for oneself as well as for others. European Journal of Criminology, 14(6), 679-696. Vanfraechem, I., Aertsen, I., & Willemsens, J. (2010). Restorative Justice Realities. Empirical Research in a European Context. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing. Tim Chapman is a Visiting Professor at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland and Visiting Professor at the Università degli studi di Sassari in Italy. He spent 25 years working in the Probation Service in Northern Ireland. He played an active part in developing effective probation practice in the UK particularly through the publication of Evidence Based Practice, written jointly with Michael Hough and published by the Home Office. He has published widely on restorative justice and effective practice and has conducted significant research into restorative justice. He is chair of the Board of the European Forum for Restorative Justice. 27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE BY RACHEL QUINE WITH LIZ DIXON A SAFE PAIR OF HANDS: THE IMPORTANCE OF A SKILLED PRACTITIONER IN THE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROCESS28 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Have you ever wondered how many restorative justice practitioners it would take to change a light bulb? Just one, because practitioners are experts at repairing connections! Frivolity aside, facilitating restorative justice processes, which support individuals as they heal and transform, requires real skill and care. Restorative practitioners repair emotional connections, and as is the case for electricians who fix electrical connections, there is real risk of harm when not done properly. Therefore, the skills, knowledge, and understanding of those individuals who do this work are crucial. While the structure for training restorative facilitators is widely developed, the arguably more important system that establishes, monitors, and advances the competencies of practitioners is often not prioritized or even established. Taking reasonable steps to address the need to ensure practitioner competence is important. Utilizing skilled restorative practitioners is instrumental in ensuring optimal benefit for employers and, most importantly, the participants in the process. The alternative is not acceptable. The Role of a Restorative Practitioner We can now benefit from the growing and convincing body of research on the impact and effectiveness of Restorative Justice (RJ) and its outcomes for victims and offenders. For example, in the United Kingdom a series of research studies funded by the Ministry of Justice demonstrated that “…restorative justice provides 85% victim satisfaction, reduces the frequency of re-offending, and provides value for money by saving £9 for every £1 spent on RJ” (Restorative Justice Council, 2011). A subsequent study looking at the impact of RJ on post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) for victims found that RJ conference meetings decreased the traumatic effects of crime, with conference participation leading to lower PTSS six months after the process (Angel, 2005). Strang and colleagues conducted a systemic review on restorative conferences (Strang et al., 2013). A conference is a restorative process in which victims, offenders, and other impacted individuals are brought together in a structured and carefully prepared meeting led by facilitators to discuss the incident and the resulting harm and to agree on ways that the harm can be repaired. That systemic review found that RJ conferences reduced levels of trauma and fear of offender for victims, increased victim satisfaction, reduced costs to the criminal justice system, and led to a reduction in re-offending. Due to the need to prove that RJ is a credible and useful process within the criminal justice system, less time and attention has been paid to some of the more intricate aspects of the practice itself, such what exactly is it that leads to positive changes for victims and offenders alike. The Restoring the Balance research project (Hallam, 2015) examined the success of a victim- initiated RJ pilot project and interviewed referrers, offenders, and victims about their experiences. A key finding from this study—a finding that goes some way toward answering the question about what causes positive change—was about the importance of the relationship between the victim and the facilitator: “Without doubt the relationship between victims and their facilitators has been key to the project’s success. Each victim regarded his or her facilitator as outstanding… Victims have felt recognized, validated and valued at a time when they needed support” (Hallam, 2015, p. 29 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 51). The study also uncovered that RJ is often seen as “risky” (a perception that has considerable negative implications), but facilitator skill can mitigate the risk. “Evidence from this study suggests that when restorative justice is delivered by experienced and skilled facilitators, the risk to victims is minimized” (Hallam, 2015, p. 52). It seems clear, then, that a significant part of a successful restorative justice process is the trust and relationships that are built. It is about the quality of the space that is created and held by practitioners, a space that allows for the exchanges between participants to happen and hopefully for repair and resolution. As experienced restorative practitioners in the justice field, we have had the privilege of supporting numerous individuals through restorative processes and being present during moments in their lives that were transformative— moments where responsibility was taken, harm was acknowledged, shame was reduced, and there were flickers of connection, a reminder of the humanity that joins us. Life, in some small part, was restored. These are powerful and rewarding experiences for the practitioner when compared to the traditional case management focus within our current criminal justice service, which seems particularly devoid of a focus on relationship and connection. What Makes It Safe? Setting the Standards for Restorative Justice Restorative work has huge potential for participant and practitioner alike, but it must be done well. Thus, assurance is needed that it is safe to work with specific practitioners and that they are likely to be effective. Braithwaite (2002) reminds us that a debate about standards in restorative justice is important but troublesome. As we have already acknowledged, there is risk of considerable harm, such as further victimization or stigmatizing shame, if RJ is done poorly. Just as we wouldn’t welcome into our home an electrician who doesn’t follow electrical safety standards when fixing wiring, we should not expect citizens to accept practitioners into their lives to guide them through complex emotional processes without a similar system of regulation. Standards are a necessary layer of protection. Power is an essential theme in restorative practice, and power imbalances between participants need to be managed to avoid domination of one participant over another. RJ aims to empower citizens, and as a “bottom-up social movement” it can enable individuals with traditionally less power to speak their story (Braithwaite, 2002, p. 563). While there is no doubt that we need to have some system of communicating what is expected of practitioners to deliver safe and effective restorative processes, it is also necessary to avoid regulation that is so onerous and restrictive that it detracts from the specific ability of RJ to empower, balance power, and meet the changing needs of participants Clearly, therefore, the goal is to have the right level of standards. A system which monitors and recognizes practitioners is a way of protecting participants from powerful domination by professionals and from further harm, but it must also protect the practice from becoming too restrictive and hence not being restorative at all. How we respond to this issue is important. In Europe, the European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ) is currently consulting on standards Next >