< Previous30 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE and service users alike to consider whether a practitioner is working to best practice. For the practitioner, the task of demonstrating that your practice meets the standards required for joining the register is no small undertaking. Although the NOS are a guide, they include multiple elements and criteria that can, at times, appear overwhelming. However, while the accreditation destination is important, perhaps a practitioner only becomes ready during the journey itself. The process of self-reflection, of reviewing your practice and cases against these pointers of practice, is in itself a powerful mechanism for making practice better and safer for everyone. The course run by the Royal Borough of Greenwich1 (a local council area in London) is a collective way to take that journey to accreditation. The Level 5 program combines practical facilitator training with theoretical understanding, and the academic aspect is supported by a local university. The practical facilitator skill-based training centers on the appropriate NOS units, helping to “interpret” them for practitioners so they begin to understand and recognize these from the start. The academic assignments support a deeper level of knowledge development, enabling the practitioner to understand “why this works” instead of just following the steps and hoping for the best. This holistic approach, which includes assignments and observations of practice, puts practitioners through their paces, requiring a high level of both reflection and detail. However, it has been a real joy to see individual practitioners develop so they can complete an assignment that convincingly applies shame theory to RJ practice. It is 1 The first author leads this course of practice, recognizing how essential it is that a restorative justice service should adhere to standards of good practice (see for more information). In England and Wales, the structure of standards is outlined by the National Occupational Standards (NOS) framework, with NOS units for various professional disciplines such as justice and health. Our UK journey with RJ standards began in 2006, when 13 NOS units for restorative practice were developed by a group of experienced practitioners and Skills for Justice (part of the Skills Sector Council). Each unit contains a series of criteria about the practice, knowledge, and understanding expected across the range of restorative practices, including initial contact, co-working, using restorative practices for community issues, and evaluating outcomes from a restorative process. These NOS units created a very helpful guide for restorative practitioners and their managers as to what needs to be considered when facilitating safe and effective restorative processes. They encourage deep reflection and ultimately lead to respectful practice. TheJourneytoAccreditation Although the RJ NOS were created in 2006, there was no vehicle for practitioners to formally consider their practice against the standards, leaving them mainly unutilized. However, in 2011, the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) for England and Wales developed and launched an accredited practitioner register. This provided a system for individual practitioners to demonstrate that they understood and worked to the RJ NOS. The RJC register has recently been revised to include different practitioner levels (see allowing employers 31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE likewise a joy to conduct an observation where practitioners facilitate carefully and effectively, almost effortlessly meeting the required NOS. Having a system for accreditation like this is certainly important and safe, but it can also be incredibly empowering. As the Course Leader and a practitioner myself, it gives safe boundaries and reassurances that this transformative work that we love is always respectful of the people we serve—and is and having the powerful impact it should. TheStandardsinAction:ACaseStudy from the London Probation RJ Unit ByLizDixon When London Probation Trust decided to pilot Restorative Approaches in 2012, with a view of working with victims as well as offenders, they were guided by the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) and experienced accredited practitioners. This helped everyone, particularly new facilitators who had only received the rudimentary four-day training, to better understand the role of RJ principles and the meaning of empowerment and accountability in practice. By working to the NOS with accredited practitioners, we were able to keep our enthusiasm and “egos” in check as we built a good foundation with underpinning knowledge and awareness. This helped us develop a deeper appreciation of restorative practice itself. While some training consortiums give the dangerous impression that RJ simply involves mastering a few techniques, our unit aspired to support our practitioners to understand and work to the NOS, as we realised this would give us professional confidence, inform our practice, and keep everyone safe. The Probation Trust was awarded the RJC Restorative Service Quality Mark even before we had a single face-to-face conference, which demonstrated the importance of having safe systems with dynamic ongoing risk assessment and risk management processes. We understood that these elements were as important as developing skills and techniques– something that usually preoccupies facilitators at first. I would equate restorative accreditation with any other occupational activity. Teaching assistants can train to be teachers, and nursing assistants can train to be nurses. The rudimentary training helps you understand the basics, but as a competent RJ facilitator you also need the underpinning knowledge and skill set to satisfy the harmed and those responsible for the harm that we are there to assess and assist. There was also a real need to persuade courts, colleagues, police, parole boards, and victims services that we were a safe pair of hands. Restorative Justice within the criminal justice system requires a multi-agency approach, and our partners need to see that we know what we are doing, will keep people safe, and ultimately will satisfy the participants’ needs and promote healing. Our Professional Quality mark from the RJC provides the reassurance that our facilitators are accredited or working towards accreditation, and this became very important for everyone. As a way to maintain awareness and adherence to the standards in order to support our practice, we developed a twice monthly practitioner forum—a forum which continues to this day. Experienced accredited practitioners are regular contributors to the forum, and our consultant, who was instrumental in setting up the NOS in 2006, provides further invaluable experience, knowledge, advice, and 32 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE support. The forum is an important space for practitioners to discuss cases, share dilemmas, and manage risk, and its impact cannot be underestimated. For example, two facilitators from the unit were working on a serious and complex manslaughter case, and they were unsure as to whether it was “conference ready.” A case discussion at the forum allowed for collective reflection on their practice with a supportive group and helped them consider what guidance the relevant NOS units brought. This gave them the confidence to wait and work further with the person responsible for the harm so that he was better able to account for his actions, thereby satisfying the victim and helping him take responsibility, and this resulted in a more transformative RJ conference. In some organizations that we work alongside there appears, at times, to be a rush to go to conference when cases are not ready or when a different form of RJ is not explored which would better suit participants’ needs. The research from Restoring the Balance (Hallam, 2015) highlights how poor practice can result in further harm. For example, the report mentions a case where the offender was not supported after the conference and he was left thinking that he had done something wrong, which undermined his experience (Hallam, 2015). As a RJ unit working in London with some of the most serious and complex cases in the adult criminal justice system, we aspired to reach the accreditation and registration process, as it helps to cement the restorative principles in practice and keep everyone safe. Individual practitioners from the unit have pursued various accreditation routes, including the Greenwich Level 5 course and we supported this because we could see that a deeper understanding of the processes and purpose meant that we could maximize communication and manage our own expectation. Understanding the practice standards enabled us to listen to challenging stories from the harmed and the persons responsible for the harm and then decide the safest course of action. It thereby allowed us to work restoratively to acknowledge the harm and promote healing in a safe way. This realization about the importance of reflection of our practice against the standards has been one of the most critical aspects of the development and advancement of the RJ unit to date. As in many countries, a movement is under way in the UK to ensure that safe and effective RJ processes are a well-resourced and respected part of the criminal justice system, available to all those that need and want them. It has not been a linear or easy process by any means. However, the journey has taught us that for RJ participants to feel safe, and for the processes to be effective, we need to have a framework in place that ensures a high level of skill and integrity of the practitioners doing the work. There are different ways of responding to that need, but we have found that developing and using standards along with having a practitioner accreditation system is a powerful way to do this. RJ is about healing and finding a new way forward after harm; the focus should always be on the outcomes for those most affected by the situation. For the best outcomes to happen, participants need to feel they are in safe and skilled hands.33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Reference List Angel, C. (2005). Crime victims meet their offenders: Testing the impact of restorative justice conferences on victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms. Available at (Accessed March 2021). Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 563-577. Hallam, M. (2015). Victim-initiated restorative justice, Restoring the balance; Final report of the UK Pilot Project. Restorative Justice Council. Available at: Restorative Justice Council. (2011, November). What Does the Ministry of Justice Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: Effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews (2013:12). DOI: 10.4073/csr.2013.12 AuthorBios Rachel Quine trained as a restorative justice facilitator in 2006, gaining accreditation in 2012 and worked as a RJ practitioner in the UK youth justice system for nearly a decade. Becoming the RP Coordinator for Royal Borough of Greenwich is 2014, she wrote the RA Level 5 accreditation programme, securing approval for the course from the University of Greenwich and RJC. Rachel is the lead trainer and has supported many individuals to become accredited via the course. She completed a MSc in Restorative Practice with Ulster University receiving a distinction and still regularly facilitates RJ cases. LizDixon trained as a probation officer in 1986 and she has been the Senior Probation Officer and manager of the London CRC RJ Unit since 2012. She is an experienced RJ facilitator, working on many complex and sensitive cases and was recently awarded an MBE due to her services to rehabilitation and restorative justice. 34 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Definitions: Restorative Justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations in order to heal and put things as right as possible (Zehr, 2002, p. 37). Restorative justice is not simply a way of reforming the criminal justice system. It is a way of transforming the entire legal system, our family lives, our conduct in the workplace, and our practice of politics. It is a vision of holistic change in the way we do justice in the world (Braithwaite, 2002, as quoted by Umbreit & Armour, 2010, p. 9). Goals: Restorative justice practices aim to: • Put decisions into the hands of those most affected by crime; • Make justice more healing and, ideally, more transformative; and, • Reduce the likelihood of future offenses. Requirements: Achieving these goals requires that: • Victims are involved in the process and come out of it satisfied and with a sense of healing; • Offenders understand how their actions have affected others and take responsibility for those actions; • Outcomes help to repair the harms done and address the reasons for the offense (specific plans are tailored to the specific needs of both victims and offenders); • Victims and offenders both gain a sense of "closure," and both are reintegrated into the community. GuidingQuestions: • Who has been hurt? • What are their needs? • Whose obligations are these? • Who has a stake in this situation? • What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to put things right? • What is needed to repair the harms and address underlying needs of victim? • What is needed to address the needs of offenders to prevent future offending? • What is the role of the larger community in repairing harms and addressing needs in order to promote safer communities? Principles: • Victim-centered (not offender-centered) processes; • Focus on the harms of crime rather that the rules or laws that have been broken; • Show equal concern and commitment to victims and offenders, involving both in the process of justice; • Work toward the restoration of victims, empowering them and responding to their needs as they see them; • Support offenders while also encouraging them to understand, accept, and carry out their obligation to right the wrongs they have caused; • Recognize that while obligations for repair may be difficult for offenders, those obligations should not be used as harms (i.e., punishments), and their obligations must be achievable; • Provide opportunities for dialogue, direct or indirect, between victim and offender as appropriate. • Find meaningful ways to involve the community and respond to the community bases of crime; • Encourage collaboration and reintegration of both victims and offenders, rather than coercion and isolation; • Show respect for all parties - victims, offenders, justice officials, and other stakeholders; • Give attention to the possible unintended consequences of the restorative practices used. Overview of Restorative Justice Basic Principles RELATIONAL JUSTICE MODELS35 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE RESTORATIVEJUSTICE VictimFocused Crimes as Harms to People and Relationships Goals – Repair of Harms Victims, community, government, offender Direct accountability to victims and community Possibility of earned redemption for offenders Improved collective efficacy CrimePreventionthrough: Re-norming neighborhoods Non-adversarial processes Informal dialog processes Individual empowerment Restoration COMMUNITYJUSTICE NeighborhoodFocused Crimes as harms to quality of life (adverse social conditions) Goals – Community Building Increasing social capital Improved quality of life Ameliorating adverse social conditions in neighborhoods CrimePreventionthrough: Community empowerment Assertion of pro-social community standards Improved quality of life Use of city services Formal justice processes Surveillance “Shaping Justice for the 21st Century” RELATIONALJUSTICEMODELS36 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRANSFORMING LIVES: DEMONSTRATING THE POWER OF VICTIM- OFFENDER MEDIATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED SERIOUS CRIME IN CANADA BY TANIA R. PETRELLIS AND DAVID L. GUSTAFSON37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE “There can be nothing as viscerally real and elucidating as the victim-offender mediation process; consequently, there can be no greater opportunity for true insight and healing. I am grateful that the program found me and eternally grateful to the dedicated men and women who handle the process with such care and grace.” –Adam dialogue. All participants consented to the use of their first names for this article. CaseStudy:ACatalystforChange Jason was a young man gunned down in a random, senseless shooting following an altercation, as described by Heather, his mother: On Feb 24, 1996, my son Jason was murdered by Adam. It was a brutal, random act that put me and my family on a path we did not want to go down. The shock, pain, grief, and wreckage became our constant, unwanted, uninvited guests. Adam, the young man who drew and fired the weapon, was charged, convicted, and sentenced to life without possibility of parole for 25 years. He struggled while incarcerated, and in 2002 he was transferred to the Special Handling Unit (SHU) in the province of Quebec due to his violent behavior. In British Columbia, Heather continued to look for ways to cope, including through her faith, which became a source of strength in her life. She reflects: How would I ever be able to come to a place of forgiveness for this hateful person who took the life of my precious child? I was not sure how this was ever going to be possible. Close friends suggested I start Introduction In 2004, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) rolled out a nation-wide therapeutic and trauma-informed victim-offender mediation program named Restorative Opportunities (RO) for use in the federal correctional system. This program was piloted and further developed in the 15 years prior to its national launch by the Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives Association (CJI). From the outset, it was informed by research and the experience of the program founders in the application of restorative justice (RJ) approaches, clinical counselling, and offender treatment. Stories that emerged from an evaluation at the end of the pilot phase described “healing” outcomes and “unanimous support” from participants (Roberts, 1995). CSC staff spoke of the “transformative power” of the process for the inmates on their caseloads and the victims they met prior to and after the facilitated dialogues. What follows is the account of one of those cases involving the murder of a young man, with accounts by the victim’s mother, the offender, and the Institutional Parole Officer (IPO) who witnessed the victim-offender 38 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE to pray for Adam and for myself, to make me willing to choose to forgive. This has been a long arduous journey, but it has been my journey to freedom. The steps into freedom took me down many paths: grief, unanswered questions, desperately needing to understand something that made no sense, and finally, the path to peace. Heather’s first communication with Adam occurred in November 2006, when she wrote him a letter while he was at the SHU. She asked for him to respond to some questions left unanswered through the criminal justice process. She also took the opportunity to tell Adam about Jason, as he had not even known her son. She described how his senseless act changed her life and the lives of her children. She concluded the letter by telling Adam that she forgave him because she had decided not to let his choice to murder her son define the rest of her life. Many months later, Heather received a reply from Adam. The style and wording of the letter did not match the angry, aggressive, defiant 19-year-old she remembered at trial. He answered some of her questions, and his tone had shifted to one of candor and vulnerability. He wrote: I must admit that, as you were a stranger to me, whatever feelings of guilt and remorse I’ve felt towards you were somewhat academic. There was always a comfortable sense of distance. Then your letter arrived. Having been struck now by your sincerity and almost brutal openness, that distance falls away. I can no longer consider you, your son and family impersonally. I was truly appalled to discover the depth of the harm caused by my actions that night. Perhaps you understand now how I recoil from talk of forgiveness. I am keenly aware I am unworthy of it. My only hope is that someday you can believe how sorry I am; not simply because of what it cost me but for all that I have denied and taken from you. She tucked the letter away, glad for it but with lingering concerns about his sincerity due to reports of continued violent behaviour. Adam recalls his initial contact with Heather: So it began, with a letter full of brutal illuminations. She had questions that I tried to answer as honestly and thoroughly as possible. I knew that I owed her a great deal more, but I was glad for the chance to give her that much, at least. I spent the next few years pondering her words; going over that letter again and again. It was very difficult coming to terms with the extent of harm I was responsible for. It really was so much worse than it had ever occurred to me. That comprehension was also the most potent catalyst for change. It’s taken time. It hasn’t been easy or entirely successful, but 15 years later, those words are a part of me and the letter stays with me like a relic. Two years after this exchange, Heather received a letter from CSC Victim Services advising her that Adam had been transferred to the Kent Institution in the province of British Columbia. She wondered about the move, being aware that a transfer from the SHU must indicate that Adam’s behavior was improving. She reached out to CJI to ask if they could facilitate a face-to- face meeting with Adam when she was ready. In May of 2009, a meeting with the man who murdered her son was arranged, which Heather describes as follows:39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE It was, without a doubt, the most emotionally charged and powerfully healing day of my life. Together with my husband, Dave, Sandi, and Dr. A, Adam and I spent four hours together. I remember every detail of that day. For the first time, I saw a glimpse of Adam’s full humanity and was given the gift of knowing that I had truly done what I needed to do and was right where I was supposed to be. By the end of the day, as I walked out of the penitentiary, I felt lighter, like I was lifted off the ground. Heaviness, bitterness and hate had dropped away, leaving only freedom and a deep sense of peace. Adam’s experience mirrors Heather’s, as he describes: When I walked into the chapel at Kent Institution to meet her for the first time, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was nervous and had no idea how to proceed. Luckily, it wasn’t our facilitators’ ‘first rodeo.’ By their reassuring presence, and gentle guidance, the morning unfolded into the most profound experience of my life. Incredibly, it ended with a hug. I came away from that meeting hoping so much that I was able to provide a fraction of the peace that I received. Six years later, in September 2012, Michelle, a Federal Institutional Parole Officer (IPO) in a medium security institution in BC, was told that Adam was assigned to her caseload. She was aware that he had spent the first 16 years of his sentence shuttling back and forth between a maximum-security prison and the SHU, designated for those who require the highest institutional supervision in Canada. Michelle shares the following about her experience as Adam’s new IPO: Adam informed me that while in maximum security he met the mother of the man he had shot to death and they had exchanged letters. When I asked what that experience had been like, he became quiet and told the story of how in awe he was of her forgiveness. Over the course of the next five years, Adam demonstrated significant progress: he was no longer a behavioural concern. I raised with him the prospect of beginning to develop a plan for gradual release into the community but he continually said he did not think he was ready. In March 2017, CSC Victim Services informed Heather that Adam was applying for Escorted Temporary Absences (ETAs) and requested a victim statement. She asked to meet with Adam a second time, in hopes of seeing for herself what progress he made. On April 25, 2017, that meeting occurred, and this time Michelle, Adam’s IPO, was invited to be present as an observer. Michelle describes the experience: I had not foreseen what I was about to observe. Although I knew the victim’s mother was forgiving, I had no idea of the extent that this was to prove true. She spoke candidly and eloquently of her loss, but focused, as well, on Adam, wondering how he was doing. I could not believe the grace and concern for his well-being. During the meeting, she asked me whether I was prepared to assist in his release, as she believed he now deserved to move on with his life, even if he did not. Heather describes what she had witnessed in this meeting with Adam: Once again, I saw changes in Adam, a deepening of what I had seen at our previous meeting: humility, remorse, sincerity. His responses to my questions were thoughtful. He displayed genuine Next >