U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Image of United States Department of Justice seal

COPS Publication
Community Oriented Policing Services
www.usdoj.gov/cops

COMMUNITY POLICING, COMMUNITY
JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

EXPLORING THE LINKS FOR THE DELIVERY OF A 
BALANCED APPROACH TO PUBLIC SAFETY 

Image of scales with people on them

BY CAROLINE G. NICHOLL 


COMMUNITY POLICING, COMMUNITY JUSTICE, 
AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 

Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety 
By Caroline G. Nicholl 

A report funded by Grant No. 98-CK-WX-0059 awarded to the National Victim Center by the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this 
document do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 


SUGGESTED CITATION 

Nicholl, Caroline G. Community Policing, Community Justice, and 
Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced 
Approach to Public Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999. 

See companion document: Toolbox For Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policing 


Authors Note 

This report is about promoting public safety in a democracy through policing and justice. 
Within these few words lies a kaleidoscope of thousands of pieces. We all see those pieces differently, 
depending on what we know and what we do not know, what we have experienced and 
what we have heard second- or third-hand. From my stance, the current pattern seems out of 
balance. Efforts with community-oriented policing and justice are heartening, but the rich 
potential for further reform is vulnerable. The vulnerability lies in a confusion about the central 
point of the kaleidoscope. Democracy requires that the public not be merely a spectator in 
the campaign for crime reduction. Rather, the public must learn its role and responsibilities in 
preventing the conditions that are crimogenic. Government provides the vehicle for accomplishing 
that goal: leadership, empowerment, and resource distribution in accordance with the 
values of collective resolution of problems rather than short-term professional or political 
expediency. 

This lofty mission is within our reach more than is widely recognized, but clarifying where we 
are now is a starting point to determining our future path. This report attempts to sketch out 
the bridge between the two. 

At an early point in the preparation of the report, it became clear that an exploration of the current 
state of crime, policing, and justice would be problematic. The police and the criminal justice 
system appear to be in a state of perpetual change. Hundreds of restorative and community 
justice experiments are going on across the United States, with community policing being 
undertaken by thousands of police departments. Experiments are very much part of a developing 
field, constantly creating new awareness. 

Crime, including the fear of crime and disorder, is subject to the vagaries of statistical interpretation; 
and important qualitative considerations are susceptible to subjective opinion. With 
so much change happening simultaneously, and with lots of room for diverse interpretation, it 
seemed sensible to attempt to define the common drivers behind existing policies and practices
and to look to the future open to the possibilities becoming commonplace in many discussions. 
Since the perspective is a helicopter view of current developments, the product is 
a commentary, not an academic piece. 

In writing this report I have had in mind two audiences: those who can influence and shape 
public policy, and those who have responsibility for implementing changeincluding local 
communities. Ideas are one thing. Getting them accepted to a point where they may become a 
reality is quite another! This work aims to stimulate grassroots innovation that can be supported 
by policymakers. The result is two documents: this monograph, which explores the 
rationale for a shift in focus and values, and a toolbox that tackles the implementation issues 
that need to be addressed in bringing about such a shift. 


Finally, I have found writing this work unusually hard because a helicopter view taken to survey 
the current landscape and to look toward the horizon on such a broad subject is bound to 
omit or simplify important developments. For this I apologize. My hope is that, nonetheless, it 
serves this useful purpose: to stimulate helpful dialogue about how to face the challenges of 
crime in the new millennium in the context of a free society. Written words cannot replace the 
value of people figuring out together what can be done differently today for a better tomorrow. 

Caroline G. Nicholl 
September 1999 


Acknowledgments 

There are many people to thank for making this project a reality. First, my colleagues and the 
communities in Britain who tolerated my experimenting with community policing and exploring 
restorative justice; in particular, Charles Pollard, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, 
and Ian Blair, now Chief Constable of Surrey Police, both of whom placed considerable trust 
and faith in the work I was attempting to do while I was Chief Superintendent at Milton Keynes. 
I must also thank The Commonwealth Fund in New York, which awarded me a Harkness 
Fellowship in 199596, thereby providing an unusual and wonderful opportunity to test and 
further develop my thesis in a different cultural context. 

I wish to express a special thanks to Professor Herman Goldstein of the Law School at 
Wisconsin University, who is a constant source of inspiration; to Beth Carter and everyone 
involved in the Campaign for Effective Crime Policy in Washington, D.C. (it is comforting to 
know there are so many eminent people who believe change is needed); to Kay Pranis, Annie 
Roberts, and all the other restorative justice visionaries in Minnesota who have influenced my 
thinking; to Mike Dooley, Ronnie Earle, Ellen Halbert, Kay Harris, John McKnight, Mark 
Umbreit, and Howard Zehr, all of whom have been especially helpful in their own way in getting 
me thinking outside the box; to the inmates and staff from Grendon (United Kingdom) 
and Shakopee (United States) prisons, whom I will remember always; to those parents and 
spouses of murder victims I have met, from whom I learned what can be achieved through gaining 
understanding and giving compassion; and to the many police officers I knowin England 
and in the United Stateswho provide a constant reminder of the realities of the street. 

I owe my gratitude to Joseph Brann, Stacy Curtis Bushe, and Karen Beckman of the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, without whom this project would not have become a 
reality. Finally, a huge thank you to my closest allies, Jenny Edwards, Dr. Catherine Fitzmaurice, 
Chris George, John Stuart, and Ken Webster, whose confidence in my work is always a source 
of encouragement. 

Note 

The author can be contacted via e-mail at carolinenicholl@erols.com. 


About the Author 

Caroline G. Nicholl has been in policing for more than 20 years and is a former police chief. 
Thus she has practical experience of the limitations of the criminal justice system and of traditional 
crime control policies. At least half her career has involved learning how to apply community-
oriented problem-solving methods to tackle crime, fear, and disorder. She has found 
that this rewarding, though demanding, work has given her a grasp of the challenges and 
requirements involved in transforming the organizational culture and priorities of the police to 
focus on public safety. Among these challenges, she believes, is the ever-present tension 
between dealing with todays reality and tomorrows world. How we deal with the former greatly 
influences the second, so we have to think carefully about what we do. 

Looking at the present and thinking ahead, the author sees fundamental problems in trying to 
transform policing without looking at the wider justice system. She recognizes a link between 
the need for problem-oriented community policing and the need for a justice system that can 
complement this philosophy. This recognition was born out of a trial experiment, one of a number 
of steps toward a coherent vision for change. In 1993, working with her citys multiagency 
partnershipthe Youth Crime Strategy Group in Milton Keynes, Englandshe and her partners 
found that existing practices and structures tended to obscure problems and that resource 
deployment for crime prevention and for offender diversion was minimal. The group also 
shared concerns about offenders not knowing the consequences of their behavior and about 
crime victims needs being often sidelined. 

Around the same time, she introduced a victim-offender mediation scheme, facilitated by police 
officers and involving retailers (victims of shop theft), offenders, and their familiesand began 
taking cases away from the courts. While victim-offender mediation was not new, this was the 
first time the police in the United Kingdom adopted this approach to reported crime. The innovation 
had surprising results: it opened the doors for new learning about how crime could be 
prevented and how lay people could play a part in responding to crime under the supervision 
of statutory agencies such as the police. 

Following the implementation of the scheme, the author became familiar with the literature on 
restorative justice and met John Braithwaite and Terry OConnell (who introduced the Wagga 
Wagga model of family group conferencing in New South Wales, Australia). Since 1994, she has 
read widely on restorative justice, and the subject was a major focus of her Harkness Fellowship 
studies in the United States during 199596. In that year and since, she has consulted with a 
large number of practitioners from around the world (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South 
Africa, the United Kingdom, and North America). She has spoken at conferences on restorative 
justice, including one organized by the U.S. Department of Justice. She has undertaken specialized 
professional training, including the course run by Real Justice in Pennsylvania on 
family group conferencing and Dr. Mark Umbreits basic and advanced courses on victim-
offender mediation at the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of Minnesota. 
She has met and maintained contact with Howard Zehr, author of the classic book Changing 
Lenses, and Kay Pranis, the first statewide restorative justice coordinator to be appointed in the 
United States and a brilliant expert in the field. 
Demonstrating how small innovations can lead to significant change, an independent evaluation 


by the British Home Office of the multiagency experiment in Milton Keynes showed that there 
were significant drops in recidivism rates and high satisfaction levels among victims. The idea 
spread to tackling other offenses committed by adults and youths. That experiment helped to 
change the attitudes toward crime of many peoplethose in politics, the media, the business 
sector, and criminal justice agencies, including police officers rooted in post facto detection 
and investigation of crime. In the fall of 1998, the Labour Government introduced legislation in 
Parliament on restorative justice in relation to youth crime. This experience helped convince 
the author that challenging conventional assumptions sometimes pays off, and that looking 
ahead to the future always helps. 


Abstract 

Community policing has become a significant feature of modern policing, yet its meaning and 
implementation vary depending on where you are and with whom you speak. The future of 
community policing could be vulnerable to any sudden increase in the crime rate (provoking 
a renewed emphasis on the traditional model of professional policing) or the removal of funding 
support. 

Although there may be disagreement on how far community policing has come, and its fragility, 
one thing is clear: the challenges of the 21st centuryviolence, intercultural conflict, social 
and economic injustice, resource shortages, substance abuserequire us to think broadly and 
even more creatively about the future. 

To begin breathing life into a new vision for sustaining and advancing positive change, policing 
needs to be examined in light of (1) how crime is defined, and (2) its tie to a justice system 
that frustrates victims, alienates whole communities, and fuels skyrocketing financial and moral 
costs of punishment. Current developments in community and restorative justice are helping 
to shape ideas and thinking about what policing and the administration of justice could look 
like in the year 2019. Twenty years is probably about right to achieve more widespread understanding 
that current problems and paradoxes are often of our own makingand to learn that 
the methods we are using to offer protection and safety are reinforcing divisions in society, thus 
exacerbating the conditions that promote crime, fear, and disorder. 

The emerging paradigm of restorative justice might seem so alien, so naive, and so impractical 
that we miss the opportunity for a fundamental reappraisal of the values on which policing and 
justice should be founded. But starting with small changes, as suggested in this report, can 
make an enormous difference in how we think, speak, practice, and promote the meaning of 
community policing. 

To begin with, we must learn to see crime in broader terms than the legal definitions and to 
acknowledge that crime harms people. We must learn that we can transcend conventional 
thinking about, and practice of, justice. We must give ourselves a chance to find out that we can 
relate differently to others if we focus on strengths and goodwill, not fear and punishment. 

The police have a critical role to play in supporting change through taking stock of the current 
situation and thinking about the future. Their exposure to restorative justice could signal a 
commitment to long-term change that promotes peacekeeping and the prevention of crime. 
While no one denies the desirability of these strategies, they have proved difficult to implement. 
Restorative justice offers inspiration of the kind that makes both peacekeeping and prevention 
realistically achievable. After all, they have always been the core of the ethos of community 
policing. By 2019, they could be the core of community policing practice, thereby truly redefining 
the meaning of policing. 


Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Theme of the Report: Promoting a Shared Responsibility for Controlling 
Crime, Fear, and Disorder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Part 1. Key Themes in Community Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
The Traditional Model of Professional Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Diverse Interpretations of Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Collaboration for Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Promoting Crime Prevention Through Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Unresolved Tensions Between the Traditional Policing Model
and Community Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Conclusion to Part 1: Key Themes in Community Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Part 2. The Crime Problem and the Criminal Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Consensus on Crime Fighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Crime Rates Versus the Harms of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
The Harms of Crime: Crime Is More than Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Policing and the Criminal Justice System  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Role of the Criminal Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Comparing the Criminal Justice System with Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Police in Their Comfort Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
The Public in Its Comfort Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Unintended Consequences of Applying Enforcement and Formal
Control Measures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Who Is in Our Prisons?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
The Case for Prevention in Lieu of Incarceration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Conclusion to Part 2: The Crime Problem and the Criminal Justice System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Part 3. Developing a New Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
A Multifaceted Response to Crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Community Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
What Is the Vision of Community Justice?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Restorative Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
History of Restorative Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Why the Spread? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Is Restorative Justice Only Relevant to Certain Types of Crime?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Problems with Applying the Values of Restorative Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Key Lessons of Restorative Justice Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Role of the State in Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Relationship Between Restorative Justice and the Criminal Justice System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Restorative Justice and Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Conclusion to Part 3: Developing a New Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Part 4. Models and Processes Emerging Under Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
The Balanced Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Victim-Offender Mediation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Different Models of Mediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115



How Can Victim-Offender Mediation Work with Crime? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Why Does Victim-Offender Mediation Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Forms of Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Victim-Offender Mediation Mirrors Elements of Community Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Family Group Conferencing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Origin of Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Key Elements of Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
The Power of Family Group Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
A Shift Away from Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Mobilizing Social Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
A Sociological Explanationand Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
Evaluation of Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Problems and Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
Family Group Conferencing and Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
Sentencing and Healing Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Types of Circles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Circles and Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164
Conclusion to Part 4
: Models and Processes Emerging Under Restorative Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
Final Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
References and Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Epilogue: Putting This Into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Appendix: Restorative Justice Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205



Community Policing,
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Introduction


Introduction 

The aim of this report is to clarify the links among three important reform movements: community 
policing (including problem-solving policing), community justice, and restorative justice.
1 Clarifying the links is essential to the purpose of identifying connections and paradoxes 
with a view to developing a more coherent response to the critical issues of crime and public 
safety in a free society. Lessons learned from experiments with new strategies and tactics for 
dealing with law and order problems should be embraced as much as possible, even though 
this can be difficult with so much change occurring simultaneously. Community policing, more 
widespread than the other developments and arguably with a longer history, is open to 
immensely confusing interpretations as to precisely what has been and is being achieved. A similar 
confusion is emerging with community justice and restorative justice. Yet their achievements 
and potential are so rich that we need to build clarity and common understandings. 

The relationships between these innovations require examination to plan for the future. Among 
the goals of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services is to help develop an infrastructure 
to support and sustain community policing after Federal funding has ended. It is 
hoped that this report, and its accompanying guidelines, will make a contribution to achieving 
that goal. Infrastructures require a context, so that decisions can be made that are consistent 
with strengthening opportunities and minimizing threatsin this instance, with respect to the 
overarching goal of delivering safety in a democracy. Community policing, community justice, 
and restorative justice all touch upon this mission in varying degrees, depending on their 
implementation. Could the contribution not be strengthened if they were made to form a single 
paradigm? Is a single paradigm realistic? What have we got now? 

Experiments with community policing since the 1970s are widely regarded as having contributed 
to a welcome maturation of law enforcement organizations. After years of organizational 
distance from their communities, the police are taking stock of their position in society 
and in relation to citizens. Strong police-public relationships make for mutual respect, confidence, 
and improved information flow. Community policing also has significant potential for 
handling the challenges presented by the changing nature of crime. Crime can no longer be 
thought of only in terms of isolated incidents of victimization. Crime has come to represent a 
series of phenomena, including school violence and youth delinquency, the growth of the teen 
super-predator,2 white-collar crime, gang and group violence, drug turf wars, stalking, gun 
trafficking, domestic and child abuse, road rage, hate crimesall wreaking havoc across U.S. 
society. Crime has also become a catchall word covering a broader range of problems that are 
seen to threaten the social order, including the homeless, the mentally ill, quality-of-life 
infringements, teenage mothers, and urban poverty. 

Local communities are increasingly recognized as the primary sourceand recipientof 
these breakdowns in law and order. Crime is intracommunity and requires local solutions; 
these facts make a case for attentive policing that is sensitive to the dynamics within different 
neighborhoods and groups and is geared to community safety. In many areas, communities are 
now viewed as partners in tackling crime as well as customers of police services. Police leaders 
are acknowledging that the police can no longer be the omnicompetent force for dealing 


with crime, fear, disorder, and public safety. The police are seen as needing to work 
with communities, sharing responsibility and being creative in applying joint 
resources to recurring problems and to advancing community well-being. 

Finding the appropriate framework for this collaboration is proving difficult in the 
face of traditional public dependence on the police, on the one hand, and rapidly 
changing social conditions (including crime), on the other. Controlling crime and 
maintaining order are widely seenby the police and public alikeas police functions. 
The police are recognized as being organized and equipped to fulfill these functions. 
Communities seem to be chaotic, to have deeply entrenched problems, and to 
require professional help to mobilize and organize resources. Communities may be 
seen as having the capacity for self-strengthening and self-building, if given strong service 
institutions, including the police. A tension exists between the calls for more 
police and the recognition that communities need to be regenerated. 

This tension has played out throughout the recent history of police reform. The nature 
of community policing remains ambiguous. It is not clear, for example, whether community 
policing is a means to an end or an end in itself. Though police-community 
partnering, problem solving, and crime reduction efforts in communities are widely 
recognized characteristics, there is arguably no consensus on the overall mission of 
community policing. Its ethos emphasizes the importance of local delivery, yet for 
what overall purpose? Is community policing primarily about effective crime control 
by the police, supported by partnership work with communities? Is the goal about 
building community trust and confidence in the professional police? Or, is the goal to 
strengthen communities to create natural resistance to crime, promoting self-policing 
by communities? Is community policing more about reforming professional policing 
or changing the role of the public? Progress is not readily determinable without a 
common interpretation of community policing. That said, something powerful is 
going on, and policing is undergoing significant change. Across the nation, the concept 
of community policing has provoked a steep learning curve for law enforcement 
agencies and communities about their relationships, the capacity for working together, 
and the value of collaboration. Yet the lessons themselves are not clear, and the 
joint journey is without a clear, common destination. 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Act) is widely 
recognized as a significant milestone in community policing. It was intended by 
President Clinton and Attorney General Reno as the changing of policing. The legislation 
provided the funding vehicle for an additional 100,000 police officers to boost 
law enforcement efforts in a climate of nationwide anxiety about crime. The Act gave 
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (OCOPS) the task of supporting a 
major drive toward rooting community policing in solid foundations to become the 
prevailing orthodoxy in American law enforcement. Perhaps an accurate analysis of 
the Crime Act is that it represents an acknowledgment that the concept and the implementation 
of community policing are complex and demanding, deserving of an 
orchestrated effort at both local and Federal levels. The complexity is increased by 
other key developments. 


Any consensus on the future of community policing requires thoughtful consideration 
of those other developments. At the same time that community policing efforts have 
been stamping their mark, a parallel movement of equal significance has been unfolding. 
Community justice, having attracted neither Federal legislative change nor significant 
media attention, has followed a more silent path. Like community policing, 
community justice stems from the recognition in policing that crime impacts communities. 
At the heart of current community justice developments lies the notion that justice 
ought not to be so abstract or compartmentalized as to ignore the needs and 
expectations of the community. As Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson has 
said, Responsiveness by the formal system to public fears about crime is deemed vital 
for regaining public confidence and to enhance relationships between professional 
and lay communities in the world of law and order.3 

Community justice, too, is conceptually complex and has the potential to change fundamentally 
the way justice is delivered without a clear, overall goal. Like its policing 
counterpart, community justice is construed to mean many different things, ranging 
from the criminal justice system merely sharing information and consulting with the 
community, to building the communitys capacity for decisionmaking, thereby transforming 
the relationship between the public and the formal justice system. The overall 
mission is obscured by varying aims and priorities, with the label liberally applied. 
What is certain, however, is that the level of experiment will bring influence to bear on 
policing, both locally and nationally. 

Coinciding with these two movements are additional experiments that are fundamentally 
changing peoples horizons about what is possibleand making consensus 
about the future difficult to achieve. Restorative justice has promoted power sharing 
and conflict resolution and is expanding the meaning of justice beyond the activities 
of the courts and the judges. Justice is now being achieved through new opportunities 
for lay people to gain and act on a broad understanding of how crime can be resolved 
and prevented. The system of justice is being transformed to offer to communities, 
including both its victims and offenders, processes for strengthening caring relationships 
and developing the sense of connectednessboth of which are regarded as 
vital for deterring criminal conduct. Restorative justice involves the resolution of conflict 
through community building after crime and disorder problems have been identified, 
and it paves the way for meaningful dialogue about the conditions that promote 
criminal behavior and how such conditions can be altered. 

Developments in each of these areas have been significant during the 1990s and are 
influencing the thinking of many policymakers, practitioners, and communities across 
the United States. A consensus on the ramifications and potential of these changes, 
combined or separate, has yet to unfold, however. There is widespread agreement that 
policing and the justice system should be responsive to local communities. There is 
consensus that their functions should include partnership collaboration, enhanced 
resource management, victim service, problem solving, and broad consultation. Their 
overall goals are seen to be promoting social order and resolving crime. But how can 
it be determined whether these are being delivered appropriatelyunless attention is 
paid to the fundamental issue of accountability in a democracy? 


A question one might ask is: Should local experiments largely dictate what is construed 
as progress, or do we need national benchmarks to help gauge the attainment 
of public safety and justice that strengthen, not weaken, the functioning of a healthy 
democracy? What would those benchmarks be? The volume of crime? Levels of fear? 
The number of police? The number of people incarcerated? Recidivism rates? Or, 
should the standards relate to measuring the changing nature of crime, the recovery 
of victims, the care of offenders, the level of citizen participation, changes in public 
policy that contribute to crime prevention? 

The vast array of programs and initiatives indicate a search for some kind of vision for 
the future, but the vision is unclear. A strategy for bringing about change is also vague, 
other than a prevailing sense that the notion of community is one whose time has 
come. Yet surely, benchmarks are needed not only for local conditions but to define 
the kind of society we want. 

In 1977, Herman Goldstein provided insights about policing in a democracy that continue 
to vex public institutions in law and order today.4 Among his comments were 
thoughts on decentralized services and on the ambiguity of public accountability, 
given the domination of political and other vested interests. A vision for the future is 
still obscure due to the tension between local determination of priorities and the 
national importance of the functioning of a healthy democracy. The obscure picture 
can in part be attributed to the reluctance to impose standards when local ownership 
and local autonomy are respected principles. 

The picture is further clouded by the imprints of a seemingly intractable controversy 
about the best way to deal with crime. From local sheriffs imposing chains and pink 
underwear on inmates5symbolizing a get tough on crime attitudeto those who 
advocate talking about crime in terms of children and families,6 the backdrop is a 
society in which crime is hotly controversial. Deep lines are drawn between offenders 
and victims; between neighborhoods and communities that are perceived to be safe 
and those that are not; and between people who are free and those who are imprisoned. 
Finessing a coherent strategy given this reality demands a unique kind of leadership 
that recognizes what needs to be done locally and what must happen on the 
national stage. 

Meanwhile, the absence of a single vision supported by a framework to facilitate 
change at different levels has its consequences. The campaigns against crime at local 
and national levels, not surprisingly, have brought about a mixed climate. Although 
the United States is renowned for its reliance on incarceration and the death penalty, 
many of the current initiatives stress the importance of conflict resolution, the erosion 
of social divides, and community building. There is clamor for coercive crime control 
measures as much as there are calls for more efforts in prevention, early intervention, 
and problem solving. 

The rhetoric acknowledging that crime control is ineffective without community ownership 
and engagement is pervasive. Yet, the traditional enforcement model of arrest, 
prosecution, and punishment by professional criminal justice agencies seems as 


strong as ever. The need to strengthen the states justice apparatus competes with the 
recognition that informal crime controls are critical and in need of development. 
Resources pulling in different directions are creating a stalemate. Emerging from 
these paradoxes is the need to recognize that a balance must be struck between local 
determination and national strategy. Figure 1 indicates the mix of problems, needs, 
and strategies that must be weighed in formulating a coherent strategy to meet both 
local and national goals. 

Local delivery and local initiatives are to be encouraged in policing and justice, but 
the publics understanding and assessment of these services should not rest on what 
happens or does not happen on the local stage alone. The public should have a sense 
of what benchmarks are important for the overall mission of policing and the administration 
of justice. Benchmarks reflect the fundamental values, style, performance 
standards, and criteria on which to assess service providers, irrespective of the need 
and desirability of local delivery. These, it seems, remain missing. 

Figure 1. Is There a Fit to Support a Coherent Strategy? 

Restorative Justice 
Community Policing 
Problem-Oriented 
 Policing 
Community Justice 

Crime 
Fear 
Public 
Consultation 
Community and 
Victim Involvement 
PUBLIC SAFETY
Problem Diagnosis 
Shared 
Responsibility 


It is dangerous to assume they will emerge from experiment aloneor that experiments 
will not counter each other to sustain the stalemate. The absence of an agreed 
mission makes the future uncertain. Major changes are happening in policing and 
justice: community policing, community justice, and restorative justice all represent 
significant efforts to reduce crime and fear, enhance community engagement, and 
generate safety and order. But the challenge remains: how to harness these forces for 
change to a coherent vision that reduces the reliance on force and strengthens the 
meaning of democracy. 
What this means for policing needs to be examinedand examined in the broad 
terms proffered by Herman Goldstein 20 years ago, looking now to the next 20 years. 


Community Policing, 

COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 

Theme of the Report: Promoting a Shared 
Responsibility for Controlling, Fear, and Disorder 


Theme of the Report: Promoting a 
Shared Responsibility for Controlling 
Crime, Fear, and Disorder 

A coherent response to crime and public safety requires a strategy that balances the 
acknowledgment of the importance of local evolution with a recognition that local 
change must be based on broad principles if national concerns are to be addressed. 
Crime occurs within communities and therefore demands local solutions. But crime, 
fear, and disorder occupy the national stage, making a case for identifying and reaching 
a consensus on the key elements of transforming America to a safer society. These 
key elements must include clarified roles for professional policing as well as for citizens
or else confusion prevails. Already the police wrestle with this dichotomy 
between local and national; whatever the image they portray through local activities, 
they are burdened with a broader image of what the police are like, shaped by national 
events and by the media. The flip side of this is a public that cannot be sure of what 
kind of police service they are likely to receive. Moreover, the public is torn between 
local and national messages about its own role in policinghardly conducive to 
empowering citizens to assume their responsibilities without reliance on local leadership. 

Developing a strategy with these realities demands sensitivity to the micro picture as 
well as to the macro gallery of pictures that shape peoples views on what is happening, 
and what needs to happen. The locus of the micro picture must be local communities. 
The role, style, and overall purpose should be sufficiently generic, however, 
for relevancy across the board, to ensure police accountability for ethical, effective, 
and equitable standards, independent of the currents of local politics. The purpose of 
policing should be the same everywhere and adhere to standards that promote, not 
weaken, democracylocally and nationally. Priorities may need to be locally determined, 
resource allocations driven by community consultation, and relationships 
shaped by interpersonal dialogue. Priorities, however, must be addressed within a 
broader context of what it means to police, based on values that support a clear distinction 
between healthy and poor policing in a democracy. The former has an eye on 
the future, as well as the here and now. The latter focuses only on what seems expedient 
at the time. 

The theme here is that policing is more than what the professional police do or do 
not do. And policing is predominantly neither local nor national. Policing is aptly 
described as an instrument of democracy itself, an instrument by and through which 
the pressing concerns of all can be heard, their safety guaranteed, their crises 
addressed, their conflicts interrupted and resolved.7 Democracy is confined neither 


to local nor to national domains but demands pragmatic attention to the whole of 
society. Policing, in other words, is everybodys business and for everybody. While a 
professional police effort will always be a necessity, the professional police also have 
an obligation to advance the meaning of policing in a democracy. 

The main hypothesis underpinning this report, therefore, is that the polices job 
is not only about enforcement, but also about helping to create a safer self-policing 
society in the context of democracy. This means promoting a shared responsibility 
for controlling crime, fear, and disorder through arrangements that 
strengthen citizen engagement in policing. 

There have been significant changes, but coherent change is necessary. The recent 
declines in crime do not prove the existence of a clear strategy. The drop in crime is 
related to many factors, such as low unemployment, demographic changes, and community-
based prevention programsas well as smarter law enforcement and innovative 
programs. Indeed, the decline is hardly the result of inattention by professional 
authorities, who have increased arrests, prosecutions, the use of imprisonment, and 
the availability of treatment programs. How to sustain the current decline in crime 
remains contentious. While problem-solving methods, community strengthening, 
focused use of resources, and improved services are generally agreed to be desirable, 
no clarity exists on what works best. Developing a common understanding of what 
crime control measuresand ways of promoting social orderwould support 
rather than weaken democracy should be the critical starting point. 

Advocates of increased government intervention argue that the police themselves can 
reduce crime by focusing activities sharply on high-risk areas, times, and offenders. 
Reactive crime control by the justice system, by keeping in prison those offenders 
deemed at risk of committing further crime, is seen as necessary to protect the public. 
This general crime fighting and punitive thrust of crime control policy is widely 
accepted, albeit with resignation; even those who vociferously support incarceration 
do not argue that prisons are successful institutions for transforming offender 
behavior. 

Others, who call for less government intervention, maintain that the police and the 
justice system can do little more than contain the problem in the face of the causes of 
crime: economic, social and family structures, mental illness, substance dependency, 
and exposure to violence.8 Social regulation, treatment, prevention, community 
engagement, and problem-solving interventions are among their list of necessary 
responses to the predictable consequences of modern stresses. Those who call for 
less reliance on arrest and punishment, however, have yet to convince the public that 
alternative approaches to crime fighting will work to protect society and deliver public 
safety. 

The publics resistance reflects the perceived importance of tough-on-crime measures 
as a sanctuary in the face of the acute consequences of crime. This type of crime fight


ing is, for many people, a pragmatic response to the intractable and disturbing problem 
of crime. Few deny the links between criminal activity and the myriad of social 
issues that can contribute to dysfunctional and antisocial behavior. In principle, at 
least, people support the wisdom of extending policing beyond the activities of the 
professional police. Yet there is no such thing as a quick inoculation that corrects circumstances 
and activities that are crimogenic. Time is an enemy, too! The public has 
little patience waiting for alternatives to work. 

The consequence of this stalemate is, arguably, why most crime problems remain 
intractable, because the popular view on crime control could be said to offer only 
temporary reprieve. The opportunities for learning different and viable cures are 
largely denied in the clamor for quick relief. The conundrum is compounded by the 
existence of a mainly passive public whichfrustrated with the crime problem 
asks for more of the same measures, and by professional service providers who are 
largely comfortable exercising their traditional roles. Aside from public opinion and 
practitioner reluctance to change, the stalemate between the two divides on crime 
control policy can be attributed to another factorgovernment reluctance to admit 
that the state cannot maintain law and order by itself: The predicament for government 
today is that they see . . . the need to withdraw or at least qualify their claim to 
be the primary and effective provider of security and crime control, but they also see 
. . . that the political costs of such a move are likely to be disastrous.9 

The debate should be a familiar one. More than 30 years ago, a Presidential 
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice delivered its report 
with a vision for an effective, reliable, and decent criminal justice system, combined 
with a commitment to social justice. The Commission understood that crime control 
could jeopardize individual freedom and promote the use of too much state authority 
unless tempered by the creation of social arrangements for preventing crime 
through strengthened families, better schools, proper housing, enlarged employment 
opportunities, and improved health services. The Commission rejected the notion that 
controlling crime is solely the task of the police, the courts, and correction agencies: 
Individual citizens, civic and business organizations, religious institutions, and all 
levels of government must take responsibility . . . .10 

Irrespective of current differences in viewpoints about what makes for effective crime 
control, no one is likely to dissent seriously from the messages of the Commission 
back in 1967 by asserting that the police and the courts could eliminate crime by 
themselves. Still, there are obstacles to implementing long-recognized wisdom and to 
developing the groundwork necessary for social justice to become a reality. A commitment 
to social justice requires a powerful vehicle for shifting public dependence 
on the formal systems of crime control. The formal system, meanwhile, is under enormous 
pressure to demonstrate its own effectiveness, leaving little energy for developing 
something radically different from the traditional model of professional enforcement 
and controls. 


All the while our society dances a schizophrenic dance between... 
the understandable fear that fuels the demand for more prisons 
and... a growing recognition that our criminal justice system is not 
working for us and will not be remedied by doing more of the 
same old things.11 

The result has been a perpetual, unresolved debate about what works in controlling 
crime. While the police have undoubtedly made significant strides in working collaboratively 
with other agencies and with communities to deliver safer streets through 
more focused policing, and while exciting community-oriented justice innovations are 
beginning to emerge, questions and expectations about what else the system should, 
or could, be doing have continued to loom large. Though improvements in policing 
and criminal justice delivery are welcome developments, and there is scope for further 
innovation, one might ask the question: What will it take to break the existing 
impasse and bring about a focus on how building informal social controls could supplement 
those of the formal system? 

As John McKnight writes, Our problem is weak communities, made ever more impotent 
by our strong service systems... it is the ability of citizens to care that creates 
strong communities and able democracies.12 

Informal social controls are not widely acknowledged or much talked about, yet they 
have a critical contribution to make in promoting law-abiding behavior. They include 
social disapproval and interpersonal influence; a frown or words of encouragement 
from someone you care about; close ties within a family, at work, at school, and 
among friends; communities that share values about responsibility, respect, and care; 
parents who take time to teach or to play with their children; and volunteer mentors 
who assist those who are vulnerable in some way. 

Informal social controls are also a necessary precursor to the development of 
social justice: interpersonal contact can be a powerful tool for promoting the 
recognition of needs and for promoting well-being. These are the levers for 
changing the focus from reacting to symptoms to building a common stake in 
investing wisely for the future. 

Without such levers, public opinion about crime runs the risk of polarizing society, a 
problem that is avoidable if communities are encouraged to see for themselves how 
they can contribute to crime control. Why are the authorities not tapping more into 
these forces of social regulation? 

There is good reason to be skeptical of the power and capacity of such regulatory 
arrangements. Not all communities or groups provide positive influences for their 
members. We can think of dysfunctional families, street gangs, crime syndicates, and 
neighborhoods where criminal activity is rife, if not encouraged. Civic engagement 
and volunteerism may not be enough to overcome other realities. Many communities 
do not possess the know-how for self-policing. Some forms of civic participation are 
driven more by fear than a wish to promote the common good; gated communities 
and private citizen patrols, for example, can hardly be said to advance cohesion in 


society. When social activities are more about self-interest than about community life 
that supports communitarian goals, the health of democracy is distorted to serve only 
isolated interests, excluding the welfare of others. 

It is important to seek human arrangements where there is emphasis on self-help, 
self-regulation, and cooperation in support of the public and common good. The 
authorities have a critical role to play in such efforts. Leadership is needed to nurture 
these possibilities and to create mechanisms for leveraging social capital to promote 
connectedness and caringthe essence of crime prevention and social justice. It is 
appropriate to support citizens taking responsibility for social control, but it is wrong 
to assume that all citizen groups can be self-governing. Cultivating responsibility 
requires the authorities to be sensitive to the capacity and motivation of different communities. 

It is equally important for the government, the police, and the justice system to recognize 
that they do not have a monopoly on creating and maintaining security. A 
strong criminal justice system and a visible police presence are important in shaping 
social order, but they should not be depended upon exclusively. A free society can be 
threatened by an over-reliance on tough enforcement, punishment, and prison as the 
primary means for establishing order and safety. The key lies in balancing the formal 
system of control with informal means of regulation so there can be a coproduction 
of public safety. As Clifford Shearing has said: 

The police do not own policing.13 

Even where there is no skepticism about community involvement, and no desire to 
monopolize policing, the implementation of Goldsteins sound theory for supporting 
a free society seems difficult to accomplish, bringing an additional obstacle. 
Notwithstanding an emphasis on partnerships, joint responsibility, and power and 
information sharing, the public largely remains a sleeping giant in relation to controlling 
crime. This passivity, arguably, is largely what drives the tough-on-crime policies 
and practices of the formal system, because lack of engagement promotes fear 
and diminishes understanding. This situation perpetuates both the illusion that the 
state, rather than civil society, is responsible for social order and the tug-of-war 
between formal and informal crime controls (see Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Tug-of-War Between Crime Control Approaches 

What Makes for Effective Crime Control? 
Professional Response Only Citizen Participation 
Dependence on Formal System Shared Responsibility 
Repressive Measures Empowerment 
Punishment Problem Solving 
Reactive Forward-Looking 
Rules/Legal Justice People/Social Justice 
Control Consensus 
OR 


The current situation, therefore, is essentially one of relying on the professional system 
of policing and justice, despite the wise messages of the Presidential Commission 
in 1967. Concerns about crime and the fear of crime have been powerful forces working 
on Federal, state, and local government, provoking massive increases in expenditures 
over the past decade. Still, the achievement of public safety seems an overwhelming 
challenge confronting the United States as it approaches the third millennium 
A.D. Criminal justice professionals (including the police) and policymakers face 
a range of pressures wider and deeper than ever. They are coping with changes in the 
way the formal system of crime control operates as well as having to think about their 
responsibilities for promoting less formal controls as a necessary precursor to reducing 
crime. 

Reforming the professional system of policing and justice without paying attention to 
the conundrum created by low public participation (demands for more police, more 
criminal justice, and more prisons without a commitment to social justice) is the consequence 
of limited vision. Public safety demands a coherent, strategic plan balancing 
punishment (a rational choice in response to public alarm) with informal controls, 
prevention, and problem solving. Figure 3 indicates the current situation and 
the goal regarding community involvement. 

Figure 3. A Plan Is Needed To Get From A to B 

A. Current Situation 
Limited Sharing of Responsibility 
Community engagement in prevention and problem solving: 

Image of a graph showing limiting sharing of responsibility

Formal crime control 
through the activities 
of police and criminal 
justice system 

B. Future Aim 
Broader Sharing of Responsibility 
Community engagement in prevention and problem solving: 

Image of a graph showing broader sharing of responsibility
Formal crime control 
through the activities 
of police and criminal justice system 


Finessing a strategy is of pressing importance and should not be left until a time when 
public opinion might orchestrate itself to shift. The paradox is that the authorities will 
have to develop the strategy and promote the commitment to social justice while continuing 
to operate and to preserve much of the criminal justice system. 

Planning for the future in law and order must rest on a strategy to mobilize communities 
toward understanding and tackling crimeto ensure a better balance between 
traditional enforcement and informal controls. Crime and public safety are not the 
sole preserve of government and of formal justice systems; they are everybodys business. 

The main theme of this report, therefore, is that sustaining and advancing community 
policing will in large part depend upon achieving broad consensus on the fundamental 
importance of community engagement, not merely community-based professional 
policing and justice efforts. The exciting experiments going on now need to be 
placed on a solid footing to ensure that we build a strong framework for further innovation 
that supports the mission. Such a framework should define the scope of activities 
as well as the values on which activities shall be based. The framework should 
support and guide both local and national efforts and professional and lay citizen 
efforts toward a balanced approach to delivering public safety. 

This report starts with an appraisal of current developments in community policing 
and community justice; and it proposes a number of key themes that are working in 
support of a strategy for a balanced approach appropriate to a democracy. Also examined 
are practices and factors that must be limited if reforms are to reach their full 
potential to contribute to the advancement of a safe democracy. In this category are 
the persistent over-reliance on the criminal justice system to address public safety and 
the influential dynamics of what can be best described as the crime problem. 

The developments in restorative justice over recent years are providing insights and 
experience that should help to influence and change the interpretation of community 
policing and of community justice. Restorative justice offers a fundamental shift in 
thinking about the crime problem and about new values on which to build improvements 
in the future. In particular, the involvement of police in restorative justice 
should be seen as a natural progression from the current problem-solving partnerships 
built under the auspices of community policing. The hypothesis of this report 
will be tested by exploring new tools for the police to use in working collaboratively 
with the public to resolve and to prevent crimethrough restorative justice. 


Part1

Community Policing, 
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
Part 1. Key Themes in Community Policing 


Part 1. Key Themes in 
Community Policing 

The definition of community policing has had a long journey. Books, articles, videos, conferences, 
training programs, and mission statements have been dedicated to clarifying the meaning 
and implications of community policing for well over three decades. Most of these have 
been for consumption by police, justice professionals, scholars, and policymakers. The public, 
meanwhile, has had to rely largely on media commentary, the odd police flyer, and whatever 
direct (although often patchy) involvement they may have had in this evolution of policing. 
When asked about community policing, citizens often mention neighborhood watch and police 
patrols, suggesting that citizens do not appreciate fully the sweep of the community policing 
vision. 

Among law enforcement professionals themselves, one obstacle to establishing a comprehensive 
understanding of community policing lies in the fact that policing is not a simple business 
with a neatly defined single goal. Policing is widely regarded as being about crime control 
(enforcement) as well as maintaining order (peacekeeping). The police are seen as accountable 
to individual citizens, to the law, and to the courts. They are also the most visible representative 
of authority and are a function of government. These goals and lines of accountability 
can directly conflict with one another. If law enforcement is used in ways that create public 
resentment, for example, the notion of policing by consent is jeopardized. Maintaining order 
can produce deep divides among the authoritiesincluding the policeand whole sections 
of the public. With these potential clashes, the complexity of the business of policing can rigorously 
test any concept, and community policing is no exception. 

Defining community policing is also problematic because policing is not only about the broad 
issues of law and order today. It entails thinking about the future, which requires constant 
appraisal of risks and opportunities. For this reason alone, the definition of community policing 
is dynamic, because policing throws up constant questions about its purpose and outcomes. 

The Tradition Model of Professional Policing 

I am convinced that contemporary policing is more a product of what coppers 
want it to be, rather than what it is supposed to be. 

Chris Braiden, former Chief of Police in Edmonton, Canada 

How community policing as a concept is challenging police agencies and citizens is difficult to 
assess without some understanding of the traditional model of professional policing that has 
dominated law and order since the 1930s. The police were characterized by an emphasis on 
political independence and distance from the community (thereby avoiding the risk of corruption), 
crime control (by making arrests under the criminal law), and maintaining order 
(through street patrols and rapid response to 911). Citizens, not yet accustomed to the idea that 
they formed discrete communities, were happy to call the police as individuals when they 


wished to report a crime or seek services. Effective crime control was of paramount 
importance, primarily through the use of law enforcement, with a loose attention to 
fairness and to community support. The police existed to maintain law and order 
through a combination of semimilitarism and accountability to the justice system. 
Public support was generally taken for granted; this was the thin blue line carrying 
out its job in the face of competing demands, rising crime, and public dependence on 
the police. 

This traditional model defined the functions and structure of police organizations, the 
selection and training of recruits, and the rewards system. Although the potential conflict 
between the goals of law enforcement and the maintenance of order might have 
been understood, there was ample crime to justify the popular belief that law enforcement 
against crime was the overriding raison dtre for policing. There was also an 
underlying convenience to the emphasis on enforcement. The public expected the 
police to effectively control crime, and the police had clear methods and systems for 
detecting and investigating reported criminal conduct. 

This professional model also connected the police to the criminal justice system; the 
police depended on the system as the system depended on them. The criminal justice 
system was the focus of much police work through post facto criminal investigations 
and warrant execution. Crime prevention was seen as social engineering, beyond the 
scope of policing. Policing was largely seen as quite straightforward, notwithstanding 
the potential conflicts between its goals. 

The reality, however, is that officers have always handled a broad range of problems 
other than crime and that they do much more than enforce the law. Although the 
capacity of the police in relation to crime has been seen as unlimited, there are tangible 
limits to what the police can do within the law, to their resources, and to levels 
of public support. Police depend upon the public to report crime or to produce witnesses. 
A significant amount of crime happens in homes and private places. Police 
cannot hope to be omnipresent, regardless of the greater visibility and capacity that 
extra policing provides. Also, for all kinds of reasons, relatively few cases reported to 
the police enter the criminal justice system. The prevention and control of crime are 
not the preserve of the professional police if so much crime happens outside their 
view, or never comes to their attention. 

The traditional model of professional policing has nonetheless been an enduring paradigm. 
Many officers were able to see the shortcomings of traditional practices, not 
least because of the loss of public confidence and trust after those methods failed to 
reduce crime and fear. But others believed these problems came about because of 
shortages of resources available for crime fighting (or the constraints of other parts 
of the criminal justice system), not because of their relationship with what they perceived 
to be a fickle, and often irresponsible, public. The status of neighborhood 
cops, a new innovation to build bridges with a public tired of police insensitivity, took 
a long time to establish in police departments. With crime investigation, squad work, 
and rapid response auto patrols seen as necessary, community policing seemed, to 
some at least, superfluous and unaffordable. 


Diverse Interpretations of Collaboration 

Against this backdrop, the nature of community policing could be said to be evolving 
from recognizing the limitations of traditional approaches to looking ahead to future 
requirements. In one survey of police chiefs, 42 percent said they were engaged in 
community policing, although the threshold for what they thought represented the 
new ethos was apparently quite low.14 Some saw community policing as meaning little 
more than an acknowledgment that general public support for the police and their 
activities is desirable. Opening the police department to the public and the media or 
establishing civilian review boards are seen by some as critical contributions to 
breaking down distrust and misunderstanding. 

Others have called for a stronger emphasis on accountability to the community; 
police are entrusted with important public resources, including the power to exercise 
authority and force. How these resources are applied should be influenced by community 
priorities as well as by standards of fairness, integrity, and adherence to values. 
Consultation meetings with the community and other agencies together with public 
feedback are, in many areas, shaping police strategy, style of delivery, and resource 
planning. 

While to some community policing means community liaison, to others it means 
organizational change that promotes decentralization, flexible work patterns, and 
new alliances. Police departments have embarked on developing dedicated neighborhood 
patrols, devolving responsibility down the hierarchical chain. Geographic 
lines of accountability for delivering effective and responsive policing has prompted 
attention to local problems, which are identified through external collaboration and 
management information systems. Police officers are more likely to spend their time 
at community meetings, coaching young people, coordinating neighborhood or business 
watch groups, and in liaison with other agencies to identify crime and disorder 
problems, rather than relying on reported crime and calls for service to steer their 
work. 

In more recent years, some police chiefs have worked hard toward mobilizing citizens 
to engage in police activities traditionally seen as the preserve of professionalism. 
Rejecting the idea that the police alone can respond to crime and disorder, theirs 
is a commitment to the concept of participatory democracy in which ordinary citizens 
are seen as capable of making a contribution. Enlisting community volunteers to work 
alongside police officers is no longer unusual, as in San Diego, where civilians are 
helping police conduct criminal observations. In active partnerships, police and community 
work together on issues of concern. The Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood 
Safety (CANS) project is the largest, but not the only, initiative to train the community 
in fulfilling its role in community policing. 

If there is a common denominator in the definitions of community policing, it is the 
need for local sensitivity. But there is no agreement on what local collaboration 
should be aiming toward: stronger lines of accountability, joint liaison, citizen mobi


lization, or self-policing by the community. In 1997, the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, perhaps recognizing these unresolved tensions in the interpretation 
of community policing, issued guidance on the key elements that need to be considered 
by police departments wishing to embrace its ethos. Community policing was 
defined as a policing philosophy designed to reduce crime and disorder in communities 
by fostering trust, respect, and collaboration between police officers and citizens.
15 This definition was supported by a number of identifiable hallmarks aimed at 
securing a common understanding of the meaning of community policing. The hallmarks 
included the following: 

 Partnership building (among the police, citizens, and other institutions) 
 Problem-solving approaches to crime and disorder 
 Emphasis on proactive crime control (including crime prevention) 
 Developing police organizations responsive to community concerns 
 Recognizing that public concerns other than crime may be important 
for promoting trust (such as public fear of crime and dealing with nuisances) 

These hallmarks suggest that more than local sensitivity is required: active collaboration 
between the public and the police is also required to tackle crime and other community 
problems. Still, there remains a tension between those who see collaboration 
solely as a means to improve professional policing and those who see a different, 
broader requirement. 

Some see a more active kind of collaboration as essential in an era when crime levels 
have largely destroyed the myth that the police should focus on crime and justice 
problems alone. These proponents of community policing have suggested that public 
trust requires more than effective crime control and the maintenance of order 
through traditional law-and-order policing. The police, with other public institutions, 
need to be attentive and responsive to ever-changing social conditions, the scale of 
societal anxiety about public safety, and the fear of lawlessness. Social conditions that 
cause anxiety include crime, disorder, and the fear of crime, but are not confined to 
these. They also touch upon the wider community health issues that are perceived 
to be relevant to the prevalence of crime and disorder, e.g., drug and alcohol dependency, 
school truancy, slum housing, abandoned spaces, mental illness, and child 
neglect. A different, more active kind of collaborative effort hinges on partnering with 
others from education, medicine, housing, business, the churches, and other areas to 
address ongoing threats to public well-being through long-term planning of public 
policy and expenditure. Table 1 indicates the changing interpretation of collaboration, 
from the traditional policing model to the community policing model. 


Table 1. Changing Interpretation of Collaboration: Traditional Policing Model 
to Community Policing Model 

Policing Model/Activity 
 (Continuum) 
Traditional policing 
 model 
Consultation on 
 department activities 
Organizational 
 structuring toward 
 local-based policing 
Partnership activity 
Long-term priorities 
 identified 
Community policing 
 model 

Characteristics 
 (Progression From 
 Traditional to 
 Community Policing 
 Model) 
Crime control, 911, calls for 
 service 
Through the media, 
 civilian review 
Community engagement in 
 problem identification 
Community 
 participation in 
 tackling crime and 
 disorder problems 
Shared participation 
 in tackling broader 
 community health issues 
Understanding of 
 contribution toward 
 preventing/tackling crime, 
 fear, and disorder 

Collaboration 
 (Evolution From 
 Traditional to 
 Community Policing 
 Model) 
Them versus us 
Public support 
 encouraged 
Information sharing 
Volunteers, pooling 
 resources, joint training 
Interagency partnerships 
 working for agreed 
 outcomes 
Community working with 
 police support 

From this newer perspective, law enforcement is seen as but one component of a necessarily 
broader crime prevention strategy in which order and public safety are 
achieved through informal social controls in the context of community. Where this 
view prevails, community policing has motivated police departments to become more 
approachable to the public through community outreach and engaging the public in 
activities traditionally seen as the preserve of professionals. For example, police officers 
are working with schools, youth services, and recreational clubs to provide educational 
support to young people vulnerable to exposure to drugs, bullying, alcohol, 
and gangs. In the community policing environment, police will tackle specific problems 
seen to threaten the economic health of an area. They will work closely with specific 
groups identified as especially vulnerable to problems, e.g., local businesses, victims 
groups, the elderly, shopkeepers, and road users. Police leaders are sitting with 
their counterparts in city hall, public agencies, and the corporate sector to work out 
ways of promoting vibrant, safer communities with a range of services and assets to 
support community building and citizen empowerment. 


This concept of community policing encompasses more than promoting harmonious 
police-public relationships. It includes both a focus on controlling crime and maintaining 
order where local neighborhoods are being adversely affectedand flexibility 
about working on perceived longer term priorities that touch on the well-being of 
communities. The thrust of problem solving in this climate is a nonadversarial 
approach, working toward resolving conflict through a shared understanding of the 
problems. While the traditional goals of controlling crime and maintaining order 
might not have changed, the relationship of the police with the community has been 
given a new status. The police are still accountable to the law, to individuals, and to 
the courts. But they are also accountable to the community, and for how they promote 
and support mutual responsibility for achieving safe and healthy communities. 

Collaboration for Problem-Oriented Policing 

The evolving interpretation of community policing has been helped greatly by experiments 
with problem-oriented policing (POP). Traditional policing, faced with rising 
crime and disorder, would tend to use more patrols, more squads, and more investigations 
to maintain the rule of law. Arrests and stop/searches would be increased, as 
would police overtime. This reactive strategy became known as fire brigade policing 
in some quarters, and by the 1970s police chiefs began realizing it would never be 
enough to meet the demand for safer streets. Traditional policing might be able to 
respond to crime faster and more systematically, but this effort was unsustainable in 
the face of resource constraints and the volume of the incidence of crime. A significant 
proportion of crime occurs out of public view; catching offenders in the act is 
more rare than one would hope; and victims and witnesses, by definition, report 
crime after the fact. Increasing the speed or resources with which police respond to 
incidents has only limited impact. Retrospective crime investigations solve relatively 
few crimes because they lack vital information or have insufficient evidence. They also 
fail to prevent crime and to address the myriad reasons why crime happens. 

Traditionally, therefore, police departments were too frequently overwhelmed by rising 
demands and limited resource flexibility. The criminal justice system dealt with 
only a small proportion of the total number of crimes. The revolving door of offenders 
processed by the system was an intractable problem. This situation started to 
impact public confidence, and, arguably, the confidence of the police in themselves. 
The traditional model of professional policing came under increasing pressure and 
threat with the changing scope of crime and public alarm. 

In 1979, Herman Goldstein published an article, Improving Policing: A Problem-
Oriented Approach, in which he asserted that many seemingly separate incidents 
actually stemmed from common underlying conditions and were part of a broader 
pattern.16 To deal more effectively (and efficiently) with the volume of incidents confronting 
the police, they would need to identify underlying factors and address 
theseand not necessarily by way of enforcement. Other tools were available. And 
with this provocative suggestion, a quiet revolution was born: policing became more 
reflective, more analytical, more about information gathering, and increasingly about 
problem solving. Figure 4 indicates benefits of community policing as perceived by 
police officers who had worked with the new model for a year. 


Figure 4. Perceived Benefits From Community Policing 

Improved relationships with citizens 
Community identifies with individual officers 
Officers more approachable 
Officers feel less hostility 

Better overview of crime and other problems 
Ownership of local problems 
Improved teamwork 

Can locate offenders more quickly 
Response time to 911 calls down 

Fewer complaints against offenders 
Outcomes are clearer 
More problem solving with communities 

Trust 
Improved flow 
 of communication 
Sharing of 
 information 

Knowledge of turf 
Care about 
 community and 
 accountability 
Focus on clear goals 

Efficiency and 
 effectiveness 

Officers more 
 courteous and 
 professional 
Activities are 
 output-linked 
Citizen engagement 

SOURCE: As identified by police officers who had worked with community policing for 
a year in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. Personal communication. 

Twenty years after Goldsteins article appeared, when law and order breaks down, the police 
increasingly are recognizing that they face two separate challenges: dealing with the immediate 
situation (called stopping the bleeding) and working to establish long-term community safety. 
Law enforcement may be a necessary tool in the short term. Arrests may have to be made, 
and public order tactics might be needed to establish calm; but the police also need to reach 
out to the community and to other agencies to identify underlying problems. Law enforcement 
and high police visibility alone do not sustain calm. Reacting to an incident without attempting 
to discover the contributory problems is seen as putting out a fire without trying to learn how 
to prevent other fires. And working apart from those who might be able to identify the causes, 
or take preemptive steps in the future, only fuels public reliance on the police to put out the 
next fire. 


Promoting Crime Prevention Through Problem-Oriented Policing 

Traditionally, focusing almost exclusively on incidents and crime events kept the 
objectives for police activity relatively clear. Analyzing them as part of a broader pattern 
involves a change of goals and a requirement to pool resources to achieve those 
goals. The theory behind problem-oriented policing opens up challenges for traditional 
methods of law enforcement and crime control. With problem-oriented policing, 
the focus shifts away from narrow measurements of crime statistics. While considerable 
efforts may be directed to pattern analysis, hot spot identification, and distinguishing 
between actual and reported levels of crime, attempts are also made to 
understand why crime is happening. Questions are raised about why the crime is 
occurring: Why in this location? Why this behavior? What impact is being made on 
people and the environment? 

With a problem-oriented approach, the focus expands from legal definitions of 
crime and disorder to include broader social and economic issues. The police no 
longer focus solely on the investigation of serious crime but must also take an 
active interest in issues identified by pattern analysis. This inevitably involves a 
radical departure from defining problems according to criminal laws. A single 
robbery, for example, might justify police focusing on the detection and prosecution 
of the offender; but a series of robberies demands attention to community feelings, 
situational factors such as lighting or street layout, and economic impact. The overall 
mission stretches beyond reactive crime control to include fear reduction, crime prevention, 
community building, and developing resistance against threats to the health 
and well-being of the community. 

The police-public relationship also changes. Problem-oriented policing gives community 
policing clearer meaningas the rhetoric of collaboration is transformed 
into the practical necessity of involving the community and other organizations in the 
identification and resolution of problems that contribute to crime and disorder. 

Problem-oriented policing not only emphasizes collaboration, but also challenges 
the assumption that any one person or agency knows what the problems are, 
understands their solution, and has the capacity to resolve them. Problem-oriented 
policing challenges the traditional monopoly of professional policing, because 
appropriate decisionmaking cannot take place without securing the best information 
available from various nonpolice sources. The community is less likely to remain passive, 
and the police no longer occupy a hierarchical position. In effect, police and 
community become partners in efforts to tackle community priorities. 

The framework for this collaborative dialogue should encourage cooperation, allow 
for learning, and be conducive to developing understanding about what crime means 
for communities. Problem identification is not merely an outcome of collaboration; 
the process is critical to building a sense of joint responsibility and ownership 
between the police, the community, and other agencies. The thin blue line is 
thereby thickened by a dynamic partnership between professionals and lay people, 


with no one knowing where the energy will lead until priorities are agreed, resources 
earmarked, and outcomes determined. In this way, the police begin to relinquish their 
traditional monopolistic hold on crime control. Policing becomes, literally, everybodys 
business, with a mixture of formal and informal social controls used to tackle 
the full ramifications of threats to public health and safety. 

The ethos of problem solving has affected many aspects of policing. Calls for service, 
capable of swamping the police and making them work entirely reactively, have been 
subjected to 31117 and graded response strategies. Volumes of crime reports are handled 
by automatic field reporting systems and are applied to automapping systems. 
Having operated independently of the public to carry out law enforcement in the past, 
police now are constantly looking for ways of becoming more knowledgeable about 
their turfbeyond who is committing crime; and these efforts are leading to community 
engagement at many levels. The activities of policing have expanded to include 
holding public awareness campaigns, tackling repeat victimization, and targeting persistent 
offenders. The identification of youth and victim needs has led to a panoply of 
programs affording support to these communities. Gang violence prevention programs, 
weapon interdiction initiatives, and domestic violence strategies have shifted 
the focus from applying short-term responses to isolated events to thematic policy 
development with an eye on the future. Broadly speaking, problem-oriented policing 
is a dynamic force for changing police culture and practices and for involving citizens 
in an array of activities that emphasize reducing harm and building community safety. 

Problem-oriented policing has also promoted a willingness by the police to experiment 
with new strategies for working in areas not normally associated with policing. 
For example, in one city plagued by street order problems associated with casual 
laborers waiting to find work, the police facilitated the job hiring of immigrants and 
refugees and eliminated the problem by securing a meeting place where solicitations 
for work could be made. This effort involved negotiations with community activists, 
business leaders, city officials, and social services. The city is now free of laborers 
congregating in different parts of the city for the first time in 25 years, and the result 
is a win-win situation for everyone: laborers are getting hired more readily, street disorder 
and crime problems have diminished, and the community environment has 
changed dramatically. 

Problem-oriented policing changes the passive role of community and other 
agencies in the control of crime and reduces this disproportionate dependence 
on the police. Problem- oriented policing promotes participation, a recognition of 
the interdependency of community members and organizations, and the importance 
of social engagement. Competing interests among different stakeholdersand 
opportunities for conflict preventioncan also begin to emerge. Any future crisis is 
seen not just as a police problem, but as a problem for everybody, promoting further 
active engagement. 


The ethos of problem-oriented policing is also being applied by non-police agencies; 
in New Orleans, for example, Tulane University and the housing authority have worked 
with communities to revivify drug-infested housing projects. Through information 
sharing they developed a consensus about existing problems in those areas that needed 
attention by the authorities and the support of local residents unwilling to tolerate 
illegal drug activity. As one local resident commented, They did not come into a 
community that didnt have any assets. They came into a community that needed their 
technical assistance, and were just as much an asset to them as they are to us.18 

As problem-oriented policing increasingly involves community members in policing, 
two reforms are emerging. First, police accountability is shifting from assessments 
about rapid response rates and crime clear-ups only, to include an appraisal of 
police attitudes toward, and competence in, partnership activities. Police use of 
force in the community, police visibility and accessibility, police sensitivity to local 
issues, their contribution to the resolution of local problems and tensions, and their 
perceived effectiveness in taking community concerns seriously have become new 
measures of success. Police performance is subject to more scrutiny than before both 
quantitatively (whether perceived problems have been resolved or crime reduced) 
and qualitatively (how the police conducted themselves in their collaborations with 
the community). See Results of Problem-Oriented Policing (in box) for a list of positive 
results by which police will increasingly be measured. 

Results of Problem-Oriented Policing 

 More informal but purposeful contact between the police and the community 
 Greater police sensitivity toward the community 
 Changing attitudes toward the police 
 Breaking down distrust, building mutual respect 
 Information sharing that promotes a shared commitment to agreed outcomes 
 Promoting a spirit of cooperation between police, other agencies, 
and local communities 
 Complexity of policing more widely understood 
 Re-orientation of policing toward a focus on community well-being 
 Planning before action and emphasis on prevention 
 Improved resource management by the police and other public agencies 
 Community learning about itself 
 Broader thinking encouraged 
 Long-term planning encouraged 
 Accountability measures become more qualitative rather than fixed 
on crime statistics 

The second reform is the joint participation of police and community in identifying 
problems and coming up with solutions, which can be an educational 
process for all concerned and a force for change. Assumptions about the capacity 
and willingness to work on public safety issues can be challenged. The community 


learns the strengths and weaknesses of the policeand vice versa. With the focus on 
those issues that threaten community safety, and on opportunities that could bolster 
community well-being and harmony, all parties learn more about who can do what 
and who does what. They also learn more about how this knowledge can be used to 
produce desired outcomes. Breaking down tasks and activities and assigning them 
where it makes sense can alter assumptions about the appropriateness of the traditional 
dependence of the community on the police and can change the police view of 
the community. A natural spin-off is often a sense of goodwill and mutual respect 
among participants, in whom joint care and responsibility leads to a growth in confidence 
to tackle other problems. 

The result can be the development of functional communities in which community 
members reinforce common values, apply their own social capital to engender 
law-abiding behavior, and resolve conflict through their own problem-solving 
efforts. Problem-oriented policing provides a vehicle for community development 
and self regulation. The police may even be able to withdraw and focus attention on 
less able communities. In time, the public and the police develop a new understanding 
of how each can contribute to preventing, resolving, and reducing crime. The 
doors start to open for negotiation and for the transformation of the status quo in 
which crises occur. This kind of energy creates the platform for community-oriented 
governance as well as a highly participatory citizenship. Problem-oriented policing is 
shaping policing. It potentially can shape local government, impact relationships 
throughout entire communities, and change traditional ways of working. 

Unresolved Tensions Between the Traditional Model of Professional Policing and Community Policing 

Collaboration with communities and other agencies is beginning to have a significant 
effect on the activities of the police. What is still uncertain, howeverdespite the theory 
of community policing and problem solvingis whether current changes are 
mainly strengthening the professional polices hand to maintain law and order or 
whether the changes are also building self policing among communities (i.e., shifting 
toward social crime prevention and informal conflict resolution). Where is the 
evidence that community policing and problem-oriented policing are facilitating a 
transition from police owning policing to police sharing the responsibility for crime 
control? How forward-looking is community policing and to what extent is it merely 
reacting to history? Is community policing more about a style of working by the professional 
police (to address past tensions in their relations with the public) or is it 
transforming the meaning of policing? 

It is apparent that there still is no agreement as to how critical community self-regulation 
is for the future. Notwithstanding a number of coherent definitions of community 
policingpivoting on the notion of the police and the community working in 
collaborationthere is no commonality of purpose, hence diverse interpretations 
prevail. As Bailey has commented, what people are doing is so diverse that it is hard 
to describe.19 What the police are doing may defy description because the police 
themselves do not always have a clear view of the context in which changes are hap


pening. Missing is a defined central mission, without which many officers do not know 
how to describe their activities. Day-to-day contact with communities does not always 
result in a definable outcome, unless there are clear benchmarks. Such benchmarks 
should not be defined by local standards alone without reference to broader goals and 
standards for policing recognized by professionals and citizens alike. Without a 
coherent national strategy, there are problems as well as paradoxes. What exactly is 
going on as policing is changing can be amorphous, obscure, even contradictory. 
Arguably, this is exacerbated by the lack of a defined future-oriented mission for 
advancing community policing, with clear measures of accountability. 

Community policing has undoubtedly brought attention to organizational development, 
decentralization, promoting public dialogue, fostering officer discretion, and 
broadening activities to support the clamor for safer communities. Citizens have 
responded by attending meetings, joining working groups, and supporting joint programs 
to deal with ongoing problems that beset their neighborhood. 

Some police departments, however, are focusing primarily on improving their own 
capacity for policing, with community organizing largely left to voluntary groups with 
specific interests. For these departments, community policing is not about community 
mobilization. While community policing is moving substantially away from being 
interpreted merely as good public relations, in these departments it is having to muscle 
itself in with the traditional professional policing model (in which crime control 
is seen primarily as the preserve of law enforcement agencies, and communities 
retain a passive role). 

Another example of an imbalance in the police mission is the dedication of police 
resources to the widespread application of zero tolerance tactics, preventing their 
use to develop community partnerships or interagency cooperation to tackle causes 
of crime and offending behavior. Reducing crime and providing public reassurance 
through visible and focused patrols is not a bad strategy unless unrealistic expectations 
are raised that these efforts can be sustained and are themselves sufficient to 
control crime. Zero tolerance precludes attention to fundamental problems in the 
social conditions that are breeding further crime for the future. As long as the police 
(and the public) see professional policing as the primary response to crime and disorder, 
the police are under pressure to perform the critical role and to accept ultimate 
responsibility for public safety, regardless of the relationship enjoyed with the 
public. Within this framework, while the community may be better informed about 
crime and police activity, or have more influence on the police, too little is done to 
encourage active community participation in controlling crime and maintaining 
order. Thus, the community role is blurred and left to chance. 

Although developing amicable relationships with communities is widely accepted as 
appropriate in these days of decentralization and local accountability, this activity 
addresses problems of the past more than the challenges of the future. The traditional 
policing model continues to be pervasive despite its recognized shortcomings. 
Community beat officers may be commonplace among law enforcement agencies, but 
mobile response patrols, large criminal investigation departments, and traffic regula


tion officers still form the bulk of much of modern operational policing, as they did 
before community policing became the new orthodoxy. As a result, community policing 
is squeezed in at the margins, if not absorbed by the traditional means of doing 
business. Even moneys earned for community policing have been used for covert 
police surveillance, reinforcing the professional rolehardly conducive to the 
proactive engagement of communities. Should Federal moneys dry up, what would be 
the first to go? 

A strong case can be made that the traditional concept of police crime fighting (i.e., 
by professional police only) retains an enduring popularity, producing demands for 
new technology, including computerized 911 systems, crime mapping, self-defense 
and assault weaponry, videotaping, and communications equipment. Some commentators 
would go as far as to say, The police have not shown any signs of abating the 
paramilitaristic tendencies of old.20 In cultural terms at least, policing arguably may 
not have shifted from a warfare mindset in which the police see themselves as the 
buffer between an apathetic public and law-and-order breakdown.19 

Improved police effectiveness and use of technology are a part of but not the whole 
solution to problems pertaining to crime and fear. Even when this is recognized, the 
practices evoke the image of an omnicompetent force rather than spell out the need 
for active community participation in light of existing or anticipated problems. One 
might argue that recent, significant investments in these areas are the consequence of 
a failed strategy (or, more accurately, the absence of a strategy) to achieve co-policing. 
The failure can be attributed to a confusion of goals and varying interpretations 
of the ethos of community policing. 

Accountability, with this constant and very real tension between goals, is problematic. 
Should the overriding issue be the extent to which the police are effectively working 
with the community to encourage the coproduction of public safety? Or, should professional 
police performance against crime and disorder be paramount? And if it is 
both, how can these be integrated? The coexistence of community-oriented policing 
(striving to reduce the social distance between the police and the public) and zero-
tolerance policies (which can quickly manifest themselves in deep divisions between 
the police and the public) is a stark reminder of the confusion. 

Exacerbating tensions between the traditional policing model and the community-
policing goal of citizen mobilization are unresolved internal issues. How is a police 
department to operate when it is required to fulfill traditional (and often dangerous) 
crime-fighting tasks as well as promote a shift toward more citizen participation in 
policing? Semimilitaristic and hierarchical structures, codes of discipline, directive 
communication methods, and rigid lines of accountability can have a powerful impact 
on internal staff attitudes and relations, destroying initiatives toward power sharing, 
joint problem solving, and mutual responsibility. How internal grievances are dealt 
with can be adversarial (often as between management and less senior staff) rather 
than about problem solving. Who is listened to may determine how problems are 
identified and resolved. This kind of work environment can be the antithesis of the 


open dialogue and relationships that are needed with external communities. What 
works in favor of community policinginformation sharing, building trust and support, 
developing agreed plans, working together, and sharing responsibilitiesis 
undermined by the traditional internal culture; and this more rigid, hierarchical, and 
closed culture thrives in the absence of a full commitment to a future-oriented mission 
that aims to strengthen participatory democracy. 

Again, the lack of national benchmarks can stifle changes that are occurring in many 
places. Without shared agreement about the characteristics required of leadership 
and modern management, community policing is susceptible to the influence of individual 
personalities. Such agreement is needed to establish the basic foundations for 
developing the appropriate operating environment and organizational climate for 
community policing: selection, training, and development of recruits and managers in 
accordance with the changing philosophy. 

Conclusion to Part 1: Key Themes in Community Policing 

Community policing has engendered mutual learning and understanding: the police 
are learning about the community, and vice versa. Police-public partnerships have 
been instrumental in bridging the gap between lay and professional, service-provider 
and customer. This is welcome after years of controversy about police-public relationships. 
But real citizen involvement in planning, designing, and implementing 
strategies for crime control and reduction is still too rare. The irony of recent efforts 
by police departments with community policing and problem-oriented policing is that 
they might actually have added to the publics perception that the police can achieve 
safer communities by themselves, if only given community support. Could things be 
done differently? 

Sustaining the feel-good image of improved relations and lower crime requires deliberate 
attention to ironing out the uneven implementation and interpretation of community 
policing. Community policing may have brought about distinct shifts in practice 
and attitude, but the police culture and the organization of police resources 
would be largely recognizable to anyone who served in law enforcement 30 years ago. 
The culture is changing, but not enough to diminish the threat that the traditional 
policing model may dominate the control of crime and disorder. Police departments 
may be introducing preventive patrols (to promote a sense of safety), opening dialogue 
with other agencies (to foster trust and partnering), and conducting crime pattern 
analysis to reduce crime. But time and expenditures applied to police capacity 
building compete with community building, thus diluting the potential for more fundamental 
change. 

Community policing should be gathering conventional wisdom on how its ethos 
should and can be translated into a clear, future-oriented, overall goal; and that goal 
should promote the notion that policing is more than what the professional police do. 
Such wisdom should be advanced in ways that secure national agreement about what 
kind of policing is healthyand about what detracts from the central mission to overcome 
boundaries, jurisdictions, personalities, and politics. By now there should be 
no doubt that the purpose of policing goes beyond what the police themselves do in 


relation to crime. Policing is confronted with crime and requires law enforcement 
efforts, but the larger goal is police-citizen problem solving that supports peacekeeping. 

Of course, the implementation of community policing must, by its very nature, be 
defined locally and depends greatly upon available leadership and managerial skills, 
particularly in power sharing and in participatory decisionmaking. Some communities 
are more predisposed than others to working with police. The attitude and support 
of local government and local businesses can also have a major influence, as can 
the attitude of police officers. Were too busy putting out the fires, what have potholes 
got to do with policing?, and the community is apathetic are common 
laments among officers challenged by the requirements of community policing. 

Local capacity issues, however, would undoubtedly benefit from a national consensus 
on what community policing should be aiming for. Policing generally is still defined in 
terms of what the professional police can or should do. This colonization of policing
21 means that instead of being viewed as something accomplished by the community, 
policing is seen as the preserve of law enforcement (as if this is all they do!) 
agencies. Communities often are seen as merely a resource to help the police do 
policing in their own way; and community policing is seen simply as an agenda for 
police reform. The dominant role of the police is thereby retained. Yet community 
policing ought to be de-centering the police as the institutional owner of policing.
21 Policing, in other words, needs to be more forward-looking. 

The legacy of the past is still dictating much of the way community policing is being 
interpreted in some areas. Street patrols, added technology to improve police capacity 
for being responsive, accessible, and visible, and local-based neighborhood stations 
may be important steps toward fostering relationships between the police and 
the community; but the goals of this effort need to be future-oriented, looking toward 
a new relationship. It is not enough to overcome the decline in public trust and confidence. 
Police need to shift gears and promote community engagement and participation 
in law and order problems. If it is accepted that crime, fear, and disorder cannot 
be contained by police efforts alone, then community policing must be about partnerships 
with the community and must be about developing community capacity for 
self-policing. 

This is not suggesting a revolution. The professional police must have the capacity to 
respond immediately to a crisis, and law enforcement will always play a key role in 
containing crime. But contemporary policing requires a different emphasis. As Bonnie 
Bucqueroux writes, The medical model offers a parallel to law enforcement. In medicine, 
we have moved from an era in which we expected the experts to save us to one 
in which we recognize the role that patients must play in their own well-being.22 

Perhaps it is not surprising that the public in general and many communities have 
largely retained the perception that dealing with crime, disorder, and fear are responsibilities 
primarily for the police. The need and the real potential for collaborative 
effort between the police and community have not been clearly communicated, nor 
has the potential for community self-regulation. In this context, public dependence on 


the professional police is not surprising. A narrow focus on crime remains the pervasive 
tide, which is why law enforcement retains primacy over preventionand the 
traditional policing model, characterized by command and control and the use of 
technology, remains strong. Community policing is a powerful vehicle for changing 
both police and public perceptions; but the engine requires all the cylinders firing 
toward a clear destination. 


Part2

Community Policing,
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Part 2. The Crime Problem and the Criminal 
Justice System 


Part 2. The Crime Problem and the 
Criminal Justice System 

Even though support for community policing is becoming more widespread and its 
meaning is being expanded, there are perceived and real constraintsin addition to 
the lack of an agreed missionto transforming the police operation to accommodate 
the community policing philosophy. Community policing and problem-oriented policing 
provide neither a quick fix nor a panacea; they cannot be simply introduced and 
swept through an entire organization or community. Public consultation and partnership 
building are time-consuming and fraught with complex dynamics, especially with 
communities or groups that need encouragement to participate in taking joint 
responsibility. Skill is required of professional police to avoid activities that promote 
further public dependency. Reorganizing a police department to accommodate community 
policing can take years to manifest a cost benefit in terms of resource management 
or reduced threats to public safety. Professional policing faces a tremendous 
challenge to keep abreast of current demands stemming from calls for service and 
reported crime, let alone to undertake organizational and attitudinal changes of the 
magnitude inherent in the community policing and problem-oriented policing ethos. 

For some police there are additional barrierspolicing can be dangerous, unpredictable, 
or can demand streetwise tactics that create distance from ordinary citizens. 
For others the police task ahead seems hard enough in the face of acute social conditions, 
demographic changes, and the changing nature of crime and disorderwithout 
adding developmental work that brings its own burdens. A reaction among some 
officers is that, as desirable as community policing is, it is impractical or there is 
insufficient time for partnership building and problem solving. Even attempts to bring 
about changes in management practices and organizational structure have not overcome 
this widespread perception. 

Conflict resolution skills, courtesy and diversity training, and alternative approaches 
to law enforcement have brought new tools and a different sensitivity to professional 
policing that bode well for the future. Few police officers, however, are unaffected by 
the sheer intensity of their work, which brings them face-to-face with chaos, depravity, 
fear, and a depressing repetition of human suffering and injustice. 

The result is an understandable, if problematic, tension between willingness to take 
community policing further and actual delivery, which must overcome deep-seated 
skepticism about what is realistic. 

The ethos of community policing is not questioned so much as its practical implementation; 
there is significant resistance to oversimplifying the challenges and complexity 
of policing. While the unhelpful dichotomy between the need for hard, no-nonsense 
policing and pigeon-holing community policing as soft policing may be fading, 


community policing does not thrive without the constant props of effective leadership, 
technical assistance, and funding carrots, which respond to the calls for more, not 
fewer, police. Community policing does not progress automatically; it requires driving, 
commitment, perseverance, and shedding light on a vision. 

Without a clear mission for community policing, too much can go awry. Resistance, 
time and resource constraints, or skill shortages are not the only obstacles. Flexible 
attitudes, innovation, and diversification of activities can also seem an impossible 
order when mixed with other realities: the crime problem and the workings of the 
criminal justice system. 

Consensus on Crime Fighting 

The calls for developing community policing and problem-oriented policing have not 
come out of thin air. The efforts to support these movements have been, and remain, 
substantial, implying that there are powerful forces underscoring the idea that law 
and order activities and community should be inextricably tied. It is easy to be overwhelmed 
by the complicated mosaic of changes that are happening in policing. 
Increasing public confidence, decentralizing, improving the efficiency and effectiveness 
of resource utilization, promoting partnerships and problem solving, and the 
clamor for accountable public services are regularly cited benefits of reform. But one 
particular phenomenon remains a constant thread and demands acknowledgment as 
the pivotal reason behind much of the change. Crime, which conjures up a psychological 
baggage all its own, has come to represent an ongoing challenge and a perceived 
threat to social cohesion. It is difficult to conceive how changes in policing can 
be discussed without some recognition that crime represents a critical barometer by 
which new ideas and initiatives come to be measured. 

Arguments about crime have raged regarding the effectiveness of the police and the 
justice system, the decline in moral and social values, economic polarization, rapid 
changes in urbanization, the lack of parenting skills, the media influence, and the lack 
of individual responsibility. In a recent Washington Post article, no fewer than 20 
variables were cited as contributing to a rise or fall in crime, including racial segregation, 
population turnover, home ownership, street design, shortage in after-school 
activities, the size of the population in the 1624 year age bracket, and unemployment 
rates. 

A prevalent viewperhaps the result of the complexities of environmental, social, 
economic, and political moresis that crime is an unacceptable, but possibly 
inevitable, fact of life. The nations crime-solving thrust has become a determined 
effort toward a business-like approach to fighting crimefocusing resources where 


an impression can be made on the crime rate. This approach is not that dissimilar to 
scanning the marketplace for profit opportunities. District attorneys survive or fall on 
the basis of their track record in securing successful convictions; judges on their sentencing 
record. Police chiefs, sheriffs, mayors, and city managers all are vulnerable to 
allegations of being ineffective in the campaign against crime. Lobbyists and the media 
apply their own distinct influences to boost or to thwart support for policies and practices. 

Undoubtedly, the politics of crime are driving much of what is happening. Politics are 
notorious for a short-term focus and for demanding immediate successes, leaving little 
room for planning long-term strategies. Zero tolerance tactics are appealing for 
their promise of quick impact on a problem that is susceptible to definition by statistics, 
such as arrest conviction numbers. The rapid spread of compstat meetings initiated 
by the New York Police Department indicates how compelling this interpretation 
of accountability is; they provide an efficient mechanism for assessing the hard line 
taken by the authorities. 

The focus on crime rates is no accident. Crime rates are quantifiable, making it conveniently 
simple to assess the merits or weakness of certain crime control tactics in a 
world that readily absorbs the power of the soundbite. Introducing measures to assess 
fairness, effectiveness, sustainability, and public trust would make matters too complicated 
to be marketed in a few catchphrases. Promoting ideas that detract from an 
apparently straightforward mission of reducing the crime rate brings instant criticism 
of sounding soft on offenders, or out of touch with public sentiment. 

It is in this environment that community policing is being explored. Such attitudes are 
perhaps understandable in light of public concerns about crime. People prefer to 
remain with their traditional notion of bad individuals being the cause of problems; 
thus they miss the broader understanding of crime that root-causes arguments provide. 
From this perspective, crime fighting is not so much about fighting crime as fighting 
those who commit crime. The pressure to perform in this area has led police 
departments to retain much of the traditional model of professional policing: random 
and targeted patrols, swat teams, investigative units, and improved technology. Even 
those departments that have committed themselves to community policing and problem-
oriented policing have not significantly changed these stalwarts of policing. 
Indeed, most departments fence-in or secure such activities and resource expenditure 
before they work on developing community policing, suggesting that community policing 
activities are dependent upon extra funding, while the old activities remain 
intactand often strengthened. In some cases, funding for community policing has 
been used simply to bolster traditional methods of law enforcement, without any community 
element involved at all. 


The full complexities of crime and crime control in this climate are neither transparent 
nor popular as concepts to be faced. As with our understanding of the human 
body, despite the sense that we could be doing things differently to become healthier, 
we nonetheless choose what appears to be the quickest and least inconvenient path, 
avoiding self-education and ameliorative action. Addressing fully the problem of 
crime brings its own acknowledgment that much needs to be done at many levels 
far beyond existing spheres of political or professional influence. 

There are many, of course, who would argue that the new businesslike approach of 
the professional police is making a difference. Crime in the United States has, after all, 
gone down, indicating that the war strategy is working. But we do not know whether 
changes in policing or building prisons (as part of the war on drugs, for example), 
combined or separately, have done the trick; or whether there are more powerful 
forces at play, such as demographics, economics, and environmental factors. Weed 
and Seed programs, antiviolence campaigns, and community development initiatives 
have surely also played a part. No one can be sure, however, of the extent to which 
community-based innovations contributed, or whether the downturn is sustainable. 

Case Study: 
Tension Between Todays Reality and Tomorrows World Is 
Not Confined to Policing 

An acupuncturist in Washington, D.C., working with local hospitals says he is seeing more 
children and adolescents with attention deficit disorders (ADD) that often lead to substance 
abuse. The solution lies in supporting early childhood development, yet funding remains 
scarce. This contrasts with the moneys expended on giving these children the quickest fix, 
such as Ritalin and other drugs that the pharmaceutical companies have no problem marketing 
through health management organizations. The administration of these drugs is 
likely to perpetuate the problem and to create new kinds of behavioral or mental problems. 
And so the vicious circle leads to a worsening, not an improvement, of the overall problem. 
We fail to learn what is causing ADD and how it can be prevented. In policing too the solutions 
often lie elsewhere, rather than in simple enforcement, but enforcement is a seductive 
strategy for tackling all problems. 

Attention is focused mainly on crime rates, despite the fact that crime figures hide the 
nature of the problem (and despite the fact that official figures reflect only about 37 
percent of the actual incidences of crime23). Crime figures are the easiest barometer 
to read in a field fraught with unresolved challenges. 

The enthusiasm for winning the so-called war on crime, promoted by media pundits 
and politicians, is undoubtedly a reaction to crimes changing character, which has 
raised alarm about substance abuse, school violence, drive-by shootings, gang warfare, 
child neglect, and domestic violence. The barometers for these phenomena of 
contemporary society are not only obscure, but have been blurred under the umbrella 
of social threats. Although support for community policing and for enhancing infor


mal controls to produce public safety may be rife in local neighborhoods, on the 
national stage crime fightingreducing crime by catching more criminals and by 
punishing them more severelyhas come into vogue. While community policing and 
problem-oriented policing are supported vociferously, so too are mandatory sentences, 
parole abolition, trying youth offenders as adults, and bolstering other get-
tough-on-crime measures. 

Meanwhile, the impact of this support for crime fighting on the culture of the police 
cannot be ignored, for this culture has traditionally been comfortable with its law 
enforcement role. It would also be foolish not to acknowledge that this image sits 
comfortably with a large part of the public, notwithstanding the known folly of the 
police alone determining priorities and responses in relation to crime. The arrest and 
punishment of offenders is appealing to anyone apprehensive or angered about 
crime. Punishment is widely perceived as making the offender pay for his past actions 
and as having a preventive element. So long as an offender is incarcerated, he cannot 
commit further crime is the theory. The key questions, however, are these: How 
effective and sustainable is the crime-fighting approach? and Can a focus on crime 
figures or numbers make for public safety? 

Crime Rates Versus the Harms of Crime 

It is ironic that the publics fear and anxiety about crime have focused so much attention 
on crime rates, as distinct from the harms attributable, directly and indirectly, to 
the incidence of crime. Some of these harms are frequently documented: the emotional 
and physical scars following violence, the long-term psychological damage to 
children who suffer abuse, the loss of security felt by victims (as well as their friends 
and families), and the fear of using the streets or going to certain areas. Schools, hospitals, 
and recreation places are no longer immune from the ravages of crime. 
Economic development and investment opportunities are distorted by the incidence 
and impact of crime. Crime has come to be regarded as a kind of virus, altering the 
equilibrium in the security and safety of individuals and in the structure of whole communities. 

There are other harms that are less talked about but, nonetheless, indicate a society 
besieged by crime: the fast growth of gated communities, private security patrols, 
metal detectors, personal arming with guns, mace and pepper sprays, and surveillance 
cameras, as well as the abandonment of crime-ridden areas in the formation of 
doughnut cities. The fabric of society has been altered substantially by the unresolved 
fear and conflict that the aftermath of crime so often brings. Crime rates may 
have fallen, but the long-term characteristics of crime victimization remain off the 
radar screen in discussions about the success of the war on crime. Community members 
may say, Crime is down but were locking our doors anyway. 

The Harms of Crime: Crime Is More than Numbers 

Crime statistics hide many of the real consequences of crime, which in many cases 
do not manifest themselves immediately (e.g., change in behavior, slowed investment, 


changes in legislation). Yet these consequences are often a time bomb for more 
crime. Statistics cannot reflect this reciprocal phenomenon in ways that show cause 
and effect. Accountability is therefore blurred, making the crime rates a dubious platform 
on which to assess what works. For example, if crime deters investment, only 
certain people and activities will be present in an area, which can in turn become prey 
to street crime. Overzealous policing can create resentment and alter peoples perceptions 
about a placethereby creating space for illegal activity that simple 
becomes less overt. Fear can stop people from coming to places, leaving opportunists 
to commit crime without the normal self-regulation that more crowded places often 
have. These consequences call for much more attention to the short- and long-term 
impact of crime, as well as to the effectiveness of particular responses. Figure 5 provides 
an overview of the serious but often hidden consequences of crime. 

Figure 5. Hidden Consequences of Crime 

Crime Rates

Overzealous policing
High insurance costs 
Abandoned areas 
Concerns about social disorder
Legislation, e.g., gun control, drug laws
Added expenditures  for CCTV, locks, technology, 
 private security, etc.
Emotional,psychological, and physical harm 
Avoidance of certain areas
Changes in peoples behavior and lifestyle
Lack of investment
Fear in community 

One distinction between numbers of crimes and harm is that in some cases crime 
causes little actual harm to communities; yet focusing on figures distorts this reality. 
Neighborhoods have always tolerated a certain amount of noisemaking and loitering, 
a limited amount of begging and of public drunkenness. These quality-of-life crimes 
can be problematic in excess, of course, but the police do not necessarily know when 
they become excessive without community involvement in the decisionmaking 
process. In some communities, police interventions for inconsequential violations of 
the criminal code lead to a different kind of stress and social harm. Excessive enforcement 
can destroy relationships and create tensions disproportionate to the impact of 
minor infringements. 

The problem of crime is complex, and crime fighting targeted against offenders is only 
partially effective in reducing the level of crime and the harmful consequences of 
crime. For example, deterrencea critical element in crime-fighting approaches 
requires potential offenders to think about the consequences of their actions, and 


many fail to do so. The offenders risk of being caught and punished must be seen as 
outweighing the benefits expected from committing crime. Since crime reporting and 
clearance rates are significantly lower than the actual incidence of crime, and conviction 
rates are lower still, it seems that deterrence is a dubious strategy. Even if 
offenders are imprisoned, recidivism for offenders released from prison is high (over 
60 percent of prisoners are arrested within 3 years of release).24 

Many police officers know all of this all too well but feel that the situation is outside 
their control. Resources allow for only so much detection and investigation. The conduct 
of the courts and sentencing patterns are beyond their influence. Reducing 
offending behavior relies on other social policies, unconnected with professional 
policing. The result is that the police do as much as they feel they can do, knowing it 
can never be enough. The old mentality of the thin blue line is seldom far removed. 
But the traditional model of professional policing has another ally: the criminal justice 
system. 

Policing and the Criminal Justice System 

Community policing and problem-oriented policing are having a significant impact on 
contemporary policing, but there are obstacles to a radical transformation of police 
departments. The crime problem is not the only obstacle. While collaboration, information 
sharing, and partnering have improved problem diagnosis beyond what traditional 
policing offered, the solutions remain tilted in favor of law enforcement and 
use of the justice process. This not only limits the involvement of the community, but 
it also precludes opportunities for crime prevention through alternative problem-
solving measures. 

To identify what is hindering a shift toward a better balance between enforcement and 
preventive problem solving, it is important to understand the relationship between the 
police and the rest of the criminal justice system. While the police are learning what 
can be achieved by way of problem solving in partnership with communities and other 
agencies, they are also expected to act as the primary gatekeepers to the justice system. 
This, in effect, is pulling the police in two different directions. The first direction 
calls for developing awareness and understanding of the needs of individual communities 
and tailoring responses accordingly. The second calls for applying law enforcement 
impartially according to the rules and processes of the justice system. (See the 
case studies entitled Criminal Justice Can Foster Single-Mindedness Among 
Professionals, Devaluing Problem Solving and Use of Criminal Justice Often 
Precludes Citizen Engagement.) 

The case study Use of Criminal Justice Often Precludes Citizen Engagement may 
appear less contradictory after an examination of the justice system reveals what 
information it uses to proceed, and what it focuses on. 


Case Study: 
Criminal Justice Can Foster Single-Mindedness Among 
Professionals, Devaluing Problem Solving 

With a focus on criminal justice, law enforcement sometimes collaborates only with other 
parts of the justice system. In one example, the use of enforcement as an outcome of collaborative 
problem solving involved a partnership between several small police departments 
and other local criminal justice agencies to tackle a gang problem. Patrol officers worked 
alongside probation officers and prosecutors, sharing information and pooling resources. 
The information sharing was confined to the exchange of intelligence and evidence gathering 
among officials. The professionals thereby defined the nature of the problem, a continuing 
criminal enterprise of prostitution and drug marketeering, without any input from 
the lay community. For the police the goal in this one case seemed clear: Our only concern 
is the bad guysputting them away in jail as long as we can, said the local chief. There 
are no turf wars here, he added. We didnt worry about bureaucrats or bureaucracy, nor 
about politics or politicians. 

Case Study:
Use of Criminal Justice Often Precludes Citizen Engagement

A campaign was launched to mobilize community support for tougher enforcement and 
new laws against street cruisers who were disrupting a city center. Warnings were given to 
the cruisers about the new laws. Citations were given or arrests made only when these warnings 
were ignored. Traffic points and traffic enforcement by the police were helped by the 
erection of new signs depicting regulations specifically introduced to tackle the problem. 
Arrest teams were posted to checkpoints and enforcement teams were encouraged to carry 
out stop/searches. Two years later, the cruisers were no longer a problem. This example 
shows that identifying and resolving problems are made possible when the police work in 
tandem with other agencies, residents, and business people. However, reliance on law 
enforcement by the professional policeeven when there is community supportdoes not 
necessarily promote self-regulation by the community. In this case, the community was 
active in helping to identify the problem but community members involvement in its resolution 
was limited. 

Role of the Criminal Justice System 

The criminal justice system with its courts, judges, attorneys, and corrections personnel 
has remained remarkably stable, notwithstanding growing public frustrations 
about the way it works. The perception is widely held that the system should deliver 
public safety, and that perception supports the clamor for more criminal justice. The 
reality is that the system affords a mix of upholding the standards of society, as defined 
by criminal laws, and providing justice to individuals brought into the system following 
arrest. The central mission is establishing the guilt or innocence of suspected 
offenders according to law and due process. The process is an adversarial one; it 


requires the prosecutor to prove his case according to rules of evidence and the high 
standard of proof. 

This brief description masks the complexity of how the system operates; but it suffices 
to highlight the paradoxes between community policing and problem-oriented policing 
on the one hand, and the heavy use of enforcement as a solution to identify the 
problems. First, the justice system generally deals with individual crimes, case by 
case, without attention to a broader pattern of the harms and incidence of crime. This 
differs greatly from the approach many police departments are adopting with crime 
pattern analysis and targeting hot spots. Pattern analysis is helpful to reveal the true 
incidence of crime and to detect offenders. It also is a crucial component of problem 
diagnosis. 

An isolated burglary is a very different community issue than a neighborhood having 
several burglaries each day or night. A single burglary may induce community fear but 
is unlikely to change peoples behavior or have an impact on community activities. A 
series of burglaries over a period of time, however, will significantly impact a community 
on a number of levels, raising fear and discouraging people from coming to 
live in the area. The police will draw a distinction between an isolated incident and a 
pattern of crime. They may also recognize the harmful consequences over the long 
term that need to be addressed. The justice system will make no such distinction, 
however, and its decisions will be largely uninfluenced by the scale of the impact. 

A second difference between the two approaches (problem-oriented policing and a 
focus on enforcement) is that the justice system uses criminal law alone to define the 
nature of the case. This contrasts with the idea of sharing information from different 
sources to help diagnose and identify the full nature of the problem. The system focuses 
on the defendant. Witnesses, victims, the community, and other agencies in the 
community have no role unless they have specific evidence to offer relevant to an element 
of the offense. Such evidence is merely used as an instrument for the prosecutor 
or defense to pursue their respective adversarial functions. The evidence is not 
used as part of a problem-solving effort. This closely circumscribed, adversarial 
process is at odds with a problem-solving approach, which calls for including people 
in discussions about the nature of problems and how they can be resolved. 

The rules of evidence themselves restrict the nature of the information admissible in 
the processarguably eroding the power of the open-ended brainstorming so frequently 
used in problem-solving forums. This restriction encourages the police to collaborate 
only within the justice system itself and on a narrowly defined part of the 
whole problem. Police know that a focus on the broader impact of crime will be 
largely ignored by the justice system, contrary to the ethos of problem-oriented policing. 

A third contrast between the two approaches is that the justice systems presumption 
of innocence and the concept of a fair trial are ideals that have come to preoccupy 
thinking about procedure and due process without concern for the outcome. 


Case Study: 
Diagnosis by the System by Itself Tackles Only One Aspect of 
a Wider Problem 

Police should be moving away from assuming that they can diagnose the problems in a 
community without the involvement of the community itself. The gang problem often 
involves criminal conduct, including serious violence and substance abuse, but there are 
other ways of defining the problem too. Bostons Operation Nitelite, in which the agencies 
across the justice system have worked effectively together to reduce gun violence through 
joint activities, information sharing, attending community and gang member meetings, 
and home visits, has contributed to a dramatic drop in homicides and gun-related crime. 
But gang membership persists and aiming with weapons is commonplace among teenagers 
who report their fear of the streets and the schools. As Roger Graef reported in the 1998 PBS 
film documentary In Search of Law and Order, They [the gang members] are absorbed 
with day to day survival and dont look ahead to the future. The police focus was on reducing 
guns on the street and violence. In the short term, at least, law enforcement methods 
may be the only appropriate recourse. However, crime reduction needs to be seen in a wider 
context (including crime prevention at an early stage of gang development). When the 
recipients of the enforcement see no alternative way of life, there must be a better balance 
between applying time and money to law enforcementand addressing the basic needs of 
housing, education, skills training, and drug treatment. 

Case Study: 
Criminal Justice Defines Problems According to Law, Not How 
They Are Experienced by People 

A man was arrested after firing a gun in the middle of a baseball field that was being used 
by two school teams. He was charged with two offenses: unlawful possession of a firearm 
and discharging a firearm in a public place. The jury foreman who sat in at the trial said, 
At the end of the case, although we found him guilty, we felt we were no nearer understanding 
why the man had done what he did. He might have been mentally deranged, a 
drug dealer, an upset father, or high on drugs. We will never know because the case gave us 
probably less than 10% of the information that we needed to have to make a sensible judgment. 

Justice is measured by how far due process has been followed, which is at odds with 
problem-solving approaches that focus on desired goals. The adage that justice is 
served even if the guilty go free, or if a plea has been taken on a lesser charge, suggests 
that a game is being played out according to ruleswithout heed to broader 
issues. This paradox is compounded by the offender being entitled to put the prosecution 
to the test to see whether the standard of proof can be met, even if the offender 
has admitted to committing the offense. The obligations under problem-solving 
processes are more akin to those finding acceptance among lawyers in civil cases, 
which are to provide mechanisms to produce an acceptable result that resolves conflict 
while minimizing expense and stress on participants. 


The presumption of innocence is an important idealas is the right to silencefor 
those offenders who deny guilt. But these aspects of the justice system afford other 
people opportunities for avoiding responsibility, which creates a barrier to problem 
solving. 

A fourth contrast is that, in the justice system, justice is defined as giving the defendant 
due process and applying appropriate sanctions. The justice systems focus on 
the defendant often precludes appropriate attention to the interests of the public and 
of the victims of crime. Victim and witness services, court visits, compensation and 
restitution orders, and victim/community impact statements are relatively recent innovations, 
but they may not address the full consequences of crime if the justice system 
retains a narrow understanding of what justice means. A narrow definition is counter 
to problem solving, which encourages solutions that try to take into account everyones 
needs and interests. 

Case Study:
Formal Procedures Take Justice Out of the System

A man rapes a woman. He does not deny it to the police nor does he admit it. He simply keeps 
silent. He is charged with rape. In court he is never asked whether he admits the charge, and 
so he pleads Not Guilty in order to put the prosecution to the proof, in the hope that they will 
fail to prove the case. The defense lawyer alleges that the woman had dressed provocatively, 
that she encouraged his clients advances and consented to the indecencies inflicted 
upon her. When she denies this he puts it to her that she is lying. The woman breaks down 
and cries. The jury has a reasonable doubt and therefore must find the man Not Guilty. Even 
though the man may later admit his guilt, he cannot be tried again for that rape. As he has 
not given evidence, he has not committed perjury. He is free forever. Does he think that justice 
has been done? The woman knows that he raped her and feels that she has been branded 
by the verdict as a slut and a liar. Does she think that justice has been done? The officer 
in charge of the case felt that his witness had been telling the truth. Does he think that justice 
has been done? The woman tells her friends and others in the community of her experience 
of the law. Will they think that justice has been done? The problem is that he was 
never asked whether he admitted the charge. 

SOURCE: Adapted from McElrea, F.W.M., Accountability in the Community: Taking Responsibility for Offending, 
Legal Research Foundation, 1995. 

Finally, the criminal justice system is a professionalized system in which the actors are 
trained, the language is legalistic, and the decisionmaking is standardized by process 
and sentencing guidelines that are incomprehensible to most lay people. With community 
policing and problem-oriented policing, no one has expert status since everyones 
contribution is seen as a necessity. The discourse is in ordinary language, and 
the decisionmaking is flexible and is tailored to local need. Figure 6 contrasts the two 
processes. As David Lehman, Assistant District Attorney of Milwaukee County, 
Wisconsin, has said: 

Rules of evidence are not the only means of resolving conflict. 


Figure 6. Partnership for Crime Clearance Only or for 
Problem Solving? 

Community 
Complaints 
About Crime 

Reports Taken 
by Police

Community Partnership  
Meetings with community to identify nature of problem, 
 not only to focus on offenders 

Criminal justice 
response is part of 
wider response to the 
whole problem and 
not seen in terms of 
broken laws alone 

Housing, local government, 
schools, victim 
services, etc., engaged 
in tackling identified 
issues 

Community aware 
of what is going on 

Feedback to 
community

Community Policing 
Engagement of community and other agencies
to identify and resolve problems 

Justice Process
Information solicited 
from community to 
identify offenders and 
witnesses who have 
evidence 

Pressure to detect 
offenders and bring 
them to court
 
Court process 

Community unlikely to 
be aware of what 
happens 
 
Traditional Policing 
Community depends 
on police and justice 
system; no other 
resources mobilized 
outside the formal 
justice system 

Under which model is the community likely to feel safer?

The present justice system is also underpinned by a retributive (or punitive) philosophy. 
The focus is on punishment rather than addressing the collective harm identifiable 
through collaboration and consultation. The just desserts theory claims justice 
is delivered when offenders receive a sanction appropriate to the crime. Heavy sanctions 
are seen as satisfying the needs of victims and communities (who otherwise 


often get nothing from the system). Yet, responding to those responsible for crime is 
not the same thing as responding to the problem of crime. With community policing 
and problem-oriented policing, the focus is on identifying problems collaboratively 
and finding out how, and by whom, the problems can be resolved. 

Case Study:
Legal Definitions Obscure Real Harm

A young boy was kidnapped by a teenage gang and blindfolded, tied up with rope, and left 
hanging over a canal bridge. The police located the offenders and charged them with 
assault. The district attorneys office wanted to reduce the charges from a felony assault to 
a misdemeanor because this was the first time that the offenders had come to notice. The 
views of the victims family and the local community were ignored despite their claims that 
the victim had been bullied for months and was severely traumatized. This situation was 
having an impact also on other young school children. They were afraid to walk to and 
from the school because the victim had told them about the threats he had been receiving. 
Fear in the community was high because one of the gang members had suggested that 
things were going to get worse. 

Case Study: 
Relevance Defined by Court Is Often Different From Relevance 
for Community 

A cricket match between two Bangladeshi teams broke out into fighting, resulting in five 
players hospitalized with cricket bat injuries. At least two of the players were in a critical 
condition with head wounds. The police arrested and prosecuted the assailants. They also 
ran a community meeting to find out the real source of the tension. At first, no one would 
talk. Then a young man pointed his finger to the elders sitting at the front of the meeting 
place and said, This is all because of their inability to resolve their differences about how 
to run the temple. The elders, who had been quiet up to that moment and who had not 
been at the cricket match, started to speak about the difficulties that existed between factions 
involved in running the day-to-day activities of the temple. Most people agreed with 
the temple leader when he said, The problems in our community would never have been 
understood by the courtsnot even recognized as being relevant. 

Examining the criminal justice system in this way reveals the tunnel vision of the present 
approach when compared with the problem-solving approach. 


Comparing the Criminal Justice System with Community Policing 

Table 2 contrasts the characteristics of the criminal justice system with those of community 
policing. 

Table 2. Comparison of Characteristics 

Criminal Justice System 
Adversarial process 
Individual cases 
Problem defined according to law 
Public participation limited to 
 providing solicited evidence for 
 use solely by lawyers 
Excludes people, information, 
 and feelings 
Focuses generally only on offenders 
Outcome focused on fairness 
 to the defendant 
Cases are dealt with by trained 
 professionals through a system that 
 the public finds hard to understand 

Community Policing/ 
Problem-Oriented Policing 
Dynamic, educative process 
Pattern analysis 
Problem defined after broad 
 consultation 
Public participation is a vital function of 
 gaining shared ownership 
Encourages involvement, information 
 sharing, and open discussion 
Focus is more holistic as regards the 
 impact and consequences for everyone 
Outcome is evaluated on desired 
 goals agreed by the problem-solving 
 partnership 
Encourages lay participation and 
 open dialogue, which promotes 
 broad understanding 

Tensions exist between the rationale for community policing and problem-oriented 
policing, which promote the coproduction of public safety by the police and the community, 
and the expert definition and resolution of crime that characterize the criminal 
justice system. The police are confronted with these tensions as progressive 
attempts to explore collaborative problem-solving are often followed by working with 
an adversarial and punitive justice system. The fact that enforcement is seen all too 
readily as the only viable route to safer communitiesby the police and the public
seriously erodes the recognition that society requires additional social controls. 


Police in Their Comfort Zone 

Collaborative efforts by the police with other agencies and the community too often 
retreat to the use of criminal prosecution and recourse to the criminal justice system. 
As long as few law enforcement agencies are challenging traditional justice processes, 
problem resolutionwhich provides evidence with which traditional assumptions 
can be challengedis marginalized. The dominance of the criminal justice system in 
police responses to crime and calls for service remains a striking feature of even the 
most progressive police departments. 

There are good reasons for this state of affairs. The police gain much of their power 
and authority from their position as gatekeeper to the justice system. The police have 
the power to arrest and to gather information. They have developed expertise in crime 
recording, investigation, and evidence gathering. They accrue resources to ensure 
that these activities can be sustained. Technological needs to support these activities 
become all too apparent based on the high volume of crime being handled in this way. 
The traditional professionalization of activities is reinforced by the systems that are 
required to prop them up. Police officers are more likely to be gaining training in 
computer skills and form filling than in victim trauma or in repeat victimization. Since 
the system itself can be all-absorbing, challenging the efficacy of the system necessitates 
a whole new mindset. Internal accountability for paying heed to the system can 
outstrip the importance of accountability looking outward, beyond the number of 
arrests and clearances attained. Crime fighting is essentially focused on prosecuting 
offenders (in lieu of other crime reduction strategies). According to one commentator, 
the punitive approach is by now a deep-rooted aspect of our culture, embedded 
in the common sense of the public, the police and the judiciary.25 

How the police approach problem-solving forums in the community also can be influenced 
by their own preoccupation with maintaining law enforcement systems that 
support the justice system. Police officers may be unaware of the power and influence 
they bring to meetings with lay community groups that are calling for responsible 
leadership. If the police construct problems in terms that fit with the requirements of 
the justice system, rather than looking at more social reasons for crime and disorder 
problems, this can quickly set the framework for discussions with the public. This 
influence is heightened by the fact that the lay public is conversant neither with the 
law nor with alternative methods of resolving conflict. 

While problem diagnosis (or problem identification) encourages information sharing 
across a broad spectrum of concerns, hopes, fears, and feelings among community 
members, a comprehensive definition of a problem may be usurped by the ready definition 
of crime by the criminal law. The police can quickly identify the powers that 
they can use to tackle problems affecting the community (stop/searches, road checks, 
arrest, constraint orders, etc.), but they are still learning new methods of problem-
solving. In addition, the police are greatly influenced by the criminal justice requirements 
for rules of evidence and due process. 


Officers attending the scene of a burglary, for example, can simply focus on examining 
the points of entry, looking for forensic evidence to help detect and convict the 
offender(s), and gauging the reliability of the victim to make a credible witness statement 
for inclusion in the case papers for court. These would be the key considerations 
if the sole aim was to catch the burglar and to pursue a prosecution. But the 
detection of offenders to prosecute before the court should not constitute the totality 
of problem-solving efforts. Arresting offenders can be a vital part of any community 
policing effort, but the criminal justice process is not the raison dtre for community 
policing. 

If the officer is alert to a spate of burglaries in the area that have provoked community 
fear, it is hoped that his actions would be influenced by other needs. He may think 
about alerting neighbors, to encourage a neighborhood watch to minimize the 
chances of another attack. Vigilant on identifying crime prevention opportunities, he 
might analyze how the location and time of the incident compare with those of similar 
incidents. He might think about the need for victim reassurance and victim services. 

Pursuing these lines of inquiry and service ought to shift the focus beyond criminal 
justice to gaining the participation of lay people in the community and of other public 
agencies and voluntary groups. The incidence of burglary becomes a problem that 
requires the attention of many others besides the police, including local government, 
architects, and neighborhood watch groups. Broader participation is critical to social 
control, for without this the burglary problem is perceived to be one for the police 
alone to handle. Back to the traditional model of policing! 

The systems for promoting broader participation are often absent, however, because 
the police see their relationship with the justice system as overriding. If, instead, the 
impact of police actions on victim satisfaction was seen as the critical issue, for example, 
then police departments would be working more closely with victim services. 
Information flow between the police and victims would be seen as a priority, repeat 
victimization policies to protect victims from the likelihood of future burglaries would 
be in place, and more work would be done to collaborate with building designers. 
The recovery of stolen property would be streamlined, and compensation orders 
would be a matter of course. 

This example of how a burglary problem could be seen differently by the police and 
could necessitate the engagement of other agencies and community members is not 
intended to suggest that the police relinquish their pursuit of offenders; rather, the 
example is used to demonstrate the preeminence of the legal control of crime over 
the social control of crime. Yet a burglary does not involve only legal issues requiring 
that an offender be caught and prosecuted. Such a crime also raises issues related 
to the vulnerability of victims, the loss of property, and the protection of the neighborhood 
and of crime prevention opportunities. Many police departments are building 
an infrastructure for dealing with these issues, but they are still in the minority. 


As long as problems are defined primarily by the criminal law and by the rules of evidence, 
problem-oriented policing is in danger of being applied only reactively, to violations 
of the law, instead of encouraging a dialogue with communities as to how violations 
can be deterred or prevented altogether. Defining the problem of crime in narrow 
terms is creating a huge barrier to establishing the extent to which policing is still 
about law enforcementand, more importantly, the extent to which it should be 
about building community capacity to promote informed social controls. 

Goldstein hinted at this uncertainty in a period of change in his prophetic 1993 piece 
The New Policing: Confronting Complexity. He suggested that, as advanced forms of 
community policing unfolded, the characteristics stemming from the traditional 
emphasis on law enforcement would begin to be rejected. For Goldstein, the police 
relationship with, and dependence on, the criminal justice system needed to be 
explored. There are pragmatic reasons, he noted, for searching intensively for alternatives 
to the criminal justice system as the way to get the police job done.26 

Those pragmatic reasons stem from the consequences of mixing problem-solving 
approaches with adversarial law enforcement that resolves neither crime nor its consequences. 
This may not be an entirely self-induced situation, for the police are not 
the only ones operating in a comfort zone. 

The Public in Its Comfort Zone 

Members of the public are not normally involved in formal crime control activities. 
Their participation may be confined to a meeting with the police (or other criminal 
justice agency), soliciting their views on local problems or providing evidence for a 
prosecution, or lending support to the case of the defense. 

The community, often unaware of its own power and capacity for problem solving, 
may too quickly rely on the police to deal with their problems through enforcement. 
This reliance is not usually challenged by the police, who are comfortable proceeding 
in this manner, particularly with the added benefit of community support. The 
reliance is convenient for the public, whose members often see themselves as too 
busy, too ill-equipped, or rightfully expecting the police to do what they are paid to 
do. 

This is problematic for several reasons. First, the public relinquishes its responsibility 
for participating in the resolution of problems, thus defeating a principal purpose 
of collaboration. If the outcome of problem identification is the pursuit of offenders, 
for example, the involvement of the community is generally over. The community may 
have contributed to a better appreciation of the problem and helped to identify suspects, 
but it has no mandate to precipitate a criminal prosecution. Community members 
rely on the police, who are essentially left to conduct the investigation and to prepare 
the case for a prosecution. As long as collaboration between the public and the 
police leads to constant use of the justice system, social controls that could be applied 
to tackle or prevent crime and disorder remain a tool with great, but unused, potential. 


Second, over-reliance on the police places unrealistic expectations on formal controls 
to deliver public safety. The public is generally not well acquainted with the justice 
system and its tunnel vision. The public assumes that the criminal justice system 
delivers public safety. Yet this is not what the system is designed to do. Even if the 
system was somehow made to work better, one observer said, it would not produce 
public safety. For public safety requires restoring desired norms at times and in places 
where the rules of civil human interaction have broken down where there are believed 
to be no consequences for choosing what it is forbidden to do.27 The clamor for 
tougher punishment is a by-product of unfulfilled expectations. Yet tougher sentences 
are unlikely to produce public safety; only a small proportion of crime cases end up 
in the justice system, prisons have long been known as universities of crime, and a 
70 percent recidivism rate among ex-inmates illustrates the short-term effect of incarceration. 

As Geoff Mulgan puts it, Even a community police officer is not a parent. A precinct 
house is not a good spot to learn the rules, a courtroom not the place to begin a moral 
education. A cellblock is not a neighborhood. And prison is no place to learn how to 
live, work, and succeed in a community of free men and women.28 In other words, 
public safety requires socialization and community engagement. The criminal justice 
system cannot be a substitute for the social controls found in communities. 

Taxpayers seem willing to pay even more than the current $120 billion estimated29 for 
criminal justice alone, an indication that dependence on the formal system is acute. 
They do not seem confident, yet, of the power of citizen participation in local problem 
solving. The combination of the limited involvement of the community in the resolution 
of problems and the continued expectation that the police and justice system 
should tackle crime and disorder, has other consequences as well. Social cohesion is 
undermined by formal crime control measures that fail to educate citizens about the 
importance of their participation in informal social regulation. If the community is 
denied the opportunity to learn what it can do to contribute to safety, the inclination 
is to shrug off responsibility for working out solutions to problems. Figure 7 indicates 
some of the consequences of total public dependence on the criminal justice system. 

For the formal crime control system, this situation is especially counter-effective; a 
public highly concerned for its own well-being and safety will place huge demands on 
the authorities to afford it protection and to respond to reported problems. Unless the 
authorities show a willingness to share responsibility by working closely with communities, 
the traditional model of professional policing re-emerges: an overwhelmed 
police department without resources for anything other than reactive, fire-brigade 
maintenance of order and crime control through enforcement. 

When communities are left unaware of their own capacity for controlling and reducing 
crime, that ignorance is part of a vicious circle that perpetuates the weakness of 
community and the power of public institutions (see Figure 8). The antidote to weak 
communities (which provide fertile ground for crime and disorder) is participation. 
John Stuart Mill wrote, Let a person have nothing to do for his country, and he will 
not care for it.30 Similarly, community participation is essential if communities are to 
care for themselves. 


Figure 7. Consequences of Over-Dependence on the 
Criminal Justice System

Public Dependence on the Criminal 
Justice System 

Public fails to understand the 
limitations on what the criminal 
justice system can realistically 
achieve 

Public fails to take 
responsibility 

Public fails to learn 
what role it can play 

Figure 8. Unintended Consequences of the Comfort Zones 

Dependence on 
the police and 
justice system 

Expectation of safety being delivered

Expectation not met 

Clamor for more 
justice interventions,
including tougher 
sentencing 

Fear persists 

Crime 

The irony is that the community members in all likelihood care very much about what 
goes on in their area as it relates to both their own safety and that of others in the 
community. What is often missing is the vehicle for participatory decisionmaking in 
which problems can be discussed and resolved, with or without the help of professional 
agencies such as the police. 

A new commitment to enhancing the power of local communities (including churches, 
schools, local associations, and business groups) is essential to tap into community 
care and to mobilize citizens who have grown skeptical of their own capacity for 
controlling crime. McKnight asks the question, Why are we putting so much resource 
into the criminal justice system and society seems less just and less secure?12, p.41 

The hidden message in the vicious circle shown in Figure 8 is that paid professionals 
are seen as the care providers and problem solvers, inferring that community groups 


do not need to bother. The professionals compound this sense by operating on 
assumptions about their own capacity for defining the problems and coming up with 
remedies, rejecting citizens as problem definers and solvers. In short, professionals 
(inadvertently perhaps) support the lack of citizen engagement by maintaining that 
they are the solution to the problems that they see besetting the community. It is this 
thread that needs reweaving to reorient professional service providers to help develop, 
not dictate the limits of, citizen capacity. 

Unintended Consequences of Applying Enforcement and Formal Control Measures 

While everyone remains in their comfort zone, the consequences also remain 
unchanged. The traditional response to crime has been a major contributing factor to 
public passivity. Police have been responsive to reported crime through arrests and 
through prosecution in the criminal justice system. The system defines crime according 
to the law and reacts to offenders essentially by punishing them. The public is not 
generally involved, other than by reporting crime and serving as jurors. This traditional 
process thwarts opportunities for gaining insights about the meaning of crime 
and how it might best be prevented or dealt with. The public does not understand the 
justice system, and there are few opportunities for the public to influence its operation. 
The failure of crime control, which becomes apparent when problems persist, is 
experienced as a failure by the police, the courts, and the corrections system. 

The result is that effective crime control is equated, still, with being tough on offenders, 
while the conditions in which crime happens (or is created) are left unattended. 
The vicious circle is perpetuated by comfort zones that have other blind spots. 

In the 1996 edition of Crime Control and Industry,31 Nils Christie tells a story about 
how people have become accustomed to this vicious circle of dependency. Christie 
examined the advertisements in the official publication of the American Correctional 
Association, Corrections Today, noting that 111 pertained to prison building and 
prison security in 1991. By the time his book went to print 3 years later, that figure 
had increased by 256. The advertisements featured security bonds and leather 
restraints for inmates, the profits to be gained from investing in prison growth, x-ray 
screening, and equipment to keep prisons free from crime. An examination of the 
magazine in 1998 shows similar advertisements, with an overwhelming sense of a fast 
growing industry that has crept up quietly but nonetheless is firmly rooted in current 
crime control. As Christie commented in 1996 after he re-read the journals, Now the 
ads no longer had quite the same punch... I had grown accustomed to it. 

At face value, this has little to do with policingthe police are not responsible for 
sentencing practices that result in rapid increases in the incarceration rate. However, 
while incarceration may remove from sight those people who commit crime, the causes 
and the impact of criminal behavior remain unaddressed. This a problem for the 
police and the public and adds to the vicious circle. 


On top of this, it is probably fair to say not only that people have grown accustomed 
to the level of incarceration, but that there are now other powerful forces stemming 
from public dependency. The quantity of private money involved in prison building is 
such that flyers for Wall Street conferences read, You, too, can profit from crime, 
and Job opportunities in the corrections industry abound. Penal policy may be 
about crime control, but it is also a commodity that is politically marketableand 
disturbing because of the intersection of power and individual liberty. Other interests 
are also at play. 

The Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy collects news articles about economic 
interests and prison expansion that tell us how far-reaching the unintended consequences 
of crime fighting have become. In Frackville, Pennsylvania, the unemployment 
problem (following the closure of coal mines) vanished after prisons became 
the fastest growing industry in the state. The resulting 1,500 jobs and a payroll of $50 
million since 1993 have rejuvenated the town, at least in economic terms. State 
Senator Picola comments, There is little pressure to put fewer people behind bars. 
The public views prison spending as it did defense spending during the Cold War. In 
both cases the public feels the expenditures are necessary for the sake of their safety.
32 Other states are finding the same solution to economic rejuvenation. Since the 
private prison market is funded entirely by government, firms need to ally themselves 
with politicians to sustain the growth. The politicians are often all too willing to cooperate 
with public pressures about crime and unemployment. In fiscal year 1995, state 
and Federal governments planned to spend $5.1 billion in new prison construction, 
at an average cost of $58,000 for a medium security cell. 

This level of expenditure makes sense, perhaps, in light of public anxiety about crime, 
until it is recognized that these expenditures are competing with expenditures on 
crime prevention, treatment, education, rehabilitation of offenders, and developing 
community capacity for informal crime control. Unfortunately, these links seldom are 
clearly shown. A telling message is the recent establishment of the Open Society 
Institute by the philanthropist George Soros, who cites the current response to crime 
as a major threat to a free democracy in America. 

Who Is in Our Prisons? 

Despite a public perception that our prisons are filled with depraved murderers, 
many people in custody in Americas prisons and jails have committed nonviolent 
crimes. Many of the crimes are related to substance addiction or mental health problems. 
The vast majority of the prisoners are poor or illiterate, and too many are 
minorities. Removing these people from communities does not strengthen those communities 
nor, in many cases, does it conform with the communities wishes. Although 
dangerous people need to be isolated from civil society, communities need to find 
their own ways to cope with low levels of deviance. The intervention of the criminal 
justice system can interfere with communities efforts to maintain their own order. 
The prison industry continues to expand with limited public knowledge about its 
ramifications. 


Several facts need to be noted: 

 36 percent of jail inmates in 1991 were unemployed prior to entering 
jail.33 

 65 percent of state prison inmates in 1991 had not completed high 
school. 

 Nearly 39 percent of all jail inmates, as children, lived in families that 
received welfare or public housing assistance.33 At the time of their 
arrest, 20 percent were receiving governmental assistance, including 
welfare, Social Security, and workers compensation. 

 57 percent of jail inmates in 1989 reported they were under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs at the time they committed their offense.34 

 The risk of the mentally ill being jailed is also high. More than a quarter 
of all inmates report having been treated for a mental or emotional 
problem. The New York Times has reported that an estimated 1 in 10 
of the total inmate population suffers from schizophrenia or manic or 
major depression.35 

 32 percent of jail inmates in 1991 who had been free for at least 1 year 
prior to their arrest had annual incomes of under $5,000. 

 Nearly one in three female inmates in state prisons was serving a sentence 
for a drug offense in 1991 compared with one in eight in 1986.36 

 54 percent of those held in local jails in 1996 were already under the 
jurisdiction of the criminal justice system at the time they were arrested 
for their current offense.37 

 71 percent of those sentenced to state prisons in 1993 were convicted 
of nonviolent crimes, including drug offenses (30 percent) and property 
offenses (31 percent). 

 The negative effects on children of incarcerated parents include traumatic 
stress, loneliness, developmental problems, loss of self-confidence, 
aggression, withdrawal, depression, substance abuse, and 
teenage pregnancy.38 

 Almost 48 percent of female jail inmates and 13 percent of male jail 
inmates report having been sexually or physically abused at least once 
in their lives; 27 percent of the women said they had been rape victims. 

 In 1970, the number of inmates in state and Federal prisons was 
200,000 (Sentencing Project). There are now more than 1.7 million 


Americans incarcerated, representing a ratio of 1:155 of the population.
39 This represents a sixfold increase in the Federal and state inmate 
population during the last 25 years. 

 Almost 1 in 3 (32 percent) black males in the age group 2029 is 
under some type of correctional control (incarceration, probation, or 
parole), as is 1 in 15 young white males and 1 in 8 young Hispanic 
males. About 63 percent of jail inmates are African-American. The 
number of women in prison has increased fivefold since 1980,40 to 
74,730. One in 16 women entering prison is pregnant. Seventy-eight 
percent of the women in prison have children. It is estimated that about 
two million children have at least one parent in prison at any given 
time.41 

In the book Psychological Explanations of Crime,8 David Farrington states there is 
clear evidence that the following characteristics are commonly associated with those 
who commit crimes: 

 Low family income 
 Exclusion from school 
 Mental disturbance 
 Poor housing 
 Substance abuse 
 Experience of violence 
 Poor parenting 
 Delinquent family/friends 
 Unstable employment record 

As the New Zealand Justice Departments portrait of the average inmate depicts, 
About two-thirds are beneficiaries (of welfare), three-quarters unemployed, half 
have severe alcohol and/or drug problems (two-thirds of women inmates), half have 
had psychiatric assessment, half have come from broken homes, nine out of 10 have 
no formal qualifications.42 The picture is similar in the United States: prisons are full 
of people who are poor, dispossessed, vulnerable, sick, illiterate, and addicted. Its 
the same in every country in the Western world. 

The Case for Prevention in Lieu of Incarceration 

John McKnight writes, The most significant function of the criminal justice system is 
to compensate for the limits and failures of societys other major systems. That compensation 
could result in deterrence, removal, or reformation. However, none of 
these results reforms the other system failures.12 Information about who is incarcerated 
and the impact of incarceration raises questions that have been bubbling under 
the surface for years. How many inmates are in jail or prison directly or indirectly 
because of defects in our social systems and structures? Imprisoning perpetrators 
may bring a welcome respite to those concerned about crime, but the relief is short-
lived and camouflages important opportunities for community and societal problem 


solving. Police officers cannot afford to deny these links between societal defects and 
crime if they are committed to working with communities on crime, fear, and disorder 
issues. 

Prisons can become schools for crime. Imprisonment damages people: it removes 
self-responsibility, wrecks relationships, and promotes drug abusewhile costing 
thousands of dollars per inmate. It would be better to direct the attention at the causes 
of so much crimemale violence, unemployment, sexual dysfunction, drug and 
alcohol addiction, racial and cultural alienation, and economic disparity. Statistics are 
problematic, but these points illustrate how prison is being used to compensate for 
social systems that allow unemployment, lack of education, unchecked substance 
abuse, mental illness, parenting problems, and poverty, among other ills, to remain 
neglected problems in many communities. 

As Garland has commented, The new penal policies have no broader agenda, no 
strategy for progressive social change and no concern for the overcoming of social 
divisions. They are, instead, policies for managing the danger and policing the divisions 
created by a certain kind of social organization, and for shifting the burdens of 
social control on to individuals and organizations that are often poorly equipped to 
carry out the task.9 

While investments are being made in traditional crime control approaches, the almost 
surreptitious development of gated communities, private security, and public surveillance 
carries on in the face of the challenges presented by abandoned urban spaces, 
fear, and lack of knowledge of how other measures could be effective. What if the 
investment were spread to create open spaces for new dialogue, diagnoses, proposals, 
and assessments as to what could be done differently to resolve the problem of 
crime? What if more effort were put into diminishing the fragmentation of communities, 
destruction of public spaces, and limitations on freedoms? 

Is it not likely that more attention to, and investment in, longer term prevention and 
intervention strategies would bring about a sustained decline in the level of crime and 
a reduction in the harmful consequences of fear engendered by this threat to public 
safety? And if the answer is yes, who is responsible for making this happen? What 
would work to achieve citizen and community engagement in issues that contribute to 
crime, with the aim of creating real alternatives to the emphasis on incarceration? 

As Judge Barry Stuart writes, Excessive media attention on heinous violent acts, or 
the hostile details of violence, induces public abhorrence prompting calls for harsh 
punitive sanctions. A better understanding of criminals and crime will reveal that most 
people who break the law are not hardened criminals and few of their deeds legally 
classified involve a degree of moral depravity that would be generally considered 
repulsive.43 


Like the proverbial sweeping things under the carpet, the dominance of retributive 
justice has contributed to avoidance of the commitment to social justice powerfully 
argued for by the Presidential Commission more than 30 years ago. The result is huge 
gaps in our understanding of the crime problem. The reliance on incarceration is a 
strong indication that society does not see in the present justice paradigm any way to 
tackle the causes of crime, disorder, and harmful behavior. 

What is needed, then, is a framework that recognizes the values and principles of 
community policing, especially with regard to capacity building in communities 
and self-policing. The police have a role to play in examining the relationships 
between problem solving, criminal justice, and punishmentif policing is to 
move substantially away from short-term reactive solutions that ignore the 
broader picture. 

Conclusion to Part 2: The Crime Problem and the Criminal Justice System 

As Stuart Scheingold wrote, We are left with a puzzling picture. The currents of 
reform seem to be pushing the police and the criminal courts in distinctly different 
directions. The courts are becoming more punitive while the move toward community 
policing suggests a moderating element in police practice.44 

Many of the current paradoxes in law and order stem from the way the crime problem 
has become an overriding focus for police departments (with the inextricable 
link between traditional policing and the formal criminal justice system)and from 
a deep skepticism among the police and the public about the existence and capacity 
of community. Without attention to these factors, the developments in community 
policing and problem-oriented policing could remain fragile. Existing tensions are 
likely to mushroom and to jeopardize positive reform if new practices in policing continue 
operating within a traditional paradigm of what law and order are about. 

There is good reason for skepticism about the prospects for community policing as 
long as building prisons and recruiting more police are seen as the solutions to 
crime. Recall the rationale for community policing, beyond promoting good police-
public relationships: First, crime is no longer regarded as a series of individual events 
but as a phenomenon that is having huge consequences for society. Second, the police 
alone cannot control crime without the involvement of the community. 

The ethos of community policing and problem solving is to focus on developing the 
controls that can deliver informal social regulation in a way that promotes cohesion. 
The emphasis ought to be on community engagement and empowerment instead of 
repressive enforcement measuresinclusion rather than exclusion. The idea is to 
promote self-help, self-policing, and self-organization among communities, with the 
communities regarding security as a public commodity that can be coproduced by the 
police and the community. The clamor for tougher sentencing of convicted offenders 
results from not delivering public safety by informal means. 


Policing in a vacuumwithout examining the effects of the current politicization of 
the crime problem, and without examining how the punitive emphasis of the justice 
system is hiding contradictions and paradoxeswill continue to stunt community 
policing efforts. Community policing ought not to be viewed merely as a more effective 
enforcement of the criminal law by the professional police. Community policing 
requires a sharper focus on citizen and community engagement in crime control. 

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, Democracy itself has created a new tyrantpublic opinion. 
In some ways, both the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system 
have become trapped by the general rhetoric about crime. The result has been a 
plethora of crime control tactics without any clear strategic direction; community 
policing and problem solving are developing at the same time as are increased private 
security, gated communities, and high levels of incarceration. Increasing the technology 
and hardware available to police departments is in danger of paramilitarizing law 
enforcement unless these developments are balanced with similar investments in 
community building and community education in problem-solving policing. 

Fear of crime is a dominant force across the country driving the expansion of private 
security industries, locks on doors, less eye contact on the street, and emphatic warnings 
to children to be awareall have a cumulative effect.45 

The withdrawal of citizens from interactions that would strengthen the sense of community
and their dependence on the formal systems of crime controlpose a significant 
threat to democracy. If the criminal justice system continues to fall short in 
delivering public safety, and if the potential of communities to regulate themselves 
continues to be often buried, continued repressive measures and further citizen withdrawal 
are guaranteed. Thus, the climate of fear and hate toward criminals is jeopardizing 
the principles of inclusion and of protection of individual rights (see Figure 9). 
Crime is hugely problematic for any society, but if we reject the importance of working 
hard on devising solutions that are sustainable and that respect every human 
being, then we are on a slippery slope. Policing in a free society requires that the 
police themselves acknowledge this danger. If we want to sustain democracy, then the 
responsibility of police as well as others is to adopt a stance that supports participatory 
problem solving, which can deliver public safety without threatening an open 
society. 

To build on active collaboration between the police and the public, a coherent framework 
is needed in which community policing changes can take hold over the long 
haul. Shaping the framework requires attention to the relationship between policing 
and criminal justice. A new paradigm is needed that clarifies the values and priorities 
of both. The paradigm is already emerging from several sources. First, there 
are those who are demanding closer scrutiny of the efficacy and morality of traditional 
crime fighting. The war on crime is expensive financially and democratically, 
diverting resources from education, health, other kinds of community investment, and 
solutions to build social cohesion. 


Figure 9. Different Forces Operating In Law 

Should Be  

Formal 
Justice System 

Problem-
solving 
oriented to 
community 
and 
individual 
well-being 

Healthy 
Democracy 

Counter Forces Pulling 
Toward Healthy Democracy 

Community policing 
Problem solving 
Prohibitive costs of incarceration 
Interest in conflict resolution 
Innovative community initiatives 
Grassroots leadership 
Skepticism about criminal justice system 

Should be 
strengthened 
to build 
capacity for 
self-policing 
to promote 
social 
justice 

Community 
Strengthened 

Pulling Forces 

Public pressure based on fear, vengeance 
Zero tolerance and prison works dogma 
Media hype about crime 
Professionalism: We know what is best 
State interests (avoiding dealing with 
 social problems) 
Costs of incarceration largely divert 
 resources from investment in social 
 reform 
Little empathy for root causes argument 
Economic interests in prison building 
 and security measures 
Increased use of private security 
 and CCTV 

But Is Becoming

More Punitive 

Reliance on 
incarceration 
and formal 
measures 

Threatened 
Democracy 

Communities 
not aware how 
to tackle 
crime by 
informal 
means 

Community 
Weakened 

Pulling Forces 

Limited understanding that 
 system cant work by itself 
Adversarial attitudes: relationships 
 broken, divisiveness 
Virtues of care, respect, and 
 civility collapsing 
Fear rampant, preventing intervention 
Denial of educational opportunities 
Limited understanding 
 of the meaning of crime 
Problem of crime seems 
 intractable and intimidating 
Habit of reliance on police 
 and formal system 
Lack of influence, confidence, and 
 know-how to work on alternative 
 approaches 
Failure to apply informed control 


A second theme emerging is the notion of community empowerment and the need 
for neighborhood solutions to social problems. Debate is lively about the relevance of 
community to informal social controls, what relationships are key to minimizing 
opportunities for crime, and what role the community can play in responding to 
crime. There are no ready answers to the fundamental questions How much should 
crime control be a responsibility of the community? and How much control should 
be retained by the state?; nor is there consensus on the degree to which the responsibilities 
should be shared. For many stakeholders, the future should lie in redefining 
the crime problem in terms that foster cooperation between government and community, 
with security and safety being public commoditiesconditions that need to 
be coproduced by the state and the peoplerather than monopolies of the state. 

A third source of the emerging paradigm is the clamor for an approach to the settlement 
of disputes that is more social and conciliatory than the legalistic, adversarial 
processes afforded by the formal justice system. The challenge, it is said, is not so 
much about producing new tactics for traditional crime fighting; rather, the real challenge 
is to think about exchanges between human beings when dealing with unresolved 
conflicts that often lead to criminal behavior. The justice system arguably 
encourages people in communities to tolerate conflict until the law is broken; but this 
approach does real harm by ignoring opportunities for crime prevention. It also 
leaves the system operating in crisis-response mode, having to react to situations too 
developed for more humane interventions. 

It is disingenuous to expect that people living in the most blighted 
inner city areas which now supply the greatest share of persons 
channeled into the criminal justice system can overcome the 
effects of high unemployment, segregation, poor schools, business 
flight, and government neglect and resolve all conflicts on their 
own.46 

There are many, then, who are advocating a different response to crimeand are 
promoting the notion that short-term changes in the crime rate need to be considered 
with skepticism. The growing focus on the well-being of communities by many police 
departments, local government, and justice agencies indicates an increasing understanding 
that a different response is called for. 

It is possible that redefining crime to mean more than breaking the criminal law could 
help to resolve the current paradoxes between the image of fighting crime (through 
well-equipped law enforcement and tough justice penalties) and an image that defines 
crime and disorder problems in local terms and is all about reclaiming neighborhoods 
through consensus building and cooperation. In other words, we must find a 
new definition of crime that focuses more on informal social controls and less on a 
legal approach to the settlement of conflict. 


Part3

Community Policing, 
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
Part 3. Developing a New Paradigm 


Part 3. Developing a New Paradigm 

In 1977, the Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie wrote insightfully, Many among 
us, as laymen, experienced the sad moments of truth when our lawyers tell us that our 
best arguments in our fight against our neighbour are without any legal relevance 
whatsoever and that we for Gods sake ought to keep quiet about them in court.47 

The prosecution, conviction, and punishment of offenders has a place in crime control, 
but there are limitations to this approach. Those committing themselves to problem 
solving should be aware of them. Attaining a healthier balance between law 
enforcement (using the justice system) and a broader effort to resolve problems is 
critical. 

Take the example of a police department that, in conjunction with the local community, 
identifies street robbery as an ongoing problem in the neighborhood. The traditional 
crime-fighting approach would undoubtedly prompt the police department 
(and the local community) to want to use traditional means to reduce the level of robbery 
or to seek to eradicate the problem altogether. One way would be either to 
increase uniform police patrols in the area for a while, thereby deterring offenders, 
or to mount covert observations with a view to arresting identified perpetrators. 
Robbery incidents should decline; fear might subside. 

This could be construed by some as effective community policing. The public is 
involved in identifying the problem. The police are active in responding to their concerns 
and fears, as well as to their expectations that robberies will be reduced. The 
community may even give valuable information and intelligence to help police identify 
the culprits. Witnesses may be encouraged to come forward to support evidence-
gathering activities to strengthen the chances of convicting those responsible for the 
crime. 

A Multifaceted Response to Crime 

The addition of problem-solving methods might lead to an analysis of why robberies 
occur in this neighborhood. There might be poor lighting, an ATM machine (an 
attraction to any opportunistic criminal who observes people withdrawing money in 
the street), or a fast getaway situation because of the layout of the streetsor the robberies 
might happen only on some days and at certain times, demanding another line 
of inquiry. In these cases, situational crime prevention strategies may help to 
remove opportunities for crime that are exploited by offenders. In many cases, 
removal of these opportunities necessitate the involvement of agencies other than the 
police, resulting in shared responsibility to prevent further robberies. Responsibility 
might be shared, for example, with the bank (if the decision is made to remove the 
cash dispenser from the area) or city hall (if extra lighting is installed or barriers are 
erected to make access limited). 


Clearly, such an approach would be entirely consistent with the ethos of effective partnering 
between the police and the community to tackle neighborhood problems. 
Offenders might be detained and successfully prosecuted, the incidence of robbery 
(and ensuing fear) may well be reduced, and public confidence might be regained. 

Two questions need to be asked, however. First, has this addressed the problem? 
Second, what happens when the police (and the partner agencies) stop this concentration 
of effort? 

Let us look briefly at what is not being addressed by this approach. How are the needs 
of existing victims being met by this response? They have been violated, their possessions 
removed (and may still be missing), and their sense of safety disturbed. Their 
fear about being robbed again might persist. The police might well have been sensitive 
toward them when they reported the crime. The robbery victims may have been 
lucky and received feedback (directly, or indirectly from media reports, for example) 
about police activity in the area to detect the offenders or take steps to prevent further 
robberies. They might even find that their offender has been arrested and taken before 
the courts. Surely, they will find reassurance from all this attention? 

Regrettably, the answer is probably not. No two victims experience crime the same 
way. How they feel, how they think, and how they act at the time of the crime, and subsequently, 
will vary. For one thing, to the victims, crime is not a single isolated event 
so much as a disturbance of their world, and the disturbance continues over a period 
of time. Identifying the impact of a crime requires viewing the victim in individual 
terms; there is no standardized impact of crime. There are common factors that can 
be attributed to crime victimization: shock, physical and psychological harm, anger, 
a sense of loss of control, and a feeling of insecurity. How any one person reacts to 
these, however, will vary from person to person. Some will manage to handle the disruption 
on their own or with the support of family and friends. Others may need physiological 
or counseling assistance over a short or long period of time. Some victims 
will suffer depression; some will feel rage; some will feel shame or self blame; and 
others will feel anxiety. 

The impact of crime may put the victim on a rollercoaster of mixed emotions over 
many months (and sometimes years). Feelings can appear, disappear, and reappear; 
relationships with other people can be affected; and trust can be difficult. It is not 
always easy to identify the traumaeither for the victim or those around the victim. 
With the traditional response to crime (even with community involvement and problem 
solving as described), little, if anything, is done to address any physical and emotional 
injury resulting from the robbery. Has the victim had an opportunity to express 
how he or she feels? Or communicate concerns? What happens if the victim feels 
compelled to move away from the area because of the robbery incident? Or withdraws 
from normal activities in the neighborhood? In short, the impact and harm ensuing 
from the crime is unlikely to have been addressed as far as the needs of the victims 
are concerned. 


Turning to the wider community, how have their needs been addressed? Certainly the 
polices attentiveness will foster trust and confidence, thereby reducing fear. The community 
might even be involved in working out ways to reduce the incidence of robbery, 
such as installing extra lighting, promoting changes in the environment, and 
contributing to neighborhood watches. However, to what extent will the police activity 
have addressed the problem of the image this community or neighborhood has 
acquired since robberies became a frequent occurrence? Will this image have a subsequent 
effect on attracting new residents? Will it deter investment in the area? Will 
fear ever really be removed if there are witnesses in the community who have seen or 
heard about the injuries sustained? Will the community opt for security measures that 
install boundaries such as wire fencing? Will the community always feel the consequences 
of a crime wave through increased insurance costs, reduced property values, 
loss of community participation, and antipathy among neighbors? 

The impact of crime on the community in both the short and long term will not necessarily 
be addressed by the activities of the police unless all possible consequences 
of crime are considered. The harms experienced by the community are unlikely to 
have been addressed, for example, if the only result is the installation of closed circuit 
television or extra security patrols. These may reassure people, but the harms 
addressed in this way can permanently alter community relationships. 

And what about the offenders? Those who have already offended and those who are 
temporarily deterred? Has the police activity thwarted their criminal activities? Have 
the offenders learned anything about the harm they have done? Has police activity 
helped to stir their consciences? Have undetected offenders simply gone on to committing 
other kinds of crime? 

Asking who has been committing these crimes may help to identify the perpetrators 
but not the reasons behind the offending behavior. Locating offenders is not the same 
as preventing other would-be offenders. Other lines of inquiry are needed. Perhaps 
gang activity has been increasing at the same that after school programs have been 
closing down. Asking the neighborhood might help. What do they need to keep their 
kids gainfully entertained in the afternoon? How about sports? Is there a field nearby? 
Might recreational activities keep the gang robberies from starting again? Or 
maybe the robberies were economically motivated. Maybe a local factory shut down 
and suddenly local people are out of work and behind on their rent. Different problems 
require different solutions. 

The answers to many of these questions fall beyond the capacity of professional justice 
agencies and require the mobilization of citizens and communities. It would be 
unfair to expect the police to deal with all these issues, but identifying them highlights 
some of the shortcomings of prevalent responses to crime. Crime is not an isolated 
event with a single consequence. Crime, instead, has a number of consequences (as 
well as causes): social, economic, psychological, and culturalstretching out over 
time. The police can address some of these factors, given a level of sensitivity, fore


sight, and intelligent use of interventions to address the harm done, and by exploring 
opportunities for prevention and problem solving. But concentrating on detection and 
the legal definition of crime alone will be of limited value. Figure 10 provides an 
overview of a more multifaceted response to crime. Table 3 gives a different perspective, 
indicating the gaps that need to be bridged to increase public safety. 

Figure 10. Components of a Multifaceted Response to Crime 
Crime Incident 

State  
Criminal and social justice 
responses: courts, police
patrols, situational crime 
prevention, employment, job 
skills 

Offender
Detection, investigation, 
holding to account, 
addressing behavior 
(including diversion and 
treatment) 

Supporters of victim 
and offender 
Join in communication 
flow and increase awareness 
in community of causes and 
consequences of crime 

Victim 
Victim services, identifi-
cation of personal 
impact, help with recovery 

Community
Receives and providesinformation, identifies other 
possible incidents, and provides evidence

The gap between the legal definition of crime and of responses to broken laws, on the 
one hand, and the broader understanding and resolution of conflict, on the other, 
needs to be bridged. Christie understood the difficulties involved in mobilizing a 
broader response to crime. First, those in the formal system have a stake in defining 
conflicts and in stealing them from the parties involved in the conflict (victims, 
offenders, communities). Second, as Christie highlighted: 

Highly industrial societies face major problems in organizing their 
members in ways that a decent quota take part in any activity at 
all... Participation is such a scarcity that insiders create monopolies 
outside outsiders... . Modern criminal control systems represent 
one of the many cases of lost opportunities for involving citizens 
in the tasks that are of immediate importance for them.47 


Table 3. Bridging the Gap to Attain Greater Public Safety 

Aspect of Crime Event
Stakeholder
Victim(s)
Offender
Community
Society

Consequences 
Loss of security
Trauma/depression
Anger/fear
Disruption to lives
Weakened community
Frustration

Factors Affected 
Attitudes
Relationships
Behavior
Levels of trust
Community ties
People (crime affects people in different ways)

Traditional Approach 
 (Defining Crime by Law)
 Victim needs only partially 
  addressed 
 Arresting offenders is main 
  focus 
 Limited attention to long-term 
  community safety 

 Precludes feelings and 
  emotion, generally uses the   
  victims account and information 
  from the community only 
  for the case against offender(s) 
 Selective about the information 
  that is relevant; rules of 
  evidence are paramount 
 Property and harm recovery 
  are secondary to prosecution 
 Fear may be partly addressed 
  through extra patrols and 
  CCTV, but does not address all 
  fear/harm 

 Adds confusion by distorting all 
  available information by a 
  focus on evidence against 
  offender 
 Excludes people, including 
  victim and community 
 Professionals focus on 
  establishing guilt or innocence, 
  rather than on safety, problem 
  solving, and prevention 
 Case-specific, not focused on 
  causes of crime or its full 
  consequences 

Gaps To Be Addressed 
 (Beyond law Enforcement) 
 To Increase Public Safety

Full aftermath of crime not 
addressed for victim, community, 
offenders (including those not 
detected) and society as a whole 

 Failure to address full 
impact/harm; leaves victim 
and community having to deal 
with consequences themselves 
 Limited information and 
advice given to community 
and victims 
 Offenders who are caught are 
not aware of the full extent of 
damage/harm to the 
victim/community only 
aware of the laws broken 
 Anger, trauma, shock, etc., left 
to fester; increases hostility, 
tension, fear 

 Social distance promoted; more 
opportunities for crime and 
increased fear 
 Sense of breakdown or unre-
solved business 
 Lack of real understanding of 
what happened; limited 
learning 
 Dependence on formal system 
often excludes a role for the 
community 


The obstacles to citizen engagement in responding to the broader impact of crime and 
its consequences included the following: 

 Professionalism, which tends to monopolize crime control 
 Citizen apathy, reticence, or lack of knowledge about how to become involved 
 The failure to establish opportunities for limiting the power of professionalism 
and expanding citizen activities in the handling of crime 

How can the public be encouraged to participate in the coproduction of public safety? 
How are members of the public to know when and how they can become involved? 

Informal social controls emerge from community development, but such development 
will not come out of thin air. People want safety, security, peace, and justice, but 
community participation must be promoted to achieve them. People may be informed 
about crime, but they do not know how to prevent it or what to do to reduce it. Many 
people are living complex lives and feel overloaded, precluding their participation in 
community life. The easiest response to crime is to blame others or to wait for someone 
else to do something. 

How, then, can these challenges be met by new developments in community and 
restorative justice? And how are these new developments relevant to policing? 

Case Study:
It Takes More Than Parents or Paid Professionals To Raise a Child

Kay Pranis from the Minnesota Department of Corrections often opens her conference talks 
with the question, How many have experienced having adults other than your parents tell 
you what to do or how to behave when you were children? Most people smile as they 
remember when they were chastised or given guidance as children. Kay goes on to ask 
another question, How many of you do that in your neighborhoods today? There is widespread 
consensus that adults in neighborhoods are not participating in raising one anothers 
children. Two consequences flow from this: first, parents alone are left with the enormous 
task of bringing up their children in the face of the significant challenges inherent in 
modern society. Second, the implicit message to youth is that their actions and behavior are 
not important to the community if only their parents (or people paid to intervene in their 
lives) control their behavior. Much of this situation has to do with fear of getting involved. 
But it is also an indication that members of the public have relinquished their responsibilities 
as citizens or simply lack encouragement to promote standards. 

Community Justice 

A famous British judge, Chief Justice Hale, some three centuries ago described the 
clamor for change as a certain restlessness and nauseousnous in what we have and 


a giddy humour after something which is new. Certainly today there seems to be a 
growing, concerted effort to search for improvements to the criminal justice system. 
The system is seen to be overprotective of offenders, to isolate victims, and to ignore 
the fears and concerns of communities. There is a general unease about whether the 
system is coping adequately with the problem of crime and disorder. Pressures are 
mounting for the system to reconsider its priorities and to fundamentally expand its 
focusbeyond the condemnation of crime through the punishment of offenders. 

Community justice is developing as a part of this thrust for change. As in the case of 
community policing, the label has come to be applied to a variety of programs, making 
the essential attributesand the values underpinning themdifficult to discern. 
What can be reasonably stated is that developments in community justice are being 
driven by the recognition that, broadly speaking, crime is a local phenomenon, crime 
is high on peoples minds, and justice interventions should be responsive to public 
concerns. The climate is one of trying out new ideas to show that the system can be 
community oriented. Ed Barajas of the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ), has summarized the basic principles and core values of 
community justice as shown in Figure 11. 

Figure 11. Community Justice Principles and Core Values 

Community Justice Principles 

 The community (which includes victims and offenders) is the ultimate 
customer as well as partner of the justice system. 

 The justice system and citizens, actively working together, share the 
common goal of maintaining a peaceful community. 

 The justice system confronts crime by addressing social disorder, 
criminal activities and behavior, and by restoring victims and communities 
to the fullest extent possible. 

 Justice system components collaborate in doing what is appropriate, just, 
and necessary to preserve community safety and well-being 

Core Values of Community Justice 

The justice system benefits the community by: 

 Promoting community protection and service. 
 Preventing crime and its harmful effects. 
 Repairing the damage caused by crime to individual victims and communities. 
 Promoting universal justice and fairness through proactive, 
problem-solving practices focused on creating and maintaining safe, 
secure, and just communities. 


Although only in the embryonic stages, community justice is already challenging the 
traditional, concentrated focus of the criminal justice system on prosecuting, convicting, 
and punishing offenders in accordance with due process of law. Experiments are 
breathing life into a growing recognition that attention to the individual rights of the 
accused needs to be balanced with support for community life. Communities are recognized 
as being victimized by crime and in need of strategies that will reduce fear 
and make communities more crime resistant. The criminal justice system is increasingly 
expected to respect, and be responsive to, community concerns, confronting the 
legal systems traditional adherence to the notion of judicial independence. Criminal 
justice practitioners are under growing pressure to shape their priorities and work in 
accordance with community priorities. 

Similar to community policing, in which the focus of law enforcement has been 
broadened to include collaboration to produce public safety, community justice, in 
some places, is adopting the notion that justice means public safety through collaboration 
between the formal system and the community. In March 1998, at a national 
conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice on Community Justice: 
Transforming the System To Service Communities, the underlying message was that 
the state could no longer afford to pretend to be able to provide public security by 
itself, in isolation from communities. No attempt was made to define community justice. 
But key themes emerged, including community and professional partnerships, 
identifying and defining community, collaborative problem solving, and a focus on 
community safety. The term was used to describe a variety of activities and programs, 
including community policing, community prosecutions, community courts, community 
corrections, victim services, restorative justice, and crime prevention initiatives. 

Community justice, while in danger of becoming a term applied to any activity in 
which the community is newly acknowledged as a customer of justice, has begun to 
develop several characteristics or common elements: 

 Community justice operates at the local level. The programs 
and experiments focus on a particular venue seen to have a clear identity. 
The Midtown Community Court in New York City, for example, one 
of the flagships of community courts, is specifically addressing the 
crime problems in a distinct part of Manhattan, including the notorious 
Times Square area. The Red Hook Community Justice Center is being 
set up specifically to deal with law and order problems in an inner city 
neighborhood of Brooklyn. Baltimore, too, is developing similar programs 
for its neighborhoods. The criminal justice system is beginning 
to change from a centralized and hierarchical system to a system with 
devolved areas of responsibilitynot dissimilar to the police beat or 
precinct. In the new model, the system is organized to be focused externally 
toward a specific areaone that the local community can relate 
to. 


 This localized nature of community justice is provoking 
changes in the systems priorities, from focusing on the 
offender to thinking about public safety. Like community 
police officers who are dedicated to an area, community justice helps 
to connect professionals with realities facing communities at street level 
and challenges traditional assumptions about the nature of services 
required. 

For example, drug courts, which are part of a movement to establish 
community courts, are being designed to stop offending behavior while 
at the same time acknowledging the public safety issues associated with 
drug-related crimes. While still observing the offenders rights to due 
process, the focus is also on the offenders recovery and law abiding 
behavior as part the public safety effort. Drug courts run treatment programs 
and referral services aimed at reducing an offenders drug problem. 
The prosecution and defense lawyers, normally operating in adversarial 
roles, play an important role in defining the strategy for dealing 
with noncompliance by offenders in treatment programs. They also 
decide on eligibility and screening criteria. 

With the increasing emphasis on collaboration with local communities, 
neighborhood-based police, prosecutors, and other justice system professionals 
soon learn that their assessments of what is a priority can be 
challenged and altered by public consultation. The Community Court in 
Baltimore, having consulted with local businesses and communities to 
identify the problems it might target, intends to handle panhandling, loitering, 
prostitution, graffiti, and other crimes that are perceived to deter 
tourism and to threaten neighborhood safety. While these kinds of criminal 
conduct might be dealt with by a court anyway, the difference is that 
priority has been awarded to these crimes following input from the 
community. Significantly, the focus extends beyond the offender to local 
issues of concern. 

In other areas, public surveys and community meetings have been used 
to gather information on what people are concerned about. One community 
prosecutor in the District of Columbia, after his first meeting 
with the community, agreed that the atmosphere was tense, with the 
community clearly displaying their skepticism and lack of confidence in 
the professionals understanding of their concerns. I admit we still 
have a problem, he said. Lawyers dont ask themselves enough how 
far their work in prosecuting impacts on the problems experienced on 
the streets. 

 Community justice is altering the role of many criminal 
justice practitioners and widening their focus beyond the 
legal response of punishment. Public defenders who have operated 
in neighborhoods have discovered that arrested citizens not only 
have the justice system hanging over their heads. They have legal prob


lems that fall outside the criminal justice system, including immigration 
issues, child support demands, child custody battles, and credit and 
other problems. An offender who fails to comply with orders and judgments 
on these scores, perhaps because the criminal court has 
imposed fines or wage attachments, can soon find himself rearrested. 
Offenders also can have social problems requiring comprehensive case 
management beyond criminal defense work. In some cases the investigation 
has led to the avoidance of a court trial after other problems 
have been worked out by way of mediation or negotiation. As John 
Feinblatt of the Midtown Community Court says, An arrest is a crisis. 
Its a low period in someones life. We figured if we seized that moment, 
we could use the crisis to reach them. Reaching them means providing 
drug treatment, counseling, education, and other services that are 
aimed at reducing their chance of reoffending and getting into trouble. 

The role of law enforcement is being slowly blurred with social work. 
Public defenders in Harlem, New York City, not only provided legal representation 
to arrested citizens, but afforded a lifeline to the relatives of 
the accused with respect to housing, child custody, and employment 
difficulties that emerged following arrest. 

Thus, the new focus is on trying to do things that will stop offenders 
from reoffending, rather than on punishment. New approaches allow 
for interventions other than punishment, although treatment and referrals 
to social services tend still to be seen as part of a court sanction. 
The Midtown Community Court, exceptionally, offers Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings independent of sentencing. Usually, however, 
noncompliance or failure to complete a program can attract fines or 
imprisonment. 

As with community prosecutors, where their focus broadens, from the 
narrow task of assessing legal culpability . . . as defined by written rules 
. . . to the question of how to deal with the situation,48 drug and domestic 
violence courts are looking at an offenders situationas distinct 
from merely establishing guilt or innocence. The domestic violence 
courts in Miami, for example, recognizing that domestic abuse requires 
more than a narrow punitive response to the offender, have operated 
batterer intervention programs, provided drug treatment supervision, 
and conducted ongoing case monitoring. 

Similarly, the drug courts dealing with substance abuse are looking 
beyond strict enforcement of drug laws. Drug courts combine intensive 
judicial supervision, mandatory drug testing, escalating sanctions 
and treatment to help substance abusing offenders to break the cycle of 
addiction and the crime that often accompanies it.49 Judges work with 
prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, and drug treatment 
specialists to require appropriate treatment for offenders, monitor 


their progress, and ensure the delivery of other services (including job 
skills and education) to help offenders remain drug and crime free. 
This supportive approach is beginning to have an impact on drug use 
and recidivism (a drop of up to 55 percent is recorded by some 
courts). 

 
Community justice is shifting criminal justice from a purely 
adversarial approach to include problem-solving methods, 
beyond dealing with the offender. The criminal justice professionals 
may provide legal expertise not only to offenders but to communities 
concerned with ongoing problems that impact their standard 
of living. In Spokane, Washington, probation officers are helping residents 
of high crime areas secure financing to purchase their own 
homes. Community justice seems also to encourage acknowledgment 
that many crimes coming before the courts stem from substance abuse, 
family breakdown, and mental health problems, which the legal system 
is struggling to deal with. The domestic violence courts are recognizing 
that the problem of domestic abuse obliges them to look at providing 
victim protection services and to consider child welfare needs. Judges 
attend community meetings hoping that heightened awareness will provide 
victims with more sources of help, and abusers with more informal 
policing from within the community. 
Information sharing forms part of this new effort to address a situation 
through problem solving. At the Midtown Community Court, judges 
have access to computerized information on the history and circumstances 
of individual offenders from a variety of sources; their goal in 
using the information is to make their responses as relevant to the individual 
and as constructive as possible. Computer links with the police, 
probation, courts, prosecutors, and service providers will, in the 
future, further improve the information flow. 

 
Community justice is characterized by a reduced distance 
between professionals and lay communities. Prosecutors, for 
example, traditionally confined to their law offices and the court room, 
are spending time attending community meetings. Connie Cucchiara in 
the district attorneys (DAs) office in New York went out to the community 
and asked, How can the DAs office become a resource to you? 
The feedback about the impact of crime on the community can influence 
decisions about bail and sentencing. In Multnomah, Portland, 
Oregon, a community task force convened to address growing concerns 
about crime, sought the involvement of the police and the district 
attorney to help identify problems and solutions. This kind of interaction 
is breaking down the perceived (and often very real) barriers 
between professional practitioners and the lay community, encouraging 
open dialogue and the sharing of views about what the system should 


focus its attention on. This, in itself, is giving both the system and the 
communities better insights about the crime problem and the appropriate 
response. 

 Community justice is creating new lines of accountability. 
The system no longer is looking only at the prosecution and punishment 
of individual defendants in a reactive manner. It is having to consider 
the future safety of communities by addressing behavioral issues 
in the context of some kind of safety plan. The Red Hook Community 
Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York, for example, plans to offer job 
training, youth development, drug treatment, counseling, and outreach 
programs. Decisions about placing offenders in different programs will 
be greatly influenced by community sentiment about what is required 
to guarantee public safety. 

Professional practitioners are looking externally to assess their own 
performance. They may be reporting to citizen groups. Such practices 
radically alter the internal culture of the system. With these new lines of 
accountability, community justice is arguably most challenging to the 
traditional system of the various emerging practices. While seeking to 
address specific public fears about crime and the potential for repeat 
offending after court interventions, the system is also moving to accommodate 
victim and community protection as important goals in addition 
to holding offenders to account for their past behavior. The introduction 
of victim and community impact statements is common in 
many courts, and these statements are used in decisionmaking by criminal 
justice practitioners. 

Speedier delivery of justice is another objective for some programs, in 
answer to community concerns about the systems lack of responsiveness. 
All of these practices are part of the recognition that communities, 
not just individuals, are victims of crime. Monitoring cases through 
computerized records is also helping to ensure that court decisions are 
followed through. 

 Offender accountability is moving in the direction of 
accountability to the community, as distinct from paying 
dues to the state. Community courts, part of the community justice 
movement, are sentencing offenders to pay back the neighborhood 
they have harmed by way of community service. Offenders carry out 
work that helps to improve the local environment (through street 
cleaning, graffiti removal, park and garden maintenance, etc.) or help 
improve community facilities by building shelters, cutting wood for the 
elderly, and mailing charity flyers. Midtown Community Court figures 
indicate that community service has produced almost half a million 
dollars worth of labor since 1995, and the compliance rate for com


munity service is a high 75 percent. Street crime has declined significantly, 
and prostitution arrests have fallen by almost 60 percent. These 
results suggest that the system is sensitive to the idea that the community 
is an important customer and that the work of the system ought to 
increase its safety and well-being. The traditional stance of not looking 
outward or forward is shifting, and the strong focus of the formal system 
on the offender is starting to be diluted. 

 Greater community engagement and partnership are 
emerging from community justice experiments. The notion of 
partnership between the professional practitioner and community 
members sometimes goes beyond information sharing and problem 
identification and extends to participation in decisionmaking or in community-
based activities stemming from court decisions. Citizen-driven 
search warrants are allowed in Portland, Oregon, based on trained citizens 
conducting surveillance on behalf of the police. Information is 
recorded in logs supervised by the police before a citizen is permitted 
to telephone a judge for the warrant. The Red Hook Community Justice 
Center, which aims to be a court as well as to house a number of community 
services for both offenders and law-abiding residents, has 
involved the local community in planning the design and activities of the 
Center. Judges, attorneys, civic associations, school principals, housing 
officials, business people, and residents have worked together on developing 
a schedule of processes to follow the arrest of a defendant. 

Partnerships between professionals in the justice system and lay people 
have been established to offer drug treatment, health care, education, 
and the supervision of offenders in community service projects. This 
partnering is breaking down the barriers between professional and 
nonprofessional people, showing that a mix of skills, interests, and concerns 
can produce innovative responses to crime problems in the 
neighborhood. Corrections professionals, long used to operating community-
based correctional supervision and facilities, are beginning to 
look on lay communities as potential partners. In Vermont, community 
boards are assisting in determining the conditions of supervision outside 
correctional facilities for offenders who are on probation or 
parole. 

Community justice is also spurring collaborative work between justice 
professionals across the system. In Middlesex County, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, a Community-Based Justice Program has brought 
together professionals across the system and school leaders to share 
information on at-risk youth whose behavior has been identified as 
potentially harmful to the community. Priority is given to prosecuting 
individuals who have been jointly identified as needing close attention 
from the justice system. Information sharing, communication, and 


problem solving are key elements of this community prosecution 
effort. It is an organizational response to public safety threats. 
Operation Nitelite in Roxbury, Massachusetts, has brought police and 
probation officers together to address youth and gun violence. The justice 
systems effectiveness in tackling recurring crime problems is 
undoubtedly enhanced by combining its resources to reach a common 
goal. 

The embryonic experiments in community justice give clues as to how significantly the 
traditional justice system could be reshaped or transformed. Making justice meaningful 
to offenders, victims, and communities, and making professionals more accessible, 
is no mean feat for a system that has largely insulated itself from community sentiment. 
The system increasingly is reaching out to communities to find out their concerns 
and how they would like those concerns addressed. This is new. Having professionals 
working in consultation with lay people is also new. Working in nonadversarial 
ways to address identified problems is likely to bring about even bolder efforts 
to try new skills, provide new services, and apply greater discretion in decisionmaking 
about crime problems and offenders. Making offenders accountable in meaningful 
ways that promote a reduction in recidivism, a higher compliance rate for the 
completion of court orders, and reduced levels of crime, are welcome indicators that 
interdisciplinary, collaborative efforts pay off. It is also clear that thinking is changing 
in regard to crime being only a violation against the state. Crime increasingly is viewed 
as having an impact on neighborhoods, victims, families of offenders, and others; and, 
increasingly, crime is seen as requiring much more than a legal response alone. 

What is the Vision of Community Justice? 

Community justice is an exciting development emerging from grassroots innovation. 
The grassroots efforts stem from a recognition that improvements are needed in the 
conventional system of justice. Local criminal justice practitioners and others are 
translating a variety of ideas into efforts that, increasingly, are exhibiting common 
characteristics. Inherent in many programs is an acknowledgment that public confidence 
requires engaging the public and demonstrating that the system is in touch with 
public concerns. Several initiatives reflect widespread agreement that crime harms 
communities as well as victims, and that offenders need nonlegal responses to change 
their behavior. 

Like community policing, however, community justice lacks a broad vision. Various 
efforts are being described as community justice, but there is no specific, fundamental 
definition or defined goal that is widely accepted. The question this prompts is 
whether the term community justice is being applied too liberally to any attempt to 
transform the system. Are the core values and principles of community justice really 
applied in these attempts? Several hurdles need to be overcome for community justice 
to work toward an agreed goal and to reach its potential of transforming the system. 

First, the lack of a common definition is not merely about language. It is about the 
substantive content of current changes that are heralded as community justice. These 


changes need to be examined and a consensus reached about a definition; if too 
diverse a collection of activities and ideas are lumped under the term community justice, 
the potential power of the concept could be diminished or even lost. As Tony 
Marshall has said, It is easy to spoil a good idea! It is a step forward that the justice 
system is awakening to the fact that the community is a customer; but consumerism of 
justice activities will tend to obstruct the development of an appropriate relationship 
between communities and the justice professional. The result, in all likelihood, will be 
to minimize opportunities for citizen engagement (beyond a mere supporting role) in 
responding to crime as a vital player in codelivering public safety. For these reasons, 
community justice could fail to substantially influence the professional system to work 
toward a balanced approach between formal and informal crime controls. 

Several dilemmas emerge from an examination of community justice activities. These 
dilemmas suggest the need for caution about overestimating the potential of community 
justice. To set the stage for this examination, see the list Community Justice 
Characteristics That Are Similar to Core Elements of Criminal Justice (in box). A key 
difference between community justice and the criminal justice system is that community 
justice addresses only less serious crimes and offenders. 

Community Justice Characteristics That Are Similar to Core 
Elements of Criminal Justice 

 Defines harms and effectiveness in same terms: primarily in relation 
to the offender and what laws have been broken. 

 Retains a conventional punishment prerogativeand, almost 
exclusively, a control mandate. 

 Conducts overwhelmingly offender-oriented services. 

 Is unable to promote an alternative vision of justice; effectiveness 
is measured according to traditional criteria. 

 Refuses to become involved in interpersonal violence (hence, does 
not serve the critical needs of classes of victims, such as 
women, minorities, the poor, youth). 

 Seeks to reduce incarceration, but seldom succeeds in reducing 
the marginalization of offenders and victims in their own communities. 

 Affects too few offenders, victims, and communities. 

 Fails to address social and community problems that shape crime, 
i.e., may respond to crime problems but does not seek to 
prevent crime. 

SOURCE: Adapted from Zehr, H., and Mika, H. Fundamental Concepts of 
Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 1998;1(1):4755. 

A noticeable feature of community justice programs is the concentration on nuisance 
or quality-of-life crimes. There seems to be no movement as yet to fundamentally 
transform the formal justice response to more serious crimes: robbery, assault, sexu


al offenses, and drug trafficking. Possible exceptions are drug courts and domestic 
violence courts. Courts dedicated to domestic abuse are being widely introduced 
under the rubric of community justice; however, the professionally operated adversarial 
approach against offenders still lies at the core of these courts responses. The 
community element is often confined to establishing extended services based in the 
community to cope with abusers drink or drug problems and providing support to 
the victims and using them as evidence. The judge retains overall control, and the 
community engagement is distinctly limited. 

When there are such limits on the application and practice of new initiatives, it is 
questionable how much they differ from the essence of the traditional system. The 
drug court movement raises further questions about the extent to which real change 
is occurring. Almost 200 communities have drug courts supported by Federal grants 
of over $30 million under Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act (Crime Act) of 1994. The pivotal notion is court supervised drug treatment. The 
drug court movement is seen as a key example of community justice, yet the July 1997 
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report on drug courts makes no mention of the 
community being a vital consideration in their establishment. Drug courts did not 
develop in a vacuum. Rather, the drug courts appeared in response to the deluge of 
drug cases (following tougher sentencing laws) and the cycle of criminal recidivism. 
Drug courts still operate with a retributive lens, notwithstanding the emphasis on 
treatment for offenders. 

There is a familiar ring to this. The parallels with the development of community 
policing out of the traditional professional model of policing are striking. The criminal 
justice system has enjoyed a clear mission that for years, by and large, stood the 
test of time: upholding the law, protecting individual rights by due process, establishing 
guilt or innocence through clearly defined rules, and determining punishment for 
those found guilty. The underlying raison dtre for such a coherent system is to promote 
a predictable response to crime in the hope of deterring it. However, like the 
traditional model of professional policing, the system has developed significant gaps 
in both its credibility and its capacity to handle the full consequences of crime. 

Frustration with the criminal justice system has led to demands related to sentencing, 
victims rights, conviction rates, changes in jury makeup, classification of offenses, 
speed and timing of trial processes, rights of representation, use of evidence and 
cross-examination, rights of appeal, and funding arrangements. Despite the constant 
flux, the system is seen to be flagging in its performance against crime and in public 
confidence. As with policing, there are proponents of more resources to do more of 
the sameand others who call for more radical changes. Community justice seems 
to be steering a middle course between bolstering the traditional mechanisms (e.g., 
through improved information and evidence gathering from public consultation to 
secure more convictions) and changing the focus to address the impact of crime on 
victims, offenders, and communities. The common characteristics of community 
policing and community justice emerge from the perceived need for collaboration 
and a quest for more accountability to a broader set of stakeholders. 


However, participatory problem diagnosis and problem resolutionwith greater sensitivity 
to the full range of consequences of crimeremain limited by the assumption 
that professionals in the system know what the problems are and by a perpetual tension 
in their relationship with the community. Current developments might seem 
encouraging, therefore, until one asks, How are problems defined? For example, 
courts may provide information to the community and solicit input on community 
concerns, thereby indicating sensitivity to the reality that crime impacts the community. 
They may conduct treatment services in the community and use services outside 
the justice system (including housing, education, AIDS counseling, social services). 
But these interdisciplinary, problem-solving approaches do not necessarily involve the 
lay community. 

Community-based programs do not always entail community involvement. It seems, 
still, that little value is placed on the participation of ordinary lay people. It is the 
courts that are providing the services, directly or indirectly (in combination with 
other professional services). Indeed, McKnight has said, what are now called community 
services are often major barriers to involvement in the community. The system 
in this state is, to put it more accurately, providing local services, not community services.
12 As the experience with community corrections clearly illustrates, however, 
when facilities or service centers are merely located in a neighborhoodwithout the 
involvement of local residentsthe result is an isolated program or process that may 
be said to be in, but not of, the community. Similarly, increasing the flexibility of 
responses and breaking down formal barriers to communication may increase citizens 
willingness to seek and to receive assistance, but this change does not necessarily 
increase their involvement as participants in the justice process or allow them 
to determine what services they would like in their neighborhoods. 

The way problems are defined is still primarily related to the criminal law and to resolution 
by way of due process of law. Community courts seem to recognize that communities 
are harmed by criminal activity, and to see the offender more as an individual 
than as another legal party; but the focus remains largely on the offender, and the 
punitive approach remains a powerful force. Assumptions about the problems of drug 
and alcohol abuse being primarily infringements of the law contradict known wisdom 
about addictive behavior: that the addict needs non-shaming and nonjudgmental support 
from a social network that allows the individual to trust and to experience acceptance. 
Addicts need support in the context of communities that can provide caring 
relationships, support to attend treatment programs (such as going with a person to 
an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting), mentoring, and opportunities to learn life skills 
to overcome the toxic shame always present in any addict.50 

The new community courts operate, however, with a carrot-and-stick technique, 
deferring prosecution or a sentence if the offender accepts treatment and completes 
it, but executing the traditional approach as soon as there is noncompliance. This 
process preempts the opportunity to respond to problems differently, say through 
health and education services or by mobilizing community resources. Treatment is a 
fundamental part of the court program, making treatment a justice issueand the 


courts are seeking total abstinence from substance abuse rather than managed use of 
drugs.51 The courts also assume that the judge should conduct monitoring, even 
though there are other people naturally paying attention to what is happening to the 
abuser, including spouses, parents, siblings, grandparents, children, and teachers. 
These characteristics raise questions about the commitment of community courts to 
resolving problems by means other than traditional due process. 

Community justice in the form of community courts may represent a recognition by 
the formal justice system of the power of community, but it seems premature to suggest 
that the community is genuinely perceived as a potential partner in tackling 
crime. If anything, there are signs of increasing professionalized responses rather 
than promoting community collaboration that leads to community problem solving. 
This begs the question as to the overall purpose or driving force behind community 
justice. Is community justice primarily addressing lost public confidence in the courts 
and the legal system? Is it more about a recognition that criminal conduct is often 
linked to health, substance addiction, and educational problems (thereby necessitating 
nonlegal responses that justice professionals are not equipped to provide)? Is it 
about increasing the relevance of court procedures to citizens who have been previously 
excluded by the legalistic and professionally driven emphasis on due process? 
Or diversifying sanctions? Acknowledging that crime is often a social issue? Being 
more responsive to community concerns? 

These are desirable goals. Nonetheless, many of the programs are primarily system 
oriented and retain much of the current modus operandi of the criminal justice system. 
Problems are still defined primarily according to legal definitions of crime rather 
than as part of broader social pathologies that contribute to crime. Alternative 
responses outside the formal justice system might exist, but these often do not meet 
their potential as long as criminal justice sanctions are being funded. Thus, the 
options open to the community remain limited. Although treatment, counseling, and 
life skills training are growing adjuncts to the legal response, the main focus remains 
on apportioning blame and establishing sanctionsby professionals, on their terms. 

The absence of a coherent strategy with tasks linked to objectives, and a tendency to 
be concerned with short-term reductions in crime and building public confidence, 
will ultimately reduce the impact of community justice unless the community becomes 
an equal partner. Just as the traditional model of professional policing cannot by itself 
deliver public safety, the formal justice system cannot by itself deliver safer communities. 
It too, as in the case of policing, needs to learn that collaboration with the community 
requires substantive partnership activity focused beyond problem identification. 
The community, along with the justice system, needs to have opportunities for 
learning how crime can be controlled and what its role is in preventing crime, beyond 
mere enforcement. 

This active community role would necessitate sharing power and resources between 
the system and local communities. There are few signs of such willingness by the justice 
system. Some advocates have interpreted community justice as offering an exciting 
opportunity to create a new way of doing business within the court system.52 


Others have suggested that collaboration with the community will build a public constituency 
for the courts that will support the allocation of adequate resources. This 
suggests that community justice is about increased use of the professional system, not 
about balancing formal and informal controls. The attitude is predominantly one of 
the professionals know bestthe professionals know the problem and have the 
answerswhile the community merely consumes the services. The community may 
help to determine what laws and services are needed, but its engagement is minimal. 

The development of user-friendly courts and court watching programsand the 
existence of centralized courtsdo not seem to be encouraging neighborhood participation 
outside the confines of traditional justice parameters. Linkages between the 
court and the community are largely controlled by the professional system. The professionals 
choose the community members with whom they wish to do business 
hardly likely to repair the mistrust of the system among some sections of the public. 
The community influence in many community justice programs is limited to decisions 
about the appropriate sentence to be given to offenders found guilty after the traditional 
due processes have been completed. 

Case Study: 
Professional Self-Improvement Does Not Mean 
Citizen Engagement 

Operation Spotlight in Maryland offers an exciting vision that recognizes that most crime 
comes from a small hard core of persistent offenders in a small percentage of neighborhoods. 
The operation involves a partnership effort among police, probation, juvenile justice, 
housing, and education to focus on identified crime hot spots and at-risk offenders. The program 
offers a coordinated effort and seeks to expand the partnership to encompass learning 
programs, teen pregnancy prevention, and improvements in public safety; community 
mobilization, however, is interpreted as mobilizing community-based services rather than 
citizen engagement. Community justice is interpreted as empowering law-abiding citizens 
to reclaim their neighborhoodsas they come to expect and receive rapid response from 
community probation and police officers. Responsiveness alone, however, will not mobilize 
self-policing. Indeed, this might further add to community dependence on professional 
services. Intense supervision and support of offenders is being conducted by police teams 
working in the community. This will work as long as Federal and other grant moneys are 
available ($10.5 million currently), but the question remains: How sustainable is this effort 
in the future? 

The messages to offenders are underpinned by a mixture of the crime-fighting ethos (If 
you want to continue down the road of crime, well soon find out about it) with a preventive, 
problem-solving message (If you want to help in building a better future and becoming 
a productive member of society, were here to help100 percent). It remains to be 
seen whether Operation Spotlight will promote the amount and type of direct involvement 
by community members that can make a real contribution to solving identified problems. 

Will community justice promote broader acknowledgments that only an active partnership 
with the community can control crime effectively? So far, with the system-driven 
community justice experiments, it is not clear whether these efforts are intended 
primarily to improve the formal justice systems capacity to respond to crime, or 


whether community justice is a stepping stone toward giving citizens the capacity to 
develop informal mechanisms for addressing crime. 

With the overall purpose of community justice still unclear, there remains a doubt 
whether current programs are a means to an end or an end in themselves. Until criminal 
justice affords citizens greater say in how problems are definedand how they 
should be resolveddeveloping programs and increasing access will not change the 
role of the community from service recipients to decisionmakers. A more holistic 
response to crime will also be thwarted and professional insularity will endure, limiting 
the impact of community justice efforts on justice agencies and their relationship 
to neighborhoods and citizen groups. 

Thus, community justice is exhibiting a number of paradoxes. Crime is seen as victimizing 
communities, but the professional system continues to control the communitys 
involvement and participation. The apparent accountability to community concerns 
is still rubbing up against more formal accountability to the law. Crimes are still 
defined by the system (by law), notwithstanding greater understanding (through 
problem-solving approaches and information sharing) that much criminal behavior 
stems from social problems. The primacy of legal definitions contrasts also with the 
idea of achieving public safety by establishing social norms through informal mechanisms
and by establishing, independent of the system, consequences for choosing 
to break these norms. As Professor Michael Smith wrote, Establishing and maintaining 
public safety is properly the work of parents, neighbors, schools, churches, athletic 
teams, voluntary community service groups, the labor market... 27 

Confusion about what community justice is may stem from the same predicament confronting 
community policing: that is, the system has yet to acknowledge that its interpretation 
of the crime problem may be too limited, that it is skeptical of trusting communities, 
and that the professionally administered adversarial system is regarded as 
somehow sacrosanct. The reliance of the community on the system is still an inherent 
feature of community justice, even though the system is reaching out for support. This 
runs counter to the widespread recognition of the important benefits to be gained by 
sharing awareness and promoting dialogue between the system, schools, businesses, 
and service providers. Federal Weed and Seed programs and PACT (Pulling Americas 
Communities Together) initiatives have helped to create a sense that crime is everybodys 
business. The focus of the formal system may be expanding beyond simply 
securing convictions and punishing offenders. The transformation from a machine 
to a service (Chris Stone, Vera Institute) may be starting. But, as Assistant Attorney 
General Laurie Robinson has said, We still have a long way to go in community justice. 
Until community justice directly involves the community as partners in solving 
problems, progress will be severely limited. 

Clearly, aims could be established to guide community justice developments in the 
future. The values on which these aims are based will be critical. 

[There is a need for] new values which articulate new roles for 
victims, offenders, and communities as both clients and co-participants 
in the justice process, and, accordingly, create and perpet


uate new decisionmaking models that meet their needs for meaningful 
involvement. For this to occur, however, a rather dramatic 
change must also transform the role of professionals from that of 
the sole decisionmaker to one of the facilitator of community 
involvement and resource to the community.53 

Chief Justice Hales description of change may be worth further reflection; a giddy 
humour about doing something different undoubtedly appeals when there is so 
much dissatisfaction surrounding criminal justice. But the excitement could be seriously 
misplaced if attention is not paid to fundamental questions. Reform under the 
banner of community justice requires greater clarity if it is to become a force for 
changing the delivery of justice in ways that complement the mission of community 
policing. Such claritythe community justice visionshould incorporate commitment 
to citizen engagement and community mobilization to promote informal crime 
controls, as with community policing. For this reason, police officers need to be wary 
that developments under community justice may not be pulling in the same direction 
as that promoted by joint police-public problem solving to support more social justice. 

Does restorative justice take us any further? 

Restorative Justice 

Largely an unknown concept even 5 years ago, restorative justice has burst onto the 
international stage like an El Nio of crime and justice. Interest in this innovation is 
growing rapidly. Restorative justice is stirring up questions that resonate with liberals 
and conservatives alike, catapulting it to a position of the popular justice.54 
Paradoxically, its popularity could be problematic: restorative justice is not a simple 
idea, nor a complete theory. It is evolving, largely through experiment, with a tension 
between its appeal to common sense and the need for understanding its full implications. 
It is as if the criminal justice world is potentially on course to developing a 
whole new kaleidoscopewith some patterns in place, but with more pieces still to 
be made. There is an understandable excitement, but also the need for patient attention 
to detail. 

Why Describe Restorative Justice As a New Kaleidoscope? 

When we talk about the great web of life, we say the world is a 

complex place where everything depends on everything else. But 

... we teach that they are independent. 

Ray Callaway, Ecologist 

In this quotation, Callaway was referring to the interdependence of plants, trees, and 
grass. Grass, for example, often grows lusher beneath trees because trees, instead of 
spreading shallow, surface roots, sink their roots deep into the soil, thereby allowing 
the grass to receive water and nutrients. We would think, however, it would be the 
reversethat scant grass would grow under the thick foliage of a tree. 


In a similar fashion, restorative justice is teaching us the opposite of what many of us 
have grown accustomed to in the field of criminal justice. It is doing so by posing fundamental 
questions about crime, conflict, interpersonal relationships, and justice. It 
asserts that instead of requiring coercion, punishment, and vengeance, crime prevention 
requires cooperative, consensus-building structures that promote strong relationships 
and communities. Positive interactions is how Callaway describes the 
essential partnership among plants and suggests that evidence is mounting that these 
interactions play a vital role in determining the composition of plant communities. 
Callaways positive interactions are a nearly perfect analogy to restorative justices 
revolutionary way of thinking about the importance of human interactions in defining 
our social order. Positive social interactions will strengthen, while poor ones will 
weaken, the bonds that promote informal social regulation and harmony. 

Restorative justice is in danger of becoming a popular catchphrase with watered-
down definitions; the concept can be confusing for the breadth and depth of its efforts 
to reform mainstream thinking and practice. Restorative justice, like community 
policing, can be viewed both on a micro levelin terms of individual programs and 
initiativesand a macro levelas an idealistic vision that has the power to support 
significant change. Its practical application so far is characterized by citizen participation, 
collaboration, and problem solving, similar to community policing. 
Restorative justice activities stem from a recognition that it is the community, rather 
than the justice system itself, that should be the prime site for crime control. 

What distinguishes restorative justice as a social movement is that it breaks through 
long-standing controversy about crime, punishment, justice, and human relations in 
ways that eradicate polarized views in favor of mutual learning that advances a more 
forgiving, tolerant, and open society. Restorative justice is neither soft nor hard on 
crimeinstead, it offers a framework for discovery about the meaning of crime and 
what is effective in resolving and reducing crime. It challenges us to think differently 
about what effective means. It also could ultimately challenge our current definitions 
of crime. 

As far-fetched as this may seem, restorative justice is already achieving small miracles
except they are not miracles at all. What is happening in different parts of the 
world is the result of ordinary people being prepared to explore new ways that anyone 
can explore. Restorative justice has an open, public character... rejects the 
notion of membership, organizational divisions of roles, and functional hierarchy. The 
emphasis is on broad egalitarian participation and unselfish dedication.55 

For police officers who are community minded, restorative justice offers a powerful 
vehicle for promoting the kinds of change they often are struggling to achieve 
unsuccessfully, through no fault of their own. As Figure 12 outlines, restorative justice 
switches on the light in an otherwise dark territory of cultural, legal, and organizational 
obstacles to transforming policing. 


Figure 12. Overview of Restorative Justice Process and Potential 

Restorative Justice 

 Crime creates an opportunity for diagnosis of problems and of 
changing social structures that promote criminal behavior. 

 Problem identification necessitates the involvement of everyone 
who has harmed others, has been harmed, or might have a role to 
play in addressing the harm, now and for the future. 

 Problem resolution necessitates citizen involvement because the 
causes and consequences of harmful actions are often beyond 
the capacity of government alone to prevent or resolve. 

 Process allows for learning about what factors contribute to crime. 

 Learning applied to make changes in practices, policies, and 
priorities, thereby delivering crime prevention, social justice, 
and more public safety. 

So what is restorative justice? And why should the police become involved? 

Restorative justice is founded on a set of values that redefine the meaning of policing 
and justice beyond strategies, tactics, and programs. A descriptive title of an important 
book on restorative justice, Changing Lenses, provides a clue as to the profound 
nature of the change. The values of restorative justice are defined primarily in relation 
to crime, but they are transferable to any kind of conflict. The inherent assumptions 
that underpin the restorative justice paradigm are simple, yet represent an enormous 
shift from the traditional rights-based language of adversarial approaches. 
Restorative justice is more focused on the needs arising from crime and conflict, and 
acknowledges the interdependence of peopleas in Callaways ecological findings 
about plants. 

Theoretically, restorative justice recognizes that crime establishes a relationship 
between the victim and an offender, even when they are not known to each other. 
Although a victim is not wholly dependent upon an offender (or his subsequent 
actions), there is a partial interdependence between the two in what Russ Immarigeon 
describes as a crime-based relationship. Victims and offenders may both be affected 
by the responses, behavior, and attributes of the other. Restorative justice acknowledges 
this relationship, and its processes seek to address this human dimension of all 
crime. 

Restorative justice, essentially, offers a balanced approach to meeting the needs 
of victims, offenders, communities, and society by affording opportunities for 
dialogue. Such dialogue allows people to understand from each other what crime 
means and to find agreement as to what should be done to address the issues 
identified (including victim recovery and offender accountability).56 Howard 
Zehrs comparison of criminal justice and restorative justice is helpful to attain a 
sense of the new paradigm: 


I. Defining the problem 

A. A retributive model defines an infraction and only looks at legal 
variables. 

B. A restorative model recognizes that the criminal action is a 
violation of people and notes the importance of the overall context. 

II. Understanding within the model 

A. A retributive understanding of the primary actors views the 
offender as a passive recipient of justicethere is no 
responsibility held by the offender. 

B. A restorative understanding of justice explains that the victim, 
offender, and the community all have crucial roles to play in 
establishing justice. 

III. Process within the model 

A. The process in the retributive model is more authoritarian, 
technical, and impersonal. It focuses on questions of guilt and 
of blame. 

B. The process in the restorative model is more participatory, focused 
on needs and obligationsit encourages the victim and offender 
to understand each other and requires the offender to take 
responsibility. 

IV. Solution within the model 

A. A retributive model focuses on painsomeone has done an injury 
so he or she is injured in return. 

B. A restorative model focuses on what is needed to correct the 
problem and who has the obligation for action.57 

While restorative justice is thought of primarily in terms of crime, as a concept it challenges 
traditional views about conflict and about how to guide conduct in organizations 
and between individuals, groups, and communities. In restorative justice, those 
who are affected by crime and conflict are engaged in processes that allow problem 
solving through participation instead of through professionals talking for them. The 
focus is on identifying harm and on repairing the harm as far as possible based 
on a shared understanding of who has been harmed and how. In this way, restorative 
justice represents a complete reorientation of how we think about justice. It is 
people centered, and it is about responding to wrongdoing with an open mind and 
emphasizing shared responsibility. 

Restorative justice represents a new dimension to sharing understanding about interpersonal 
conflict and crime problems and is a potent force for building consensus. 


Restorative justice is more than a new framework for tackling crime. It affords a new 
conceptual understanding of the meaning of participation in a democracy. It is also 
immensely practical, accessible, and contagious. 

Restorative justice recognizes that crime is wrong and that punishment sometimes has 
a place in reducing safety risks. It would be an error to assume that restorative justice 
is a soft option or is intended to replace the criminal justice system. The dangers 
of misunderstanding restorative justice are high, especially with its rapid spread within, 
or alongside, traditional justice systems. The key to understanding it lies in its 
vision and values: both are entirely different from those of criminal justice. 

Values and Principles of Restorative Justice 

The following are widely accepted among those who have focused on and defined the 
values and principles of restorative justice:58 

1. 
Crime harms people. Crime is not only a violation against the state 
and the criminal law. Crime violates people and relationships between 
people. The focus should be more on the harms of crime than the laws 
that have been broken. Crime should be dealt with primarily as having 
done harm to victims. Crime should also be dealt with as having hurt 
community peace and safety. 

2. 
Response to crime should be about repairing the harm. The 
response to crime should avoid increasing the harm and, instead, seek 
to promote conflict resolution through learning and cooperation. The 
response should not be a win/lose contest in which more harm can be 
done. The danger in our response to crime is that people become further 
alienated, disempowered, and less inclined to participate in social 
life. The opportunity exists for making good the harm and defining peoples 
needs for the future. The response to crime should focus on the 
way victims and communities can be restored, as much as possible, by 
having the harm addressed. 

3. 
Harm is identified in many ways, not only by legal definition. 
All kinds of harm are recognized, including emotional and psychological 
trauma, material losses, physical damage, the loss of feeling secure, 
the breakup of relationships, and the loss of social interaction. 

4. 
Responses must be victim centered. There should be an emphasis 
on supporting those harmed by crime by enabling recovery and 
empowerment and by addressing identified needs. The response to 
crime must be victim centered. The primary victim is the one most 
impacted by crime. Other victims might include family members, neighbors, 
friends, and the wider community, including the witnesses to the 
offense. 


5. 
The behavior is condemned, but not the offender. There should 
be equal concern for offenders. A distinction is made between the 
behavior and the person who committed the crime. The behavior is 
condemned, but not the person. The main function of the response to 
the crime, therefore, is not to punish; rather, it is to foster learning 
about the consequences of the behavior and to hold offenders actively 
accountable in meaningful ways to the victim, the community, and to 
the offender himself or herself. 

6. 
The offender is supported in his or her efforts to repair the 
harm and to become law abiding. Offenders should be exposed to 
the impact of their behavior and be encouraged to learn empathy. 
There should be an emphasis on supporting offenders by encouraging 
them to accept and to carry out their obligations to their victims. These 
obligations should not be intended as harms but as opportunities for 
making good. They should be realistically achievable. The emphasis is 
on voluntary cooperation, teaching, and guidance, rather than coercion 
and forced measures. The aim is to better equip the offender so he or 
she is more likely to become a law-abiding, responsible member of the 
community and society. 

7. 
Communities are victims too, but also have responsibilities. 
Communities are not only harmed by crime but also have obligations to 
support the victim to recover, and the offender to repair the harm. The 
emphasis is on collaboration with the parties and their reintegration 
into the community, rather than on isolation and banishment. 

8. 
Dialogue between those affected brings conflict resolution 
into justice. There should be opportunities for dialogue, direct or 
indirect, between victims and offenders, as well as for community 
engagement. The active participation of victims, offenders, and communities 
in processes that focus on identifying the harms and obligations
and how the harms can be repairedpromotes conflict resolution 
through peaceful means. 

9. 
Justice is about building peace, not revenge. Justice is about 
harm reduction, healing, peacemaking, and promoting safer communities. 
Crime is wrong and must be dealt with. The crime is regarded, 
however, as an opportunity for problem solving and enhancing the 
capacity of communities for resolving conflict. The aim is to recognize 
the harm, address the damage resulting from the crime, and promote 
recovery through cooperation and respect. Restorative justice offers 
opportunities for strengthening relationships and communities so they 
may become naturally resistant to crime and disorder. 

10. 
The state has a role, but the primary role rests with the community. 
Crime affords an opportunity for communities to define their 


standards in conjunction with the legal authority of the state. The state 
is not the only actor in responding to crime. If concerns for public safety 
necessitate the incarceration of an offender, the offender should still 
be expected to undertake restorative action toward his victim and the 
community. The state has a role in enabling restorative responses to 
crime to take place, in safeguarding individual rights, and in applying 
coercion when restorative actions fail. The states role is needed if 
offenders are uncooperative or unresponsive to the community role. 

In Part 4 of this report, the application of these values is explored through outlining 
several models of restorative justice. In a companion document, Toolbox for 
Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policing, detailed 
guidance is given for those wanting to embark on the implementation of restorative 
justice values. 

History of Restorative Justice 

Restorative justice emphasizes the need to repair harms and relationships to strengthen 
social bonds, improve victims recovery, and minimize the incapacitation of offenders. 
In this way restorative justice builds on traditional peacemaking practiced by 
many indigenous peoples and for this reason is not entirely new. Across the world, the 
imposition of western-style justice systems eroded methods of conflict resolution that 
had been practiced by Aborigines, Maoris, and First Nations people and had been part 
of religious traditions for hundreds of years. Restorative justice is a revitalization of 
peacemaking that emphasizes a journey toward attaining peoples connectedness 
through processes that are nonviolent and needs oriented. This revitalization is relatively 
recent. 

The traditional peacekeeping approach to justice found in many native tribes in 
Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia was reawakened with the establishment 
of the first victim-offender reconciliation program in 1976 in Kitchener, 
Ontario. Today there are almost 1,000 victim-offender mediation or reconciliation 
programs spread across North America, Europe, and in the Southern Hemisphere. 
Since 1990, family group conferencing has emerged from the Maori approach to 
justice in New Zealand. There are now community and group conferencing programs 
in Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, and the United 
States. More recently, the concept of healing or sentencing circles emerged from the 
Canadian Aborigines and Navajo communities. 

In addition to these processes, a number of other initiatives have become associated 
with restorative justice, including victim-offender panels and victim assistance programs 
that support the principle of harm reduction. Megans Law has been construed 
by some as falling under the umbrella of restorative justice since it meets the principle 
of recognizing that communities are both harmed by crime and responsible for 
reducing the impact of criminal behavior. A significant number of innovations have 
involved community participation: community reparative boards, community 
sanctioning, and community impact panels, for example, were designed largely to 


determine how offenders should repair the harm. All these models are using crime as 
an opportunity for building the capacity of ordinary people of the community to solve 
identified problems and work constructively toward agreed outcomes. 

Why the Spread? 

The rapid growth of the interest in, and practice of, restorative justice are due to a 
number of trends that support its values and aims. Restorative justice is not just an 
abstract idea when it is linked to various developments in contemporary thought. 
Indeed, for many proponents of restorative justice, the values bring together conventional 
wisdoms on several fronts, making the paradigm seem sound common sense. 
Among these supportive contemporary developments are the following: 

 The emergence of the communitarian movement, which 
asserts that the pursuit of individual rights and self-interest can conflict 
with the common good. The focus on community as the means of 
resolving this tension has become a key element of current debates in 
medicine, education, local government, and citizenship, as well as public 
safety. With increasing awareness of the links between healthy communities 
(in which collective activities promote informal regulation) 
and a stable social order, significant attention has been directed to 
building structures for collective decisionmaking and action.59 

 The interest in community building and strengthening the 
capacity of communities from within, which are seen as the antidote to 
the traditional focus on community dysfunction and the assumption that 
communities need external help. Instead of looking at communities as 
half empty, current thinking regards community assets as invaluable 
resources to be developed, with or without outside support, to find 
appropriate structures for empowerment. 

 Concerns about over-criminalization, levels of incarceration, 
and crime fighting against those who, in many cases, suffer 
a lack of personal, social, and economic support. These concerns have 
strengthened the case for the minimum use of punishment and imprisonment. 
A growing interest in social crime prevention, treatment, and 
nonretributive interventions is apparent, notwithstanding the get-
tough-on-crime rhetoric. 

 Increased frustration of crime victims, who see their interests 
sidelined by criminal justice processes. This frustration has prompted 
calls for more support for victims rights and properly funded victim 
services. The current efforts to secure a Constitutional amendment 
guaranteeing victims minimum standards of information, participation, 
and rights to restitution are helping to promote awareness of the needs 
of victims and are generating debate about how these can be met. 


 The growth in informal decisionmaking processes involving greater lay 
citizen participation. This citizen experience is contributing to the growing support 
for conflict resolution in lieu of legally driven, professionally dominated 
adversarial methods of fact-finding and adjudication. Consensus building based 
on participation, information sharing, and problem solving has been the basis of 
negotiation theory, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes 
that have been applied to reduce workplace tensions, racial disputes, marital 
problems, white collar crime, and a whole myriad of human conflict. 

Case Study: 
Police Working as Peacekeepers Changes Emphasis on 
Law Enforcement 

In the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), 10 percent of the workforce has been 
trained in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to improve the handling of workplace grievances 
and staff relationships. As Commissioner Murray said, ADR is a common sense 
approach to conflict resolutionthe impact on the police culture has been hugepeople 
are realizing that they are working in the wrong jungle. For the RCMP, ADR is seen as having 
boosted morale, changed relationships between line manager and staff, saved costs, and 
promoted a willingness to talk through problems rather than initiate formal procedures. 

 The emergence of modern management practices, which stress the 
importance of consultation, participatory decisionmaking, respecting individuals 
irrespective of position and responsibility, moving away from hierarchical structures, 
and working collaboratively toward agreed goals. The emphasis on more 
egalitarian arrangementspower sharing, less use of force/enforcement, and 
promoting diversityhas shaped organizational cultures across the spectrum of 
private, public, and nonprofit entities. 

 Therapeutic and psychological theories for dealing with human 
behavior, which are challenging the punitive emphasis of criminal justice. As 
Pranis writes, We now know from years of research that positive motivators are 
often more effective than negative sanctions: that relationships shape behavior 
more than fears. We are making changes in the way we rear children and run 
workplaces...45 

As the Mennonite Central Committee has said: 

Restorative justice is not abstract; its common sense.60 

Is Restorative Justice Only Relevant to Certain Types of Crime? 

Restorative justice can be used for the full range of crimes and in a variety of settings. Although 
restorative justice is not a panacea for all problems associated with crime control, its usefulness 
is sometimes underestimated in terms of its real and potential application to different 
kinds of conflict. 


Restorative justice is being used in schools to promote classroom safety and a better 
atmosphere for learning; in the regulation of corporate crime; in handling interpersonal 
conflict in organizations, including internal discipline and grievances; and in 
universities to address campus discipline violations. In the case of crime, the application 
of restorative justice will be limited only by our imagination and understanding 
of what can be achieved through a consensus-building model for determining justice. 
Already restorative justice is being applied in cases of serious, violent crime (e.g., 
the parents of a homicide victim meeting their childs killer[s]), domestic violence, 
and sexual and child abuseas well as in cases that have an impact on the entire 
community. 

Who decides how and when restorative justice should be applied is one of the challenges 
of implementing this new vision. For now, the field is being developed by individuals 
and small organizational groups who are choosing to experiment with the 
application of these values and principles in different situations and settings. Some 
experiments, for example, have been conducted with more than 100 people participating. 
Because these issues remain in flux, restorative justice has many unresolved 
questions and challengesthe inevitable result of the unfolding of a new paradigm. 

There are both benefits and distinct dangers to having open or unresolved issues 
related to how and when restorative justice should be applied. The benefits are that 
the experiments are generally driven by people who come from a variety of ideological 
and nonideological stances. There are those who believe in reducing punitive 
sanctions on offenders, those who hold a feminist perspective (and advocate a care 
approach to justice), those who see restorative justice in religious or spiritual terms, 
those who believe in empowering lay people to make decisions, and those who have 
simply become aware of the shortcomings of the criminal justice system paradigm. 
These people are driven not so much by rules and systems as by the values and principles 
long promulgated by people like Howard Zehr, Dan Van Ness, Gordon 
Bazemore, Kay Pranis, and Mark Umbreit of the United States; Tony Marshall and 
Martin Wright of Great Britain; John Braithwaite, David Moore, John McDonald et al., 
and Judge McElrea of Australia and New Zealand; and Judge Barry Stuart of Canada. 
They all have emphasized the importance of studying the values and principles necessary 
to support a vision of a better form of justice. 

The dangers lie in the rapid acceptance of restorative justice without having understood 
fully either its implications or its differences from traditional approaches. This 
has a familiar ring to it: community policing with its full complexity and far-reaching 
potential for reforming police departments has been co-opted too readily by some 
who have not paid attention to the original vision. 

Problems with Applying the Values of Restorative Justice 

Defining the attributes of restorative justice and drawing comparisons with the criminal 
justice system can shed light on what is restorative justice. However, restorative 
justice, like community policing, can seem nebulous and overcomplicated unless its 
core message is understood. An attempt to apply the Delphi process to identify a sin


gle definition of restorative justice turned into a long debate (largely conducted on the 
Internet) among experts and would-be experts on the subject. The definition runs 
to several pages! Restorative justice as a term has not even found agreement. Some 
prefer the label positive justice (emphasizing community strengthening), and some 
say transformative justice (emphasizing that the response to crime should lead to 
changes in the conditions that promote crime). There is relational justice (reminding 
us of the fact that crime hurts relationships, which need to be restored), popular 
justice (the delivery of justice should be rooted in lay communities), and community/
neighborhood justice (justice involving community participation). 

Complicating matters further is the rapid growth of programs across the United States 
and beyond that are called restorative justice, notwithstanding that they hardly reflect 
the values inherent in the concept. This is troublesome. As with community policing
which is interpreted to mean anything from the deployment of foot patrols to a 
precursor for community governmentrestorative justice can be defined narrowly, 
but also has the potential for an extremely broad interpretation that could alter the 
meaning of democracy. It is easy to underestimate the contribution restorative justice 
can make, not only to alleviating crime, but also to establishing active citizen and 
community groups. What is clear is that restorative justice, like community policing, 
is not a program. It is more a way of thinking, a way of life, and a vision that 
prompts questions that challenge status quo assumptions. Nor is restorative justice 
confined to a few models or a single strategy. 

Essentially, however, restorative justice is locally based, nonprofessional (although the 
state still has a role), procedurally informal, and focused on using crime as an opportunity 
for problem solving and consensus building. It is not a single tool, but rather a 
whole toolbox comprising different components to address the threats and strengths 
in contemporary society. It also requires far more than tinkering with traditional formal 
responses. 

For restorative justice to achieve its potential, a common understanding is needed of 
the values and rationale that should guide the debate, policymaking, and implementation 
of restorative justice. The values should be revisited constantly to test existing 
assumptions that we often ignore. This is less easy than one might hope. Most people 
have been brought up, and grown used to, looking at crime in an entirely different 
waya lens which will not quickly erode. Experiments so far have highlighted several 
areas that show the flexibility needed to distinguish restorative justice from traditional 
crime approaches. These are summarized below. 

Key Lessons of Restorative Justice Values 

The following lessons are based on experience with the restorative justice values and 
principles cited previously: 

1. Crime harms peopleand in different ways. The state and the professionals 
working for the state can never be assumed to be able to define 
these harms. The harms are uniquely experienced by those who experience 


them. As one crime victim explains, crime is an intensely personal experience.
61 This necessitates the involvement of the parties who have been 
affected by crime. 

2. 
Response to crime should be about repairing the harm in ways 
that are meaningful to those involved. Victims do not want control; 
they want to be listened to and taken seriously. Offenders are encouraged to 
listen to the details of the harm and to take responsibility for making amends 
for some of the harm rather than feel stigmatized and alienated. Restorative 
justice is not about asserting rights over anyone. Instead the language is 
about needs; thus the repair of harm should be relevant to the victim as well 
as realistically achievable by the offender. The victim should have choices 
about the harm repair, and the offenders responsibility should be 
meaningful. The imposition of solutions by professionals will not serve 
either party well. 

3. 
Harm is identified in many ways, not only by legal definition, 
and identifying the harm requires perspectives and information 
from different people. Restorative justice involves opportunities 
for dialogue precisely to identify the harm a crime has done. Such dialogue 
might seem somewhat cumbersome, except that the investment is worth it; 
it is important for the parties to be able to tell their story. Being heard is an 
essential ingredient to recovery and to understanding what has happened. It 
reveals the full impact of crime. The processes should involve as many 
people as possible from among those who have been harmed and those 
who have committed that harm. 

4. 
Responses must be victim centered. Talking about the harm can 
become emotional and uncomfortable. Far from being seen as an obstacle, 
this emotion is regarded as key to broadening understanding of the meaning 
of crime and how to respond to it. This venting can foster empathy, compassion, 
and a willingness to support the victim to make things better. This 
support is not viewed as a responsibility solely for professional staff, but also 
for the offender and the community that promotes citizen care. The energy 
that comes from these dialogues can be channeled toward problem solving 
and crime prevention. 

5. 
The behavior is condemned, but not the offender. The dialogue can 
help to highlight that defining a crime as a particular misdemeanor or felony 
is extremely limited. The offenders story helps to show that crime does not 
happen in a vacuum. His or her behavior may be condemned, but there is 
likely to be an understanding of the contributing factors that were involved 
in the commission of the criminal behavior. It becomes clearer that much 
more is needed than slapping on a sentence, hoping to stop the offender 
from reoffending. Other steps are usually necessary. In particular, the 
offenders accountability should not be so abstract as to have no meaning to 
the offender or to his victims. Reparation, restitution, an apology, compen


sation, or voluntary service should be relevant to those involved. The acts of 
accountability should also be directed to those who have been harmed. In 
this way, the offender can retain the support of the community at the 
same time as his or her conduct is condemned. 

6. 
The offender is supported in his efforts to repair the harm and 
become law abiding. Restorative justice requires offenders to take 
responsibility for their actions. As in Native American tribes, offenders do 
not have legal defenders; they speak for themselves and are not asked to 
plead guilty or not guilty. In this context, responsibility is more often accepted 
by offenders, and from that acknowledgment of responsibility, learning 
and reintegration can take place. This precludes the need for punishment in 
most cases. Offenders are reconnected with the community while they 
take active responsibility for their actions. 

7. 
Communities are victims too, but also have responsibilities. 
Community is dependent upon the existence of relationships. Crime harms 
relationships and these need to be rebuilt; victims need to feel the care of 
the community, offenders need to feel that they will not be banished, and the 
community needs to reconnect in order to promote healthy relationships. 

Restorative justice recognizes the importance of community involvement 
in preventing and responding to crime. 

8. 
Dialogue between those affected brings conflict resolution into 
justice. Instead of taking the conflict away from the parties and from those 
who can help, the idea is that the conflict should be nurtured and made visible 
because we can learn from conflict.47 Dialogue promotes peaceful 
resolution based on understanding, not anger based on misunderstanding. 

9. 
Justice is about building peace, not revenge. Restorative justice is a 
process whereby all the parties with a stake in a specific offense come 
together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense 
and its implications for the future.62 Empowering communities and the parties 
to jointly engage in addressing the meaning and consequences of crime 
promotes understanding, problem solving, and a willingness to work things 
through. The focus is on how much harm can be repaired, not how much 
punishment is appropriate. 

10. 
The state has a role, but the primary role rests with the community. 
If crime affects people, who should then be engaged in processes, 
we need to rethink the roles and responsibilities of government and 
community. Governments and system professionals cannot build strong 
communities. At best they can establish order. Communities, however, have 
the capacity for strengthening ties, developing mutual respect, and sharing 
values that help to establish a sense of security and harmony. As citizens 
have seen the professionalized service commodity invade their communities, 


they have grown doubtful of their common capacity to care, and so it is that 
we have become a careless society...12 Government cannot tackle crime 
alone, and communities need help in learning how they can assume 
more responsibility for reducing crime, fear, and disorder. 

Role of the State in Restorative Justice 

One paradox of restorative justice is that, despite being rooted in the idea that conflict 
should, as far as possible, be dealt with by the parties involved, there is no suggestion 
that the state ceases to have a role. First, restorative justice processes can be 
applied at different stages of the formal justice system: as a diversionary process in 
lieu of prosecution; following a referral by the court after a finding of guilt; as part of 
the court sanction, post-sentencing, or while a sentence is being served (as in the case 
of many serious violent crime cases). Few restorative justice processes are set up 
without the involvement of criminal justice professionals (although once set up, communities 
have been known to initiate conferences and circles by themselves).63 

Second, communities are not able to work on their own without support, training, and 
guidance in the principles and practice of restorative justice. Communities are riddled 
with obstacles to any realistic involvement in justice making, but these obstacles can 
be exaggerated. The state has a responsibility to gauge the threats of community biases, 
weakness, and attitudes, as well as the actual or potential assets inherent in a community. 

Third, the state has a role in monitoring what happens in restorative justice. After all, 
it is possible for some communities to stray away from restorative justice values and 
to start replicating the punitive emphasis of criminal justice or acting as vigilantes. 
Some communities have social and economic structures that can promote racism, 
sexism, and other discriminatory views that run counter to restorative justice values. 
These demand oversight. Community decisionmaking necessitates an element of 
accountability to its members as well as to broader society. Only the state can ensure 
that processes are conducted reasonably, fairly, and within defined parameters. 

Finally, restorative justice is not applicable in cases where guilt is being denied by the 
offender or where a victim is unable to choose to participate (although surrogate victims 
have been used by some programs). In such cases, none of the restorative justice 
models is able to replace the determination of guilt or innocence, which remains 
the prerogative of the formal justice system. 

Relationship Between Restorative Justice and the Criminal Justice System 

Critical to restorative justice is a recognition of its potential as well as its limitations. 
Restorative justice is not a panacea for the delivery of justice or the control of crime. 
Society is not in fit shape to discard the criminal justice system. Restorative justice 
advocates acknowledge the need for incarceration of offenders who are violent or 


persist in victimizing others. The criminal justice system is needed for public safety as 
well as for restorative justice. Restorative justice is a parallel system of justice coexisting 
with criminal justice. However, the two systems are based on different values, 
emphasize different objectives, and require separate thought processes. As Judge 
Barry Stuart writes: 

A range of responses to crime is necessary. The formal system has 
a place, but so too do systems and values flowing from family and 
community. Currently too much responsibility has been assumed 
by the formal justice system. We must create a better balance 
between what the state should and can do, and what the family and 
community should and can do.64 

The aim is to apply restorative justice increasingly, whenever appropriate to lessen 
dependence on the formal system. The formal system cannot deal with all the expectations 
and demands made on it, nor should it if we are aiming to promote public 
safety through citizen engagement and informal social controls. Comparisons are 
helpful to highlight essential attributes of each system. Both have their strengths and 
weaknesses, as highlighted in Table 4. 

There are dangers that restorative justice may be applied only in less serious crime 
cases or in relation to first-time offenders. Such limited application could reduce the 
potential of restorative justice to promote informal social controls through citizen 
engagement and to control crime through a balance of problem solving and learning 
by a partnership effort. 

The benefit of restorative justice is that crime is seen in more comprehensive terms 
than as a mere breach of the law by an offender. Restorative justice enables the full 
impact of crime, both in the short and long term, to be shared, understood, and dealt 
with through the active engagement of citizensincluding the victim(s) and offender(s). 
This means that the problem of crime is defined in more holistic terms and is 
not left for the police and the government to deal with alone. 

The process of restorative justice enables people to better understand the links 
between cause and effect and how existing conditions promote crime. This learning 
is often the precursor to active steps being taken to support changes in those conditions. 
This shifts the prevention of crime from being a marginal activity to one inherent 
in addressing crime. 

Crime is no longer seen as an intractable problem, but one that can mobilize communities 
to take care of their members and to put into place what is required to make 
crime less likely in the futurewithout creating divisions in the membership. In this 
way, communities are strengthened as their relationships are rebuilt, solidified, and 
developed. 


Table 4. Comparison of Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice 

Criminal Justice 
The system is primarily offender-focused 

Presumption of innocence imposes a burden of proof on the 
state; focus is on blame and punishment

Reactive to events 

Use of punishment (pain) to deter offenders and to respond 
to victims expectations 

Victims needs often marginalized, services are poor; 
excludes victims from process, but relieves them of burden

Community sidelined; can weaken community as it has to 
depend upon formal system 

Due process important; procedures are important and
predictable

Language is technical and legalistic 
 
Adversarial, competitive style 

Reason and rules dominate 

Offenders in a passive role; accountability is limited to pun-
ishment or compliance with orders 

Offender accountability not related to victims harm; debt is 
owed to the state 

Offense defined in legal terms; more straight forward 

Crime creates stigma; offender gets a record and can be 
banished from the community

No scope for remorse or forgiveness; 
offender often sees himself as victim against the state 

Process is taken over by professionals; victims hurt cannot 
be defined adequately by the state alone 

Consistency in approach and resolution; emphasis on stan-
dardization and proportionality 

Crime is kept simple: the behavior and the offender are firm-
ly denounced; consistent with tough-on-crime attitudes 

Focus on individual responsibility 

Restorative Justice 
The focus is on anyone crime has impacted 

Suspects rights are respected, but focus is on taking respon-
sibility, problem solving, and repair of harm 

Responds with the future in mind 

Some victims may still think punishment is needed; recon-
ciliation, reparation, restitution, compensation applied when 
appropriate 

Victim has a central roleneeds are especially addressed; 
danger of putting victim under pressure unless sensitively 
handled 

Community participation encouraged; opportunity for com-
munity building; some communities can be retributive, which 
calls for close state supervision 

Relationships and outcomes are important and 
variable 

Ordinary conversation allows for open dialogue 

Style is consensual conflict resolution 

Emotion and feelings are allowed 

Offenders encouraged to take active responsibility, but relies 
on goodwill and community or court supervision 

Offender accountable for repairing harm to the 
victim and community 

Offense seen in social and moral context, which can be complex 
but more holistic than legal definition 

Stigma removed through restorative action; offender is rein-
tegrated into the community 

Opportunity for remorse and forgiveness (although cannot 
be guaranteed) 

Process encourages parties involvement; victims are treated 
as individuals, and their feelings are dealt with 

Unpredictable and encourages variable solutions; responses 
tailored to needs 

Crime is made complex because of the distinction between 
the person and the behavior; difficult to market in current 
climate 

Focus on social and moral responsibility of individual and 
the community 

SOURCES: Words are the authors; material adapted from Marshall, T., 
Seeking the Whole Justice62 and Zehr, H., Changing Lenses.56 


Restorative Justice and Community Policing 

Neither restorative justice nor community policing are abstract ideas, but as concepts 
they are complex, with a variety of nuances and objectives. Both emphasize participation 
and citizen engagement, cooperative and collaborative approaches, and problem 
solving. Operating restorative justice or community policing enables learning, 
understanding, respect, and shared responsibility. Public dependence on professional 
experts tends to be offset by community development, and both have their sights on 
promoting safety and security. 

As with any idea that is hard to sum up in a few soundbites, both restorative justice 
and community policing are susceptible to being seen only in mechanical terms (individual 
characteristics, programs, or models)rather than in terms of the significance 
of their alternative vision of policing or justice, or both. In these cases, the 
broader goal relates to balancing formal and informal crime controlsto ultimately 
reduce the risk of repressive solutions to the crime problem (including fear and 
disorder) and enhance awareness of the importance and feasibility of developing 
social solutions that promote care, connectedness, and community. In short, the 
vision supports the development of a healthy and safe democracy. 

Both reform movements have the problem of seeming to demand the impossible and 
to be unrealistic about contemporary society. For a long time Western societies have 
been gripped by deeply challenging questions about crime, victimization, and offending 
behavior. To arrive at any consensus on the path forward, there must be a context 
in which clear objectives and a coherent strategy can be developed. 

In this respect, restorative justice has something important to offer to those attempting 
to advance community policing. Community policing is evolving and the resulting 
transformations are promoting democracy; but without the value base rooted in 
restorative justice, these changes will remain fragile steps without a focus on a clear 
mission. Restorative justice takes things much further: the basic presuppositions on 
which activities and decisionmaking are undertaken are far removed from the current 
mainstream paradigm of retribution and a focus on offenders. While community 
policing can be a vehicle for shifting attitudes, challenging traditional assumptions, 
and finding effective ways for delivering a balanced approach to law and order, its 
implementation requires professional leadership that must steer through a proverbial 
minefield. There are inspirational police chiefs willing to speak forthrightly on the 
need for change and how change can come about. But for the most part, accomplishing 
that change has been an arduous effort. The difficulty has been exacerbated 
by such factors as the cultural resistance to moving away from the professional model 
of policing, and skepticism about the capacity of communities to be more than consumers 
(or complainants) of professional police services. 

These factors have called for a kind of creativity that is unusual in bureaucracies; they 
also call for tenacity, perseverance, patience, and vision. The police culture is what it 
is for understandable reasonsfew people are confronted or deal with the span and 


depth of societal problems that police officers do. The work can seem awesome without 
imposing pragmatic limits to what policing is about and how it should be conducted. 

In turn, the notion of community can seem ridiculously nebulous and artificial. 
Police officers are well aware of how disorganized and apathetic different communities 
can be. It is a common experience for police chiefs to attempt to explore a meaningful 
dialogue, only to have a few lay voices hammer particular interests, regardless 
of the common good. It requires a unique set of skills to identify existing strengths and 
to surmount weaknesses to develop a true partnership based on mutual respect, 
power sharing, and joint learning. If community policing is evolving slowly, it is understandable 
in light of these factors as well as the reality of the powerful influence of the 
attitudes that support the war on crime. 

If community policing is evolving, restorative justice is akin to a loud alarm 
clock providing a dramatic awakening to the possibility of an entirely new 
reality. 

Restorative justice provides opportunities for transforming the way people think about 
law and order and about each other. In the experience of those who have seen the 
powerful way restorative justice shifts mindsets and promotes shared confidence that 
problems can be dealt with differently, there is emerging a sense that, almost unbelievably, 
theory can work in practice. 

Where restorative justice and its values have been implemented, what has seemed 
intractable or hugely difficult has turned out to be not only achievablebut often the 
catalyst for changes in relationships that otherwise have perpetuated problems, 
including crime. Restorative justice offers a vehicle for addressing crime in a way that 
both meets individual needs and works toward broader social needsthe key being 
empathy. As Gloria Steinem wrote, Empathy is still the most democratic and therefore 
revolutionary of the emotions... it turns healthy self-interest into equally healthy 
altruismand vice versa.65 

It is incumbent on police officers to expose themselves to these insights if community 
policing is to contribute to, not detract from, attaining the broader goal of striking 
a balance between formal and informal controls. Police officers applying restorative 
justice instead of traditional criminal justice would go a long way toward changing 
their relationships with communities. This kind of change is conducive to power sharing 
in partnership efforts and to building mutual trust. See Characteristics of 
Restorative Justice (in box), which are entirely consistent with community policing. 

There are problems in recommending that law enforcement agencies begin to take an 
interest in restorative justice: Policing is part of the formal criminal justice system, 
which has become a powerful machine for delivering justice, that is, detecting 
offenders and handing down tougher sentences. The culture of most police departments 
supports this rule-oriented ethos in the face of high levels of violent crime and 
persistent threats to public safety. Elements of some restorative justice processes find 
quick appealnamely, the encouragement of offenders to take responsibility and be 


Characteristics of Restorative Justice 

 Locally based 
 Nonprofessional 
 Procedurally informal 
 Focused on using crime as an opportunity 
 Trying to promote problem solving 
 Building relationships and social bonds 
 Trying to promote understanding and peace 

exposed to the impact of their behavior on others. Failure to ground oneself firmly in 
all of the values of restorative justice, however, threatens restorative justice and 
undermines the opportunity to learn that there is another route to protecting public 
safetyother than punishment. 

On the other hand, police officers who have been exposed to problem-solving methods 
and community policing already have many of the skills and insights required by 
restorative justice. Police officers have, without a doubt, a head start on understanding 
the real need for improving the status quo of existing criminal justice arrangements. 
Police see victims of crime not getting the support they need, offenders in the 
revolving door of a system that often can do nothing to change behavior, and communities 
frustrated by the impact on their quality of life. The police officer who puts 
his head above the horizon knows the chances of the thin blue line being swamped 
with 911/311 calls, reported crime, and outbreaks of disorder. For police officers, 
restorative justice has much to offerthe promise that they can play a key role 
in bringing about the kinds of change for which they joined the police: protecting 
and guiding those who need help, and promoting standards that are widely 
shared to make homes and neighborhoods safer. 

Part 4, thenfollowing the next sectionexplores key restorative justice processes, 
to provide insights into what can be accomplished if the police change their lens. A 
companion document to this report, entitled Toolbox for Implementing Restorative 
Justice and Advancing Community Policing, provides details on implementation 
issues to be considered in developing these processes. 

Conclusion to Part 3: Developing a New Paradigm 

Conventional wisdom has it that policing and justice represent different functions of 
the state. In simple terms, the police are there to respond to reported crime, to 
answer calls for service, and to maintain order. The justice system, on the other hand, 
is deemed specifically responsible for establishing the guilt or innocence of those 
charged with criminal offenses and deciding on the appropriate sentence in cases 
where guilt is proven. Although police are often regarded as the gatekeeper to the formal 
justice system, the organization, culture, goals, and practices of law enforcement 
and the courts are shaped by entirely different forces. 


Nevertheless, given the conditions in which crime is known to form and given the 
importance of community engagement in responding to and preventing crime, policing 
and justice need to be pulling in the same direction. Their priorities need to be 
the same and their activities better coordinated to provide a more coherent response 
to the problems of crime. 

In more recent years a picture has been slowly emerging of what a fully integrated 
policing and justice system could look likeone in which community orientation is 
the thread running throughout the entire fabric of law and order. The leap to join the 
separate concepts of community policing, criminal justice, and restorative justice is 
beginning to be made. There have been conferences on community policing in which 
community justice initiatives have been described, and vice versa. In 1995, in a paper 
titled Restorative Justice: A Call for Action, Marlene Young of the National Office for 
Victims Assistance pulled together the key themes emerging across policing and justice 
and wrote about constructing a new paradigm in law and order. The Victim 
Offender Mediation Association (VOMA) will dedicate its annual conference this year 
to the theme of building links between community policing and restorative justice. 

Talk is scarce, however, about developing a comprehensive, integrated community 
policing and justice system in which community engagement in crime control 
becomes a fundamental tenet across the board. This lack of emphasis explains, 
perhaps, why major reforms are happening virtually independently of one another. 
Ignoring the potential for such a holistic approach threatens to jeopardize current and 
future advancements in community-oriented policing and justice for two reasons: 
first, because the barriers to advancing community engagement and participation in 
decisionmaking remain obscure; second, because without strong links between community 
policing and justice, the changes occurring are likely to be superficial, that is, 
without a firm platform of a shared set of values that underpin the societal response 
to crime in America. Without strong links, the changes are also in danger of contributing 
to continuation of a stalemate between support for tougher crime controls 
and advocating for social justice. 

The police have a sense of the dilemma already. In Chicago a national conference in 
1998 on the future of community policing explored beyond the rhetoric and discussed 
the obstacles to change and the strategies for overcoming problems to advance 
the changing of policing. It is a familiar theme. More than 10 years ago police leaders 
were recognizing that police strategies that worked in the past are not always 
effective today. The desired goal, an enhanced sense of safety, security, and wellbeing, 
has not been achieved.66 Years later, community justice is emerging with a 
similar goal: striving for safe, secure, and just communities.67 Momentum to support 
a common mission for policing and the various components of the justice system 
needs to be promoted, and the police are well placed to advance the message. Their 
involvement in restorative justice could be the very catalyst required. 

The police have a critical role in helping to bring about a more integrated system for 
several reasons. First, the police arguably have far greater exposure to a wide range 
of stakeholders than do their counterparts among the agencies that make up the justice 
system (prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation officers, and others). 
They patrol the streets, attend community meetings, and enter peoples homes, often 


in connection with matters unrelated to crime and criminal justice. The police are 
dependent upon the community in fulfilling their enforcement role. Police can only 
respond to crimes reported by the public; investigating officers need information from 
the community, and they need community members cooperation as witnesses. Calls 
for service represent the most direct relationship between the public and the police 
as, respectively, recipient and provider of a whole range of services. Perhaps for this 
reason, it has always been understood that the police are the public and the public 
are the police.68 

Second, policing has always been regarded as having a relationship with the community. 
The public, even under the traditional professional model, was still regarded as 
an important ally in providing information, coming forward to report crime, and 
seeking the assistance of patrol officers. The 1970s still witnessed the police striving 
to listen to community complaints and to heed tensions. After all, poor police-public 
relations made policing exceptionally difficult. 

By contrast, the justice system has always encouraged a professional aura of independence 
from the community in an effort to establish impartiality. This has been an 
important thread in the due process of the trial system and in the critical decision-
making phases related to bail, sentencing, parole, and release. The way information 
and evidence from members of the public are introduced into, and used by, the system 
has largely been shaped by this ethos of autonomy. It has also influenced the standardization 
of many practices and policies out of a belief that decisionmaking must 
be objective and free of inappropriate interference. 

Third, policing has significant influence on what happens on receipt of a call for service 
or information from the public. Police decisions to arrest or to caution are discretionary, 
and they largely determine what matters go before other criminal justice 
agencies. 

Finally, the police have experimented with community-oriented approaches longer 
than any of their counterparts. They have gained experience, acquired new skills, 
developed new tools, and held long debates with communities about the need for and 
method of delivery of policing. 

Figure 13 highlights the challenge: to integrate community policing, community justice, 
and restorative justice based on shared goals and an integrated strategy. 

Figure 13. The Challenge: Integrate Community Policing and Justice 

Community Policing 
Community Justice 
Restorative Justice 
Develop shared 
goals and an 
integrated strategy 

An integrated police and justice effort would reflect an acknowledgment of the following: 

 The primary locus of policing and justice delivery should be the community. 

 There are limits to what the professionals can do without the active support 
of citizens. 

 Responding to crime requires more than a reaction and should include 
problem solving. 

 Offender accountability requires something more than simple punishment 
prescribed by the courtsthe needs of victims and communities 
should be addressed. 

 Crime is more than a violation of the law; it creates harm that has both 
short- and long-term consequences. 

 Accountability means more than legal accountability; it requires fairness, 
effectiveness, responsiveness, and social accountability. 

 Crime requires partnership efforts between professionals, as well as 
between professionals and the community, aimed at achieving common 
goals. 

 Current experiments should not be conducted in isolation, but as part 
of an agreed strategy to promote citizen engagement, participatory decisionmaking, 
problem solving, collaboration, social justice, and upholding 
the formal system of criminal justice. 


Part4
Community Policing,
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Part 4. Models and Processes Emerging 
Under Restorative Justice 


Part 4. Models and Processes 
Emerging Under Restorative Justice 

Restorative justice values are being translated into practical applications that, to varying 
degrees, embody the essence of the new paradigm: focusing on repairing the harm 
caused by crime (or restoring those harmed) through involving those affected, 
including victims, communities, and offenders. The state has a role in most of the 
processes, either to convene the process or to oversee procedural fairness and effectiveness. 
Restorative justice seeks to bring balance into the spread of rights and 
responsibilities among these four players: victims, communities, offenders, and the 
state. As Van Ness and Strong have illustrated (see Figure 14), the shift is from a criminal 
justice focus on the offenders relationship with the government to embracing the 
view that there are other parties affected by crime. 

Figure 14. Comparison of Criminal Justice and Restorative 
Justice Participants and Processes 

Government 
A. 
Criminal 
Justice 

Enforces laws with due 
process, safeguarding 
the rights of offenders 

Retribution seen 
as deserved. 
Offender is 
passive 

Offender 

B. 
Restorative Justice 
Victim 

Government 

Offender 

Community 

Restoration 
seen as needed. 
Offender is an 
active party. 

Response includes resolution, 
prevention, safety, healing 

SOURCE: Adapted from Van Ness, D., and Strong, K.H., Restoring Justice, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1997. 


The Balanced Approach 

In restorative justice, attention is paid to the obligations that the offender has towards 
the victim(s), community, and government and how those obligations are fulfilled 
through a dynamic process involving the following: 

 
Restoring the victim and community 
 
Developing offender competency and reintegration 
 
Promoting community safety 

Since 1992 the balanced approach, depicted in Figure 15, has underpinned the balanced 
and restorative justice (BARJ) model sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice 
and Delinquency Prevention in relation to juvenile justice. 

Figure 15. The Balanced Approach in Restorative Justice 

Accountability to Victims 
Community Safety 
Competency Development 

Source: Adapted from Maloney, D., Ronig, D., and Armstrong, T., Juvenile Probation: The Balanced 
Approach, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1988;39(3):163. 

Practices and models under the rubric of restorative justice should address these 
three goals in equal measure. Some models are more restorative than others in terms 
of striking the right balance, but each offers lessons for understanding the significance 
of the various elements of the restorative justice theory. None is a blueprint to 
be taken off the shelf and applied universally, without adaptation to local or individual 
circumstances. As Kay Pranis writes, Each community must struggle with basic 
questions of values and the communitys future; communities can learn more from 
one another but cannot answer those questions for another.69 

The next sections examine three key restorative justice models that provide insights 
into how the values of restorative justice are being explored by different communities. 


Victim-Offender Mediation 

A related concept in mediation theory is that ongoing interpersonal 
relationships make mediation more successful than standard 
court procedures because of the parties desire to preserve these 
relationships and/or their ability to influence each other.70 

Since the 1970s, as dissatisfaction with the traditional justice system mounted regarding 
its handling of crime, mediation has emerged as a viable process for addressing 
the impact of crime on both victims and offenders. Notwithstanding the advent of victim 
sciences, more information for crime victims, victim impact statements, compensation, 
reparation, and restitution orders, victims needs are too often compromised 
by a system that has focused elsewhere. 

When victims are required to attend court, they may feel that they are there only as 
evidence for the case against the defendant(s). Victims routinely experience a situation 
in which they are given no information, are deprived of compensation, and face 
courts that are not victim friendly. Meanwhile, offenders are placed in a passive role 
while the professionals conduct the adversarial system concerned with due process, 
procedural fairness, adhering to rules of evidence and the objectives of establishing 
guilt (or innocence), and deciding on sanctions. 

Mediation recognizes that the impact of crime is more complex than is reflected by 
law and legal procedure. Consistent with the notion that crime demands a social 
response, mediation allows the offender an opportunity to understand what he or she 
has done by directly (or sometimes indirectly) hearing the victims story. This process 
can be painful, for it involves stripping away excuses and defenses so the offender 
actually feels the pain that he or she created. The process is a catalyst for changing 
behavior. Mediation allows for the airing of (victims) grievances... more complete 
than in court, as the range of relevance is extremely broad.71 In other words, mediation 
releases the stranglehold on the emotions aroused by crime to enable victims 
and offenders to achieve consensus as to the true consequences of the crime and to 
reach agreement on the nature of the participants future relationship. Far from being 
a contest between the state and the offender, mediation is widely described as a procedure 
that is conciliatory and therapeutic. The participatory process is helpful to 
both the offender and the victim and can work in the spirit of restorative justice values. 

Different Models of Mediation 

Not all mediation processes, however, have as their objective to provide a service to 
victims and offenders to explore the ramifications of a crime and the relevant needs 
and obligations. One of the first mediation programs took place in Ohio, where a 
prosecutor realized that the backlog of cases in court demanded an alternative, diversionary 
scheme. A mediation center was set up in New York City in the mid-1970s 


aimed at handling cases that involved people who already knew each other. The 
process worked to develop agreement between partieswho might otherwise have 
had their dispute dealt with in courtso as to encourage them to carry on some kind 
of relationship; court appearances were seen as likely to completely sever communication 
between the parties. 

Neighborhood justice centers developed in the late 1970s, primarily seeking to promote 
an agreement between parties on either civil or criminal matters. Criticism of 
these initiatives centered on the mediation serving the interests of one party more 
than the other, and benefiting the justice system more than either of the parties (the 
first complaint is still a dominant criticism of mediation in cases of domestic abuse). 
The neighborhood justice centers generally are also more settlement driven than dialogue 
driven, focusing on attaining an outcome acceptable to the system rather than 
on accommodating a process of engagement that in itself is of value to the parties. 

For this reason, many mediation programs are not necessarily consistent with the values 
of restorative justice. It was in 1976 that the first known case of mediation took 
place (in Ontario) in which the therapeutic value of victims and offenders meeting 
face-to-face after a crime was the main driving force. A Mennonite probation officer 
and a community volunteer trained in mediation organized meetings between 2 
offenders and around 20 victims in a case of car vandalism. The agreement was victims 
compensation, payable by the offenders within 3 months. The primary aim was 
reconciliation, rather than mere reparation. Here the restitution followed the dialogue 
between the offenders and the victims, which helped the boys understand what 
they had done beyond wrecking the vehicles. In turn, the victims recognized the boys 
willingness to make good the harm, beyond admitting responsibility. The resolution 
of any conflict requires more than symbolic gestures of declaring blame and punishment: 
it requires negotiation in which both parties needs are taken into equal consideration. 

With this beginning, the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) was set up, 
and the idea soon spread to Elkhart, Indianaanother Mennonite community. The 
Canadian initiative, followed by Elkharts adaptation of the process to place the VORP 
under a community-based organization, began the development of mediation under 
a new paradigm. The old paradigms focus is on blame-fixing for the past; the new 
one, while encouraging responsibility for past behavior, looks to the future, problem-
solving the obligations created by the offense.71 

The Elkhart VORP was, therefore, probably the first time the concepts of mediation 
and restorative justice were brought together. Victim-offender mediation (or victim-
centered offender dialogue, as it has come to be known in some circles) builds on 
Christies argument that human conflict should be made visible and nurtured 
and belongs to the participants. It is they who should determine what is relevant, 
explore the impact and the implications of the conflict, and come to learn what it 
means. As Mark Umbreit writes, Conflict is an unavoidable part of life. Instead of 
denial, conflict can be embraced as a necessary step in the journey of the individual 
(or organizational) growth and development.72 


Victim-offender mediation is a problem-solving intervention in which the parties are 
brought together by a facilitator (coordinator or mediator) and encouraged to work 
out how the conflict can be resolved. It is the parties that make the decisions, not the 
facilitator (as in arbitration), thereby ensuring empowerment and self-determination. 
Mediation in the context of victim-offender mediation is a voluntary, informed 
processthere is no coercion73that usually follows a structure that paves the way 
for a smooth progression toward reaching agreement. 

Case Study:
Dialogue Brings Empathy

The father of a murdered daughter doggedly pursued his understanding of justice for her 
killer. For ten years he hounded the parole board in protest of any consideration of the 
offenders parole. His obsession for justice was well-known in any office related to the criminal 
justice system where he would frequently and freely express his feelings ranging from 
intense anger to absolute frustration and despair. When he was finally able to sit across the 
table and face the man who had brought so much pain into his life, they talked and listened 
to each other non-stop for over two hours. Before they took a break to resume the dialogue 
later on, the father spontaneously reached out and grasped the hands of the offenderthe 
hands which had taken the life of his daughterand said, Thank you. You cant imagine 
how helpful this has been. At the end of the day both told how so much of the weight of 
all those years had been lifted. What the encounter provided was the uncovering of a deep 
reservoir of emotional strength and resiliency for both the father and the offender. The experience 
seemed to evoke an extraordinary capacity for empathy and understanding that they 
would never have imagined they possessed. That did not mean the father practiced blind 
acceptance or naive pity of the offender. In fact, the face-to-face encounter was most characterized 
by blunt, brutally honest exchanges. 

SOURCE: The Victims Informer, newsletter by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Services, Crime Victim 
Clearinghouse, Austin, TX, 1997. 

How Can Victim-Offender Mediation Work with Crime? 

The idea of a victim of crime meeting face-to-face with the offender(s) is difficult to 
grasp for many people. Victims who have chosen to participate in a victim-offender 
mediation process often attract adverse comments from family or friends: Why 
would you want to do that? For many victims, as well, the idea seems oddif not 
intimidating. Yet the victim-offender mediation movement has developed rapidly since 
the Elkhart experiment more than 20 years ago. What are the incentives for victims? 

One woman who used to work as a prosecutor and now works in a community-based 
VORP scheme in Alaska, sums up much of the rationale for victims participation: I 
didnt want to encourage the denial in offenders any longer. She meant, of course, 
the unintended consequences of a criminal justice system that upholds the ideals of 
the presumption of innocence and the right to silence, both of which can discourage 


offenders from taking responsibility for their behavior. Instead, they wait to see if the 
prosecution can prove the case against them, or they receive legal advice that discourages 
their cooperation with the justice process. Offenders rights are important 
in maintaining a fair system of justice; in practice, however, these ideals have the effect 
of encouraging guilty criminals to deny guilt and responsibility. Their attorneys 
encourage them not to say anything that might incriminate them. The burden of proof 
rests with the prosecution, which necessitates a focus on the legal definition of a 
crimerather than on the social impact of the criminal behavior and on subsequent 
obligations the offender has incurred by his or her actions. 

For victims, victim-offender mediation offers an opportunity to express how they have 
been affected by the offenders behavior. It is important to understand the trauma that 
crime victims can experience in order to appreciate their strong desire to tell someone 
how they feel and how they have been harmed. Also, victims need information: 
why the crime happened to them, what the offender intended, could they have done 
something to stop the crimethese can be overwhelming questions, and often only 
the offender can answer them. The offender may also be the one person that the victim 
particularly wants made aware of what he or she is suffering. Victims feel that the 
offender rarely understands what he or she has done; the criminal justice systems 
interpretation of the victims testimony as evidence tends to remove the human 
dimension. Victim-offender mediation allows victims to express their feelings, get 
answers to questions, and be engaged personally in the negotiation of an acceptable 
plan that addresses both their needs and the obligations of the offenders. 

Umbreit and others have conducted evaluations of a number of victim-offender mediation 
processes to identify to what extent crime victims feel satisfied with their participation 
and with the agreements reached following negotiations with the offender. 
Victim satisfaction is consistently high, with 91 percent believing that the offender was 
adequately held accountable, compared with only 33 percent of the victims who did 
not go through a victim-offender mediation process.74 Table 5 compares victim-
offender mediation characteristics that have the least restorative impact with characteristics 
that have the most restorative impact. 

Victims responses to Umbreits survey suggest that the predominant reasons for their 
choosing to participate in victim-offender mediation is to receive answers to questions 
that they have of the offender(s) (82 percent), to have the offender(s) get counseling 
(82 percent), and to tell the offender(s) how the crime affected them (78 percent). 
Victims also were motivated by the possibility of having the offender(s) apologize to 
them (82 percent). Victims who have gone through victim-offender mediation have, 
without exception, said that victim-offender mediation should be offered to crime victims 
as a matter of course following a crime. This compares with 72 percent of victims 
asked the question who had not gone through a mediation process. See Process 
of a Typical Victim-Offender Mediation (in box) for an overview of such mediation. 


Table 5. Victim-Offender Mediation: Comparison of Characteristics with 
the Least and Most Restorative Impact 

Least Restorative Impact 
(Agreement-Driven: Offender Focus) 

Entire focus is on determining the amount of
financial restitution to be paid, with no opportunity 
to talk directly about the full impact of the 
crime on the victim and the community, as well 
as on the offender 

No separate preparation meetings with the vic-
tim and offender prior to bringing the parties 
together 

Victims not given choice of where they would 
feel the most comfortable and safe to meet, or 
who they would like to be present 

Victims are given only written notice to appear 
for mediation session at pre-set time, with no 
preparation 

Mediator or facilitator describes the offense and 
then offender speaks, with the victim simply ask-
ing a few questions or simply responding to 
questions of the mediator 

Low tolerance of moments of silence or 
expression of feelings 

Voluntary for victim but required of offender, 
whether or not he or she has ever taken responsibility 

Highly directive style of mediation or facilitation 

Settlement driven and very brief 
(1015 minutes) 

Most Restorative Impact 
(Dialogue-Driven: Victim-Sensitive) 
 
Primary focus is on providing an opportunity for 
victims and offenders to talk directly to each 
other, to allow victims to express the full impact of 
the crime upon their life and to receive answers to 
important questions that they have, and to allow 
offenders to learn the real human impact of their 
behavior and take direct responsibility for making 
things right 
Restitution is important, but secondary to the talking 
about the impact of the crime 

Victims are continually given choices throughout 
the process: where to meet, who they would like 
to be present, etc. 

Separate preparation meetings with the victim 
and offender prior to bringing them together, 
with emphasis upon listening to how the crime 
has affected them, identifying their needs, and 
preparing them for the mediation or conference 
session 

Non-directive style of mediation or facilitation 
with mediator not talking most of the time, high 
tolerance of silence, and use of a humanistic or 
transformative mediation model 

High tolerance for expression of feelings and full 
impact of crime 

Voluntary for victim and offender 

Trained community volunteers serve as mediators 
or co-mediators along with agency staff 

Dialogue driven and typically about an hour in 
length (or longer) 

SOURCE: Umbreit, Mark S. Course Materials on Victim-Offender Mediation. 
Available from the Center for Restorative Justice & 
Mediation, University of Minnesota. 


Process of a Typical Victim-Offender Mediation 

 Preparation of parties before meeting. Offender admits 
responsibility. Choice to participate. 

 Introductory opening statements by mediator to establish 
ground rules, to explain what the process should focus on, 
and to remind the parties that their involvement is voluntary 
and that they may leave at any time. 

 Truth telling by victim and offender. 

 Clarification of facts, sharing of emotions and feelings. 

 Review of victims losses and options for resolving these. 

 Development of an agreed plan. 

 Closing statement by mediator. 

Why would the offenders choose victim-offender mediation? It is generally assumed 
that there is an imbalance of power between the victim and the offender: after all, the 
victim was made vulnerable by virtue of the fact that the crime was committed against 
him or her. However, many offenders are juvenile, inarticulate, or frightened by the 
prospect of meeting the victim face-to-face. 

I think if I would have had to actually face the people whose homes 
I burglarized, when I was a kid... I think it might have changed my 
life. Maybe I would have figured things out soonermaybe I 
wouldnt be an ex-convict now.75 

Victim-offender mediation demands sensitivity and respect, not only to the victim, but 
also to the offender. Victim-offender mediation also rejects the notion that the process 
is less demanding on the offender than is the court process. The process of mediation 
is not suitable for all offenders, but victim-offender mediation offers offenders an 
opportunity to assume responsibility for their crime, to become more aware of the 
effect of their crime on the victim (and community), to use this knowledge to take 
stock of the future, and to apologize or to offer to repair the harm, or both. 

The use of the word opportunity stems from feedback received over and over again; 
offenders (and their guardians) frequently comment on their appreciation of having 
gone through a victim-offender mediation process. As one parent who participated in 
a police-run scheme said, I never did understand why the police could work on 
chasing people like my son without thinking about the consequences of their activities 
on peoples lives. This time I see the arrest as having provided a wonderful chance 
for my son to work with the police to sort himself out. I cant thank them enough.76 

In some ways, offenders are in need of reconciliationthey often understand that 
their behavior is not only wrong, but also has created obligations. The key lies in creating 
a safe environment in which they can admit responsibility and work out how they 
can take action to meet those obligations. The absence of such an opportunity can 
contribute to the offenders own rationalization of his or her behavior, e.g., I was 


Case Study:
Reconciliation Allows Offender Chance To Repair Harms

In one meeting between a grieving mother and her sons killer, receiving answers to some 
of the questions the victim had of the offender helped her to cry aloud and sleep for the first 
time since the murder happened many months before. While some harms are irreparable 
(for example, the loss of a child through acts of violence), there are other harms suffered by 
the family and friends left behind. Some harms can manifest themselves for years, causing 
serious mental and emotional trauma. For someone who has outstanding questions for an 
offenderquestions often not resolved even after a conviction at courtthe offenders willingness 
to truthfully respond may help the victim to slowly recover some semblance of order 
in their lives. In this case, the offenders display of compassion helped achieve a reconciliation 
that was critical for the mother, as she had begun to lose the support of her immediate 
family, who could not deal with her pain. Such meetings must be conducted only after considerable 
preparation with both parties and with the support of professional counseling. 

drunk at the time; They can afford itthey wont miss the money; They deserve 
it; I didnt mean to do any harm, I just got angry, thats all. Hearing the victim 
relate how the offenders behavior has harmed him or her tends to reduce the power 
of self-rationalization and denial. Learning from others who share their feelings lays 
the foundation for an offender to recognize the links between behavior and consequences. 

Why Does Victim-Offender Mediation Work? 

Part of the essence of victim-offender mediation (and other restorative justice models) 
is that the parties are able to speak about themselves for themselvesand without 
legal constraints. For this reason, victim-offender mediation processes are highly 
charged emotionally; it is not uncommon for the mediator (including criminal justice 
professionals long used to the damaging impact of crime) to be moved by what is 
shared during the process. There is an intensity to the dialogue that is sometimes 
uncomfortable and yet critical to the development of a common understanding of 
what happened, why it happened, and what should be done to address the current situation 
and future needs for both the victim and the offender. The victim-offender 
mediation process allows a sharing of information and feelings that is not usually present 
in traditional processes of justice; and, while the learning may be powerful, it can 
be transformative for anyone present. The punishment of an offender becomes less 
important than providing opportunities for the victim to gain a sense of closure and 
for the offender to gain an understanding of the human impact of the crime. 

Allowing the victim and offender to be directly involved in talking about the crime 
encourages problem solving to become part of the process: there is a dialogue about 
past events, but this soon becomes focused on a more forward-looking agenda 
what needs to be done to avoid future harm. 


Case Study: 
Mediation Can Bring Powerful Emotions That Promote 
Shared Understanding 

Sue Molhan had wanted to meet her sons killer for 9 years before she finally encountered 
Alfred Lemerick, who had shot her son after a failed robbery. I wanted him to see my face, 
my pain. I wanted him to know that when he murdered my son, part of me died, too. 
Lemerick had pleaded no contest and been sentenced to 27 years in prison. Lemerick wrote 
to Molhan signaling his remorse. Molhan agreed to meet Lemerick. Molhan shared with 
him a photo of Stephen and the jewelry that Lemerick had stolen. Lemerick, who had taken 
a combination of Valium, alcohol, and cocaine before the murder, said, It is hard to believe 
it was me there. I can never forgive myself for what I have done. Molhan was sure that 
Lemerick understood the pain he had caused and has said that she thinks he is rehabilitated. 
She wrote to the parole board: If I can do anything to make him feel better about himself
help his daughtersif that keeps him from hurting another individual, then that is 
what I will do. 

SOURCE: Beyond Disputes, Boston Globe, November 20, 1996. 

In Langley, British Columbia, victim-offender mediation serves offenders and victims 
of serious violent and sexual crimes, primarily to promote healing for both parties. 
Though still in their infancy, programs like the Langley one are being operated in 
Genesee County, New York; Austin, Texas (by David Doerfler); University of Minnesota 
(by Mark Umbreit); and Central Michigan University (by Harry Mika). These programs 
are attracting considerable interest.77 

These cases can take months to prepare before the parties are convened to a victim-
offender mediation meeting. Several meetings may be necessary before the objectives 
are met. The Langley program uses the following criteria to measure satisfaction: 

 Secure the safety of both parties. 

 Regain autonomy and a sense of control for both parties: For victims, 
they remain controlled by the offender as a known or unknown 
figure who dramatically and negatively altered the course of their life. 
Offenders can also feel the loss of their own moral control which feels 
(symbolically) to have been given up to the victim whom they have violated.
78 

 Achieve relatedness: victim and offender acknowledge the existence of 
a relationship between them, however hostile or negative, and are able 
to determine what form of future relationship is possible or desirable. 

The Langley project, as with the other victim-offender mediation processes, does not 
set out to excuse criminal behavior. The key is to acknowledge that the crime happened, 
to seek ways of coming to terms with what happened, to personalize and to 
humanize a dialoguewhich tends to change unhelpful stereotypes of victims and 
offendersand to empower the parties to negotiate an agreed plan. The participants, 


not the mediator, are in the drivers seat. They volunteer to participate, can stop the 
process at any time, and can choose whether or not to carry out any agreement. 

Forms of Restitution 

Agreements on plans at the end of a victim-offender mediation process vary: they can 
include financial compensation to victims for material losses or emotional trauma, 
work by the offender for the victim or the victims choice of community service, volunteering 
for treatment, undertaking education, an apology, or a combination of 
thesewhatever the parties themselves agree upon. The contract between the victim 
and the offender represents holding the offender accountable to the parties. 
Consideration should be given to how to monitor fulfillment of the agreement, for the 
sake of both parties as well as the broader communitywhich might find the victim-
offender mediation process incomprehensible. One way of overcoming the tension 
between accountability that is acceptable to those who have participated in the 
process (and therefore have some understanding of why the agreement makes sense) 
and those who have not, is to publish the agreed plans and the results of future monitoring. 
At the time of writing, the results of existing evaluations suggest that 
offenders fulfill their obligations as specified in agreed plans in almost 90 percent 
of all cases (Umbreit). This should be reassuring to anyone not present at 
the agreement. 

To recap, the key ideas of victim-offender mediation are voluntary participation, 
engagement in problem identification (identifying consequences of harm), and problem 
resolution (coming to consensus about an agreed plan). Victim-offender mediation 
is a process that mobilizes the participation of lay community members in the 
handling, resolution, and prevention of crime. Victim-offender mediation breaks 
down stereotypical images of victims as well as those of offenders, reduces fear, and 
promotes understanding of why crime happens and its full impact. Reconciliation is 
seen to occur when the offender recognizes the human consequences of his or her 
actions and when the victim sees the offender as another human being rather than as 
a monster. The key to achieving this reconciliation is a dialogue that involves the 
expression of personal feelings and of the truth, without the constraints of rules of evidence 
and due process of law. 

Victims can derive enormous benefits from being listened to, being treated with 
respect and sensitivity, knowing what is happening (and understanding why), being 
taken seriously, and having questions answered. They also derive satisfaction from 
having influence on the decisions about how the offender should be held accountable 
and from knowing that there is less likelihood of the offense being repeated. 

Although victim-offender mediation may be viewed by some as a soft option, for 
offenders it can be more demanding than punishment. Offenders are able to speak 
more openly (and honestly, perhaps) than they would in court, and they have the 
opportunity to be seen as a human beingwith strengths and weaknessesand to 
learn from their behavior. Another feature is that the process is likely to promote 


action by the offender (and his or her family) to stay away from crime. Victim-offender 
mediation avoids labeling, stigmatizing, and banishing offenders and promotes 
rehabilitation and prevention. The more connected an offender feels to the community 
to which he belongs, the less likely he is to commit crime. 

Victim-offender mediation also helps both victims and offenders to feel that they are 
part of a community and connected to people who care about them. Victim-offender 
mediation strengthens community relationships and makes communities more 
resilient to crime. If citizens and communities learn how to deal with offenders, they 
will also learn what contribution they can make toward building a sense of community 
in which people recognize that their actions can make a difference in the lives of 
otherspositively or negatively. Restorative justice processes foster citizenship and 
mutual trust. 

In this way, victim-offender mediation has clear benefits over and above many community 
justice sanctions. Counseling treatment, supervision, life skills training, curfews, 
and other interventions may be distinctly more helpful than punishment; but 
processes like victim-offender mediation emphasize relating to other humans and to 
the community. This emphasis promotes strong relationships that have a greater 
chance of building offender competencya key element of the balanced approach. 

Victim-Offender Mediation Mirrors Elements of Community Policing 

Victim-offender mediation provides a framework for understanding and responding 
to crime that is similar to the framework that operates when police work collaboratively 
with other agencies and the community. Police-community partnerships operate 
along nonadversarial lines with the overriding objective of sharing the information, 
perspectives, and understanding that shed the most light on an issue or problem. 
Partnerships involve consensus building, shared respect, and identifying common 
ground with a view to achieving something mutually beneficial. Victim-offender 
mediation is remarkably similar, even though the catalyst for the meeting(s) is of a 
different kind. 

In collaborative efforts, the partnership activity pivots on identified tensions, opportunities, 
problems, and aspirations from the viewpoint that no one person alone can 
resolve problems or achieve social goals. The partnership is formed because there is 
a sense that no one person or organization is omnicompetent. In victim-offender 
mediation, neither party will necessarily see in the other a partner; they are more 
likely to see an adversary (this is true even in some cases where partnership is seen 
as desirable, usually because it is jointly perceived that a crisis needs resolving 
through negotiation or collaboration). Not until the victim-offender mediation 
process begins (and this is why the skills of the mediator are of paramount importance) 
may either party see in the other an ally to work with in a spirit of cooperation. 
A common experience in victim-offender mediation processes is that people 
begin the meeting believing that they are at opposite ends of a spectrum in terms of 
agreement and values. Not until the dialogue starts can understandingand even 
empathybecome manifest. 


Case Study:
Fairness Experienced by Parties Promotes Healing

Three girls were arrested for painting graffiti on a church hall in a village, which used the 
hall for many social activities. They were among several youths who had daubed green paint 
on the brick walls and windows. Other youths had broken into the hall and destroyed artwork 
that had been completed by a club for deaf people. At the victim-offender mediation 
between the girls, the local counselor (responsible for funding the activities in the hall) and 
a cleaner (who had spent more than a week making good the damage), the offenders were 
defensive. The victims were bewildered why anyone would do such a thing. For about half 
an hour, after both offenders and victims had expressed how they felt, there was still no sign 
of remorse. Not even the weeping of one of the girls fathers (who had spent many hours in 
a voluntary capacity at the village hall) changed the atmosphere. Then the local counselor
one of the victimssaid, I know why the girls arent saying anything. They feel 
its unfair that they are having to go through this when others got off because they havent 
been caught. Suddenly one of the girls responded and offered information that they did feel 
that they were being picked on unfairly, but, nonetheless, they owed the victims and the village 
an apology. The agreed plan was for the girls to help the hall cleaner for several weeks 
and to distribute flyers to all the local residents informing them that the hall was open for 
use again. The victims agreed to ensure that more of the halls activities would focus on the 
teenagers in the village. Two years later the hall is alive with activity, and there is talk of 
building an extension to allow for more activities to take place. There has been no crime in 
the village since the meeting took place. 

In this respect the dynamics of victim-offender mediation are strikingly similar to the 
dynamics of collaboration: both involve opening a dialogue, breaking down myths and 
stereotype impressions, gaining understanding or insights, and negotiating a plan that 
is agreeable to everyone present. In such cases there can be disagreement, taking a 
particular position, acknowledging differences, looking at options, and making concessions. 
The atmosphere need not be pleasant so much as purposeful, although the 
importance of participants feeling safe is critical. In both cases, communication (especially 
listening), respect, attitude, and motivation are pivotal to a successful meeting. 
And most people gain from participating in collaborationeveryone wants to be 
involved in decisions that are likely to affect them. Consensual partnerships and victim-
offender mediation are vehicles for helping people make decisions together. 

Why victim-offender mediation has not been adopted more readily by police raises 
interesting questions, particularly in view of the significant progress by the police in 
partnership activities. 

Edelman suggests one possible explanation: society teaches us how to deal with conflict 
in an adversarial fashion. 

If youre angry, show it and get even! If youre upset with somebody, 
hit them! If youre really annoyed with someone, you pick up a gun 
and shoot them. If you want to be nice about it, you beat them up 
both physically and emotionally. If you want to be truly civilized, 
you berate them and make them look like fools. And if you want to 
be super nice, you just sue them.79 


Conflict, in other words, can be appealing because of the sense of power attained by 
those involved. Giving up this power can be difficult. 

This power issue was brought home after speaking to officers about firearms incidents 
that prompt operational tactics to identify a gunman, contain him, and then 
arrest him. Police have the power to close streets, evacuate shopping malls and even 
whole sections of public land to home in on a suspect carrying a gun. The power can 
be used sensibly or recklessly (similar to police car chases). It is considered by some 
to be losing face if the police back down from implementing the full force of the law 
and their powers. For others, a balance needs to be struck between enforcement and 
public safety. Conflict resolution by peaceful means takes away the excitement of a 
chase, getting the bad guy, pinning someone down who deserves it, etc. Some people 
prefer finger pointing, blame fixing, and nailing and jailingall widely accepted 
reactions to wrongdoing. 

Decisionmaking processes aimed at resolving conflict and tackling crime should shift 
toward problem diagnosis rather than merely reacting to problems. Diagnosis 
requires keeping an open mind, to be prepared to learn new things, discover that 
images are not the same as reality, and realize that although people are different, their 
needs are reconcilable. Fire-fighting tactics, conversely, will detract from building the 
sense of trust that enables this diagnosis to happen. For these reasons, victim-offender 
mediation has a considerable contribution to make in advancing police methods of 
operation from pure enforcement to enforcement supported by partnership problem 
solving. The law must be enforced, but the nature of the enforcement can change from 
focusing on blame to a focus on establishing the real causes and consequences of the 
conflict or crime. Focusing on the meaning requires the involvement of the perpetrator(
s) and efforts to encourage people to speak openly and honestly and to acknowledge 
their actions. 

This plan sounds completely realistic to those who have experienced the power of victim-
offender mediation processes. In this context, storytelling has great importance: 
it can vividly convey real-life situations in which people managed to work out agreed 
solutions in a way that is the antithesis of the lens to which we have grown accustomed
that conflict deserves war and fighting. The alternative is to create a safe environment 
in which problem solving can take place pursuant to a peaceful negotiation 
of agreed outcomes. Skepticism will diminish only with experience. For example, an 
Ontario case in 1976 attracted the criticism that the face-to-face meetings between car 
vandals and their victims compromised the integrity of justice. Today, by contrast, 
there are more than 200 victim-offender mediation programs in the United States, 30 
across Canada, and around 700 in Europe. Victim-offender mediation is being conducted 
in Israel, South Africa (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is just one 
example), and the Far East. See Mainstream Endorsement for Victim-Offender 
Mediation (in box) for another indication of its progress. 


Mainstream Endorsement for Victim-Offender Mediation 

To illustrate how widely accepted victim-offender mediation has become in the United 
States, the American Bar Association endorsed victim-offender mediation in a resolution in 
1996. The resolution urges federal, state, territorial, and local governments to incorporate 
... victim-offender mediation programs in their criminal justice processes and encourages 
support for research on victim-offender mediation and for the dissemination of those 
research results. 

Adopting the values of restorative justice, however, can change attitudes about wrongdoing, 
including crime, from hostility to a reaction that embraces the conflict as an 
opportunity for asking some important questions. These questions include: Why is this 
happening? What is underlying the behavior or activity (e.g., anger, greed, cruelty, 
upset, fear, etc.)? What would help to change what has happened? What can we learn 
from this? Why did we not anticipate this? Could we have prevented it? Restorative justice 
practice is revealing, over and over again, that lay and professional people alike 
are discovering new dimensions of the crime problem, prompting Navajo Judge Yazzi 
to say: 

We often dont know what we dont know.80 

Civilized society requires some kind of accountability for wrongdoing, but this need 
not necessarily entail punishment. Accountability also need not involve a game of 
asserting rights over and above the constructive conflict management that promotes 
strong relationships, social justice, and learning. Victim-offender mediation is one 
model that is proving apt at humanizing the justice process and is providing new 
insights on the peacemaking role of policing and law enforcement. 

Family Group Conferencing 

I would never have believed we could resolve this problem so easily
I would have bet it all would have blown up. I was even afraid 
there would be bloodshed. Im delighted, but I still can hardly 
believe it. 

Mother of a student involved in a 
conference following a racial incident 
in Washington County, Minnesota 

Family group conferencing has become a key model under the umbrella of restorative 
justice, which recognizes that crime harms people and is more than a violation of 
criminal laws. Family group conferencing also has all the elements of community 
policing: community involvement, shared ownership and responsibility, collaborative 
problem solving, identifying ongoing issues of concern, and looking long term. 


Case Study: 
Conferencing Enables People To See Crime as More Than a 
Violation of the Law 

Two 15-year-old youths were out one evening, armed with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife, 
stealing mirrors and logos from parked carsnot a crime that would usually receive much 
attention. They were caught, however, and one victim was invited to attend a conference. He 
was the owner of a BMW and had inherited the car from an elderly gentleman whom the 
victim used to drive to hospital appointments before his death. The old man had left him 
the car in his will. The victim was very upset by the theft of the badges and damage to his 
car, largely for sentimental reasons, and felt bad that he had not protected the gift he had 
been given. He agreed to meet the youths at a conference that included him, the offenders, 
and their respective mothers. The police-run conference went very well; at the conclusion, 
the victim was asked what he felt would be an appropriate way of making good the damage. 
He did not want financial redress, as the loss was more symbolic than financial. He just 
wanted the boys to learn from the incident. During the conference, he had mentioned he 
was a volunteer helper for a charity. Both boys offered to spend a day working with the same 
charity during their holidays, in their words, to show we are sorry and do something for 
people less fortunate than ourselves. The victim was delighted. 

The basic elements of family group conferencing are simple. In the wake of an offense 
for which guilt is admitted, victims, offenders, their supporters (friends and family), 
and members of the community are given an opportunity to meet in the presence of 
a coordinator or facilitator. Conference participants are encouraged to discuss the 
direct or indirect effects of the incident on them. This identification of the harm is followed 
by negotiating a plan, agreed upon by all attendees, for repairing the damage 
and controlling the offenders behavior. 

These conferences take place either as a pre-adjudication diversionary technique or 
pre-sentence after a finding of guilt. Conferencing is not an easy way out for an offender. 
Taking responsibility for ones behavior, being confronted by a victim, and taking 
steps to make amends pave the way for individual growth and change. There are two 
prerequisites to a conference. The offender(s) must admit guilt; and all participation 
is voluntary. Conferencing is based on the philosophy that justice is best determined 
by those directly affected by crime. It recognizes that people are more likely to be satisfied 
with the outcome when they are involved in decisionmaking. 

A successful conference ends with a re-acceptance of the offenders into the community 
of conference participants. The process condemns the behavior but does so in the 
context of separating the behavior from the person. The facilitator focuses the discussion 
on condemning the act without condemning the character of the offender. 
Restorative justice does not preclude the punishment of offenders, but it does not 
focus on punishment. It is concerned with needs and responsibilities and represents 
an inclusive approach to crime control distinct from traditional adversarial and exclusionary 
methods of handling offenders. Making amends to crime victims, a primary 
focus of family group conferences, also helps to shift the balance from offender punishment 
to victim restoration. This shift encourages offenders to take active responsibility 
by making reparations, sharing remorse, apologizing, and seeking to resolve 
broader difficulties at home and at school. 


Origin of Conferencing 

Family group conferencing began in New Zealand following sweeping reform of the 
juvenile justice system sparked by the 1989 legislation The Children, Young Persons 
and Their Families Act.81 Years of frustration with a criminal justice system that had 
failed to curb repeat offending and that was seen to encourage dependency on welfare, 
provoked discussions for a period of more than 15 years. The process of conferencing 
was introduced after the criminal justice system came under specific pressure 
from the indigenous Maori people, who resented a system that had been removing 
their at-risk children and young offenders from their traditional communities. A 
fundamental Maori value is that we are all part of one another and the main purpose 
of justice is healing for all.82 The Maoris wanted the New Zealand justice system to 
adopt their way of handling conflict. For the Maoris, the main purpose of justice is 
that everyone is healed. 

Since 1989, all young offenders, except in the case of rape or homicide, have been 
dealt with by conference. 

Case Study:*
Conferencing Has Wide Appeal to Anyone Who Has Participated

Five male graduates from the local high school, three aged 17 years and two aged 18, were 
detected copying $20 bills in a color copy machine at a local library. They successfully 
passed them at four different convenience stores. The U.S. Secret Service decided not to 
charge these boys with various Federal charges, as its policies lean toward pursuing more 
serious offenders. The Secret Service agreed, however, to take part in a family group conference 
so that these young men could understand that they were being held accountable for 
their actions. The conference was a very emotional one. All five boys, as well as their parents, 
were in tears. Several hours of community service, as well as reimbursement to the 
stores involved, was then agreed upon as restoration for the harm caused. The Special Agent 
in charge of the Secret Service in this area, as well as the investigating agent, the parents, 
and the victims, were all very pleased with the process and its outcome. All the boys were 
remorseful and the police department has not had an incident with any of them since. 

*Anoka Police Department, Minnesota. 

No one would have called the early conferencing process restorative justice. The 
implementation of conferencing was essentially driven by child welfare considerations 
and was seeking to mobilize the support of local communities and family and social 
networks to support children in trouble. The early model, therefore, was not victim-
centered; it became so after low satisfaction levels among victims of crime who were 
not invited, or did not want to attend a conference, became problematic and resulted 
in amendments to the original legislation in 1994.83 However, various adaptations of 
the early child welfare model have come to reflect the balanced approach inherent in 
the restorative justice paradigmthat of involving victims, offenders, and communities. 


There are now several conferencing models around the world, often distinguished by 
the agency that coordinates them. In 1991, the New South Wales Police in Australia 
adapted the process in the city of Wagga Wagga and placed more emphasis on the victims. 
As Police Sergeant Terry OConnell says, Make the victim feel important and 
they will come. In New Zealand youth workers were trained to deal with adult offenders 
referred by judges who had been impressed with the early efforts of conferencing 
with children. Community accountability conferences were introduced in New 
South Wales schools to deal with bullying and other misbehavior. 

The potential of conferencing is increasingly being recognized across the United 
States (Vermont, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Georgia, California, and 
Indiana have conferencing programs), in Canada, across Europe, including the 
United Kingdom, in South Africa, and in Israel. Family group conference legislation 
has been passed in Canada, where the process was introduced in 1996 through 
schools in Ontario and where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are developing conferencing 
as a complement to community policing. In the United Kingdom the police 
introduced conferencing specifically for juvenile crime in 1994, and social workers 
replicated the New Zealand welfare model for children at risk. Family group conferences 
are being used to deal with family violence in Minnesota, Newfoundland, 
Labrador, and Nova Scotiaand are still spreading rapidly. Police departments in 
Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada are introducing conferencing for informal 
resolution of internal discipline and conflict between staff; and conferencing has also 
been applied in corporate settings following allegations of corruption, sexual harassment, 
industrial disputes, and negligence. Community conferencing is also being 
used by resident associations and community groups to deal with neighborhood problems. 

So, what has led to this rapid spread of an idea that has its roots in New Zealand? 

Key Elements of Conferencing 

There are a number of key characteristics of conferencing to be understood. First, the 
process is not hierarchical, but distinctly egalitarianparticipants have an equal role 
to play. Conferencing is not state centered. The coordinator is not a judge or arbiter, 
rather a facilitator of others. Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the differences between the 
traditional process and the conferencing approach. In the latter, everyone is seen as 
having an important role and a contribution to make. 

In a conference, a trained conference coordinator/facilitator guides the participants 
through general discussion of how the crime occurred, how it has affected their lives, 
and how the crimes harm can be repaired. The facilitator asks the offender or offenders 
to explain what happened, how they feel about the crime, and what they think 
should be done. The victim and others are then asked to describe the physical, financial, 
and emotional consequences of the crime.84 All participants are given the opportunity 
to speak and to express their feelings. They can ask questions of each other. In 
the conference, the offender is faced with the full impact of his or her behavior on the 
victim, the victims relatives, and on the offenders own family and friends. 


Figure 16. The Position of Offenders in Traditional 
Criminal Justice Processes 

The State Criminal Justice 
 Agencies
Individual Offender
Family
Victim
Educational Institutions 
Peers 
Other Organizations 
 
Note: In the traditional system, the offender is pitted against the state. The victim(s), family, and wider
community have no particular role to play.

Figure 17. Parties Involved in Conferencing 
Crime Incident 
Witnesses 
Peers/Friends 
Offenders 
Victim(s) 
Schools, Clubs, Groups 
Neighbors and
 Community Members
The StateCriminal 
Justice Professional or 
 Volunteer Coordinator
Supporters of Victim  
 and Offender 

Note: The victim, offender, family members, and wider community share the decisionmaking role with the 
stateeach is a key player. 

The entire group works out an agreement about how the offender may best repair the 
harm caused. A plan of action is developed, written up, and signed by key participants. 
The plan may include material restitution to the victim or symbolic reparation 
in the form of an apology, community work by the offender, help for the offender in 
finding employment, assistance with drug or alcohol problemsor any preventive 
approach on which the participants agree. It is the responsibility of the conference 
participants to determine the outcomes that are most appropriate for this particular 


victim and this particular offender. Conferencing is fully participatory and empowering. 
The discussions, issues, and outcomes are relevant to the participants. They feel 
ownership of what occurs at the conference and subsequently when the outcomes are 
implemented. 

The conference normally ends with a ceremony that marks acceptance of the offender 
back into the community, which agrees to oversee his fulfillment of the plan in a 
supportive, rather than punitive, way. Agreements are monitored by a combination of 
community surveillance and checking with the offender to ensure that he is able to 
meet his obligations. Communities have been known to recommend changes in the 
agreement plan if they see that the offender is having problems that are not of his 
making. This should be done only in consultation with the victim(s). 

Ceremonies can be an incredibly powerful catalyst for reconciliation between the parties. 
Victims, feeling relieved after the open dialogue, have frequently gone to hold or 
hug their offenders. Many facilitators deliberately leave the room to allow the parties 
space or privacy after an offender has shown remorse. For this reason, these ceremonies 
have come to be seen as rites of peacemaking. 

The Power of Family Group Conferencing 

There is nothing magical about a family group conference, but it has the potential to 
be a powerful learning experience, wrote Bruce Taylor and Glenn Kummery after 
their involvement in a conference after an entire school had to be evacuated following 
the spraying of pepper mace throughout the building.85 Conferencing requires 
offenders to confront the consequences of their crime in a far more intensive way than 
traditional court processes, which tend to be anonymous, impersonal, and emotionally 
detached. Each stage of the conference is characterized by strong emotions. It is 
this aspect that makes conferencing complex, notwithstanding its simple sequence of 
allowing those impacted by crime to explore how they have been affected and of 
engaging in finding specific ways to heal the harm. One victim made this comment 
about how he felt at the start of a conferenceand subsequently: 

I had this enormous amount of anger that I wanted to shout out, 
but I felt very defensive... I was so angry that I was literally shaking. 
Then as the conference got under way I was able to say all the 
things Id been thinking about for those weeks and explain how 
angry I was... to put him in the picture of how it affected me made 
me feel so much better... I felt a great sense of relief of getting it off 
my chest. 

It is evident from many conferences that victims consider the emotional reconciliation 
to be far more important than material reparation. 

Providing people the opportunity to express their feelings and concerns, and to collaborate 
on how the crime can be resolved in ways that are meaningful to them, 
underscores the philosophy of conferencing. Judge F. W. M. McElrea, Youth Liaison 


Judge for Auckland, New Zealand, suggests that there are three radical changes 
involved in this new process. They are the transfer of power from the state to the 
community, the use of the family group conference to produce a negotiated community 
response, and the involvement of victims, which make healing possible for 
victim, offender, and the community. 

The emerging international interest in family group conferencing reflects a growing 
discontent with established forms of justice and the increasingly widespread conviction 
that our time is out of joint, that something in the present is not going well, it 
is not going as it ought to go.86 These concerns are finding expression in a search for 
new forms of democracy that are more participatory and direct. The deployment, 
appropriation, and extension of the Maori practice of bringing families together to 
respond to wrongs is one of the many terrains that exist today on which this struggle 
for a more active conception of citizenship is taking place.86 

At the heart of conferencing is the belief that the community is best equipped to deal 
with crime and offending behavior. The community includes those who committed the 
crime and those who have been victimized by the crime. Both victims and offenders, 
together with the wider community (including family, neighbors, friends, teachers, 
shopkeepers, etc.), are needed to understand the meaning and consequences of 
criminal behavior. Justice is best determined by those directly affected. In the traditional 
system, the key players are the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense lawyer. 
With conferencing the key players are the parties, their families, and the community. 

The professionals, including the police, are present in a supportive role. 

Family group conferencing seeks a just response to a harmful breach of social and 
legal norms; the trigger for conducting a conference may be a violation against the 
criminal law, but the impact on social relationships and community standards is as 
critical as the legal violation. As Judge Michael Brown of Auckland, New Zealand, 
explains: 

In the old model of justice the judge is in control, representing the 
state and exercising authority given by the state either to impose 
punishment or to direct intervention in peoples lives for welfare 
reasons. By contrast, in the new model the principal task of the 
judge is to facilitate and to encourage the implementation of solutions 
devised by the participants, and to act as a backup if these 
solutions are not implemented.82 

What sets conferencing apart from victim-offender mediation and reconciliation 
programs is its emphasis on responding collectively to crime and to social problems 
(see Table 6). 


Table 6. Comparison of Family Group Conferencing and 
Victim-Offender Mediation 

Variable 
Family Group Conferencing 
Victim-Offender Mediation 

Goals 

 Offender involvement and 
  accountability 
 Victim involvement and healing 
 Restoration of victim losses 
 Active participation by community, support 
  people, and families 
 Condemnation of the criminal behavior, 
  not the individual 
 Reintegration of victim and offender in 
  community 
 Offender accountability 
 Victim involvement and healing 
 Restoration of victim losses 
 Mediator in a nondirective role 
 Conflict resolution between the parties 

Contact with 
parties before 
joint session 

The FGC coordinator contacts all participants 
by phone (and may meet with each 
side separately) to explain the process, 
to find out from the victim and offender 
who else should participate in the 
process, and to secure their willingness 
to participate in the process. 

The mediator contacts the parties (victim 
and offender) by phone and usually 
meets separately with each party to 
explain the process; to hear the persons 
account of the offense, feelings, and 
repercussions; to build rapport and trust; 
and to secure their willingness to participate 
in the process. 

Typical place for 
joint session 

A meeting room in a police department, 
social welfare office, school, or community 
building. 

A neutral setting such as a meeting room 
in a library, community center, or 
church. Occasionally in the victims 
home, if requested and approved by parties. 

Primary role of 
coordinator or 
mediator 

To encourage and recruit participants; to 
set up the conference meeting; to maintain 
a meeting atmosphere that tolerates 
silence, pauses, and powerful displays of 
emotion; to facilitate the participants 
condemnation of the offense and affirmation 
of the victim(s) and offender(s); 
and to record the parties agreement. 

To educate the parties so they can make 
a voluntary, informed decision about participating; 
to help prepare the parties for 
their participation in the joint meeting; to 
provide a safe and respectful atmosphere 
in the mediation session that tolerates 
silence and pauses; and to facilitate a 
dialogue in which emotions can be 
expressed, information shared, and a 
restitution agreement negotiated. 

Typical agenda for 
joint session 

Coordinator introduces participants, 
explains ground rules and process; 
offender tells his or her story and others 
respond to it; parties discuss event and 
express concerns; parties discuss restitution. 

Mediator introduces participants, 
explains ground rules and process; the 
victim and offender tell their story, often 
with victim going first; parties discuss 
event and express concerns; parties discuss 
restitution. 

Typical length of 
joint session 

12 hours 

4575 minutes 

SOURCE: Adapted from Umbreit and Stacey, 1996.89 


The family group conference also has the following advantages over victim-offender mediation: 

 
Involves more people in the community, who are called to discuss the offense, its 
effects, and how to remedy the harm, thus contributing to the empowerment and 
healing of the overall community. 
 
Acknowledges a wider range of people as being victimized by the offense and 
explores the effects on those people: the primary victim, people connected to the 
victim, the offenders family members, and others connected to the offender. 
 
Gets a wider range of participants to express their feelings about the impact of 
the crime, and potentially involves them in assisting the reintegration of the 
offender into the community and the healing of the victim. 
 
Acknowledges the important role of the family and community in an offenders 
life. 

For these reasons conferencing is emerging rapidly and engendering considerable enthusiasm 
in many parts of the worldand is likely to spread even further. 

A Shift Away From Punishment 

This bold experiment seeks to develop an approach that moves beyond 
established conceptions of justice as vengeance.87 

The conference process represents a fundamental transfer of power from the state to the community, 
the family, and victims. It allows for a negotiated response to crime and is a result of 
tension between the retributive model and prevention goal of juvenile justice. Across the 
Western world there are questions about juvenile crime and pressures to move toward hearing 
youth cases in adult court settings. There are also voices calling for prevention of youth crime. 
This tension manifests itself in the way family group conferences are implemented. The public 
is showing that it is not as punitive as is generally assumed. Agreements arising from community 
participation in conferencing focus on repair, restoration, rehabilitation, victim recovery, 
and public safety through prevention. Punishment becomes less significant as people know 
more about the facts and about the offender. 

How is this shift from a punitive to a problem-solving, negotiated response achieved? The key 
lies in the way the process of conferencing is run. With the state removed from the center of the 
justice system, people are brought together and are invited to care about the impact that the 
crime has had all around. A fleshing-out of the incidenthow it has affected the victim, 
offender, and community members present at the conferencepromotes deeper understanding 
of what was going on for the offender as well as of how his or her behavior 
touched others. The transformation is the result of peoples direct involvement in the determination 
of harm and how those harmed should be restored. The myths that all offenders require 
a punitive sanction and that only punishment will work are frequently exploded during the 
course of a conference. Even those who attend a conference intent on seeing just deserts 
imposed, undergo a significant change in perspectivethe result of both their empowerment 


to shape the outcome and the insights gained from the dialogue. Conferencing allows 
information to come out that could not be admissible in a court of law. In this way, 
conferencing affords a broader and deeper impression of what happened. 

With the shift away from an emphasis on punishment, the focus is on taking responsibility, 
reconnecting, changing behavior, and restoring the victim through a series of 
activities that promote satisfactory outcomes for all concerned. As shown in Figure 18, 
victims attending a conference rather than court are much more likely to receive an 
apology from the offender (74 percent compared with 14 percent) and are less likely 
to fear revictimization (6 percent compared with 19 percent).88 Participation in a 
conference can also reduce victim fear, anger, and distress. There are even signs that 
victims often feel sympathy for an offender after having seen the offender with his or 
her family and having listened to the offenders life circumstances. Victims often mention 
the relief they experience at seeing the offender and learning who that person 
really is. 

This dynamic is also complemented by the collective experience of the community 
participants, who then understand more about the crime and the offender, as well as 
about the impact and consequences for the victims and the community. Part of the 
power of conferencing lies in the learning that participants experience when they 
meet one another and exchange facts as well as feelings. This exchange is a catalyst 
for changing the way people regard the offender as well as for understanding the 
needs of the victim. Emotions can effuse from person to person, making it difficult for 
anyone to shrug off the gravity of the crimes effect on other human beings. Putting a 
human face on the crime begins the process of empathy and healing. Openly acknowledging 
feelings and issues promotes a sense of mutual responsibility for building a 
caring community. This is crucial for addressing the needs of victims and offenders. 
It is also crucial for building stronger families and communities. Processing conflict 
in a safe environment is a powerful tool for addressing problems that, left to fester, 
would create crimogenic conditions. 

Mobilizing Social Controls 

Evidence gathered from conferences reveals a great deal about the interaction in 
groups and about the power of social networks: 

It appears to be a measure of the intrinsic integrity of the conference 
process that it regularly delivers outcomes satisfactory to all 
conference participants. This apparent integrity of the process 
itself would seem to derive both from the nature of the interaction 
between conference participants and from the ability of the conference 
process to mobilize and even rebuild social capital.86 

As a result, conferencing shows what the public can doinstead of promoting the 
myth that only criminal justice professionals can deal with conflict, thereby eroding 
opportunities for communities and families to learn their civic responsibility. 


Figure 18. Comparison of Views of Conferencing and Court-
Case Participants 

Does Restorative Justice Conferencing Work? 

Offenders 

Increased respect  
for police 
Court
18 % 
Conference 
47% 

Increased respect 
for justice system
Court
26% 
Conference
42% 

Felt repaid victim
Court
40%
Conference
77%
 
Felt repaid society 
Court
77%
Conference
42%

Felt ashamed 
 of actions 
Court
66%
Conference
79%

Average time 
 of process 
Court
18 min. 
Conference
71 min. 

Victims 

Awarded 
 restitution 
Court
80% 
Conference
83% 

Received apology 
Court
14%
Conference
74%

Fear 
revictiminaztion 
Court
19%
Conference
6%

Notified about 
 proceedings 
Court
14%
Conference
75%

Attended 
 proceedings 
Court
30%
Conference
86%

SOURCE: RISE Project, Canberra, Australia, 1997.88 


Case Study: 
The Community Can Provide Supervision of Offenders, Thereby 
Promoting Public Safety Through Informal Controls 

The local Fire Department asked the police to arrange a conference with an 11-year-old boy 
who had started a fire with paper towels at his home. Jeremy attended the conference with 
his parents. His schools principal, guidance counselor, and teacher also attended, as well as 
a fire captain and his fire educator. Jeremy was quite surprised to hear how his actions affected 
his parentsbut even more surprised to hear from the school officials how his actions 
disappointed them, because of how much they thought of him. Jeremy wrote letters expressing 
his sorrow to the fire department, school officials, and his parents. He was required to 
meet with the fire fighters 5 months later at the fire station to check in with them, to give a 
status report on how his summer went, and to be reminded of the dangers of fire setting. 

In the traditional system, the law and due process are complex matters requiring legal 
experts, diminishing the status of the non-expert community. The public is forced to 
be a mere spectator to a process run by the state that regards the public as having little 
to offer. The system often sees the community only as dysfunctional. Conferencing 
offers a radical departure from the traditional focus on the weaknesses of community 
and offenders. Sharing power with families and communities that surround the parties 
enables their strengths to be mobilized; and it diminishes or eliminates the prejudices 
of many professionals toward so-called dysfunctional families and communities. 
By enlisting these groups in the decisionmaking process, professionals of criminal 
justice agencies learn about the power of informal social controls and about the 
capacity of lay people for self-regulation. 

A Sociological Explanationand Warning 

There are parallels with the process of conferencing and the social disapproval of 
behavior by people with whom there is a connection. In both instances, the feeling of 
shame is an important catalyst for the informal enforcement of standards and rules. 
Conferencing provides a structure to reap the benefits of informal social controls 
while reducing the chances of discrimination, prejudice, and intolerance. Even conferencing 
is threatened, however, when community values are out of joint with those 
of restorative justice. 

Braithwaites theory of reintegrative shaming describes as a key element of conferencing 
the distinction made between the offender and the offenders behaviorand 
the avoidance of stigmatizing shame that excludes people. He argues against a preoccupation 
with finding theories for why people commit crime.90 He suggests, instead, 
asking the question: Why do most of us not commit crime and comply with rules and 
procedures? Braithwaites idea is that most people are deterred from committing 
crime on two levels: internally, through their sense of right and wrong; and externally, 
by the threat of disgrace or condemnation by people with whom they have a significant 
relationship. Any condemnation, in order to maintain an offenders existing 
social bonds, should be in the context of care and respect. 


Case Study: 
Conferencing Is an Educative Process, in Different Ways, for All 
Participants 

A 16-year-old girl phoned in two bomb threats to the local high school. This was not the 
first time that the school had received bomb threats, and the principal decided not to evacuate. 
When caught, the youth stated that she had been bored and had wanted to get out of 
classes. She was suspended from the school. The girl attended a conference accompanied 
by both parents and a brother. Also in attendance was the school principal, the superintendent 
of schools, the chairperson of the school discipline committee, the schools guidance 
counselor, the two secretaries who had answered the phone calls, and the investigating 
police officer. The girl admitted she had not considered that her behavior would have such 
serious consequences and on so many people. The two secretaries talked about the effect 
that the threats had on them and their families. Both had been experiencing added stress 
and nightmares. The principal talked about the emotional pain of being put in a position 
where he had been forced to make the difficult decision whether to evacuate the school or 
not. He explained that in a previous evacuation some of the special needs children had been 
injured, and that he himself had an infant son attending the schools daycare center. The 
girl expressed shame and remorse for the harm she had done, and forgiveness was 
expressed by the victims. To make reparation the girl agreed to write letters of apology to 
the families of the principal and the secretaries. She agreed to work 1 hour a day with handicapped 
children in the schools special needs classroom until the end of the school year (7 
months). The girl was reinstated into school and successfully completed the terms of the 
agreement. She has since decided to make special education her lifes work. 

What would have happened under the formal system? 

Essentially the philosophy of family group conferencing is that of participatory 
democracy in which people are owed respect, valued for any contribution they might 
have to make, assumed to be capable of making a contribution and encouraged to do 
so.91 This applies to all the participants, including the offender. 

Drawing from the Japanese response to crime, where the shaming dimension of their 
culture plays a significant role (Japan has the lowest crime rates of any industrial 
nation), Braithwaite argues that when wrongdoers are confronted within a context of 
supporting relationships, a process of reintegration can begin. The confrontation by 
people who are significant to the wrongdoer creates a shaming experience that differentiates 
between unacceptable behavior and the person himself. This involves 
denouncing the unacceptable behavior but includes reacceptance of the individual. 

In other words, this includes (reintegrates) rather than excludes (stigmatizes) the 
wrongdoer (see Figure 19). This is more likely to effect a change in behavior than are 
those processes that seek to punish. Care must be taken to avoid stigmatizing shame, 
which can be humiliating and provoke resentment. The threat of social disapproval 
within a caring, loving, and respectful forum can affirmatively promote changes in 
behavior. 


Figure 19. Reintegrative Versus Stigmatizing Shaming 

OFFENSE 

REINTEGRATIVE
SHAMING
Informal/personal 
confrontation, e.g., 
conferencing 

Reintegrative 
shaming: 

You have 
done wrong, but you 
are not a bad person. 

Ceremony of restoration 
and reacceptance 

Material and symbolic 
reparation (e.g., apology by 
offender, community service, 
victim compensation, 
offender forgiven by victim) 
linked to relevant needs 

STIGMATIZING
SHAMING 

Formal/impersonal 
confrontation, i.e., 
the court system

Stigmatizing 
shaming: You are a 
bad person because 
you have done wrong.

Exclusion/outcasting through
punishment and/or detection

Punishment or
compensation not 
necessarily linked to 
personal needs of 
victim, offender, or 
wider community

Shame can be a powerful emotion, as illustrated by this story from Victim Services in 
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice: 

An offender had agreed initially to meet with his victim, but as we 
worked through more and more of the layers of his pain of shame 
and guilt, he became afraid and decided not to follow through with 
the dialogue preparation. He told me, What this process is asking 
me to do is too hard. Im to reach down deep inside and face all 
that I have done and all the pain I have caused... I just dont think 
my arms are long enough...92 

Don Nathanson describes shame as one of nine innate affects or emotions.93 In his 
psychological affect theory, Nathanson says that shame is the central social regula


tor that governs our social interactions. Our need to feel good about ourselvesour 
need to belongis fundamental to our very existence. Those who experience a sense 
of shame also experience a sense of social isolation. Shame that humiliates or stigmatizes 
tends to be associated with degrading and exclusionary ceremonies, which, 
Nathanson suggests, evoke four possible negative responses: attack others, attack self, 
avoid, or withdraw. 

As Becker described in the early 1960s, Deviance is not a quality of the act a person 
commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions 
to an offender. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; 
deviant behavior is behavior that people so label. According to this theory, the act of 
labeling a person as deviant proves a self-fulfilling prophecy: once labeled, a person 
tends to behave accordingly. Contact with the justice system is said to burden people 
with just such a label. The evidence for this claim is mixed, but it is now accepted that 
contact with the justice system labels a person, producing a stigma that in turn lowers 
self-esteem and thus prompts antisocial behavior. 

Braithwaite talks about the role that significant others play in this process. They, too, 
experience a sense of shame (a collective shame) about the offenders actions. 
Betrayal, loss of trust, surprise, anger, humiliation, and disgust are the emotions and 
feelings that the offenders significant others most likely will experience. As the someone 
who has transgressed, the offender experiences a sense of momentary isolation. 
How this sense of isolation is dealt with is critical. 

Case Study 
Shame Can Be a Powerful Catalyst for Changing Behavior in the 
Context of Caring Relationships 

A 17-year-old youth had been caught stealing beer and breaking a shop window. The shop 
was owned by an Indian family who had persistently suffered racial attacks and was thinking 
about selling the business. The victim agreed to meet the offender, who attended a conference 
with his grandfather. The youth showed little remorse, although he admitted the 
theft and vandalism. Even the victims story about the impact on him and his family 
seemed not to move him. His grandfather, however, told of his shame at hearing about the 
grandsons behavior. He related how he and his wife had brought up the offender after his 
mother abandoned him, and had tried to do the best by him. The grandfather started weeping 
as he shared the fact that his wife had not been shopping since the boy was arrested; 
she is too ashamed to walk in any shop in case people think she will steal like her grandson. 
The youth suddenly looked at his grandfather and also started to cry. I didnt realize, 
he said. I am sorry, sorry for what I have done, and I will do anything to make up 
for it. The youth agreed to a plan of restitution for the victim, to talk to his friends about 
the impact of racial attacks on the Indian family, and to do something that will make my 
grandmother feel proud of me again. The youth is currently studying businessa shift 
from his previous intention to work for McDonalds with the rest of his friends. 


Care must be taken to ensure the shaming process is not forced. A Texas judge has 
incorporated shaming into his sentencing decisions. In one case an offender was 
required to wear a T-shirt with the words, I am a sex offender... for life. In another 
case, an offender was made to apologize to his victim of domestic abuse on the steps 
of city hall (notwithstanding the fact that the victim did not want to be there). In 
Rehoboth, Delaware, local police are putting the photos and name of offenders who 
commit public nuisances in the local newspaper, hoping to shame them. Forced 
shaming is seldom helpful in getting offenders to recognize the consequences of their 
actions in a way that promotes empathy and genuine remorse. Public humiliation may 
be appealing to hold offenders accountable to the community but this is a dangerous 
tactic which, while promoting intolerance of crime, only fosters resentment and 
entrenched attitudes. One offender who was captured for urinating in the street and 
was advised his name would appear in the local news responded, Its no big deal. It 
dont bother me a bit. My friends just joke with me. Im not waiting with 15 guys in a 
line (for a restroom). 

Offenders use a variety of techniques to protect themselves from the shame of their 
actions. The collective encounter with the harm done by way of conferencing is often 
a good chance for breaking down the barriers that young offenders have erected. The 
sense of meeting eyeball to eyeball with the victim means that the offender cannot 
stand aloof or detached and allows something of the pain of the victim to penetrate 
his or her tough exterior. Because conferencing can be highly emotional, offenders 
actually perceive how their behavior has impacted others. The highly charged atmosphere 
can produce tears. Any offender unmoved by the victim might be moved by the 
reaction of his or her own supporters, such as a mother or a sibling. At this point, 
healing can beginby the offender taking responsibility for his actions and by making 
good the harm. 

Case Study 
Reintegrative Shame Promotes Behavior Change 

The offender had been charged with burglary, unlawful mischief, and trespass. Ben was 
intoxicated when he broke into a vacation home, gaining entry by smashing a door. He proceeded 
to smash things in the interior of the home. Damages exceeded $300. The owner of 
the home agreed to travel 3 hours to attend a conference along with the caretaker of the 
home. The offender was accompanied by his mother, stepfather, and younger brother. Two 
other neighbors whose homes the offender attempted to break into also attended. The officer 
conducting the conference reported that several things made the conference a success: 
first, Ben hearing from his younger brother how stupid his actions were made Ben feel 
ashamed; second, concern about their mother having to pay for the damage done by Ben 
also induced a sense of shame. Also contributing to the success of the conference were the 
actions of the victim, who relinquished restitution in exchange for Bens promise that he get 
himself turned around. 


When the dynamics of conferencing result in the offender taking responsibility and trying 
to repair the harm done, conferencing can be a vehicle for attaining the ultimate 
resolution to conflicta reconciliation between the parties. This reconciliation is 
construed as true accountability for offending behavior as distinct from the abstract 
accountability imposed by punishment under the criminal justice system. The essential 
difference is that conferencing enables offenders to understand the need to take 
responsibility for their actions. For this reason the majority of agreed plans arising 
from conferences are fulfilled. 

Critical, however, to why conferencing is proving effective in bringing about satisfactory 
outcomes for everyone involved is that conferencing not only encourages offenders 
to take responsibility, but that responsibility is supported by empowering families 
and communities to work together to overcome problems identified during the course 
of the conference. The confrontation allows insights into the life circumstances of the 
offender, which can promote negotiated plans that focus less on punishment and more 
on supporting the offender to live a crime-free life. The insights stimulate a willingness 
to tackle problems in a nonadversarial atmosphere with remarkable results. As 
Braithwaite has said: 

Sometimes moving gestures of healing come from the victim. They 
waive their right to compensation from an unemployed youth, or 
invite an offender to their home for dinner after the conference. 
They may help to find an unemployed young offender a job, a 
homeless person a home. In one amazing case, a female victim 
who had been robbed at gunpoint had the offender live in her 
home as part of the plan.90 

Case Study 
Conferencing Is a Preventive Crime Control Measure 

In 1994, first-time offenders in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, even those under the age of 
criminal responsibility, were encouraged to take part in conferences. This was part of a 
police strategy to use an arrest as an opportunity for interventions that involved problem 
identification and for solutions that engaged youth services, schools, the police, parents, and 
victims. The conferences revealed considerable information about why offenders were committing 
crime. Some were under pressure from their peers, others suffering abuse, bereavement, 
or bullying. The conferences showed that crime happens for many reasons and often 
because offenders are struggling with troubles in their lives that are irresolvable. One police 
officer who had participated in several conferences said, What this is saying to us is that 
every time we send someone to court we are ignoring a problem. Court cases are nothing 
more than our failure to find the solution to the problems. What if this view were translated 
to inmates inside prison? Are not punitive sanctions often the result of unattended problems? 
Perhaps, in the future, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system will be judged 
not by how many sentences are given but by how many problems are successfully addressed. 


Conferencing not only responds to crime that has already happened. It looks forward 
and involves elements of crime prevention. Family group conferencing can make juvenile 
offenders face head-on the consequences of their behavior on other people and 
also involve these people in designing a plan of action to promote a change in behavior. 
Family group conferences can satisfy the get tough on crime criterion as well as 
the restorative values of strengthening community. Family group conferences also 
allow for early intervention when a child comes to the notice of the authoritieswithout 
having first to secure a criminal conviction. This early intervention can be pivotal 
to preventing persistent offending.94 

Evaluation of Conferencing 

Restorative justice has as its overall aim the increase in public safety and the strengthening 
of community ties through peaceful conflict resolution. In many conferences, 
the participants engage in effective problem solving to deal with the causes that may 
have contributed to the behavior of the offender as well as tackling the conditions that 
may promote further harm or crime.95 The results may not readily be evaluated following 
the completion of a conference and the fulfillment of an agreed plan. Victim 
recovery is another goal, the achievement of which cannot be assumed overnight. 
Evaluation of family group conferences proves difficult with regard to issues like 
recovery, prevention, and recidivismall of which require longitudinal study. 

Nevertheless, factors such as victim and offender satisfaction, their sense of fairness, 
the level of completion of agreed plans, and the reduction in cases dealt with by the 
formal system can be measured relatively easily. Evaluation of conferencing has shown 
that parties who have gone through a conferencing process express a high level of satisfaction 
and experience conferencing as fair, and that reparation agreements are fulfilled 
in the vast majority of cases. 

Since the introduction of conferencing in New Zealand, youth workers have seen their 
work loads drop by 80 percent, and the number of youths in custody has dropped significantly 
(66 percent between 1987 and 1992).96 An Australian evaluation of the 
Wagga Wagga model (in New South Wales) reports close to a 50 percent drop in 
recidivism among young offenders who went through conferences compared with 
those who went to court, and victim satisfaction has been reported as high as 96 percent.
97 Evaluation of the Bethlehem pilot project showed that 86 percent of participants 
rated family group conferences as good and 4 percent as bad.97 

In Canberra an extended pilot of family group conferences that began in 1994 is being 
evaluated by the U.S. criminologist Larry Sherman. The design of the Reintegrative 
Shaming Experiment (RISE) involves the random assignment of eligible cases.88 The 
study included 1,400 cases and around 6,400 interviews in three offense categories: 
drunk driving, juvenile property offenses, and youth violence. 


Researchers observed the disposition of every case included in the study and subsequently 
interviewed all offenders, victims, and supporters involved in the cases. The 
key criteria for comparing court processing to conferencing are these: 

 Prevalence and frequency of repeat offending 
 Victim satisfaction with the process 
 Offender changes in drinking or drug use behavior 
 Equity in sentencing in conferences versus court sanctions 
 Estimated cost savings 
 Procedural justice and protection of rights 
 Police satisfaction and increased effectiveness through less time spent in 
related activity 

The importance of evaluating conferences is heightened by virtue of conferencing 
being a new model of restorative justice. While victim-offender mediation can draw on 
at least two decades of experience, conferencing is being explored without precedents 
and is very much about learning while doing. The design and planning for implementation 
of conferencing are crucial to ensure that the known benefits of conferencing 
can be maintained. Useful tips for such planning are provided in the companion document 
to this report, Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing 
Community Policing. 

Problems and Concerns 

The implementation of conferencing can be problematic: 

Mainstream criminal justice systems continue to focus on the offender, 
continue to assume that retribution has some inherent value, and 
continue to operate on the assumption that state officials must impose 
retributive penalties. Accordingly, where referrals are made to some 
restorative process from within the mainstream criminal justice system, 
those administering the restorative process have to choose 
between two positions. A compromise between these two positions has 
meant that restorative justice programs have, in practice, been both 
somewhat corroded and somewhat marginalized during the last two 
decades. Programs have tended to operate on a small scale, and have 
frequently failed to escape the traditional paradigm according to 
which official wisdom focuses on some form of punishment for the 
individual offender.91 

Moores warning is to be heeded because of the popular spread of conferencing 
among criminal justice agencies, which may see restorative justice as a useful means 
for holding offenders to account without observing the balanced approach and other 
key values of restorative justice. 


The key concerns about family group conferences are as follows: 

1. 
Victim participation. 
The participation of victims must be a major aim of the family 
group conference. Early evaluations found that family group conferences often 
went ahead without victims involvement and even without informing them or 
offering them a chance to participate. When victims were present they were often 
critical of the fact that their participation seemed peripheral and that their voice 
failed to be heard. Programs can quickly be seen as a means of working with offenders 
rather than as a means of serving victims needs. Practice in many areas has 
since been corrected in response to the criticisms. 

If family group conferences are to contribute to restorative justice, then reparation 
to the victim and consideration of the victims needs have to play a full part. This 
can only be achieved completely if the victim is present as an equal player. Indeed, 
victims will agree to participate only if the meetings are clearly seen to be dedicated 
as much to their interests as to any other partys. For a proposed plan to be acceptable, 
victims must be happy with it. Victims should be encouraged to bring friends 
and other supporters to offset the danger that the conference might focus only on 
the welfare of the offender. 

Usually victims are interested mostly in rectifying the wrong, in reparation, in an 
apology, in having the young person come and work for them, or in signs that the 
offender will change his or her behavior. Sometimes this conflicts with the view of 
others present at a conference, including criminal justice practitioners. The victim 
should have a power of veto if the planned outcome is not satisfactory. This represents 
a significant departure from traditional approaches. 

2. 
Considerable interest in family group conferences is widespread, but they can quickly 
be seen as a powerful means for shaming offenders without addressing the importance 
of reintegration and reconciliation. 

Family group conferences 
can mirror the offender and punitive focus of the criminal justice system, particularly 
when facilitated by criminal justice professionals or when cases are referred by 
the mainstream court system. Restorative justice can be corroded or co-opted by the 
punitive bent of the traditional approach to justice. 

For example, the Anoka Police Department in Minnesota also was attracted by the 
shame theory, but soon recognized its potential for controversy: Shame is something 
far different than legal guilt. Used properly and with the process of re-integration, 
most offenders experience true remorse, [and] given the opportunity to 
amend their actions, do so.98 Anoka is responding to concerns that its original focus 
was too much on sanctions. The reintegrative process can be compromised by an 
inappropriate emphasis on offender shaming. If conferencing operates within a retributive 
culture, the restorative justice values will be sidestepped. You cannot punish 
and reconcile at the same time. This is not a problem of opinion or ideology. It 
is simply a question of logic.82 

3. 
Skills are different from those traditionally required. 
The skills and neutrality of 
the facilitator/coordinator are critical to the success of a restorative conference. The 


highly charged atmosphere that is normally present in a conference requires of a 
facilitator good listening skills, strong observation capacity, and sensitivity. 
Tony Marshall highlights the dangers of a criminal justice professional assuming 
the role; such a professional can find it difficult to act in a neutral manner: 

The facilitation of family group conferences requires not only 
specific skills, but also an appropriate orientation. The facilitators 
job is to provide a safe and controlled environment for 
parties that, initially at least, have reason to be rather afraid of 
each other, to encourage and to enable each party to have 
their say and to register their views and needs, and to encourage 
collaboration in problem solving. It is a job of enabling 
and empowering people who are not used to having a voice. 
A representative of any criminal justice agency at the meeting 
is better suited to participate as one of the parties (having 
their own ends and agenda) than as an impartial coordinator.
62 

While Marshall and others99 have sounded this alarm, experience is showing that 
some criminal justice officials can acquire the skills required of a neutral facilitator. 
In any case, good training and supervision are essential. 

4. 
Conferencing demands preparation and time. 
Identifying suitable cases, preparing 
the parties for participating, and giving adequate time and information for parties 
to choose to attend a conference allows the facilitator to develop sensitivity about 
the needs and expectations of each person. Coercing people into a conference 
because it seems an appropriate way of responding to a crime runs counter to 
restorative principles, yet it is a temptation many practitioners fall into. Part of the 
problem is that preparing the ground for a conference to take place with the right 
participation takes time and resources. Planning can take an average of 10 hours, 
with the actual conference taking between 2 and 5 hours. This can seem a costly use 
of resources by a system already under pressure. 

5. 
Marketing conferences is sometimes difficult. 
Concerns faced by anyone operating 
conferencing include being seen as running a soft option and being expected to 
prove that levels of recidivism will drop. This can put some pressure on facilitators 
to dictate the proceedings to ensure that outcomes appear tough on the offender, or 
to use the conferencing process in only minor crimes. 

6. 
Letting go by the professionals is a requirement of conferencing, yet some control is needed. 
Allowing participants to decide for themselves how the harm 
should be restored is critical. Equally important is that offender rights and safeguards 
are not compromised by conferencing. An admission of guilt may leave the 
offender without legal representation. The offender may fear that the full range of a 
community will bear down on him unless the ground rules of the conferencing 
process are explained and followed. These include the need for mutual respect, the 
prohibition of any threat toward anyone participating in a conference, and the 
assurance that agreed plans are fair and realistic for the offender. 


7. 
Widening the net. 
There is a suggestion that family group conferences could 
overextend justice responses to crime, beyond a formal warning or caution, in cases 
that otherwise would be seen as minor violations of the law. Widening the net of 
social control is only desirable if it is fair. There are dangers that the most vulnerable 
offenders will be singled out. This danger is to be balanced, however, with the 
view that early interviews, like conferencing, can be powerful preventive tools following 
the first signs of offending behavior. (See the case study Conferencing Is a 
Preventive Crime Control Measure in the section A Sociological Explanation 
and Warning.) 

8. 
Selecting cases for conferencing can be on the wrong criteria. 
It also could be 
argued that selecting cases on the basis of the traditional categorization of crime 
(felony/misdemeanor) erodes the roles of the victim, offender, and the community. 
Too great a focus on the offender also can occur in the selection of cases. The 
Woodbury Police Department, for example, evaluates cases for conferencing according 
to three criteria: the seriousness of the crime, the offenders past involvement in 
the juvenile justice system, and the attitude of the offender. Other considerations 
include whether or not the offender admitted to committing the act, the fit between 
the individual case circumstances and the program goals and objectives, and 
whether the case will be diverted if it is sent to the courts. 

These criteria, however, do not necessarily take into account the needs of the victim 
and community. Choosing whether or not a victim or offender or member of the 
community should be afforded the opportunity to participate in a family group conference 
should also be based on criteria related to restorative justice values: whether 
the parties want to participate, whether they are prepared for their participation, and 
the extent to which public safety is likely to be advanced by conferencing. 

9. 
Capacity of family and communities. 
Marshall has pinpointed another concern: 

One of the greatest innovations of the family group conference 
is its involvement of the family in sharing the offenders 
predicament, and lending support to an individual who is relatively 
powerless to resist social pressures that lead to misbehavior. 
But not all families are able to be such a reliable 
resource. Many are weighed down by their own problems, 
material as well as relational. There is a danger that families 
will sign up to more than they can deliver. The family group 
conference needs to have regard for this fact, which is why 
looking for resources to support the family may be even more 
important than those to support the offender.62 

It is part of the skill involved in facilitating conferences that participants are identified 
among extended family and community members, e.g., teachers, peers, counselors, 
an aunt from another city, or others. Offenders might, however, feel intimidated by the 
presence of so many adults. It is important that the environment feels safe enough to 
encourage participation by both the victim and the offender. However, assessing the 
capacity of those present to support the parties is a factor to be considered. 


Family group conferences, therefore, are not without implementation problems. Yet 
they offer vast potential for promoting understanding about crime and how it can be 
prevented. They also are a natural progression from much that is being accomplished 
under the rubric of community policing. 

Family Group Conferencing and Community Policing 

Restorative justice experiments have been emerging as part of a rapidly growing social 
movement for criminal justice reform during the 1990s, similar to the policing 
changes of the previous decade. As with problem solving (which gave community 
policing added momentum after two decades of haphazard experiment), family group 
conferencing following the introduction of victim-offender reconciliation and 
mediation programshas added momentum to the spread of restorative justice. 

Part of the excitement about conferencing is its potential acceptability to both liberals 
and conservatives: its focus on a nonpunitive approach appeals to the former; the latter 
appreciate its strong emphasis on victim involvement and family/community 
empowerment and on the inclusion of families as part of the solution to crime. Both 
find appeal in the fiscal savings that are likely to be realized with reduced dependence 
on incarceration. It is perhaps this broad bipartisan support that creates a climate for 
police involvement in conferences. 

Other benefits also stem from police-based conferencing. Evidence is emerging that 
conferencing, when discovered by the police, attracts strong support among officers 
for its pragmatic approach to criminal behavior. While often initially skeptical about 
restorative justice, police officers exposed to conferencing become some of the most 
vocal supporters of changing the traditional response to crime. In New Zealand, 
Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States, police officers, sometimes operating 
at relatively junior levels in their respective organizations, have been incredibly active 
in obtaining training in conferencing skills and in starting programs to deal with predominantly 
nonviolent crime committed by juveniles who have admitted responsibility. 
As an indication of the perceived effectiveness of conferencing among police agencies 
with a few months experience experimenting with these cases, there has been a 
growing tendency for such agencies to apply the process to violent crime as well. 
Officers have also demonstrated remarkable willingness to use conferencing in other 
conflict situations, for example, internal tensions, missing persons inquiries, truancy 
cases, and conflict situations between young persons and others. Why is conferencing 
grabbing the attention of the police? 

The police act as gatekeepers to the justice system and have considerable discretion
more so than is often acknowledgedabout whether to mount a full criminal 
investigation in cases that fall into certain categories of reported crime, or to use the 
cautioning and diversionary court processes at the disposal of most police departments. 
Conferencing is especially appealing to those who believe in meaningful intervention 
at the first signs of trouble by a young person. Many police officers recognize 
that the first time a person comes to their notice for a criminal act is not necessarily 
the first time they have broken the law. Moreover, for those who support the view that 
crime acts are an indication of a deeper problem (abuse, bullying, substance abuse, 


neglect, etc.), any intervention that encourages problem identification seems a wise 
course of action. Conferencing provides a means of resolving crime that has already 
happened and offers police departments a perfect way of reconciling the tension 
among post facto investigation, crime detection, and crime prevention. Using the 
same resources to achieve a resolution of a crime that has already happened, while 
mobilizing families and communities to support long-term problem solving, is particularly 
desirable in these days of resource constraints. 

Conferencing undoubtedly provides a valuable tool for police officers to engage in 
dialogue with communities and to promote partnership activity across a range of 
issues that affect safety and quality of life. In other words, police-run conferencing is 
a good example of problem-oriented community policing and provides an important 
alternative model to resorting to criminal justice through the courts. Police officers, 
in determining with the parties involved in conflict who should attend a conference, 
are also helping to define the community as an entity that can help coproduce policing 
and public safety. Conferencing helps to activate communities that otherwise might 
be passive or unaware of their potential contribution to the management of crime and 
disorder problems. 

The relationship between the police and the community, especially, can be strengthened 
through conferencing. Participants who are invited by the police to attend a conference 
are inclined to think more positively and favorably toward the police simply 
because of the willingness by the police to listen and allow their views to shape decisionmaking. 
Most people appreciate the obvious peacekeeping role of the police officer 
who works in the capacity of a conference facilitator. People also feel better about 
being involved in a process that inspires community building, and promotes healthy 
community relationships, than they do about attending an adversarial trial that tends 
to leave people feeling sour. 

One of the more exciting aspects of conferencing is its potential to radically challenge 
traditional retributive, crime-fighting attitudes among police and lay communities 
alike, in favor of constructing the crime problem as a community and individual 
health issue. Police departments that have already operated conferencing bear witness 
to the revolution that it can provoke in attitudes toward crime and criminals. The 
deep-seated notion that police are the thin blue line fighting an enemy without adequate 
public support, and without the back-up of an effective justice system, is quickly 
weakened by police participation in conferencing. 

Police Sergeant Terry OConnell in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, for example, surveyed 
his colleagues prior to introducing conferencing and found that around 50 percent 
were dissatisfied with the juvenile justice system. The two principal reasons for 
their dissatisfaction were that officers felt that young offenders were not being made 
to take responsibility for their behavior, and that the decisions of the courts too often 
neglected (or ignored completely) the needs of victims. Some officers added their 
view that the families of young offenders often showed no interest in their child(ren) 
and that many young offenders held the police and the court system in contempt. 
Notwithstanding these views, the idea of running conferences did not find favor, 


although most agreed that the police were key players in influencing an offenders 
behavior. Any effort to increase that influence was supported; and so police-based 
conferencing began in 1991. 

The first case in Wagga Wagga concerned a motorcycle theft and criminal damage. The 
victim, angry with the young offenders, nonetheless agreed to participate in a conference. 
At the conclusion of the police-facilitated dialogue, the offender agreed to 
arrange the repair of the bike; and he eventually became friends with the victim, after 
they shared their mutual interest in bikes. 

The Wagga Wagga model was based on a number of goals:91 

 Ensure that the young offender understands the seriousness of his or 
her offense. 
 Minimize the opportunity of the young person reoffending. 
 Provide the young offender with an opportunity to accept responsibility 
for his or her offense. 
 Ensure that family and significant others are made accountable. 
 Provide the victim(s) with some input into the cautioning process. 
 Improve the opportunity for victim restitution or compensation. 
 Provide police with an opportunity to contribute in a significant and satisfying 
way to the processing of young offenders. 

Wagga Waggas experience was a valuable lesson for police departments taking up the 
process subsequently in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, where an early experiment 
with victim-offender mediation in retail theft cases evolved to include the victims and 
offenders supporters and conferencing among the wider community. In 1993, officers 
were troubled by any suggestion of being seen to decriminalize crime by opting 
out of the criminal justice system. Within months, however, officers were eager to 
spread the application of restorative cautioning to burglary, assault, motor vehicle 
crime, and criminal damage. This flip-flop in attitudes was shadowed by the dramatic 
turnaround of shop staff, who initially balked at the idea of not prosecuting shop theft 
offenders. Within a year, their National Retail Consortium was lobbying the British 
Home Secretary to make the scheme national. Five years later, the British government 
is introducing legislation on youth crime and justice in which conferencing is a key 
element. Conferencing is also spreading to other forces, including Londons 
Metropolitan Policein conjunction with other criminal justice agencies and including 
victim services. 

Progress from a single program in Milton Keynes to a nationwide effort to introduce 
conferencing within 5 years can probably be attributed, in large part, to the police 
working as part of a multiagency partnership. The partnership helped to gather sup


port for the rationale for restorative conferencing and to attract participation from 
social workers, probation staff, teachers, and victim servicespeople who were 
influential in the lives of either the offender or the victim. Some officers, however, 
were clearly more offender-focused than desirableeven to the point of inadvertently 
using the victims story to help them shame the offender, less with an eye on reintegration 
than on allowing the victims experience of harm to speak for itself. Police 
often overinfluenced the agreed plan, a principal outcome of a conference. These 
problems were also identified with the Wagga Wagga model; but, with experience, they 
are being addressed by revisiting the values of restorative justice. 

Police can forget, however, how much they are accustomed to seizing control of a situation 
and exerting authority. Marshall has observed the difficulty police officers 
experience in maintaining neutrality as conference coordinators, and how police 
steeped in the adversarial, offender focus of the criminal justice system can tip the 
balance against the restorative principles of community and victim empowerment. His 
warning has been heeded, and attention has been given to training and monitoring 
officers (and volunteers working for the police). 

There is every reason to contemplate seriously the involvement of police in running 
conferences. This role provides a crucial example of police working as a peacemaker 
in a community, affords opportunities for problem solving in partnership with community 
and other agencies, and allows police to involve crime victims in decision-
making. These benefits challenge the traditional emphasis on professional law 
enforcement through the courts and promote decentralized, community-based, participatory 
decisionmaking. 

The tension between acknowledging the statutory duty of the police to maintain law 
and order, on the one hand, and encouraging community and family decisionmaking, 
on the other, can be hard to deal with. Officers are used to public expectations that 
their role is one of enforcement and supporting criminal prosecutions; conferencing 
represents a departure from the popular image of what policing is about, and marketing 
the concept of conferencing requires sensitive dialogue with those inside and 
outside the formal justice system. 

There are also concerns that the police could be seen as becoming too powerful if left 
to investigate, to prosecute by way of conferencing, and to be involved in determining 
the outcome of a case. The separation of powers could quickly become compromised 
unless the police role is balanced with strong influences from community and other 
professional agencies. For this reason, it is imperative that officers are well trained in 
the balanced approach and the social theory inherent in conferencing. At the same 
time, conference participation affords an important opportunity to break down 
stereotypes and myths about crime and offenders, which helps to promote knowledge 
and understanding for effective problem solving. 

In lieu of maintaining protracted criminal investigations to sustain a prosecution, 
which involves evidence gathering, witness and alibi checks, forensic examinations, 
etc., conferencing requires only a simpler investigation to establish who was involved 
and who was impacted by the crime. It is possible (although this has yet to be sub


stantiated through any evaluation) that more of the guilty offenders would admit guilt 
in conferences than is currently the case within the adversarial justice system. This 
possibility has implications for resource distribution to detective units and could support 
strengthening manpower for community policing. Ideally, detectives would not be 
excluded from a conferencing role, as their participation could be valuable to changing 
their overemphasis on enforcement. 

Case Study: 
Conferencing Is a Useful Vehicle for Resolving Crime Without Long 
Investigations 

When local high school students caused several thousand dollars worth of damage to a car-
wash business during the end-of-school celebrations in October, matters looked complicated 
because so many offenders were involved. Following initial investigations and straightforward 
admissions of guilt, two meetings were convened. The first occurred at the high 
school and led to the election of a group to represent all of the students involved in the incident. 
The second meeting was held at the car-wash and was attended by students, families, 
teachers, the owner of the business, and employees. Agreements for compensationpartly 
monetary, partly involving unpaid workwere easily reached. 

It is easy to get absorbed in the details of how to run family or community conferences 
without looking at the key characteristics that promote the ethos of problem-oriented 
policing and community policing. Restorative justice and conferencing are hardly 
known to most American police departments yet would be a powerful catalyst for significant 
progress in improving police-public relationships, promoting effective problem 
solving, and encouraging communities to apply social capital toward public safety. 
Restorative justice would help to break down internal tensions between uniform and 
specialist units as conferencing proves its effectiveness vis--vis crime reduction. It 
also promotes broad understanding of the countereffects of overprofessionalization 
and the importance (and validity) of citizen engagement in crime control. 

The conferencing model, without doubt, provides an entirely new vehicle for promoting 
police-public collaboration beyond problem identification. While the police may 
be initially responsible for receiving the crime report, identifying both victims and 
offenders, and proactively seeking the attendance of community members at the conference, 
there is then a shift from the professional monopoly to a shared partnership 
effort to respond to crime. This is entirely in sync with the prevailing view that the 
police usually face two distinct challenges: reacting to an event immediately and working 
to promote long-term community safety. 

The conferencing model thereby expands policing beyond fire-brigade work in relation 
to crime to a broader approach involving consultation and enlisting the participation 
of others to resolve crime. As a byproduct, the police remove themselves from 
working along adversarial, them-versus-us lines to adopt a strong harmonious relationship 
with anyone who might be able to help in addressing the crime. The strengthening 
of relationships extends to the conference participants, who are likely to devel


op a spirit of cooperation in which mutual trust, respect, care, and understanding can 
take place. This even extends to those identified as offenders. Police departments that 
have run conferencing programs for some months are seeing a general willingness 
among the police and communities alike to work jointly; and this joint work can be 
novel simply because the level of mutual trust is heightened. 

The conferencing process is not one that should be too alien to the police. The stages 
involved in running a conference in many ways reflect problem-solving processes 
adopted under problem-oriented policing. The police, with the help of the victim and 
offender (and others) will scan the community relevant to the parties to identify who 
could be a useful supporter and could help the process reach an agreed plan. As with 
problem solving, no one person or agency representative is seen as possessing all the 
information required. The understanding of who has been harmed by the crime, and 
how, requires input from a variety of sources. No one, except possibly the primary 
victim, has all the knowledge needed to identify the best route to resolving the crime. 

In addition, the conferencing process shifts the focus away from looking at crime 
simply in terms of broken laws. It entails a holistic analysis of the wrongdoing by the 
offender(s): not only are the facts leading up to, and after, the crime shared; in addition, 
sharing concerns, fears, hopes, and aspirations breathes life into a vivid picture 
of the damage that needs to be addressed. In this way, conferencing mirrors the problem 
analysis that goes on under problem-oriented policingbut perhaps even more 
powerfully. The dynamics in a conference can be emotionally powerful because participants 
are engaged in something personal to them; the educative value of sharing 
information, knowledge, and individual perceptions is hugely significant in building 
confidence to tackle problems that otherwise might seem intractable. 

Conferencing often demolishes myths and stereotypes about victims and offenders, 
allowing for a broader grasp of the meaning of crime, how it can happen, and how it 
can be prevented. Although problem-oriented policing has in part been successful in 
shifting the focus from strict attention to the laws that have been broken to broader 
economic and social issues, conferencing is an immense stimulant for getting people 
to view crime in multifaceted terms. Conference participants, including police officers, 
are inevitably exposed to social justice issues such as weak parenting, skills 
shortages, substance dependence, and victim empowerment needs, as well as the role 
and responsibilities of the community in preventing crime. Conferencing promotes 
a sense of shared relationship and responsibility toward one another; for this 
reason, the process is just as vital as the outcome of an agreed plan of action. 

This process allows for mutual understanding of everyones interdependence and 
contribution. Conferencing promotes tolerance, learning, capacity building, and a 
feeling of connectedness. The result is less reliance on formal crime control measures 
and more leaning toward informal social controls that support the vision of 
coproducing public safety through a combination of professional and lay activities 
(see Figure 20). In this way the police can begin to relinquish their monopoly on 
crime fighting. 


Figure 20. Conferencing Promotes Self-Policing by the 
Community and Social Justice 

CONFERENCE 

Offender 
Victim 
Neighbors
Family  
Community 
Police
Other Agencies

Mutual learning of
what crime means,
how it harms, and 
how the harm
should be addressed 

Requirement for 
informal social controls 
recognized 

Community 
involvement in crime 
resolution, conflict 
management, and 
crime prevention 

Learning applied
to other situations

Community adopts 
more initiative in self-
policing and supports  
social policy changes 

Indeed, where conferencing has taken place, over time the community has been 
known to initiate for themselves a conference to tackle identified problems affecting 
the safety and quality of life. Thus the conferencing model produces far more than a 
commitment to agreed outcomes to address an individual incidence of crime. It 
breathes life into the concept of community policing in its broadest context, for it 
supports a learning process for everybody to recognize that the community can 
self-police with or without the support of professional police. If one accepts that 
the police can no longer be the omnicompetent force for crime control and public 
safety, conferencing is an ideal problem-solving tool that the police themselves should 
welcome. 

Furthermore, conferencing promotes a commitment to social justice among lay participants 
and professionals alike. The exposure to the stories related by the victim, by 
the offender, and by others will inevitably change peoples views on what is required 
to promote safer communitiesbeyond what the criminal justice system and punishment 
can accomplish. Over time this is likely to lead to fewer calls for more expenditures 
for criminal justice and to greater support for expenditures and investment in 
social policies that will mitigate the factors currently contributing to crime. The 
involvement of the police in this shift will fulfill their role of contributing to a safer 
society and to creating more functional communities dedicated to sustained reduction 
in crime, fear, and disorder. Additional tools available for achieving such a shift 
include restorative justice circles. 


Sentencing and Healing Circles 

Another model that is beginning to attract wide attention in the restorative justice field 
is the circle. A circle (described either as a sentencing, healing, peacemaking, or 
community circle) is essentially a community-directed process, in partnership with 
the criminal justice system, to develop consensus on social and personal problems 
surrounding crime. The circle uses negotiation, mediation, consensus building, and 
conflict resolution processes that are designed to ensure the following: 

 A voice for everyone and an opportunity to be listened to 
 Direct sharing of experiences 
 An atmosphere in which problem identification and problem solving 
can be conducted in a respectful manner 
 A focus on improving relationships and addressing the problem in ways 
that promote harmony 
 A better understanding of the circumstances of others and tolerance for 
diversity 
 A shared commitment to implement successfully the agreed plan/sentence 

The circle process, drawing extensively on the values of restorative justice, contrasts 
directly with the adversarial process of the court trial; the goal of the circle processes 
is to find the common ground on which to build agreement on needs, hopes, and 
the means for their fulfillment. Participation is voluntary, and everyone who attends 
has an equal voice. The emphasis is on interdependence and connectedness between 
people, and on promoting healthy connections that improve the well-being of those 
involved. 

The circle sentencing model appears to demand the most extensive preprocess 
preparation. The admission process generally requires, as a condition of admission 
to the circle, that an offender petition the Community Justice Committee; visit an elder 
or other respected community member before a conference can begin; work on a 
reparative plan, which may involve some restitution to the victim and community service; 
and identify a community support group. While circles may be convened in some 
cases without these requirements being met (with the special approval of the 
Community Justice Committee), the preconference process is generally viewed as a 
screening device and a key indicator to circle participants that the offender is serious 
about personal change. 

The experience of circles in different parts of the world is showing that while community 
members are unfamiliar with the judicial process, they seem to have no problem 
with engaging in a process that encourages them to speak openly and honestly 
and to accept that everyone is equal and should be respected, and that acknowledges 


that their decisions can make a difference to their own lives, as well as to others. 
Some circles are conducted by criminal justice judges who sit in the circle without a 
bench, desk, or table and guide the process along in an informal manner. How free-
flowing the dialogue becomes is greatly dependent upon how far participants can let 
go of their individual status and speak from the heart. Judge Barry Stuart was the first 
judge to use circles in his circuit in the Yukon of Northern Canada: 

Community circle processes... enable community values, not just 
justice values, to dominate and shape exchanges and outcomes. 
These principles make the difference between a community justice 
process that primarily serves the community needs and one that 
primarily serves the needs of a formal justice system.43 

Case Study: 
Circles Provide a Vehicle for Open Dialogue About Community 
Problems That Otherwise Could Fester for Years 

In the Manitoba Community of Hollow Water in Canada, a healing circle identified no less 
than 48 offenders (out of a population of 600) who had committed sexual abuse. All 48 
offenders were brought to justice through a series of community circles in which abused victims 
and ex-offenders met other victims and offenders simply to share their stories and to 
end the denial that had been rife for years. To appreciate how this happened, it is necessary 
to change perspective from the focus on establishing guilt and on punishment to the focus 
of circleslearning from people who speak from the heart. Hollow Water may sound like 
an incredible story, but it is one that is being experienced by an increasing number of criminal 
justice professionals working closely with victims, offenders, and communities. 

Stuart suggests that circles build or rebuild communities and rekindle pride in 
belonging to a communityenhancing self-esteem in members and advancing the 
overall well-being of the community. Circles, in short, rely on informal social controls 
within communities by responding to, as well as preventing, crime. 

How different are circles from conferences? Both engage citizens, victims, and offenders 
in processes that seek to address the harm that has been caused by crime; but it 
is probably an accurate assessment of circles that the primary outcome sought is 
strengthening community relationships in order to resolve problems. In conferencing, 
community capacity building is often a byproduct, not a specific goal, with the 
emphasis more on providing community support to victims recovery and offenders 
reintegration. Table 7 compares circle sentencing, family group conferencing, and 
victim-offender mediation. 


Both the circle and the conference models are consistent with the balanced-approach 
model. In addition, circles have attracted considerable attention for their community 
development and empowerment qualities. In conferencing, offenders can often be 
surprised at the care shown to them by community members. In circles, this care 
extends often to the affirmation of what is important to the community in terms of 
shared values. Kay Pranis calls this the building up of authentic communities in 
which members are consciously raising awareness of their connections with one 
another, of their shared fate, and of their joint humanity.102 This extends the process 
beyond dealing with the justice issues provoked by a crime to tap into the resources, 
wisdom, and strength of a community; tapping these resources is vital for gaining a 
sense of power over what happens to the community, and for how the community handles 
adversity as well as opportunity. The process is the antithesis of the technical due 
process of the court system because it introduces soul-searching at the deepest level 
about why crime happens and how it can be stopped. Table 8 depicts the stages in the 
circle process. 

Case Study: 
Circles Can Be Used for a Variety of Criminal Conduct That 
Disturbs Communities 

Circles have operated since the late 1980s, and several models have developed. In Minnesota, 
Judge Steven Ruble began circles in Ojibwe on the Mille Lacs Reservation with a case involving 
a gang member who had killed his sisters cat. The outcome of the circle was an agreement 
for the offender to build bird houses and to work as a volunteer with the Department 
of Natural Resources. In 1994 in British Columbia, a manslaughter trial was delayed pending 
a community sentencing circle to determine the locals views after a local teacher had 
been killed by a drunken youth by gunshot. The circle was open to the public and was 
attended by 46 people, including the offender and the victims family. Consensus was 
reached on the sentence, a period of incarceration; but both the victims family and the family 
of the offender spent time with the offender before he was taken away. All 46 sat down to 
eat a meal at the same table, including the estranged families. Many prayers were spoken, 
much anguish expressed, many tears were shed, many confessions were made, and much 
love and compassion was shown.100 


Table 7. Community Decisionmaking Models: 
Administration and Process 

Model 
 Variable  
Circle Sentencing
Family Group 
 Conferencing
Victim-Offender 
 Mediation 

When operation 
 began 

Approximately 1992 

New Zealand, 1989; 
Australia, 1991 

Mid-1970s

Where used 

Primarily the Yukon, 
sporadically in other 
parts of Canada. 
increasing interest in 
Minnesota and elsewhere 
in the United States

Australia, New Zealand, 
United Kingdom, Europe, 
United states (Montana, 
Minneapolis, and 
Pennsylvania) 

Throughout North 
America and Europe 

Point in 
 system when 
 used 

Various stages; may be 
diversion or alternative to 
formal court hearings and 
correctional process for 
indictable offenders 

New Zealand: throughout 
juvenile justice system; 
Australia Wagga Wagga 
model: police diversion; 
Thames Valley Police, 
United Kingdom: police 
diversion 

Mostly diversion and 
probation option, but 
some use in residential 
facilities for more serious 
cases 

Eligibility and 
target group 

Offenders who admit guilt
and express willingness to 
change; entire range of 
offenses and offenders 
eligible; chronic and 
violent offenders targeted 
by some communities 

New Zealand model: all 
juvenile offenders eligible 
except murder and 
manslaughter charges; 
Wagga Wagga model: 
determined by police 
discretion or diversion 
criteria; United Kingdom: 
mainly property crime, 
adults and juvenile 

Varies, but primarily 
diversion cases and 
property offenders; in 
some locations, used with 
serious and violent 
offenders (at victims or 
offenders request) 

Staffing 

Community Justice 
Coordinator/Facilitator 

Community Justice 
Coordinator/Facilitator 

Mediator; other positions 
vary 

Setting 

Community center, 
school, or public 
building 

Social welfare office,  
school, community 
building, and 
(occasionally) police 
facility 

Neutral setting such as
meeting room in library, 
church, or community 
center; occasionally in 
victims home if approved 
by other parties 

Nature and 
order of 
processes 

After judge, justice of the 
peace, or keeper opens 
session, each participant 
allowed to speak when 
feather or talking stick is 
passed to him or her; 
victim(s) generally speak
first; consensus decision 
making 

Coordinator follows script 
in which offender speaks 
first, followed by victim 
and other participants; 
consensus decision 
making 

Victim speaks first; 
mediator facilitates and 
encourages victim and 
offender to speak; does 
not adhere to script or 
force consensus 

(continued) 


Model Variable 
Circle Sentencing 
Family Group  
 Conferencing  
Victim-Offender
 Mediation

Who participates? 

Judge, prosecutor, 
defense counsel 
participate in serious 
cases; victim(s), offend-
er(s), service providers, 
support group present; 
open to entire community 

Coordinator identifies key 
people; close kin to 
victim and offender 
targeted, as well as 
police, social services

Mediator, victim, offender 
are standard participants 
(family and others 
allowed on rare 
occasions) 

Victim role 

Participants in circle and 
decisionmaking give 
input into eligibility of 
offender, choose support 
group 

Victim expresses feelings 
about crime, gives input 
into reparative plan 

Major role in deciding 
offender obligation and 
content of reparative 
plan; expresses feelings 
about crime and impact 

Gatekeepers 

Community Justice 
Committee 

New Zealand: court and 
Criminal Justice 
Coordinator; Australia, 
UK, and US: law enforcement 
and school officials

Victim has ultimate right 
of refusal; consent is 
essential 
 
Role and 
relationship to 
system 

Judge, prosecution, court 
officials share power with 
community on selection, 
sanctioning, follow-up; 
presently, minimal impact 
on court caseloads 

New Zealand: primary 
process of hearing juvenile 
cases; required 
ceding of dispositional 
power; major impact on 
court caseloads. 
Australia: police driven; 
variable impact on case-
loads; concerns about 
net-widening 

Varies on continuum 
from core process in 
diversion to marginal 
programs with minimal 
impact on court 
caseloads 

Preparation 

Extensive work with 
offender and victim 
before circle; explain 
processes and rules of 
circle 

Phone contact with all 
parties to encourage 
participation and explain 
process; New Zealand 
model requires offender 
and family to have face-
to-face visits 

Typically face-to-face with 
victim and offender to
explain process; some 
programs use phone 
contact 

Enforcement and 
monitoring 

Community Justice 
Committee; judge may 
hold jail sentence as 
incentive for offender to 
comply with plan 

Unclear; police in 
Australian Wagga Wagga 
model; coordinator in 
New Zealand model; in 
United Kingdom, inde-
pendent evaluation by 
Home Office 

Varies; mediator may 
follow up; probation or 
other program staff may 
be responsible 
 

Primary outcome 
sought 

Increase community 
strength and capacity to 
resolve disputes and to 
prevent crime; develop 
reparative and rehabilitative 
plan; address victims 
concerns and public safety 
issues; assign responsi-
bilities to victim and 
offender support groups 
and identify resources 

Clarify facts of case; 
shame offender or 
denounce crime while 
affirming and supporting 
offender; restore victim 
loss; encourage offender 
reintegration; focus on 
deed, not need

Allow victim to relay 
impact of crime to 
offender; express feelings 
and needs; victim satisfied 
with process; 
offender increases aware-
ness of harm; gain empathy; 
agreement on reparative 
plan 

SOURCE: Adapted from Bazemore, G., and Griffiths, C., Conferences, Circles, Boards, and Mediations.101 


Table 8. Stages in a Circle 

Stage 
Activity 

Preparation 
Identify who will come and remove surprises 

Opening 
Welcome, ground rules, introductions, creating comfortable 
atmosphere 

Legal stage 
Facts, history, probation report 

Clarifying facts 
Anyone can add information, share feelings and concerns 

Seeking common 
 ground 
Identify the issues that underlie the crime, alcohol problem, 
broken family relationship, exclusion from school, 
gang membership 

Exploring options 
Examine what must be done to support the victim, what 
must be done by the offender, what must be done by the 
community 

Developing concerns 
Ensure everyone has been heard and all options understood; 
probe what options are realistic and will gain shared 
commitment 

Closing 
Summarize, even if consensus not reached; allow people to 
leave feeling good 

The main lesson to be drawn from circles is that lay members of the community (geographically 
defined or otherwise) are capable of sharing responsibility for crime control, of problem 
solving with an eye on the future, and of working in partnership with the formal justice system. 
The common outcomes of circles not only meet the needs of criminal justice in terms of holding 
an offender accountable; they also serve the victim, the wider community, and the family or 
friends of the offender. Plans may involve the following: 

 Meeting or working with the victim or his/her family to understand the impact 
of crime and to support the victim 
 An apology to the victim 
 Attending counseling, treatment, school, or life-skills courses 
 Short prison sentencescombined with other actions 
 Voluntary work with people who need help, e.g., neighbors looking after children, 
shopping for the elderly, teaching reading or writing skills, work with the 
disabled 


 Offenders talking to other offenders103 
 Help in paying off debts 

The result is that attention is paid to those issues that can help the recovery of victims, 
can improve the capacity of the offender to become law abiding and to make a contribution 
to society, and can enhance community safety and well-being. While many of 
these plans coincide with many community-based sanctions of the criminal justice 
system, the major difference is that they are determined following input from all significant 
partieswho have experienced a journey of understanding about what happened 
to whom and have explored how various needs should be met. These needs 
may focus on material, emotional, physical, and sometimes spiritual needs of the 
community. Thus, the plans are unique and more meaningful than anything the court 
system can provide. Another reason why circles are likely to grow is that the process 
is culture sensitive, which is important for many minorities. 

The recidivism of offenders who have gone through a circle is much lower than for 
those who have not, according to Canadian research. Repeat offending generally 
involves less serious crimes and less frequent unlawful activity. Circles often lead to 
close ties in the community, which in turn leads to meetings being organized independent 
of the authorities to resolve issues that crop up. Circles promote partnership 
and harmony. 

Types of Circles 

Every participant in the circle is encouraged to draw on his/her life 
experience to add to the understanding of the problem and to generate 
possible solutions. Every life story has relevance to finding a 
resolution which facilitates healing for all those affected by the 
crime. Circle discussions about individual crimes often become 
discussions about larger problems in the community. Circles provide 
a forum for problem-solving to prevent crimes in the future 
a forum which operates on core principles of democracy, inclusion, 
equality, and respect.104 

Kay Pranis 

The two main types of circles are healing circles and sentencing circles. Figure 21 
shows the participants in a circle. Healing circles are held for either the victim 
(including in cases where no offender has been caught) or for the offender and are 
conducted privately with those selected to share decisions about what needs to be 
done. When the circle is for the victim, the focus is on his or her pain and loss and 
on understanding what would help the victim reach closure and healing. The group 
may also decide what input they wish to provide to any subsequent plan to deal with 
the offender. When the offender is the focus, healing circles help to explore the underlying 
problems associated with the criminal behavior and to support the offender to 
make changes. 


Figure 21. The Makeup of a Circle 

Circle 
Keeper 
Community Leaders
Police 
 Officer or 
 Prosecutor 
Judge
Offenders 
 Mother
Offender
Defense 
Counsel 
Neighbor 
Victim
 
A sentencing circle, as conducted in Canada, involves several steps: 

1. An application by an offender to the people who decide whether a circle 
is appropriate 

2. Creation of a support community for the offender and for the victim 

3. Holding healing circles for both parties separately 

4. Holding a sentencing circle in which decisions are made about how the 
identified problems and harms should be addressed and about what 
will prevent future occurrences 

The circle process is based on Aboriginal concepts of justice, which stress the importance 
of the spiritual connectedness of people. It rests on the belief that offenders are 
created, not born, and that healing is possible if problems are aired in a caring and 
respectful manner. 

Communities are operating circles in conjunction with professionals for the criminal 
justice system; the circles allow for the participation of people who otherwise would 
have little or no say in the decisionmaking process. The process involves the assumption 
that everyone has something important to say and that everyone is equal. The 
combined experiences and wisdom of the group are seen as necessary to ensure that 
the most appropriate plan is drawn up, thus promoting change in the offender and 
drawing the whole community closer together. 


Case Study:
Circles Reveal Linkages Not Often Recognized in Other Processes

A woman was arrested for drug possession offenses and referred to a healing circle. During 
the course of the circle, she listened to those who had family members addicted to drugs and 
how much they felt her activities must be creating many problems for her family. The 
woman had not considered the harm she might be doing to others by continuing her drug 
habit until she recognized her addiction was similar to that of alcoholism. Several years earlier, 
her husbands addiction to drink had become unbearable and had caused the breakup 
of her marriage. The circle represented a turning point in the womans life. 

Circles and Community Policing 

To date, no single police agency has operated circles, although limited participation 
by the police is taking place. Circles are likely to have an increasing impact upon the 
police, as much as on the rest of the criminal justice system. Interest in circles is 
growing rapidlythe result of their focus on community development, victim frustration 
with the formal justice procedures, and the popularity of conflict resolution 
through nonadversarial processes. In particular, circles offer a participatory forum 
that lay citizens find is a natural and comfortable means for dealing with difficult and 
sensitive issues. Rather than being associated with fighting, circles attribute a different 
meaning to crime control and conflict solving: genuinely addressing peoples problems, 
needs, and interests in ways that engender social and individual responsibility, 
rather than focusing on punishment and blame. 

Police involvement in circles may wisely be deferred until such time as the police 
themselves understand that their role should be at least as much about promoting self-
policing by responsible communities as about the enforcement of the law. The circle 
process demands the eradication of any hierarchy among the participants; this is difficult 
for many officers to imagine, since their traditional role has supported an air of 
authoritarianism, notwithstanding the principle of policing by public consent. 

A stepping stone toward handling crime by conducting (or rather, convening) circles 
is to use the circle process in partnership efforts; the process affords a means for 
exploring feelings that might otherwise fester under the surface of a factual exchange 
of information. Partnering is often difficult because participants have different goals, 
interests, and problemsand operate in different organizational cultures. A process 
like circles provides the vehicle for engendering openness and respect, thus allowing 
differences to be identified that might otherwise act as real obstacles. 

Circles are also underpinned by the fundamental principle that no one individual and 
no one organization is to be viewed in isolation. Instead of supporting the continuance 
of traditional lines of demarcation and responsibility, circles view responsibility, 
power, resources, and structures as interrelated. 

Then I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and 
around about beneath me was the whole heap of the world. And 
while I stood there, I saw more than I can tell and I understood 


more than I saw; for I was seeing in a sacred manner the shapes 
of all things in the spirit and the shape of all shapes as they must 
live together like one being...105 

Conclusion to Part 4: Models and Processes Emerging Under Restorative Justice 

Victim-offender mediation, conferencing, and circles are the current stock of mainstream 
restorative justice, but by no means the only procedures for implementing 
restorative justice. Restorative justice values can be injected into almost anything 
that involves interactions between people. Shifting the focus from blaming and 
shaming only to listening and understanding will smooth many of the tensions created 
when we focus on us versus them rather than on what can be done together. Our 
tendency to find labels for anyone different from ourselves masks how much we have 
in common. Restorative justice values and processes allow us to relearn this truism. 

An example of the often small distance between victim and offender can be found in 
the public defenders office in Washington, D.C. The office keeps records of all offenders 
charged with criminal offenses. It also keeps records of the names of crime victims. 
The overlap between the two is significant, making the dichotomy between victim 
and offender somewhat artificial. Many offenders have themselves been victimized 
and some victims of crime commit offenses. Anyone who commits a crime should be 
held accountable, but accountability can be accomplished without a climate of vindictiveness 
in which us-versus-them attitudes dominate. 

The benefits of the restorative justice processes apply to crime as well as other kinds 
of conflict. For the police, each of these processes offers an invaluable tool for promoting 
problem solving in collaboration with other agencies and the public. They also 
offer the police an alternative approach for dealing with internal grievances and tensions, 
and such internal use is helpful in promoting organizational and cultural 
change. 

As Jennifer Lynch, who ran the alternative dispute resolution program for the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police, says, Traditionally police forces created their power-based 
discipline and grievance systems by simply borrowing from the criminal justice system. 
Officers in trouble with their superiors would be charged, tried, convicted, and 
sentenced. But this is no way to deal with conflict with persons who intend to have a 
continuing relationship after the conflict is dealt with.106 

Perhaps the most critical point is that these processes offer the police a new framework 
for developing shared responsibility for policing, between themselves and the 
public, making policing everybodys business. They provide the tools for moving the 
emphasis away from the traditional model of professional policing (supported by the 
community)to the community actively policing through informal social controls 
(supported by the professional police). In short, restorative justice processes can 
support the transition to be made from stage 1 to stage 5 as outlined in Table 9. 


Table 9. Changing the Police-Community 
Relationship in Community Policing 

Stage Police-Community Relationship 
1     Police operate separately from community 
2     Police provide information to community 
3     Police ask community for information 
4     Police recognize need for help from community 
5     Policing is conducted by the community, supported by 
      the police 

How far the various models advance the transition depends on how much they reflect 
the balanced approach and the values of restorative justice. In turn, this depends 
greatly on the objectives set for any program as well as the implementation of the 
processes (including preparatory and overview stages). While each model described 
so far has elements of community strengthening (as well as crime prevention and victim 
support), they tend to have their own particular emphasis. For example, modern 
victim-offender mediation processes focus on serving the interests of victims, in light 
of the criticism that some previous attempts had focused too much on changing the 
behavior of the offender. Family group conferences have had as a central concern the 
reintegrative shaming of offenders, which can compromise the satisfaction of victim 
needs. Victim participation and degree of satisfaction in earlier versions of family 
group conferences have suggested that victims were used more as props to hold 
offenders accountable. However, evaluations of these earlier models, particularly in 
New Zealand and Australia, have helped to promote adjustments to a more balanced 
approach. Circles and conferences are both concerned with community empowerment 
and with promoting informal social controls; they may offer the most powerful 
tools for reducing public dependence on the formal justice system. 

If these models are to continue developing along restorative justice lines, however, 
care must be taken to ensure that the dangers of co-optation by the police and the rest 
of the criminal justice system are avoided. Co-optation can easily happen, since many 
professionals are so accustomed to the adversarial approach. Mark Umbreit also 
warns of the McDonaldization of restorative justice should the restorative justice 
models become institutionalized. 


Revisiting the values and humanistic assumptions of restorative justice is important 
and will help to avoid fast-food versions of the theory. Community policing 
has taught this lesson already. The experiments over the last three decades have shown 
how quickly the focus can stray as departments burden themselves with introducing 
tactics that are perceived to be suited to the needs of the day. The importance of revisiting 
the original focus of policing (by the people, for the people) cannot be overstated. 
Policing, by its very nature, requires both short-term activity and a long-term 
vision. Restorative justice processes are powerful when human feelings can emerge 
that promote forward-looking thinking in spite of the need for structures to address 
the reality of today. 

Policing was intended to be about peacemaking when it was begun 150 years ago, but 
somehow that paramount objective was overtaken. Any disillusionment about the 
capacity of community, the power of problem solving, and the effectiveness and realism 
of conciliatory partnership efforts should be eroding, given what has already been 
achieved in promoting harmony in jointly addressing crime. Restorative justice fosters 
even more understanding of, and confidence in, the relevance of peacemaking in contemporary 
society. It builds on previous peacemaking efforts and takes things much 
further. As McCold and Wachtel describe, The collaborative processes developed 
from restorative justice practices are a natural tool for police interested in engaging 
communities for crime control and prevention and might be called restorative policing.
107 Indeed, engagement by the police and citizens in restorative justice will help 
revitalize the original meaning and purpose of policing: Policing by the people for the 
people.108 

In the companion document to this monographToolbox for Implementing 
Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policingsome of the risks and dangers 
inherent in the implementation of restorative justice are outlined, as well as 
the issues that require attention to avoid undermining the values of restorative 
justice. 


Community Policing,
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Final Comments


Final Comments

The first thing to understand is that the public peace... is not kept 
primarily by the police, as necessary as the police are. It is kept 
primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious network of voluntary 
controls... No amount of police can enforce civilization where the 
normal casual enforcement of it has been broken down.109 

Jacobs quotation is well-known and the importance of informal controls is widely 
acknowledged. Left to chance and in the absence of strategy, the disproportionate 
reliance on government controls will continue to have unintended consequences. 

The central proposition of this report is that democracy will suffer if policing and justice 
continue to treat the problem of crime as one requiring more, rather than less, 
use of a professionally run criminal justice system. The recognized need to invigorate 
communities and citizens to promote informal social controls will continue to be 
undermined by the focus on enforcement through legal due processunless there is 
a real commitment to social justice. Moreover, as long as social exclusion for those 
who commit crime is accepted as a solution, and as an inevitable byproduct of maintaining 
law and order, our understanding of crime will be limited; the result will be 
more public dependence on the criminal justice system. 

Overprofessionalizing the fight against crime and marginalizing offenders are not efficient 
ways of dealing with threats to public safety because, ultimately, they are unsustainable
at least in a free society. The purpose of policing and justice is to promote 
universal well-being, by serving as instruments of democracy by and through which 
the pressing concerns of all can be heard, their safety guaranteed, their crises 
addressed, their conflicts interrupted and resolved.7 

Attention to democratic values and peacekeeping is too often sidelined, however, in 
the delivery of public safety. The current focus on the crime problemusually 
defined in quantitative terms instead of by its full impact on victims, communities, and 
society (e.g., gated communities, incarceration, and self-interested individualism) 
is counterproductive without a recognition of the crucial role of informal social controls 
and of joint police-public problem solving. Achieving the goals of participatory 
crime resolution and prevention requires a national strategy. 

The developments in community policing and community justice raise hope that the 
commitment to citizen and community participation may no longer be seen as a 
hopelessly romantic notion.30 But hope alone leaves too much to chance. 
Participatory democracy is critical for promoting responsibility, education, mutual 
learning, tolerance, and care. These are the necessary preconditions to healthy informal 
controls and the development of social justice policies to address many of the 
crimogenic structural weaknesses inherent in current social and economic arrangements. 


In short, policing and justice should have as their central aim the strengthening of 
democracy. Strengthening democracy (and public order and safety) requires that collaboration, 
building trust, social inclusion, and the concept of modern citizenship are 
respected for their essential contribution to a well-functioning and healthy nation. 

The active participation of citizens and communities in crime control and justice 
delivery is currently too marginal to provide the safety net required to keep traditional 
crime fighting from becoming a self-defeating war. Participation has had to compete 
with the forces arguing for pouring resources into the traditional aspects of professionalism 
and strengthening the powers of formal systems of control. While the 
rhetoric has clearly supported community and citizen engagement (at least by way of 
partnership activity), the energy has primarily been locked into expanding the capacity 
of the criminal justice system, including the police. 

The reasons are understandable. First, skepticism exists of the ability of citizens to be 
organized to become a realistic buffer against high levels of violent crime and disorder, 
which have bred fear and discouraged community participation. Second, the 
expansion of the role of citizens and communities is seen to require inordinate attention 
to all that is involved in coalition buildingfrom identifying willing partners to 
work together, to developing a distribution of tasks to meeting a common goal. These 
demands are viewed in the context of insufficient time to address the challenges that 
most people want resolved today. 

The exponential growth of policing and criminal justice budgets has been the result 
of calls for a seemingly pragmatic response to crime, fear, and disorder. The wisdom 
of the recommendations of the Presidential Commission more than 30 years ago 
remain uncontested, but its implementation is compromised by the logic that justifies 
strengthening the traditional system to fulfill the states obligation to provide security. 
So, an increased emphasis on professional police alone (and, as a result, weaker 
communities) prevails, as does fear of crime, public dependence, and calls for still 
tougher measures to control crime and the conditions that reap more crime. 

Failure to break this vicious circle is already having serious consequences; the lack 
of participation equals denial, impatience, and intolerance: denial that there is a 
problem (maintaining the myth that government can deliver safety on its own), impatience 
with crime, and intolerance of those who are deemed blameworthy. 

Several years ago in Spain, a city was gripped by a series of asthma attacks, which 
resulted in dozens of people needing hospital treatment. The problem persisted for 
years. Some patients died following an acute attack. The hospital authorities were perplexed 
as to the cause of these attacks. They sought weather records to determine if 
an unusual pattern existed in the local climate; new drugs were tried; they arranged 
for doctors to maintain comprehensive records of all asthma patients; they organized 
pollution tests and tried to pin down geographic asthma hot spots. All to no avail. Not 


until a large consortium was formed of organizations from schools, the business community, 
health, water authorities, meteorologists, and ecologists, did a clue to the 
problem emerge: when cargo ships delivered grain to a local river port under particular 
climatic conditions, polluted water spread to certain sections of the city, spurring 
the attacks. 

The lesson is that we cannot identify and resolve problems by looking only at the obvious, 
nor by working in a vacuum. Like Callaways analogy about the interdependency 
of plant life, we are often unaware of the connections between cause and effect, 
actions and result, linkages and ramifications. 

Crime is no different. It has causes as well as consequences; often these are hidden 
until we search for the why? how? what? and where? This kind of awareness should 
influence the operation of policing and justice more than the focus on crime statistics 
and convictions. Vehicles are needed that expand our tunnel vision and enlighten us 
about the inter-relationship between humans, their environment, their activities, their 
interests, and the response that we give to these. The existing tunnel vision necessitates 
a safety net until enlightenment is more widely shared. 

The safety net for a healthy, open democracy will not come from local efforts alone. 
The laissez-faire experiments with community policing and community justice (and 
even restorative justice) need to correspond to some coherent vision that anticipates 
future challenges while dealing with todays reality. Although crime reduction is always 
a desirable goal, the means of achieving it require a framework that makes possible 
timely and effective action that promotes participation, problem solving, social cohesion, 
and adherence to values that support, not weaken, an open society. 

Such a framework will not force everyone to do the same thing. It needs, instead, to 
be an overarching infrastructure grounded in agreement about priorities. The priorities 
must stimulate local initiative and link local experiments so that they pull in the 
same direction and result in a significant impact. Community policing might have provided 
this infrastructure but for the emphasis on crime fighting in a punitive climate. 

With the new experiments in restorative justice, a framework is now within our grasp 
that not only tackles crime effectively, but also addresses the conditions that promote 
crime, fear, and disorder. It does so based on a set of values and processes that are 
oriented toward resolving problems through collaboration, power sharing, harm 
reduction, and crime preventionall achieved by engaging lay citizens who have, 
until now, been encouraged to slumber. Professional policingalready pushing the 
envelope toward sharing responsibility with communities for problem solvinghas 
much to offer in terms of encouraging restorative justices entry into mainstream practice. 
Its key position as gatekeeper to the justice system, and its contacts with the public 
beyond the scope of law enforcement, provide opportunities for professional policing 
to bridge the gap between the existing system of primarily formal controlsand 
a potentially more healthy balance between formal and informal social (and crime) 
controls. 


Policing is tough, stressful, complex, and problematic, but it is essential to the survival 
of any democracy. It is confronted with the crises of here and now as well as 
with the challenges that can be anticipated in the future. It is tempting to limit the purpose 
and role of policing to something that is quantifiable and readily identifiable. But 
that is not a realistic or productive response to the need. The police should be seen 
as part of a community, not as a separate entity. It should be policing with the community 
so that knowledge, experience, expertise, and lack thereof, can be identified; 
the resulting increase in understanding and awareness can, in the context of democratic 
values, break down myths and assumptions that too often preclude effective 
problem resolution. 

The police have the advantage of seeing more of the problem than most people. The 
police have also been constrained by their marriage to a justice system that has, so 
far, offered the antithesis of community-oriented, problem-solving policing by its 
exclusion of those who can help identify and resolve problems. 

Policing would be wise to deal with the risks and uncertainties confronting contemporary 
society by tapping into the strengths and support inherent in democratic inclusion 
and involvement, particularly in light of what the future holds if exclusionary, ultimately 
antidemocratic measures are retained. This report suggests that the police 
should be exercising the potentially powerful optionan option that represents a natural 
progression of developments to dateto begin the application of restorative justice. 

It will take time, and not a small amount of suspended skepticism, before local 
restorative justice experiments become the basis of a framework for an enlightened 
crime policy at the national level. The key lies in making community-oriented, problem-
solving policing not so much about crime fighting as about resilience and guarding 
against a failure to protect democracy. This is not as lofty an idea as it seems; we 
are already on that path and will progress, provided we continue to enlighten ourselves 
through the steps shown in Figure 22. This would be truly a pragmatic response 
to crime. 

Police are leading the way to a community based justice system. It 
has to be the police to get the rest of us to think about this.110 


Figure 22. Steps in Dealing Effectively With Crime While Strengthening 
Democracy and Social Justice 

1960 
Presidential Commission recommends traditional enforcement must 
be balanced with informal controls and social justice to protect 
democracy. 

1970 
Emphasis on enforcement and sanctions; crime control dominated 
by criminal justice system and law enforcement agencies. 

1980 
Sanctions include punishment as well as treatment. 
Attention to potential of crime prevention through informal
controls. Police collaborate with communities to identify 
problems and exchange information. 

1990   
Multiagency partnerships and coalitions with com-
munities promote broader undersanding of the 
impact of crime and help determine priroties of
professionals.  Limited citizen engagement in prob-
blem solution.

2000 
Police and justice agencies see victims and 
communities as equal players in defining the 
problem. Citizens/communities directlyengaged in addressing crime through nonadversarial 
processes that help resolve and prevent 
crime. 

2010 
Communities feel more confident of their 
own capacity to uphold norms of behavior. 
Professional agencies continue supporting 
the development of community 
capacity and provide oversight.

2019
Criminal Justice Punishment
Social Justice, Crime
Prevention, Restorative Justice, 
Community Justice

Promoting 
Social 
Justice 
Through 
Restorative 
Justice 


Community Policing,
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
References and Notes


References and Notes 

1. 
I have distinguished these last two throughout the report because of the 
way the term community justice is being applied and discussed. My 
view is that most applications of community justice retain much of the 
core elements of criminal justice without the change of values prescribed 
under restorative justice. Restorative justice represents more 
fundamental changes in the approach to crime, thus requiring special 
attention among the host of new developments. The distinction goes to 
the heart of the central mission of promoting public safety in a democracy. 
2. 
Dilulio, John. My Black Crime Problem, and Ours. City Journal, 
Spring 1996; 6(2):1428. 
3. 
U.S. Department of Justice. OJP Bureaus and Program Offices Fiscal 
Year 1998 Program Plans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 
1998. 
4. 
Goldstein, H. Policing a Free Society. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, LEAA, and the National Institute 
of Law, 1990. (NCJ 35914) 
5. 
Pressley, S.A. The Meanest Sheriff and Proud of It. The Washington 
Post, September 1, 1997, p. 31. 
6. 
Elliot Currie is among a number of criminologists and writers advocating 
this view. 
7. 
Kennedy, D., et al. Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing. New York: 
Basic Books, 1990. 
8. 
Farrington, D.P. Psychological Explanations of Crime. Aldershot, 
England: The International Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice and 
Penology, 1994. 
9. 
Garland, D. Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control 
in Contemporary Society. The British Journal of Criminology, 
Autumn 1996;36(4): 445471. 
10. 
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: Looking Back, Looking 
Forward: A Symposium on the 30th Anniversary of the Presidents 
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 
1998. 


11. Price, M. Victim Offender Mediation: A Road Somewhat Traveled. 

Victim Offender Mediation Association (VOMA) Quarterly, 

Fall/Winter 1996;7(3). 

12. 
McKnight, J. The Careless Society: Community and Its Counterfeits. 
New York: Basic Books, 1995. 
13. 
Clifford Shearing, Professor in Criminal Justice, University of Toronto. 
Personal communication, 1998. 

14. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
National Center for Community Policing, Michigan State University. 
Community Policing: A Survey of Police Departments in the United 
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1994. 

15. 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 100,000 Officers and 
Community Policing Across the Nation. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
September 13, 1997. 
16. 
Goldstein, Herman. Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented 
Approach. Crime and Delinquency, April 1979;25(2):236258. 
17. 
A 311 telephone number has been explored as a way of improving the 
management of the reactive workload confronting the police by way of 
911 and other calls for service. The public, perhaps unaware of the tension 
between providing rapid response and having the capacity for 
community policing, has tended to exploit the 911 system in non-
urgent cases. This over-use has necessitated experiments to identify 
new vehicles for the public to use when calling for assistance. 
18. 
Pressley, S.A. With New Orleans Schools Help, Public Housing Has 
Higher Marks. The Washington Post, May 29, 1998, p. A03. 
19. 
Bailey, David. Policing in America: Assessments and Prospects. 
Lecture given at the Police Foundation, Vauxhall, London, February 
1998. 
20. 
Kraska, Peter B., and Kappeler, Victor E. Militarizing American Police: 
The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units. Social Problems, 
1997;44(1):118. 
21. 
Stenning, P. Personal communication, November 1997. 


22. 
U.S. Department of Justice and LIS Inc. Community Criminal Justice: 
Building on the Lessons That Community Policing Teaches. Topics in 
Community Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1995. 
23. 
U.S. Department of Justice. Criminal Victimization in the U.S. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
1997. 
24. 
U.S. Department of Justice. Prisoners in 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997. (NCJ 164619) 
25. 
Garland, D. Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press, 1990. 
26. 
Goldstein, Herman. The New Policing: Confronting Complexity. 
Research In Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
Institute of Justice, December 1993. 
27. 
Smith, M. Notes on Public Safety and the Criminal Justice System. 
Final Report of the Temporary State Commission on Constitutional 
Revision, Appendix B, New York, NY, February 1995. 
28. 
Mulgan, Geoff. Connexity: How to Live in a Connected World. Allston, 
MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998. 
29. 
Estimate for 1996 by Erik Lotkey of the National Center for Institutions 
and Alternatives, Alexandria, VA. 
30. 
Berry, J., Portney, K.E., and Thomson, K. The Rebirth of Urban 
Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993. 
31. 
Christie, N. Crime Control as Industry: Toward Gulags, Western 
Style? New York: Rutledge, 1996. 
32. 
As Public Fear Swells, So Do Pennsylvania Prisons. Philadelphia 
Inquirer, March 20, 1996. 
33. 
U.S. Department of Justice. Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996. Washington, 
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1998. 
34. 
This figure is substantiated by the Drug Use Forecasting Program figures 
issued by the National Institute of Justice, which show that 75 percent 
of arrestees test positive for drugs. 


35. 
The criminalization of the mentally ill began with the closings of public 
mental hospitals in the 1960s in a bid to slash hospital budgets. 
Ironically, voters are willing to spend freely on fighting crime, leading 
to mentally ill patients being housed in jails after being thrown out of 
mental hospitals and into the community. 
36. 
Bureau of Justice Assistance Statistics Special Report, 1996. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
February 1997. 
37. 
Harlow, C.W. Jail Inmates 1996Bureau of Justice Statistics Special 
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, April 1998. 
38. 
One woman shared with the author how she unexpectedly got a prison 
sentence after a court appearance for possession of marijuana. Her 11year-
old son had been present at court. No onebut no onetook 
care of him. He saw me being taken down. I couldnt even say good-bye 
to him. He was left to go home by himself. A visit to Shakopees 
womens prison in Minnesota highlighted another aspect of the problem 
when a mother said, The prison sentence is not a problem for 
usyou get used to it after awhile. But what do you think our children 
feel? They are so angry with the system that took their mother away. 
39. 
Latest News, Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) Website 
Home Page (<http://www.famm.org>), March 1998. 
40. 
Dowling, C.G. The Way We Live. Part I: Women Behind Bars. Life 
Magazine, October 1, 1997;20(10):76. 
41. 
Donziger, S., ed. The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National 
Criminal Justice Commission. New York: HarperCollins Publishers 
Inc., 1996. 
42. 
New Zealand Justice Department. New Zealand Criminal Justice: A 
Punitive Obsession. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Justice 
Department, 1991. 
43. 
Stuart, B. Building Community Justice Partnerships: Community 
Peacemaking Circles. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Minister of Public 
Works and Government Services Canada, Aboriginal Justice Section, 
Department of Justice of Canada, 1997. 
44. 
Scheingold, Stuart A. The Politics of Street Crime: Criminal Process 
and Cultural Obsession. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991. 
45. 
Pranis, K. From Vision to Action: Some Principles of Restorative 
Justice, Church and Society, 1997;87(4). 


46. 
Harris, K. Reflections of a Skeptical Dreamer: Some Dilemmas in 
Restorative Justice Theory and Practice. Contemporary Justice 
Review, 1998;1(1):59. 
47. 
Christie, N. Conflicts as Property. The British Journal of 
Criminology, 1997; 17(1):115. 
48. 
Boland, B. What is Community Prosecutions? NIJ Journal on 
Communities: Mobilizing Against CrimeMaking Partnerships 
Work. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August 1996, pp. 
3540. 
49. 
U.S. Department of Justice. Defining Drug Courts: The Key 
Components. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office, January 1997. 
50. 
Bradshaw, J. Healing the Shame That Blinds You. Deerfield Beach, FL: 
Health Communications Inc., 1988. 
51. 
Finn, P., and Newland, A.K. Miami Drug Court Gives Drug Defendants 
a Second Chance. Criminal Justice Concepts and Issues. 2d ed. 
Edited by C.W. Eskridge. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, 1996, p. 149. 
52. 
Community Courts Forum. Web page developed by the Bureau of 
Justice Assistance and the Center of Court Innovation 
(<http://www.communitycourts.org/ forum/forum.htm>). 
53. 
Bazemore, G., and Schiff, M. Community Justice/Restorative Justice: 
Prospects for a New Social Ecology for Community Corrections. 
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 
Spring/Fall 1996;20(1-2):311335. 
54. 
This is one of many labels that have been applied to the new phenomenon. 
55. 
Pakulsky, J. Quoted by Daly, Kathleen, and Immarigeon, Russ, in The 
Past, Present, and Future of Restorative Justice: Some Critical 
Reflections, Contemporary Justice Review (Special Issue: The 
Phenomenon of Restorative Justice), 1998;1(1):29. 
56. 
Zehr, H. Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. 
Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1990, esp. Ch. 911. 
57. 
Zehr, H. Restorative Justice Symposium: Summary of the 
Proceedings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, 1996. 


58. 
These values are distilled from a number of sources in which restorative 
justice values and principles have been defined, including Howard 
Zehr and Harry Mikas Fundamental Concepts (1996), Ron 
Claassens Fundamental Principles presented at the United Nations 
Alliance of Non-Government Organizations on Restorative Justice 
(1996), and the Ten Propositions established under the Declaration 
of Leuven made on the occasion of the first International Conference on 
Restorative Justice in Belgium (1997). 
59. 
The Center for Urban Affairs at Northwestern University has been studying 
this area for more than 30 years. In Chicago, a longitudinal study 
on collective efficacy has shown the links between violence and low-
income neighborhoods where social ties are weak and common values 
are unenforced. 
60. 
Zehr, H. Restorative Justice Hits Big Time But Will Remain True to Its 
Vision. Mennonite Central Committee Web page 
(<http://www.mcc.org/pr/1997/01-10/5.html>), January 10, 1997. 
61. 
Halbert, E. I Can Remember a TimeA Crime Victims Journal to 
Restorative Justice. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, 
August 1997;pp. 4043. 
62. 
Marshall, T.F. Seeking the Whole Justice. Presented at the Institute for 
the Study and Treatment of Delinquency (ISTD) Conference, Repairing 
the Damage: Restorative Justice in Action, Bristol, United Kingdom, 
March 20, 1997. 
63. 
There is also an ongoing debate as to whether restorative justice can be 
operated as part of the criminal justice system when its values are so 
different. The danger of co-optation by the mainstream system is a real 
one. However, restorative justice experiments are being conducted parallel 
with, or extraneous to, the criminal justice system, apparently 
without too many problems. 
64. 
Pranis, K. Peacemaking Circles. Corrections Today, 1997;59(1):72, 
74, 76, 122. 
65. 
Steinem, G. If Moral Decay is the Question, Is a Feminist Ethic the 
Answer? Ms. Magazine, September 1987;Vol. 16:5759 + ill. 
66. 
U.S. Department of Justice. Understanding Community Policing: A 
Framework for Action. BJA Monograph. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, August 1994. (NCJ 
148457) 


67. 
U.S. Department of Justice. Communities: Mobilizing Against Crime, 
Making Partnerships Work. NIJ Journal, August 1996;No. 231. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 
Justice. 
68. 
Speech of Sir Robert Peel Bart, M.P., delivered in the House of 
Commons, 1839. 
69. 
Pranis, K. Rethinking Community Corrections: Restorative Values and 
an Expanded Role for the Community. The ICCA Journal on 
Community Corrections, August 1997;8(1):3639. 
70. 
Clarke, S.H. Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes in North Carolina: 
An Evaluation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1992. 
71. 
Wright, M. Justice for Victims and Offenders: A Restorative Response 
to Crime. 2d ed. Winchester, England: Waterside Press, 1996. 
72. 
Umbreit, M. Mediating Interpersonal Conflicts: A Pathway to Peace. 
West Concord, MN: CPI Publishing, 1995. 
73. This is discussed in the companion document to this report entitled 
Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing 
Community Policing. 
74. 
Umbreit, M., and Roberts, A. Mediation of Criminal Conflict in 
England: An Assessment of Services in Conventry and Leeds. St. Paul, 
MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, 
1996. 
75. 
Same offender who attended victim-offender conferencing in 
Washington County, MN. 
76. 
Parent of a 15-year-old, who attended a conference in Milton Keynes, 
United Kingdom. 
77. 
Umbreit also offers Advanced Victim Restorative Offender Dialogue 
training to people already conversant and experienced in victim-offender 
mediation. 
78. 
Evaluation of the Victim-Offender Mediation Project, Langley, British 
Columbia, 1995. 


79. 
Edelman, J. The Tao of Negotiation. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. 
80. 
Yazzi, Robert, Judge of the Navajo Nation Courts in Arizona. 
Presentation at the U.S. Department of Justice Conference on 
Restorative Justice, Washington, DC, 1996. 
81. 
Brown, M., and McElrea, F. Juvenile Justice in New Zealand. Paper 
presented at the National Conference on Juvenile Justice at the 
Australian Institute of Criminology, Melbourne, Australia, 1993. 
82. 
Brown, M. The Youth Court in New Zealand: A Model of Justice. 
Unpublished paper. Auckland, New Zealand, 1998. 
83. 
Maxwell, G., and Morris, A. Family Victims and Culture: Youth Justice 
in New Zealand. Ellington, New Zealand: Victoria University, 1993. 
84. 
In some places, the victim is given the first opportunity to speak out of 
respect for their central role. Some practitioners think this puts too 
much pressure on victims and thus ask offenders to speak first. 
85. 
Taylor, B.R., and Kummery, G. Family Group Conferencing. 
Educational Leadership, September 1996;pp. 4446. 
86. 
Moore, David, conversation with the author, December 1996. 
87. 
Shearing, C. Transforming the Culture of Policing: Thoughts from 
South Africa. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of 
Criminology, 1995;28(SPI). 
88. 
Sherman, L.W., et al. Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress 
Report to the National Police Research Unit on the Canberra 
Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), 1998. 
89. 
Umbreit, M., and Stacey, S.L. Family Group Conferencing Comes to the 
U.S.: A Comparison with Victim-Offender Mediation. Juvenile & 
Family Court Journal, Spring 1996;47(2):2938. 
90. 
Braithewaite, J. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: 
Cambridge University Press, 1994. 
91. 
Moore D., and Forsythe, L. A New Approach to Juvenile Justice: An 
Evaluation of Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga. A report to the 
Criminology Research Council. New South Wales, Australia: The Centre 
for Rural Social Research, Charles Stuart University, 1995. 


92. 
Texas Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Victims Informer. Newsletter. 
Austin, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice Services, Crime Victim 
Clearinghouse, February 1997, p. 3. 
93. 
Nathanson, D. Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self. New York: 
Norton, 1992. 
94. 
Nicholl, C. The Milton Keynes Retail Theft Initiative. Paper presented at the 
Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency (ISTD) Conference, Bristol, 
United Kingdom, April 1997. 
95. 
Thames Valley Police Department. Annual Report of the Thames Valley Police 
Department, United Kingdom, 1997. 
96. 
McElrea, F.M.W. The Intent of the Children and Young Persons, and Their 
Families Act 1989Restorative Justice? Paper presented at the Youth Justice 
Conference in Auckland, New Zealand, 1994. 
97. 
McCold, Paul, and Starr, John. Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing 
Project. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual 
Meeting, Chicago, IL, 1996. 
98. 
Anoka Police Department. Family Group Conferencing. Flyer available from the 
Anoka (Minnesota) Police Department, 1996. 
99. 
Another restorative justice expert, Harry Blagg, has also questioned the desirability 
of professionals like the police conducting family group conferences 
because of their authoritarian attitudes. 

100.Goerzen, Martin. A Diary of Circle Sentencing. Newsletter printed by the Canadian 
Mennonites, Canada, March 1996. 

101.Bazemore, G., and Griffiths, C.T. Conferences, Circles, Boards, and Mediations: 
The New Wave of Community Justice Decisionmaking. Federal Probation, June 
1997;61(2):2537. 

102.Pranis, K. Family Group Conferencing for Quality-of-Life Crimes: The 
Minneapolis Experiment, Humanity and Society, February 1, 
1998;22(1):118122. 

103.This was critical in opening the flood gates of communication in Hollow Water. 
(See the case study Circles Provide a Vehicle for Open Dialogue About 
Community Problems That Otherwise Could Fester for Years, near the beginning 
of this Sentencing and Health Circles section.) 

104.Pranis, K. How to Build Community Support for Restorative Justice. Community 
Corrections Report, January 1997; pp. 21, 28. 


105.Black Elk. The Sacred Tree. Canada: Canada Four Worlds Development 
Press, 1998. 

106.Lynch, J. Training Materials on Alternative Dispute Resolution. 
Ottawa, Contario, Canada: Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 1997. 

107.McCold, P., and Wachtel, B. Community Is Not a Place. Contemporary 
Justice Review (Special Issue: The Phenomenon of Restorative 
Justice), 1998;1(1). 

108.Sir Robert Peel, 1829. 

109.Jacobs, J. Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage 
Books, 1961. 

110.Stuart, B. Obstacles to the Implementation of Restorative Justice. 
Panel discussion at the Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution 
(SPIDR) Conference, Anaheim, CA, November 1996. 


Community Policing, 
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
Bibliography 


Bibliography 

(Sources not included in the References and Notes section.) 

American Probation and Parole Association. Restoring Hope through Community 
Partnerships: The Real Deal in Crime Control. Lexington, KY: American Probation 
and Parole Association, 1996. 

Babcock, L. The Evolution of Community Policing in Newport News, VA. Themes 
and Variations in Community Policing: Case Studies in Community Policing. 

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1996. 

Barajas, Jr., Eduardo. Moving Toward Community Justice. Topics in Community 
Corrections, Community Justice. Annual Issue. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1995. 

Bazemore, G. Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A Framework for 
Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in collaboration with Florida 
Atlantic University Community Justice Institute, 1997. 

Bazemore, G., and Pranis, K. Hazards Along the Way. Corrections Today, December 
1997;59(7):84, 86, 8889, 128. 

Berzins, L., and Prashaw, R. A New Imagination for Justice and Corrections. The 
ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, December 1997, pp. 2225. 

Boland, B. How Portland Does It, Community Prosecution. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996. (NCJ 165182) 

Bouza, T. Forum: NYPD Blues  good, lucky, or both? Law Enforcement News. New 
York: Len Inc. and John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 
January 31, 1997. 

Bowen, H. Restorative Justice in Aoteroal/New ZealandBackground and Training 
Issues. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, December 1997;pp. 4145. 

Brookes, S. Zero Option. Police Review, April 4, 1997;pp. 1618. 

Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation. Restorative Justice for Victims, 
Communities and Offenders. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice & 
Mediation, University of Minnesota, 1996. 

Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. Community Policing in 
Chicago, Year Four: An Interim Report. Research and Program Evaluation in 
Illinois. Chicago, IL: Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consortium, 1997. 


Claasen, R. Restorative Justice Fundamental Principles. Presented May 1995 at 
NCPCR; revised for the United Nations Alliance of Nongovernmental Organizations 
Working Party on Restorative Justice, New York, NY, May 1996. 

Colson, C., and Van Ness, D. Convicted  New Hope for Ending Americas Crime 
Crisis. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1989. 

Commission on the Future of Courts. Reinventing Justice 2022. Report of the Chief 
Justices Commission on the Future of Courts. Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts, 1992. 

Cooper, C. The Discretion to Choose Restorative Justice. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: 
Restorative Justice Aboriginal Policing Branch, RCMP Headquarters, 1997. 

Crandon, L. Zero Tolerance not a panacea. Police Review, March 28, 1997;p. 9. 

Currie, E. Is America Really Winning the War on Crime and Should Britain Follow Its 
Example? 30th Anniversary Lecture, National Association for the Care and 
Resettlement of Offenders (NARCO), London, 1996. 

Daly, Kathleen, and Immarigeon, Russ. The Past, Present, and Future of Restorative 
Justice: Some Critical Reflections. Contemporary Justice Review (Special Issue: 
The Phenomenon of Restorative Justice), 1998;1(1):29. 

DiMascio, W.M. Seeking Justice: Crime and Punishment in America. New York: The 
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1995. 

Etzioni, A. The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective. American 
Sociological Review, February 1996;61(1):111. 

Faulkner, D. Building a System on Evidence and Principle: A New Agenda. Paper 
presented at a conference at Wolfson College, Oxford, England, 1997. 

Faulkner, D. Darkness and Light: Justice, Crime and Management for Today. 
London: The Howard League for Penal Reform, 1996. 

Fulton, B. Restoring Hope Through Community Partnerships: The Real Deal in 
Crime Control. A Handbook for Community Corrections. Lexington, KY: American 
Probation and Parole Association, 1996. 

Galaway, B., and Husdon, J., eds. Restorative Justice: International Perspectives. 
Amsterdam: Kugler Publications, 1996. 

Gay, F. Restorative Justice and the Prosecutor. The ICCA Journal on Community 
Corrections, August 1997;pp. 3033. 


Genesee County Sheriffs Office. Genesee Justice. Batavia, NY: Genesee County 
Sheriffs Office, 1995. 

Gil, D.G. Preventing Violence in a Structurally Violent Society: Mission Impossible. 
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1996;66:1. 

Gilligan, J. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes. New York: G.P. Putnam, 
1996. 

Gustafson, D. Facilitating Communication Between Victims and Offenders in Cases of 
Serious Violent Crime. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, August 
1997;pp. 4449. 

Harris, M.K. Moving Into the New Millennium: Toward a Feminist Vision of Justice. 
Criminology as Peacemaking. Edited by H. Pepinsky and R. Quinney. Bloomington, 
IN: Indiana Press, 1991, pp.8397. 

Holterman, S. The Costs of Poverty. Special research commissioned by the Channel 
4 Commission on Poverty (<www.channel.4.com/backup/bss/stuck/povertycommission/ 
costs>), April 1996. 

Hubbell, W. Life in Prison. George, August 1997;pp.7881, 9899. 

Huculak, B. From the Power to Punish to the Power to HealRestorative Justice 
The Last Hope. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, August 1997;pp. 
3435. 

Immarigeon, R. The Benefits of Healing and Sentencing Circles. Community 
Connections, 1997;5:1. 

Immarigeon, R., and Daly, K. Restorative Justice: Origins, Practices, Contexts and 
Challenges. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, December 
1997;pp.1318. 

Jackson, S.E. Family Group Conferencing in Youth Justice: The Issues for 
Implementation in England and Wales. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 
February 1998;37(1):3451. 

James, M. Frazier to Seek Tips in Japan. Baltimore Sun, April 19, 1994, p. 3B. 

Kelling, G. Restore Order and You Reduce Crime. The Washington Post, February 
9, 1997, p. C3. 

Lehman, J.D. Beyond the Bars: Cells Dont Solve Crime. The Business Report, 
December 1992;pp. 811. 


Lipkin, R.S. Restorative Community Panels. The ICCA Journal on Community 
Corrections, December 1997;pp. 3536. 

Lopez, S. Its No Party in the County Jail. Time, March 2, 1998;151(8 ). 

Lynch, J.P., and Sabol, W.J. Did Getting Tough on Crime Pay? Washington, DC: The 
Urban Institute, 1997. 

Maloney, D., Ronig, D., and Armstrong, T. Juvenile Probation: The Balanced 
Approach. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1988;39(3):163. 

Marshall, T.F. Grassroots Initiatives Towards Restorative Justice: The New Paradigm? 
A paper for Fulbright Colloquium 1992, Penal Theory & Penal Practice, The 
University of Stirling, September 1992, pp.14. 

Marshall, T., and Merry, S. Crime and Accountability: Victim/Offender Mediation 
in Practice. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office, 1990. 

Masters, G. Values for Probation, Society and Beyond. Howard Journal of Criminal 
Justice, August 1997;36(3):237247. 

Maxwell, G., and Morris, A. Family Group Conferences and Restorative Justice. The 
ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, December 1997;pp. 3740. 

McDonald, J. Training materials on Transforming JusticeRestorative Justice. 
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Aboriginal Policing Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police 
Headquarters, 1997. 

McElrea, F.W.M. Accountability in the Community: Taking Responsibility for 
Offending. New Zealand: Legal Research Foundation, 1995. 

McKnight, J.L., and Kretzman, J.P. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path 
Toward Finding the Mobilizing Community Assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban 
Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, 1993. 

Mennonite Central Committee. Restorative Justice in Ourselves. New Perspectives 
on Crime and Justice. Occasional papers of the Mennonite Central Committee 
Canada Victim Offender Ministries Program and the Mennonite Central Committee 

U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, September 1991;No. 11. 

Mennonite Central Committee. Restorative Justice: Rebirth of an Ancient Practice. 
New Perspectives on Crime and Justice. Occasional papers of the Mennonite Central 
Committee Canada Victim Offender Ministries Program and the Mennonite Central 
Committee U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, February 1994; No. 14. 

Mennonite Central Committee. Justice: The Restorative VisionNew Perspectives 
on Crime and Justice. Occasional Papers of the Mennonite Central Committee 


Canada Victim Offender Ministries Program and the Mennonite Central Committee 

U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, February 1989, Issue No. 7. 

Mika, H. Mediating Neighborhood Conflict: Conceptual and Strategic 
Considerations. Negotiation Journal, October 1987. 

Mika, H., and Zehr, H. The Ten Commandments of Restorative Justice. Campaign 
for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ) Webpage (<http://www.cerj.org/>), 1996. 

Miller, J. Last One Over the Wall: The Massachusetts Experiment in Closing Reform 
Schools. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1992. 

Minnesota Department of Corrections. Backgrounder: Restorative Justice. St. Paul, 
MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, January 1997. 

Minnesota Department of Corrections. Justice: Sample Practices in Minnesota. 
Restorative Justice Initiative. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, July 
1997. 

Moore, D.B. Public Anger and Personal Justice: From Retribution to Restoration 
And Beyond. Paper presented to the Silvan S. Tomkins Institute Colloquium, 
Philadelphia, PA, October 2830, 1994. 

Moore, M. Looking Backward to Look Forward: The 1967 Crime Commission Report 
in Retrospect. NIJ Journal. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
Institute of Justice, December 1997, pp. 2430. 

Moran, R. New York Story: More Luck Than Policing. The Washington Post, 
February 9, 1997, p. C3. 

Morgan, R. Swept Along by Zero Option. The Guardian, January 22, 1997. 

Morris, A., et al. Giving Victims a Voice: A New Zealand Experiment. Howard 
Journal (United Kingdom), 1993;32(4):304321. 

Nathanson, D.L. Crime and NourishmentSometimes the Tried and True Becomes 
the Tired and False. Bulletin of the Tomkins Institute, Fall/Winter 1995;2(34). 

National Commission on Civic Renewal. A Nation of Spectators: How Civic 
Disengagement Weakens America and What We Can Do About It. College Park, 
MD: University of Maryland, 1998. 

New Zealand Ministry of Justice. Restorative Justice. Unpublished paper, 1995. 

Nicholl, C. The Importance of Making the Links Between Community Policing and 
Community Justice. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, August 1997; 
pp. 2028. 


Nicholl, C. Zero Tolerance. Presentation at Manchester Conference, March 24, 
1997. 

Northey, W. Restorative Justice: Rebirth of Ancient Practice. Winnipeg, Manitoba, 
Canada: Canadian Mennonite Central Committee, 1994 

Oxford University Centre for Criminological Research. Restorative Justice 
Restorative Cautioning: Strengthening Communities in the Thames Valley. Proposal to 
the Joseph Rountree Foundation by Oxford University Centre for Criminological 
Research, May 1997. 

Pranis, K. The Minnesota Restorative Justice Initiative: A Model Experience. The 
Crime Victims Report, May/June 1997;pp.19, 20, 22. 

Pranis, K. Restorative Justice and Feminism: Common Themes. Unpublished paper, 
1995. 

Pranis, K. State Initiative Toward Restorative Justice: The Minnesota Experience. 
Restorative Justice: International Perspectives. Edited by Galaway and Hudson. 
Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, 1996, pp. 493504. 

Pranis, K., and Umbreit, M. Public Opinion Research Challenges Perception of 
Widespread Public Demand for Harsher Punishment. Minneapolis, MN: 
Minneapolis Citizens Council, March 1994. 

Prison and Its Alternatives. Transcript of CBS Ideas series, aired June 1728, 
1996. 

Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social Capital. Journal of 
Democracy, 1993;6(1). 

Putney, B. A Grassroots Approach to Restorative Justice. The ICCA Journal on 
Community Corrections, December 1997;pp. 2021. 

Restorative Justice Consortium. Restorative Justice Brings New Hope to Criminal 
Justice. Statement prepared by the Restorative Justice Consortium, United Kingdom, 
1997. 

Restorative Justice Symposium: Summary of Proceedings. Symposium sponsored 
by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Office for Victims 
of Crime, Washington, DC, January 2527, 1996. 

Sampson, Robert J., Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Earls, Felton. Neighborhoods and 
Violent Crime: A Multi-level Study of Collective Efficacy. Science, August 15, 
1997;277:225. 


Santa Ana Police Department. City of Santa Ana Cruising Abatement Project. 
Report. Santa Ana, CA: Santa Ana Police Department, 1995. 

Scheff, T. Emotions and Violence: Shame and Rage in Destructive Conflicts. 
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1991. 

Schweigert, F. Learning the Common Good: Principles of Community-Based Moral 
Education in Restorative Justice. Unpublished paper, April 1997. 

Strang, H., and Sherman, L.W. The Victims Perspective. Unpublished paper, 1997. 

Thames Valley Police Restorative Justice Consultancy. Draft Proposals to Introduce 
Restorative Justice Within Thames Valley. Thames Valley (United Kingdom) Police 
Restorative Justice Consultancy, 1997. 

Theobald, R. Reworking Success: New Communities at the Millenium. British 
Columbia, Canada: New Sobriety Publishers, 1997. 

Thorton, C. Family Group Conferences: A Literature Review. New Zealand: 
Practictioners Publishing, 1993. 

Trojanowicz, R.C., Woods, D., Harpolc, J., Roboussin, R., and Trojanowicz, S. 

Community Policing: A Survey of Police Departments in the United States. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(<http://www.concentric.net/dwoods/study.htm>). 

Travis, J. Thinking About Crime: A Federal Perspective on a Local Issue. Symposium 
presentation, Dartmouth College Masters of Arts in Liberal Studies, July 1996. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996. 

Umbreit, Mark S. Course Materials on Victim Offender Mediation. Minneapolis, MN: 
University of Minnesota, Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation. 

Umbreit, M. Direct and Indirect Mediation: Implications for Expanded Restorative 
Justice Practice. Victim Offender Mediation Association (VOMA) Quarterly, 
Winter 1998;9(1). 

Umbreit, M.S. Crime Victims and Offenders in Mediation: An Emerging Area in Social 
Work Practice. Social Work, January 1993;38(1). 

Umbreit, M. Cross-National Impact of Restorative Justice Through Mediation and 
Dialogue. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, December 1997;pp. 
4650. 

Umbreit, M. Humanistic Mediation: A Transformative Journey of Peacemaking. 
Paper, March 1997. 


Umbreit, M. Information on Research Findings Related Uniquely to Restorative 
Justice Interventions: Victim Offender Mediation and Family Group Conferences. 

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, Center for Restorative 
Justice, 1996. 

Umbreit, M. Quality Restorative Justice Practice: Grounding Interventions in Key 
Restorative Justice Values. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, August 
1997;pp. 5253. 

Umbreit, M. Responding to Important Questions Related to Restorative Justice. St. 
Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, Center for Restorative 
Justice, 1996. 

Umbreit, M. Mediation of Criminal Conflict: An Assessment of Programs in Four 
Canadian Provinces. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Restorative 
Justice & Mediation, 1995. 

Umbreit, Mark S. Course Materials on Victim Offender Mediation. Available from 
the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of Minnesota. 

Umbreit, M. Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and 
Mediation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1994. 

Umbreit, M., and Coates, R.B. Victim Offender Mediation: An Analysis of Programs 
in Four States in the U.S. St. Paul, MN: Citizens Council Mediation Services, 
Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime and Justice, and University of Minnesota, 1992. 

Umbreit, M., and Fercello, C. Interim Report: Client Evaluation of the Victim/Offender 
Conferencing Program in Washington County, MN. Paper presented at the University 
of Minnesota, Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, April 8, 1997. 

Umbreit, M., and Zehr, H. Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Models 
and Guidelines for Practice. Federal Probation Journal, September 
1996;60(3):2429. 

U.S. 
Department of Justice. COPS 100,000 Officers Funded. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, May 1999, 
p. 
6. 
U.S. 
Department of Justice. COPS TIPSProblem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 
Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1996. 

Van Ness, D.W. Perspectives on Achieving Satisfying Justice: Values and Principles of 
Restorative Justice. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, August 1997;pp. 
712. 


Van Ness, D., and Strong, K.H. Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1997.
Verma, M. Crimethe Bottom Line. Business Report, November 14, 1995.
Vermont Department of Corrections. Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of

Vermont. Vermont Department of Corrections, July 1994.

Walther, L., and Perry, J. The Vermont Reparative Probation. The ICCA Journal on 
Community Corrections, December 1997;pp. 2634. 
Young, M. Restorative Community Justice: A Call to Action. Washington, DC: National 

Organization for Victim Assistance,1995. 

Zehr, H. Justice Paradigm Shift? Values and Visions in the Reform Process. Mediation 
Quarterly, Spring 1995;12(3):207216. 
Zehr, H. Mediating the Victim/Offender Conflict: The Victim Offender Reconciliation 

Program. Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee, 1990. 

Zehr, H., and Mika, H. Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice 
Review, 1998;1(1):4755. 
Zehr, H., Van Ness, D., and Harris, M.K. Justice: The Restorative Vision. Akron, PA: Mennonite 

Central Committee, U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, 1989. 


Community Policing, 
COMMUNITY JUSTICE, AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
Epilogue: Putting This into Practice 


Epilogue: Putting This into Practice 

Accompanying this monograph is a handbook for police departments that want to 
help build stronger communities through restorative justice: Toolbox for 
Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policing. The Toolbox 
does not offer universal answers or even a blanket program. What it offers are several 
components that should be taken into consideration when designing a program. 

Each program will have to cater to local needs; running throughout all programs that 
practice restorative justice, however, are its values. These form the essence of the new 
paradigm, and attempts at implementing restorative justice must begin with an exploration 
of their meaning and application. 

Restorative justices perspective on crime includes a focus on the harms it does. 
Implementing restorative justice, therefore, requires redefining crime to include figuring 
out what the consequences of crime really are. Thus, the victim plays a central 
role in ascribing meaning to the event, with the offender and the community helping 
to repair the harm and ward off further harms. 

Restorative justice seeks not only law and order but social justice as well. The social 
justice goal involves addressing problems that might be contributing to crime and 
promotes the engagement of citizens in applying informal social controls. 

The locus for all restorative justice work is the communitybut not all communities 
have high levels of activity or face the same problems. A restorative justice program 
needs to devise a way for the state to help activate and support communities, so that 
their local efforts can complement the broad goals of policing: peacekeeping in the 
context of a free society. 

Program development requires thought about all of these factors. Furthermore, any 
program that wishes to remain healthy will have to test itself against certain benchmarks; 
and these benchmarks, like the program itself, will vary according to the 
needs of your community. 

Restorative justice is still in an experimental stage. Communities have yet to explore 
and discover the fullness of its benefits. A host of unresolved issues face every practitioner, 
who therefore will be creating the future of crime control and social justice 
and will be building the kind of communities that enrich a participatory democracy. 


Appendix. Restorative Justice Resources

Police Departments Implementing Restorative Justice Processes 
Anoka, MN (U.S.) Andrew Revering (612) 421-6632 

Carver County, MN (U.S.) Paul Schnell (612) 361-1251 

Vermont (U.S.) Wanda Daniels (802) 295-9425 

Wardburg, MN (U.S.) David Hines (612) 739-4141 

Bethlehem, PA (U.S.) John Stahr (610) 865-7162 

Genesee County, NY (U.S.) Dennis Whitman (716) 344-2550 

Milton Keynes (UK) Ken Webster 011441-908-686664 

Copies of Building Community Partnerships by Judge Barry Stuart are available by contacting 
the Aboriginal Justice Directorate, Department of Justice, Canada; telephone: (613) 941-2974. 

Campaign for EquityRestorative Justice 
111 High Street 
Brattleboro, VT 05301 
E-mail: jwlmrdng@sover.net 

Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies 
Fresno Pacific University 
1717 S. Chestnut Avenue 
Fresno, CA 93702 
Telephone: (209) 453-5840 
For classes in Victim-Offender 
Reconciliation: 
1-800-909-VORP 

Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation 
Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D. 
University of Minnesota 
School of Social Work 
1985 Buford Avenue 
386 McNeal Hall 
St. Paul, MN 55108-6144 
Telephone: (612) 624-4923 
Fax: (612) 625-4288 
E-mail: <ctr4rjm@che2.che.umn.edu> 

Community Justice Institute 
Florida Atlantic University 
College of Urban and Public Affairs 
Gordon Bazemore, Ph.D. 
220 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Room 612C 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Telephone: (954) 762-5668 
Fax: (954) 762-5693 

Community Justice Project 
Carolyn McLeod 
Washington County, MN 
Telephone: (612) 430-6948 

Conflict Transformation Program 
Eastern Mennonite University 
Howard Zehr, Ph.D. 
Harrisonburg, VA 22801 
Telephone: (504) 432-4490 


Genesee Justice Program
Genesee County Sheriffs Department
County Building 1
Batavia, NY 14020
Telephone: (716) 344-2550

Murdered Victims Families for 
Reconciliation 
P.O. Box 208
Atlantic, VA 23303
Telephone: (804) 824-0946

REAL JUSTICE 
P.O. Box 229
Bethlehem, PA 18016
Telephone: (610) 807-9221
E-mail: <realjust@aol.com>

Restorative Justice Institute 
P.O. Box 16301
Washington, DC 20041-6301
Telephone: (703) 404-1246
Fax: (703) 404-4213
E-mail: <bprestonjd@aol.com>
Newsletter: Full Circle

Victim Offender Mediation Association 
(VOMA) 
c/o Restorative Justice Institute 
P.O. Box 16301
Washington, DC 20041-6301
Telephone: (703) 404-1246
Fax: (703) 404-4213
E-mail: <voma@voma.org>
Newsletter: Victim-Offender Mediator


Image of United States Department of Justice seal

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770. 

Visit the COPS internet web site: 
www.usdoj.gov/cops 

Created: September 30, 1999 
e09990014