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

DOJ Seal

TOOLBOX FOR IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE 
JUSTICE AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 

A GUIDEBOOK PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 
ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES,U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

BY CAROLINE G. NICHOLL 



TOOLBOX FOR IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE 
JUSTICE AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 

A guidebook prepared for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
U.S. Department of Justice 

By Caroline G. Nicholl 

Funded under 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. Companion document 
to Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links 
for the Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety. 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. Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and 
Advancing Community Policing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999. 

See companion document: Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice 


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. 


Contents 

Introduction to Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

Part 1. Values of Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
Dialogue and Inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
Crime: More than a Violation of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 
Repairing Harms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 
Involving and Strengthening the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

Part 2. Addressing Victims' Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 
Impact of Crime on Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 
Restoring Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 
How Can This Be Accomplished? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
The Role of Victim Advocates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

Part 3. Holding Offenders to Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 
Role of Positive Shaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 
How Can This Be Accomplished? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 
Offender Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Part 4. Building Community Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 
Is the Dream of Regenerated, Cohesive Communities Utopian? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 
What Is Community? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 
Community Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 
Restorative Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 
Building Community Decisionmaking Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 
Actions You and Your Agency Need to Take . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 
Stages in Transition to Strong Informal Social Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 

Part 5. Developing a Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 
Stages of Developing a Restorative Justice Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 
Gaining Public Support for Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 
Case Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 
Intolerant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 
Obtaining Resources and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
Advisory Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 
Developing Skills in Sensitivity to Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 


Cultural Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 
Key Role of Preparation Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 
Neutral Role of the Facilitator and Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 
Participation of Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 
Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 
Accountability for Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 
When Cases Need Specially Skilled Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 
Use of Victim/Offender Letter to Initiate a Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 
When One Victim Participates but Another Says No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 
Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 
Matching Cases with the Skills and Experience of the Facilitator . . . . . . . . . . .64 
Should Restorative Justice Be Entirely Voluntary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 
Job Descriptions for Program Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 

Part 6. Benchmarks For Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 
Core Aims and Related Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 
1. Redefining the meaning of crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 
2. Involving victims, offenders, and communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 
3. Restoring victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 
4. Seeking offender competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 
5. Seeking community safety and connectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 
6. Learning how to prevent crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 
Testing How Restorative Your Program Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

Part 7. Unresolved Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 
Threats to Guard Against . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 
Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 
Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 
Role of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 
Relationship Between the Traditional Criminal Justice System and 
Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 
Police Role in Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 
Proportionality Versus Tailored Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 
What if the Offender Fails to Fulfill the Agreement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 
Widening the Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 
Scope for Applying Restorative Justice in Inner Cities and Frustrated 
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 
Mentally Ill or Substance-Abusing Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 
Issues for You to Resolve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

References and Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 


Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 

AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 

Introduction to Toolbox 


Introduction to Toolbox 

Putting Restorative Justice into Action1 

Not too much has been written or said about police officers using their discretion 
to choose not to initiate criminal proceedings. It is done frequently . . . but 
when it comes to going formal, our training and imagination for the most part 
starts and stops with the laying of criminal charges and going to court. We are 
seemingly locked into the court syndrome. 

 Cleve Cooper, Commander 
Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

Restorative justice offers the hope of transforming the way the crime problem is addressed by 
encompassing community problem solving and citizen engagement. It affords citizens and communities 
opportunities to understand their role in controlling and reducing the incidence of 
crime. In addition, restorative justice is a means of promoting a healthy balance between 
formal and informal measures to address the causes and consequences of crime. 

This toolbox aims to provide a practical guide to police departments interested in starting a 
new restorative justice program. It is not a definitive account of everything that restorative 
justice has to offer. Nor is it a training manual for facilitators of restorative justice processes. 
Facilitation requires specialized training and the supervision of those taking on this role. 
Starting up a program requires more than a few trained staff members. However, many issues 
need attention before a program can go live. 

Remember that restorative justice is a new approach without a standard blueprint. Your program 
can benefit from what has been learned so far, but your program will be unique and will 
evolve over time. Across the world, as restorative justice continues to spread, new lessons are 
being learned all the time. 

Our understanding of what is restorative to victims, offenders, and communities is still at an 
early stage of development. We are only beginning to explore the real capacity of lay communities 
to participate in justice decisionmaking through problem-solving solutions to crime. How 
to meet the needs of victims, and how to make offenders accountable without emphasizing punishment, 
are subjects that also require much more experiment and testing. 

Restorative justice offers many rewards, but a couple of warnings need to be heeded. Be mindful 
that gaining acceptance of restorative justice in a retributive climate is likely to be thwarted 
unless the values and principles are understood and properly applied. It is easy for practitioners 
to rush into experimenting without having considered all of the principal elements that 
make up the necessary framework of restorative justice practice. Appropriate translation of the 
key values into a program requires considering a series of questions and issues that are relevant 
to the implementation and operation of restorative justice processes. 

A poorly planned program may merely tinker with or replicate the traditional criminal justice 
system; this danger exists when the program is developed by practitioners accustomed to the 
rules and procedures of the courts who are not yet conversant with the new paradigm. 

The overall aim is to 
introduce an effective 
program that restores 
victims and offenders to 
the community by 
repairing the harm and 
preventing further harm. 


All the good initiatives in 
restorative justice have 
evolved over time, in 
response to specific 
priorities, and have been 
custom-made for local 
circumstances. 

In restorative justice, the 
basic ingredients are 
essential, but there is 
room to improvise. 

So be aware that in trying to introduce your program, there will be obstacles simply because 
restorative justice is so different from the traditional system. 

Nevertheless, the dangers are offset by opportunities for learningfor finding out how we can 
meet the challenges of crime, victimization, and offending behavior in ways that promote a healthy, 
inclusive society. This is a goal for which all police officers can happily work. 

No single implementation plan and no one model of restorative justice is right. In the development 
of community policing, the police are learning the importance of applying principles in ways that 
are sensitive to local issues. Restorative justice requires the same flexible approach, without losing 
sight of the values and ethos inherent in this new vision of justice. As with community policing, 
restorative justice demands thoughtful and careful planning that considers both the needs of today 
and the needs of the long term; there is no quick fix for either. Restorative justice has clear aims, 
but how you go about achieving them is critical to the success of your program. The processes of 
implementation are just as important as the goals and objectives. 

This toolbox has been designed to help people avoid the dangers and avail themselves of the 
opportunities. The sections of the toolbox outline the basic ingredients needed to design and 
implement restorative justice, leaving plenty of leeway for creativity and local adaptation. 
The sections do not specifically distinguish between the three models outlined in the accompanying 
monograph: victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and circles. While these models 
represent the bulk of experiments to date, they are by no means the only ways to put restorative 
justice into practice. Do not be put off by all the ingredients you need to have. Developing restorative 
justice is something you should not try to do on your own. Get others on board to help you! 

The basic ingredients of restorative justice (and Parts 17 of this toolbox) are: 

1. Values of restorative justice 
2. Addressing victims needs 
3. Holding offenders to account 
4. Building community capacity 
5. Developing a program 
6. Benchmarks for evaluation 
7. Unresolved issues 

There may be no such thing as the perfect system but the restorative philosophy offers a 
way of bringing justice to the ideal.2 

Restorative justice requires more than tinkering with existing practices and systems. It should 
bring transformations in thinking and understanding about crime, communities, and the role of 
policing. The aim of this toolbox is to bring justice closer to the ideal. 


Part 1

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 1. Values of Restorative Justice 


Part 1. Values of Restorative Justice 

Introduction 

Several basic values and principles need to be understood in the evolution toward a restorative 
justice response to crime. Talking and working through their meaning will help your department 
plan, design, and shape programs, processes, and working practices. Many police departments already 
have mission statements and objectives that reflect central elements of restorative justice. 
Community-oriented policing, problem solving, victim services, youth mentoring 
and education, diversionary schemes, and child abuse investigation teams, for example, reflect 
many of the features of restorative justice: concern for community problems, recognition of victim 
needs, communication with a large variety of people, opportunities for offenders to be reintegrated 
into society, and a focus on promoting safety and order in the community. As you know 
already, shaping how these initiatives develop depends largely on having clear goals and basic 
principles that guide practitioners. 

The following pointers will help police departments to review existing approaches and to think 
about developing new ones, particularly in relation to their handling of reported crime. 
Restorative justice views crime as harm done to peoplevictims, offenders, and communities. 
If crime is essentially about harm, accountability is about learning to understand that harm and 
attempting to repair itand this requires engaging the primary parties, who are given key roles 
in restorative justice processes. 

Dialogue and Inclusiveness 

Restorative justice builds on many features of community policingincluding working in partnership and 
problem solving. 

How can this be accomplished? You need these: 

 Bring parties together. Instead of keeping the parties involved in crime separated, think about
 how people can be brought together in a safe environment to 
talk about the impact of a crime and about its consequences for both the victim 
and the offender. Engage affected parties in a process that encourages collaboration and problem solving. 
 Safe environment. A safe environment means thinking about the right timing 
for such a meeting, preparing the participants who have been identified as having a stake, 
being clear about the purpose of the meeting, and ensuring that 
everyone is invited in a voluntary capacity. The location of the meeting should be 
a neutral place. Bring people together in an environment that feels safe and 
at an appropriate time. Sometimes this might be a few days after a crime. In other 
cases, it might be months later. 

Dealing constructively 
with crime requires the 
participation of those 
people with a stake in the 
offense to work out what 
should be done, giving 
equal attention to the 
needs and interests of 
victims, offenders, and the 
community. Restorative 
justice promotes an 
inclusiveness approach to 
the problem and to harm 
identification and repair. 
No one person is seen as 
having all the necessary 
information, nor all the 
answers. 


The symposium gave me 
firsthand experience of 
the collaboration 
necessary for restorative 
justice to work. 

 feedback from a 
regional conference on 
restorative justice run by 
the U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1997 

 Focus on harms. The focus of the meeting is on identifying the harms and: 

- Restoring the victim(s)emotionally, materially, and relationally. 

-Encouraging the offender(s) to take active responsibility to repair 
the harm. 

-Identifying resources in the community to support both the victim 
and offender. 

- Taking steps to prevent further crime. 

 Several steps. The process involves several steps. Typically such dialogues take 
about an hour and a half, including introductions and allowing all parties to 
express how they feel, to ask questions of each other about what they would like 
to do to address identified needs, and to work out agreed outcomes. The emphasis 
is on listening, learning from one another, and working out what would 
best serve everyones interests. Focus on identifying and addressing peoples 
interests and needs. 
 Skilled facilitator. The meeting requires a skilled facilitator who explains the 
process and the ground rules, provides the parties an opportunity to speak openly 
about the crime and its full impact, to receive answers to questions they might 
have, and to follow up on insights as to how best the harm can be repaired. The 
dialogue should be facilitated to enable parties to keep this focus. 
 Respectful dialogue. The meeting should be conducted with a respectful dialogue 
about the crime and with the purpose of promoting cooperative problem 
solving by the participants, including the offender. It should not be an 
adversarial process, even though people who attend my feel like adversaries. Show 
respect for all parties who attend at all times. 

Be ready for these: 

 Powerful communication. Communication in restorative justice processes 
is often experienced as being powerful, difficult, frightening, devastating, 
exhilarating, euphoric.3 Do not underestimate the power of the dialogue, which 
allows people to show their emotions as well as to exchange facts. The process 
is a dynamic one, empowering all affected parties to respond to crime. 
 Breaking down stereotypes. The communication helps to shift peoples 
focus because the dialogue is meaningful to those present; this in itself begins to 
repair the harm done by the crime. The process breaks down stereotypes about 
victims, images of monster offenders, and assumptions about apathetic and 
uncaring communities. People are encouraged to see that others too have 
strengths and weaknessesand are human. The process is humanizing and 
promotes understanding. 
 Obstacles. The meeting may not replace the traditional criminal justice system 
if, for example, the offender is uncooperative or the victim does not volunteer to 


participate (see When Is Restorative Justice Appropriate? in box). Recourse to 
the formal, adversarial system takes place when the dialogue fails. Punishment 
may be an appropriate solution to address public safety and protection 
needs, but victim restoration can still take place. 

When Is Restorative Justice Appropriate? 

Restorative justice is suitable for any offense, including cases where no offender is caught and so-called 
victimless crimes (e.g., drug dealing). Selection of cases, however, should be based on the value of the 
intervention to the parties concerned and to the wider community, as well as on the wishes of those 
involved. All restorative justice processes should be conducted on a voluntary basis, and some cases 
call for specific procedures that are highly sensitive to those involved, as in crimes involving serious 
violence. 

It is advisable, therefore, to choose restorative justice when there is support for this 
kind of intervention, when there are trained facilitators equipped to run the dialogue, 
and when there are opportunities for victim restoration, offender reintegration, and 
mobilizing community resources. 

 The dialogue affords a good opportunity for handling the impact of a crime that 
has already happened as well as for promoting crime prevention. Those present 
learn that crime does not happen in a vacuum: offenders are not born, they are 
created. The avenues for prevention become clearer after such an open 
forum. 

As the key values of restorative justice are presented in this section, think through carefully what 
they mean for your program. 

Crime: More than a Violation of Law 

While laws invoke standards, restorative justice necessitates an understanding 
of the particular consequences following a crime. The idea is that you cannot 
repair harm unless you know what harm has been done. (See Value of a Focus on Harms, in box.) 

Value of a Focus on Harms 

A focus on harms will change the way you respond to crime and how those involved in the dialogue 
think about crime. This is important to deal with crime effectively as well as prevent future crime. Thus, 
restorative justice is a response to crime that includes prevention. Helping victims recover, reintegrating 
offenders into the community, and promoting care in the community will enhance public safety. 
Crime is no longer seen as an unresolved issue, and people learn from the dialogue. This 
learning promotes positive change. 

While traditional systems of crime control have focused on the investigation of facts to identify 
evidence for a prosecution, restorative justice initiates an exploration of all those who might 



have been affected by a crime in any way. A property crime, for example, may provoke deep 
emotions for some people, making the crime harmful beyond material terms. Do not just think 
about the primary victim(s). There will be others who suffer consequences, including, for 
example, the offenders family and the victims friends and colleagues. Bring together those 
people who can determine what harm has been done and how the harm can be addressed. 

The theft of a piece of jewelry or a car, for example, is seldom only a matter of property loss. 
How the crime was conducted, on whom, by whom, and where, can have significant consequences not 
only for the victim, but for the offender and community as well. A standard 
response will inevitably be inappropriate. Only by exploring the facts and the feelings provoked 
by a crime can there be a full understanding of the impact that needs to be addressed in a 
response to crime. 

VALUE: Crime is a 
violation of the law, but 
this is too abstract; 
restorative justice 
recognizes that each 
crime creates its own 
unique consequences for 
those affected and harms 
people materially, 
mentally, individually, and 
socially. The response to 
crime includes identifying 
the harm and finding out 
what can be repaired. 

Repairing Harms 

Many victims of crime who go to court do not feel that their needs have been taken care of, even 
if they see their offender(s) convicted and sentenced. Some people call this the need for healing, 
which requires that all the injuries and harm are addressed. The traditional system forces 
us to think inside the box and shapes how we view the impact of crime. Restorative justice asks 
us to redefine crime beyond a breach of the law: 

 Have a broad outlook. Harms come in many guises and require a broad outlook on how crime can 
and does affect people. The harms are dealt with through 
a mixture of: 

- Letting victims speak for themselves on how they have been harmed. 

-Distinguishing between the offender and his or her behavior: condemning the behavior, but not the offender. 

- Dialogue in which care and empathy prevail over anger and vengeance. 

-Recognizing that while the offender has obligations to repair the harm, 
these should not be harmful to him or her. 

 Alleviate suffering. Some harms are not reparable, but restorative justice 
challenges us to be imaginative about what might alleviate a persons suffering. 
Even parents of a murdered child can experience some relief if attention is paid 
to the different feelings of despair that they have. They might feel guilty about not 
having done more to protect their child, or feel regret that their last conversation 
was too casual or involved a quarrel. Acknowledging these harms is important. 

Example: The mother of two homicide victims attended court when the killers 
were given life sentences. She addressed the men in court: The only thing that 
has kept me going without my boys is my hope and faith that one day I would see 


you stand before God just before you burn in hell. And on that day you will tell 
me why you killed my sons. A very natural response from a victim who is suffering 
deep pain. Notice however, the question she haseven after a court trial. 
Tell me . . . suggests that she has many unanswered questions as to why her 
sons were killed. The victim may benefit from a restorative justice process at 
some stagewhen she is ready and if she is willingto get answers that she will 
be struggling to understand for the rest of her life. 

 Be sensitive to every harm. Even offenders experience harm. They might 
feel defensive or feel deep shame. It is not unusual, for example, for lifers to be 
emotional about their crimes many years after the event. Offenders can feel isolated 
and scared. (See Harms Typically Experienced by Victims, Offenders, 
and/or Communities, in box.) 
 Be aware of community harms. A community also experiences harm and 
might change the way it behaves or relates. Fear might stop people from doing 
certain things or speaking to others. Anger might create tensions that never get 
resolved, with community members harboring distrust, suspicion, and resentment. 
Left to fester, these harms are counterproductive to social arrangements 
whereby people care for each other and are committed to harmony. Consider 
what impact the crime has had on the community when convening a dialogue. 
 Enable victims to tell their story. The importance of victims being able to 
tell their story cannot be overemphasized. This experience satisfies part of their 
need to be listened to, to be vindicated, to be supported, and to move toward 
healing. Victims should not be patronized but dealt with as key players in 
determining what should be included in the response to a crime. The physical 
and emotional protection of the victim should be paramount considerations. 
Example: An elderly woman who is the victim of a burglary might not be concerned 
with the property loss so much as the sentiments and feelings bound up 
in the stolen propertysay, if the property used to belong to her recently 
departed husband. A monetary compensation for the property thus might not be what 
she needs. An acknowledgment by the offender that he has taken something 
precious from her, however, might be an important symbolic gesture that helps her 
to heal. 

 Acts of repair must be relevant to victims. There will inevitably be direct 
victimsthose against whom the crime was committedas well as secondary 
victims, including families, neighbors, employers, friends, and the wider 
community. Those who have suffered specific harm(s) should be encouraged to 
speak about their victimization so that no one assumes on his own what is 
needed. Acts to repair the harm need to be relevant to the people who have been 
harmed. 

VALUE: Victims of crime 
must be respected for 
what they might be going 
through, and this includes 
not assuming we know 
how they feel. Restorative 
justice processes need to 
involve the victim so that 
his or her needs and 
interests can be 
determined. 

 

VALUE: Offenders have 
obligations but are also 
seen as needing 
supportand respect. 
Their crimes are 
construed as being 
caused by circumstances 
or problems that need to 
be addressed. Their 
behavior is not excused, 
but an explanation is 
sought as to why they 
caused harm to others 
(and often to themselves). 

Harms Typically Experienced by Victims, Offenders, and/or Communities

Loss of trust 
Physical injury, pain 
Sense of aloneness/ isolation 
Loss of a sense of safety/security
Feeling numb, disconnected
Remorse/ sorrow 
Feeling angry/humilated 
Loss of control 
Shame, guilt 
Emotional trauma (that might continue for years)
Fear and anxiety, defensiveness, prone to attack
Post-traumatic stress disorder 
 Property damage or loss 
Loss of dignity and/or respect 
Sense of powerlessness 
Betrayal, feeling of being abused
Loss of sleep or job, disrupted relationship
Inconvenience, court attendance, hospital/ insurance bills 
Depression 
Feeling of vengeance, hostility 
Difficulty relating to people 
Feeling of weakness 
Death, loss of limb or senses
Memory losses, difficulty concentrating 

 Acts of repair should be meaningful and proportional. The decisions 
about harm repair need to be fair, realistic, and closely related to the damage that 
has been done. The values of restorative justice require that the obligations to 
repair the harm should be meaningful to the parties involved, rather than 
imposed according to standard guidelines. Sentencing guidelines or minimum 
mandatory sanctions do not have a place under restorative justice. Obligations 
should be proportional, however, to the harms identified. 
Example: A teenager was shot by a neighbor with an air rifle and required hospital 
treatment costing thousands of dollars. His mother was not so much worried about 
the money, however, as about confiscating the air rifle so that my son 
can freely play in the yard without fear. A process under restorative 
justice values is more likely to ensure that the neighbor agrees to surrender possession of 
a gun than is any court order under the traditional criminal justice system. 

 Distinguish the offense from the offender. A pragmatic response to 
offending behavior is sought: the offender has done wrong (and harmed himself 
and others) but he or she ought not to be condemned as a person. Rather, the 
offender should be invited to take part in identifying the harm and how it can be 
repaired. The offender is seen as a valuable member of the community who has 


to be held accountable for the wrongdoing without being isolated from those who 
might help to keep him away from further trouble. 

 Think outside the box. Restorative justice demands that we think outside 
the box and learn what the real capacity for changing behavior is when care, 
respect, and support win over anger, fear, and hatred. (See Educative Value of 
Restorative Justice, in box.) 

Educative Power of Restorative Justice 

Approaching offending behavior through a restorative justice lens affords much more opportunity for 
reflection, introspection, and learning about what crime means, how it can be prevented, and how 
important social controls can be. This is true for the offender as well for others who participate in the 
dialogue. Restorative justice processes are educative processes, teaching us in ways that break down 
myths, assumptions, and stereotypesbuilding instead confidence, willingness to try new things, and 
learning from one another. 

 Accountability should be meaningful to the offender. Restorative justice 
processes expose the offender to the harm done by his behavior; this exposure 
is critical to gaining the offenders understanding of the link between actions 
and consequences and is a precursor to the development of empathy and willingness 
to change. The accountability for crime is thus more meaningful than 
simple punishment; and major life changes for offenders are not unknown. 
These might include addressing a drug or alcohol problem through treatment 
and counseling, learning skills for controlling anger or destructive behavior, 
finding employment, learning the impact of crime on victims and communities, 
or making a commitment to a plan that involves helping other people keep out 
of trouble. Obligations may be difficult for the offender, but they should be 
achievable. 
 Enable offenders to feel connected to others. Addressing the offenders 
needs and obligationswith support from the communityis likely to enable 
the offender to see that he is someone connected to people who care about him. 
The result is that offenders are more likely to feel genuine remorse for their 
crime toward the victim and community. It is often hard for offenders to apologize, 
but restorative justice processes are intensely powerful catalysts for changing 
hearts and minds. Remorse or apologies should not be expected as a matter of 
course, but are more likely to come from offenders who have been 
shown care. 

VALUE: The offender is 
not isolated or banished 
from the community 
unless this is necessary. 
The community can 
exercise monitoring and 
supervision as well as 
provide support and 
encourage the offenders 
restorative experience. 

Involving and Strengthening the Community 

The traditional criminal justice system applies power and force to control offenders. Restorative 
justice suggests that much can be done by way of cooperative arrangements between the com-



munity, the victim, and the offender (with the states help) to see crime in a social context 
and the need for informal social controls. Restorative justice helps people learn from each 
other and promotes mutual respect. 

VALUE: Restorative 
justice encourages a 
dialogue between victims, 
offenders, and 
communities to resolve 
crime in a way that leaves 
everyone in a better place. 
The focus is on making 
things right instead of 
being resigned to what 
has gone wrong. 

VALUE: Restorative 
justice promotes the 
peaceful resolution of 
crime by focusing on 
recovery and develops a 
spirit of cooperation and 
respect, seeking creative 
solutions for harmony. 

Communities experience crime as victimsthey can be weakened by the impact of crime, 
including fear. Communities also bear the responsibility, however, of supporting the victim(s) 
and the offender(s), and they can be strengthened by this process: 

 The community can play a vital role in determining how the offender should be 
held to account, as well as in helping the offender adhere to an agreed plan that 
addresses the victims needs and the offenders own behavior. Social interventions 
are often necessary to stop further offending. This might involve punitive 
sanctions, but the focus is on enabling the offender to understand what is due to 
others from past behavior, as well as what he owes to reduce the likelihood of 
further offending. The community can help the offender develop a sense of obligation 
and a willingness to change. It is unlikely that this will come by itself from 
the sole effort of the offender. Offenders should be supported by the community 
while being encouraged to take responsibility for their behavior. 
 The community can help the offender identify his or her positive strengths and 
work on building on these to change behavior. In this way the offender is 
encouraged to accept active responsibility for making good the harm without 
being banished from the community. Offenders who make amends with the support of the 
community are reintegrated into the community, which helps to prevent further 
crime. Encourage collaboration and reintegration rather than isolating 
offenders. 
 As harms and needs are identified through the dialogue involving the parties, the 
community, and justice agencies, it becomes clear that many of these require 
community resources. Communities can provide help and support to victims, 
instead of leaving them to feel alone and isolated. Communities can share 
information about the offender, which can lead to understanding which social issues 
need to be addressed by them, or with their support. Communities can use 
their resources to promote repair of harms and prevent further harm. 
 Indirectly, these efforts become a learning process. Communities are likely to feel 
more committed to addressing the underlying causes of crime when exposed to 
a dialogue that reveals the links between cause and effect. The community is 
thereby strengthened and less likely to be feeling powerless in the face of 
crime. 
 Restorative justice is about strengthening individuals and communities rather 
than about perpetuating weakness and failure. Victims are afforded opportunities 
to regain their sense of safety and trust. Offenders are given opportunities for 
learning the consequences of their behavior and making changes to avoid further 
criminal activity. Communities are given the opportunity to express care and 
concern for their members and to learn from one another what promotes safety and 


freedom from crime. Those who participate in restorative justice processes 
learn of the interdependency of people: that there is a need for sharing 
responsibility and caring for one another. 

 The shift from focusing on how to punish offenders to identifying how the 
consequences of their behavior has created harm is highly instrumental in 
encouraging an open dialogue among parties affected by crime. Instead of a blame and 
nail em attitude, the objective is to help recovery and to decide what measures 
would be most conducive to preventing crime from happening again. Defining 
the harm increases awareness of needs and obligations that have arisen, rather 
than allowing ungrounded assumptions to determine sanctions. The dialogue 
provides insights as to how the crime has affected people and not just which laws 
have been broken. Victim empathy and offender responsibility develop as understanding 
about what has happened unfolds. Further harm is avoided. The dialogue can be 
intenseat times, hostile and upsettingbut remarkably 
there usually is a sense of wanting to work toward a plan that is in everybodys favor. 
 Society is not in a position to hand over the handling of crime to communities. 
Nor should we pretend that the formal, adversarial system is a sufficient response 
to the problem of crime. The states role is to seek a balance between the capacity 
of communities to respond to crime and its own ability to deliver public safety. 
Communities cannot decide culpability, and offenders can choose to be uncooperative. 
Some crimes have such broad impact that no single community could 
determine harm or the restoration required. Some victims do not wish to 
participate in restorative justice processes. The state will always have a role, but the 
role needs to be shared. 
 The state needs to recognize that crime violates people and has repercussions for 
individuals and communities. Participatory problem solving is often better for 
reaching agreed outcomes than an adversarial contest conducted by professionals 
where one side wins, and another loses. Punishment is not always more 
important than reparation and reconciliation. Engaging communities, rather 
than sidelining them, can promote informal social controls, an essential 
contribution to crime reduction and public safety. 

Restorative justice involves the transfer of power and decisionmaking authority (principally that 
of the court) from the state to the community and engages victims and offenders as key participants. 

VALUE: The state has a 
role but its role is to 
support communitiesto 
develop their capacity for 
resolving crime. The 
states role is to safeguard 
citizens from community 
prejudices and abuse of 
authority, and to deal with 
crimes in which the 
offenders deny 
responsibility. 


Summary 

Part 1 has covered the basic values of restorative justice that you need to think about. Other
sections of this toolbox go into more depth about the way you should approach victims, offenders, 
and communities in designing your programand the role of the state.
You need to:

 Involve all parties affected. 
 Provide a safe environment. 
 Focus on harms. 
 Use a skilled facilitator. 
 Promote respectful dialogue. 

With special attention to: 

 Particular consequences. 
 Community resources. 
 Giving victims a key role. 

To foster dialogue that: 

 Addresses needs of victims. 
 Breaks down stereotypes. 
 Encourages the offender to take responsibility. 
 Distinguishes offender from offense. 
 Builds on the offenders positive qualities. 
 Prevents harms from growing. 
 Finds causes of crime. 
 Locates areas for social intervention. 


Part 2

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 2. Addressing Victims Needs 


Part 2. Addressing Victims Needs 

Introduction 

Victims experience an immediate disruption of their lives following crime, and may experience 
long-term trauma. The impact of crime on individual victims, as well as on communities and 
society at large, is not widely understood. The traditional criminal justice system has made 
efforts to listen to victims (through victim impact statements and panels, for example, and 
court-based victim services, which provide support to crime victims as well as provide valuable 
information in the court). 

Although the traditional system has become more in touch with the needs of crime victims, it 
still regards any crime as its case. Victims are often perceived to be confused, unreliable, 
overemotional, and incapable of making decisions. However, victims should be given every 
opportunity to tell their story without the constraints often imposed by the rules of evidence and 
due process of law. 

Impact of Crime on Victims 

Restorative justice processes need to be victim-centered, victim-sensitive, and victim-
empowering. Restorative justice helps us to understand much more about victim trauma and 
to recognize the shortcomings of traditional attitudes toward victims. Restorative justice 
processes promote interventions that assist victim recovery. Crime is a sudden, unpredictable 
event for most victims and can provoke an emotional rollercoaster. 

Ironically, as is the case with offenders, many victims face stereotyping and stigmatization. They 
can be isolated (often because their victimization increases other peoples sense of vulnerability) 
and may be seen as being in some way responsible for what has happened to them. The isolation and 
blaming of victims can compound the harm that they already are suffering following 
the crime. 

Victims can feel disoriented after a crime event has disrupted their life. They often endure 
conflict between a willingness to share what has happened to them and a desire to forgetor to 
denythat the crime occurred at all. The denial can be powerful but is counterproductive for 
recovery and healing. Any denial or understatement of what has happened to the victims by 
others is also damaging. Remembering what happened and telling people about the crime are 
prerequisites for victim restoration. 

Telling their story does not come easily to victims; they experience sudden changes of which 
they themselves might not be aware, or of which they cannot speak. They can be very emotional 
and thus thinking in a disorganized fashion. Recent research has revealed that serious crime 
victimization can have a physical impact on the brain, making memory retrieval more difficult. 
In some cases, the effects of crime on a victim can change the victims entire life. Trying to 
rebuild ones life takes time and may require therapy or clinical treatment over the span of several years. 


We are working toward 
restorative justice when 
we work toward the 
restoration of victims, 
empowering them and 
responding to their needs 
as they see them.6 

Victims suffer grief, for example, from the loss of a loved one, loss of trust, loss of property, or 
loss of feelings of safety. Crime can provoke shock, rage, despair, detachment, depression, 
and fatigue.4 Remember that victims can experience these even when the offender is not 
caught. Think about what can be done for victims in these cases as well. 

What Victims Need 

Victims of violent crime have holes in their hearts that no amount of support, therapy, theology, self-
talk and behavior modification seems to be able to fill. They need answers to their questions which only 
the offender can provide; they need the opportunity to express the full impact that their crime has had 
on their lives and the lives of others; they want to hear the offenders admit guilt, take responsibility, and 
be accountable beyond themselves to the victims and their community.5 

The suffering that victims experience can last for days, weeks, or even years. In some cases, the 
crisis will have an impact on those around the victim. For this reason, the response to victimization 
is critical. (Some maintain there is a need for medical attention as a matter of course, 
in addition to interventions relevant to justice; in Argentina, for example, in all cases 
of violence, a victim will be seen by a doctor as well as a lawyer or police officer.) 

Restoring Victims 

Restorative justice processes need to reflect the elements listed in Key Stages in Victim 
Recovery (in box) as much as possible and to give victims choices, time, information, the 
opportunity to be heard, support, a chance to hear and to understand why the crime happened 
to them, and influence over what action needs to be taken. Above all, restorative justice 
processes must afford victims respect and ensure that provision is made to avoid further 
harm. 

Key Stages in Victim Recovery 

 Establishing safety 
 Reconstructing the crimeventilation 
 Acknowledgment from othersvalidation 
 Supporting the victim: words of empathy or Im sorry 
 Providing information 
 Maintaining good communication 
 Reconnecting with people 
 Help in reconstructing life to make sense of what happened after a crime 
 Giving victims a role in making decisions for the justice process 

Goal: 
To lessen the immediate and long-term effects experienced by victims and to 
prevent future harm. 


The true involvement of victims as a key player will come only from building opportunities for 
victims of crime to be engaged fully in the planning, design, implementation, and operation of 
restorative justice programs. Think about involving crime victims as soon as you consider 
restorative justice for your department. 

How Can This Be Accomplished? 

 Involve victims of crime and/or victim support services in the planning of your 
program. It is important that victims be given opportunities to 
learn about restorative justice and about how it might help them. Their input will 
be invaluable, even if they have reservations about restorative justice. Experience 
to date suggests that crime victims can recognize that restorative justice offers 
benefits, but problems can arise in the course of its implementation. These problems 
can be avoided if crime victims are at the table from the start. 
 Victims of crime should be invited to participate in restorative justice processes 
without coercion or the expectation that they must 
come. In theory, no crime is unsuitable for restorative justice intervention, but 
restorative justice is not suitable for all victims. Victims need to feel safe and 
should not be pushed into doing something that feels threatening. Give victims 
information on which to make decisions. Good preparation before a restorative 
justice intervention can prove helpful in securing the voluntary attendance of
crime victims. In some cases, a telephone call might suffice. In most 
cases, however, only a personal visit by the facilitator can build trust and an 
understanding of what to expect from participation. In some cases, any meeting 
with their offender might not be appropriate for years after the crime. 
 It is important to distinguish between affording victims of crime a 
choice to participate as active partnersand allowing them to attend 
merely to help the process achieve outcomes unrelated to their restoration. 

Using victims as props to make decisions about an offender is not only damaging 
and disrespectful to the victims, but will ultimately dissuade them 
from participating in restorative justice. 

 Victims of crime are willing to participate in restorative justice 
processes more often than is generally recognized, but one must 
ensure that they feel fully involved in all stages of the process and are included 
in decisionmaking, such as timing, location, identifying who else should be invited 
to participate, seating, and agreed plans for the offender and the community. 


Focusing on material 
outcomes for the victim 
might seem appropriate, 
but this ignores the 
importance of the 
emotional needs left in 
the wake of crime. 

International Focus on Victims 

In November 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Basic 
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. It recommends measures to be taken 
on behalf of crime victims and has helped direct attention to the needs to victims internationally. A 
manual for enhancing victims access to justice, fair treatment, restitution, and assistance is presently 
in circulation. 

 Some victims (e.g., the young, the elderly, the ill) may require dedicated support 
if they are to participate in restorative justice. In certain cases, 
a parent or other guardian will suffice, but the victim might also enjoy a trusting 
relationship with a teacher, counselor, nurse, or someone else. Ask the victim 
who should be invited to be with him or her at a preparatory meeting or any 
dialogue with the offender. 
 Victims of crime may feel anger toward their offender, and they 
need to know that it is legitimate for them to share their feelings. 
Letting victims vent their feelings helps to normalize what they are experiencing. 
Victims should be well prepared, however; they should be helped to understand 
that the restorative justice intervention seeks to create a safe environment for 
everyone, including the offender, to promote a dialogue that focuses on restoration. 
Certain ground rules must be established, including the prohibition of 
any violence, threat of violence, and abusive language. 

 Understanding the impact and consequences of a crime on victims 
requires a different kind of dialogue than that allowed in the 
courts. Restorative justice does not seek to prove a case against the offender. It 
focuses on recovery from harm and reintegration. Ask victims how they feel, 
whether they feel safe (and if not, where they would feel safe), and acknowledge 
their victimization, for example, I am sorry this has happened. Its not your 
fault. Youre not going crazy. 
 Victims of crime should not have their expectations raised unrealistically. 
It is important to be honest about what restorative justice 
may or may not achieve. In some cases, a single restorative 
justice intervention will not address any of the victims needs. 
It might take several meetings over a period of months before the victim experiences 
any benefit. For example, some offenders will not exhibit remorse or fulfill the agreement to repair the 
harm. These failures can further erode the victims sense of trust of other 
people and can compound the victims suffering. 
 It is important to be sensitive in your use of language: some victims 
do not like to perceive themselves as victims, believing that the label connotes 
some kind of failure. One should also recognize that words like recovery, healing, 
reconciliation, and forgiveness can provoke resentment. A facilitator 


needs to be aware of the comfort zone of a victim and of cultural differences 
that can play a significant role. Alternative words less likely to evince a hostile 
reaction include survivor, making right the harm (or wrong), support, assistance, 
holding the offender to account; or use the persons name (this is often 
the safest) and define the harm or feeling as he or she would express it: e.g., 
the loss of your gold watch, the kidnapping of your daughter Mary, or the 
fear that you have. 

 Restorative justice processes are highly personal to those involved 
and entail people telling their storyas they see it. The dialogue 
should be open, nonadversarial, and allow the expression of fear, anxiety, pain, 
and hopes. Restorative justice should provide opportunities for the victim to 
gain a better understanding and personalization of the crimes impact, to 
allow for recovery. 
 No one can fully understand the victims feelings or experience. 
Thus, one must allow victims to speak from the heart and let them 
know that we are listening with the heart as well. They have things to say 
that we might not understand; they often need answers to irresolvable questions; 
and they have expectations that might not be met. We have to assume that what 
they say is important for us to hear and that we will learn from hearing it. 
Sometimes victims prove remarkably frank, blunt, or direct. It is important to 
respect these exchanges and the victim who shares them. 
 The victim has the right to terminate his or her participation at any 
time. Sometimes, a victim may just need more information or the choice of 
having the dialogue another time. If an offender is being destructive, the facilitator 
should stop the process unless the victim chooses to continue. Even then, the 
facilitator has a responsibility to consider the best course of action in the 
circumstances. (The figure Levels of Victim-Offender Communication shows types 
of contact from lowest intensity to highest intensity communication.) 
 Victims feelings can be experienced with acute intensity, and it can 
be difficult to know what to say or how to respond. Recognize the power of 
silence; it can help participants accept what is being said and allow time to 
absorb its meaning. 
 Restoring victims has different dimensions, in addition to giving 
victims opportunities to be heard. Restoration can include restoring 
safety, a sense of security, and the lack of fear, as well as recovering 
property or material losses. Regaining control, dignity, power, and a sense 
of fairness can also be restorative. The critical element in restorative 
justice is that the victim determines which kind of restoration matters to 
him or her: Some victims will prefer an apology from an offender rather than 
monetary compensation, for example. This preference must be respected, as it 
determines the sense of satisfaction 
and fairness experienced by victims who participate in restorative justice. 


Levels of Victim-Offender Communication 

Lowest Intensity Victim-Offender Communication 

Panel of victims tells stories to offenders 
(surrogate victims) 
Victim-offender mediation in property 
crimes and minor assaults.
Family group conferencing 
(face-to-face meeting between the victim, 
offender, families, and support people 
nearly always in the community) 
Victim-offender mediated discussions 
in community 
Victim-offender dialogue in crimes 
of severe violence 
(face-to-face meeting between 
victim and offender, nearly always 
in a maximum security prison) 

Highest Intensity Communication 
 

SOURCE: Adapted from the Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation, University 
of Minnesota, in conunction with the Minnesota Department of Corrections, the 
Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Project of the U.S. Department of 
Juctice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Value of Victim-Offender Dialogue 

In one victim-offender dialogue, between the father of a murdered daughter and the killer, the father 
talked openly about his love for his daughter and recounted huge chunks of her life. He said to the 
offender, I am not doing this to hurt you. I just need you to know you took my baby . . . my little girl 
. . . my tomboy . . . my teenager . . . a beautiful woman who was my daughter.7 

 Symbolic reparation can be very important to a victimfor example, 
an offender indicating a willingness to respect the victims needs by offering new 
information about the crime. It is also important for restoration agreements to 
be honored, and subsequent monitoring plays an important role in restorative 
justice. The community needs to be active in the response to the needs of the 
victims. 


 An assessment of the current level of victim support in your jurisdiction 
is prudent and supports restorative justice processes. While 
the victims informal social network can do much to provide support, sometimes 
a broader support system needs to be mobilized after the victim has had the 
opportunity to express his or her needs. A balance must be struck between 
responsiveness by the community and oversight and provision of services by 
the state: victims might need a coordination of health services, emotional 
support, property repairs or recovery, assistance in security and in personal 
safety, financial support, and careful handling of their involvement in the 
justice intervention. These needs require a partnership effort to ensure that 
community support and state services are coordinated and generated with consistency. 
 Even when a crime is committed without the detection of the 
offenders, restorative justice can help by bringing victims together 
with community members and ex-offenders. The police still have an 
important role here to show commitment to supporting and serving the interests 
of the victims. Victim panels may afford victims a chance to share their story with 
inmates, community groups, schools, or criminal justice professionals, which 
can help promote understanding about victims trauma and their need for support. 
Some crime victims have moved into advocacy work following such 
experiences, and many report that this has aided their recovery. (See Long-
Term Benefits to Victims, in box.) 

Long-Term Benefits to Victims 

Face-to-face meetings between victims and offenders carry potential risks and rewards. 
Restorative justice is much more than a crisis intervention. Victim support services 
can help victims reach the point where they feel less overwhelmed by their emotions. 
Restorative justice takes things one step further by 
enabling victims to overcome the offenders action by understanding 
why he or she did it. This understanding helps to balance emotions 
with cognitive thinkingwhich is conducive to putting the crime 
behind them. The hurt may not go away, but it changes over time. Some victims will require ongoing 
support through this process. 

Victim participation in justice processes, either under the traditional criminal justice system or 
under restorative justice, is a relatively recent phenomenon, and too little is known about what 
victims truly gain from their involvement (or offer to the processes). Feedback from crime victims 
from both kinds of processes is essential to learn what is beneficial and helpful. This 
requires victim surveys, interviews, and research over many years. Think about how your 
program can contribute to this. 

Part 6 of this toolbox explores how to evaluate restorative justice in relation to the victims of 
crime. These evaluation measures will help determine the shape and focus of your program. 

Victims have a 
tremendous stake in how 
restorative justice is 
implemented. Without 
their support, involvement, 
and input to learning, 
restorative justice is likely 
to be a fragile alternative 
to traditional criminal 
justice processes. 

We need to move away from the situation Zehr describes in which the victims needs 
are sidelined in the traditional criminal justice system: We may invoke [victims] names to do all sorts 


of things to the offender, regardless of what the victims actually want. The reality is that we do 
almost nothing directly for the victim, in spite of the rhetoric. We do not seek to give them back 
some of what they have lost. We do not let them help to decide how the situation should be 
resolved. We do not help them to recover. We may not even let them know what has transpired 
since the offense.8 It is important to elevate victims to a preeminent place in justice decision-
making. 

The Role of Victim Advocates 

The last 20 years have witnessed significant improvements in the awareness of victims needs, 
due largely to those who have worked in the victims movement. Their role has been critical in 
promoting rights of access to crime victims, securing better information for victims, encouraging 
justice professionals to be more victim sensitive, and generally increasing the involvement 
of victims in decisions during the criminal justice process. One potential clash lies between 
those who maintain the need for victims rights and those who hold that addressing the victims 
needs is the proper course of action. Some victim advocates might see restorative justices 
emphasis on needs as compromising their efforts to secure a more favorable balance of rights 
for victims, compared with the current emphasis on protections for offenders in adversarial 
criminal justice processes. 

For this reason, it is important to maintain a dialogue with victims groups to understand the 
issues they seek to address and to work out satisfactory solutions to the tensions that may exist 
about restorative justice. This is particularly relevant in the case of domestic abuse and in other 
serious, violent crime cases. 

Consistent with the ethos of restorative justice, however, one should not assume that 
victim representatives can always speak for crime victims. It is important for victims 
to be treated as individuals who have their own unique experiences and views. 

Summary 

Victims needs include: 

 Participation in planning. Be prepared to give victims an active role, but dont 
pressure them. 
 Sensitivity. Be careful not to use words that carry condescending connotations 
for the victim. The facilitator should not allow violence or profanity. 
 Support. Since expressing emotions is encouraged, the victim should have relatives 
or other trusted persons present. 
 Others listening. The victim needs the opportunity to speak with emotional 
intensity. Allowing for silence also gives these words time to sink in. 
 Role in agreed outcome. The victims participation helps determine what sort of 
restoration will be meaningful. 
 Conclusion. The victim must be able to opt out at any time. 


Part3

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 3. Holding Offenders to Account 


Part 3. Holding Offenders to Account 

As a society we have been thinking that the only choice we have in responding to 
crime is to get meaner and meaner until we frighten people into behaving as we 
wish. But that is not the only choice we have for managing behavior, and fear is 
not the most powerful of measures.9 

Introduction 

Some say the criminal justice system is getting meaner because tougher sentencing is thought 
to be the only thing that works against crime. In the traditional view of crime fighting, 
offenders are different from law-abiding citizens, and public safety demands their segregation. This 
us-versus-them dichotomy is driving many crime control measures and is deep-seated in 
contemporary attitudes about crime: 

Woe betide him who dares, even so faintly, to blur this elemental distinction.10 

Restorative justice seeks not to blur the distinction so much as to expose it as a real obstacle 
to understanding crime and what can be done about its causes and consequences. Restorative 
justice does not preclude the need for punishment, including incarceration; but punishment is 
not the focus, nor is it seen as the last line of defense. The focus, instead, is on holding 
the offender accountable for his or her behavior in ways that are meaningful to the offenderas 
well as to the victim and the community. Meaningful means: 

 Making a clear distinction between the behavior and the offender. Restorative 
justice condemns crime and wrongdoing; but it seeks to explore the reasons why 
a person behaved this waynot to excuse or justify the crime, but to find an 
explanation. The offender is treated with respect and dignity. 
 Involving the offender in the problem identification process. He or she may 
hold valuable clues as to what past or current experiences might have contributed to the offense; 
offending behavior does not happen in a vacuum. 
 Encouraging the offender to learn that his or her actions have consequences 
and to take active responsibility for repairing the harm. 

Humiliating an offender makes it almost impossible for him or her to accept responsibility. But 
hearing directly from those who have been wronged encourages the offender to understand the 
consequences of his or her actions and to acknowledge that others have been harmed. It does 
so by tapping into normal shame about the wrongdoing. Shame plays a crucial role in relationships and social bonds. 

The criminal justice system encourages offenders to avoid responsibility and to deny their 
offense, in the hope that they might get off. In families, such behavior would be considered 
dysfunctional. It should also be seen as dysfunctional in communities.11 


Role of Positive Shaming 

Shame plays an important role in restorative justice; but it is important to distinguish between 
stigmatizing or negative shame and reintegrative or positive shame, which is more constructive. 
Positive shaming brings home to the offender the seriousness of the crime. Negative 
shaming humiliates and hardens an offender, thereby strengthening his or her defensiveness 
and rationalization of the behavior. 

John Braithwaites theory on reintegrative shaming developed from his observations of the 
socialization process in raising children and how regulatory processes for dealing with 
corporate crime can be effective. Neither laissez-faire parenting nor authoritarian 
methods are effective in child development, for example. Parents need to confront and 
disapprove of their childrens misbehaviorbut do so with reasoning. Similarly, 
in the corporate world, persuasion in 
lieu of enforcement has worked to promote adherence to safety and security negotiations. 

In crime cases, the offenders behavior must be disapproved within a continuum of respect 
for the offender that includes helping him or her to understand the reasons why the behavior 
was wrong: 

 One needs to exercise care when discussing shame because the word is 
laden with baggage suggesting that it means to degraderather than (as a verb) 
to cause to feel regret or consciousness of guilt. Shame is often hidden; but if 
victims share their story, the impact of the crime is likely to be accepted by the 
offender through understanding and empathy. This acceptance helps the 
offender to think about taking responsibility to repair what harm has been 
done and to change his or her behavior. (See Keys to Positive Shame, in box.) 
Crime creates obligations that offenders are encouraged to meet. 

Keys to Positive Shame 

 Volition: Offenders have a choice whether to participate. 
 Preparation: Make clear the possible consequences and that it will not be an 
adversarial setting. 
 Atmosphere: Let the offender and victim speak and listen freely; authorities 
must not lecture or admonish the offender in a way that will put him or her on 
the defensive. 
 Reparation: The agreed reparations must be meaningful, achievable, and 
tailored to the parties involved. 
 Reconciliation: Reconciliation is marked by a symbolic ceremony where the 
offender acknowledges the harm he has done to the victim and has the 
opportunity to become part of the community again. 


 Although an offender may make material reparation to a victim, as 
part of an agreement to carry out obligations, symbolic reparation 
may be more meaningful to both the victim and the offender. The offenders 
willingness to show empathy or remorse may be the main contribution to a victims 
recovery. The emotion of shame experienced by the offender is often visible 
and made known (for example, by crying, showing discomfort or embarrassment, 
looking at the victim and saying, Im sorry). Victims can regain trust. The 
expression or sharing of emotion allows the victim to see the offender as a 
human being. 
 For the offender, the expression of shame connects him or her to the 
victim as well as to others. Shame that is not shared tends to make a 
person feel isolated and inclined to repress the shame. Instead of hiding the shame, 
communicating shame enables the damage to the bond between the victim and 
offender to be repaired. The offender can begin to move on by accepting 
responsibility for the crime and showing care for others. The victim can also 
recover after learning the offender regrets his or her behavior. 
 In dialogue involving friends and family, the shame might be experienced by people 
other than the offender (e.g., the offenders father, 
mother, sister). Sharing this shame can be done in positive ways 
that are respectful of the offender. Relentless finger-pointing or insulting the offender, however, 
is likely to provoke defensiveness and denial of shame in the offender. 
This interferes with the participants and the offender seeing one another as human beings. 

Case Study 
Humiliating Shame Can Be Counterproductive 

In a case of school vandalism in which graffiti had been daubed on the walls with 
defamatory statements about the teachers, an offender who admitted to spray-painting one statement maintained he 
had no idea who else was involved. One of the teachers attending the conference, who seemed especially 
upset, launched into a verbal attack on the offender and accused him of being a coward. 
The conference did not lead to an agreement between the parties. The offender repressed 
his shame and, therefore, would not talk. 

 Restorative justice promotes showing respect to all parties and seeing beyond the 
differences between the offender and others. 
Restorative justice processes help people to understand that offenders, too, have 
mothers, fathers, children, siblings, friends, and neighbors: they too have feelings, 
strengths, and weaknesses. They too are human. When we see shame in an 
offender we are able to recognize that they are like us; but we need to learn 
how to view shame positively. 

Shame must be managed 
to avoid it becoming a 
humiliating experience 
that promotes hiding 
shame.12 


Traditional criminal justice 
asks who did what? 
Restorative justice asks 
what really happened? 

How Can This Be Accomplished? 

 Only offenders who admit guilt and are willing to accept responsibility 
for the crime should participate. Those denying their part in the 
crime should be dealt with by the formal justice system. 
 Offenders should be given the choice of whether or not to participate 
in restorative justice processes. Coercion can be counterproductive 
if the victim is confronted with someone who is neither cooperative nor willing 
to engage in the dialogue. Coercion can make the offender defensive and emotionally 
closed. Coercion can also be construed as meaning only that the offender has an 
obligation to meet the victim if the victim is wanting a dialogue. If 
offenders feel they have no choice, what they say or do in the meeting may not be 
genuine. 
 Good preparation can help to overcome an offenders reluctance to 
participate. Explaining the purpose of the dialogue, the process, who is likely 
to be there, and the possible outcomes can help an offender to see the benefits 
of participation. The offender might be encouraged to participate by learning that 
people who care about him or her can attend. 
 Some kind of risk assessment is required before approaching an 
offender about participating in a restorative justice process. In the 
adversarial criminal justice process, these risks are seen to be related to the prior 
offending record and to the seriousness of the offense. In restorative justice, the 
offenders attitude, capacity (e.g., level of verbal intelligence, psychological 
stability, honesty, and use/abuse of power), and willingness to cooperate in 
a dialogue are determinants. Other determinants are the emotional risks for 
victims. 
 You need to think about the influence other people have on the 
offender. In the traditional criminal justice system there is a presumption of 
innocence. Many legal representatives advise their clients not to admit guilt. This 
adversarial process can encourage offenders and their lawyers to minimize what 
they have done. In restorative justice, the presumption of innocence is not as 
important as simply telling the truth. Offenders should be informed that the 
process they will go through is entirely different from that of the adversarial 
criminal justice system. Their right to silence is transformed into an expectation that 
they will cooperate within the process. 

I Wanted To Admit Guilt 

A man who had served 19 years for his part in a kidnapping said, For the first five years I was in prison 
I continued to deny what I had done. I wanted to admit guilt at the trial but my attorneys wouldnt 
have it. In his view, the criminal justice system helped to insulate him from reality, and the appeals 
system put off his coming to grips with the wrong that he had done. 


 Offenders may be confused by other aspects of the criminal justice 
system. Plea bargaining is common in the traditional system, but it erodes the 
meaningful holding to account of offenders. Restorative justice affords an 
opportunity to offenders to meet the victim in a controlled setting without 
the artificial rules, customs, and processes prevalent in court that can 
mitigate against offenders taking responsibility. 
 Offenders should be advised that the process enables them to be 
seen in their life context as human beings. The offender also has a 
choice about who he or she wishes to attend. Such choice supports the idea that 
restorative justice is about focusing on the harm committed by the offenderbut 
in a way that shows concern for him or her. 
 We need to create an atmosphere that encourages the offender to 
actively listen and to talk openly and honestly without fear. An offender 
may feel deeply embarrassed and ashamed; but if respect, care, and support are 
shown to the offender, he or she is likely to be able to participate in a constructive 
dialogue and learn from it. The way the dialogue is conducted is likely to 
determine the extent to which it is experienced as restorative by the offender (and by the victim, too). 
 We need to give offenders the chance to explain themselves. They may 
be able to give reasons why they committed the crime. They might be able to 
respond to questions from the victims (and/or the community) and provide 
important answers that promote understanding about the crime and about their 
behavior and attitude. This is an important part of problem solving following 
a crime. 
 We need to give offenders the opportunity to learn the consequences of their 
behavior in a cooperative atmosphere. Many offenders do not think through the 
likely impact of a crime on others. Offenders might 
be very anxious about meeting those who can confront them with the harm that 
has been done; but this opportunity is critical to promoting their readiness to 
take responsibility. 
 Care must be taken to avoid focusing only on the offender. It is 
important for victims to have a key role in shaping the offenders understanding 
of the harm that they have caused. If a crime is discussed only in factual terms 
by someone who did not experience the harmthe offender is less likely to 
comprehend what he or she has done. 

The meeting may be 
uncomfortable for 
offenders, but when they 
are encouraged to 
understand, accept, and 
carry out their obligations 
with the support of those 
they care about, then they 
feel less threatened. 


Stigmatizing or negative 
shaming is counter 
productive to the offender 
getting in touch with his 
own shamea necessary 
precursor to victim 
empathy and taking 
responsibility for his 
actions. 

Case Study 
Victims Expression of Harm Helps Offenders 

In a Houston prison, victims met a group of inmates over a period of several weeks. The victims were 
motivated by wanting to help offenders change their behavior by getting them to understand what their 
crimes do to people. One inmate had killed the man who had raped his wife. He had rationalized his 
own behavior by believing he had been provoked. He did not understand why he should have been 
given a long sentence for something any normal man would do. One of the victims talked about her 
pain after her son had been killed in different circumstances. The inmate said only after hearing her 
did he realize his killing had taken a son from someone else. He understood, for the first time, how 
wrong his actions were. 

You will find that a dialogue that brings an offender face-to-face with those who have been victimized 
is very powerful. The offender will not find it easy to ignore what is being said. This 
helps to get him or her to understand the obligations that arise following a crime. This is very 
different from the traditional justice process, which tends to insulate offenders from the damage they have done. 

 Use a trained facilitator. The dialogue should be facilitated by someone who 
has been trained and understands restorative justice. Care needs to be taken to 
avoid the dialogue being overtaken by a lecture to the offender about his or 
her behavior or by someone putting the offender down. Police officers, for 
example, can readily slip into an authoritarian mode, particularly if the offender 
does not appear to be fully participating. For this very reason, it is a moot point 
whether or not officers who facilitate such meetings should wear uniforms. An 
arresting officer present at such meetings may find it hard to refrain from showing moral superiority. 

 If the dialogue becomes very intenseand it often doesallow 
room for silence. This is particularly useful at the moment an offender 
expresses genuine shame and remorse. Giving time and space for these powerful 
expressions (and for people to receive them) is important. Emotions are 
encouraged, but they must also be channeled. Likewise excessive shaming of the 
offender can be balanced by a statement about the strengths of the offender (e.g., 
the offender has taken care of his or her sick mother or has volunteered to help 
the local charity). 

It is also important for an offender to recognize what the crime has done to 
him or her. The dialogue should allow the offender time to say how he or she 
has been affected. This may involve feelings of shame, fear, sense of isolation, 
denial, confusion, or attacking or blaming someone else. Getting offenders to be 
in touch with what is going on for them can be useful to identify behavior and 
attitudes that need attention as part of a commitment to taking responsibility for 
the crime. The figure Differences Between Traditional Criminal Justice and 
Restorative Justice compares the goals and processes of the two approaches to 
justice. 


Case Study 
Victims Expression of Care Affects Offender 

An offender wanted to meet the person he had raped after forcing his way into her home. During the 
course of the rape, the victim had asked the offender what had happened to him to cause him to do 
this. It burned my heart that she showed care, he said. I did not realize until then what I was doing 
and nor did I see, until much later, that I did it because I felt inadequate. 

Case Study 
How Connected an Offender Feels Can Influence Behavior 

Michael was a persistent young offender who had been in trouble with police since he was 9 years old. 
At the age of 15, after stealing scores of motor vehicles, he was asked what would it take to stop him. 
He said he didnt know, but said the only people who ever talked to him were people who were paid to 
talk to him like the police, the social workers, and the judge. He hung around the streets to find 
company, and stealing cars just relieved his boredom. Michael did not feel connected with anyone, let alone 
his victims. 

Offender Accountability 

Accountability means: 

 An offender getting over his or her justification, denial, or self-rationalization 
and acknowledging responsibility. 
 Hearing the victims tell their story. 
 Developing genuine empathy toward the victim. 
 Taking active steps toward changing behavior to become a responsible, law-
abiding citizen. 

Restorative justice holds offenders to account in ways that reflect modern wisdom 
about cognitive thinking. Cognitive therapies focus on the way people think, how they deal with problems 
and choices, and the extent to which they anticipate the consequences of their actions. 
Cognitive restructuring attempts to change the content of beliefs, values, and attitudes with a 
view to improving a persons thought processes. Similarly, restorative justice processes 
involve learning about the importance of social norms, of talking about these norms, of 
interpersonal connections that make for orderly behavior, and of actions that threaten 
public safety. 

The criminal justice 
system doesnt have a 
form of apology. It never 
requires people to 
apologize for their 
behavior. But thats the 
first and most important 
part of reparation.13 


Differences Between Traditional Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice 

Offender-education deficit/rage, immaturity, peer pressure/greed, drink/drugs 
-Leads to Crimes

-Factor Compared
-Traditional Criminal Justice
-Restorative Justice

-Goal in exploring incident 
-Determine guilt or innocence
-Discover causes, consequences, gain understanding of 
	-harm done 
	-offenders problem 
	-repair needed 
	-behavior change required 
	-support needed 

-Role of victim, offender, community 
-No role for victim, offender, community 
-	Offender asked why 
	-Victim tells offender and 
	community about the harm 
	-Community engaged

-Outcomes and possible consequences 
-Punishment imposed: 
	-compensation 
	-fine 
	-imprisonment 
Punish and deter (but offender may feel isolated, victimized, more resentful) 
-Agreed plan establishes reparations to 
diminish/repair harm for all: e.g., service 
(to victim and/or community), compen-
sation, actions to support behavior 
change (e.g., drug/alcohol treatment, 
counseling, training), other 
Learning, improved relationships, offend-
er accountability, harm repaired, offender 
integrated into community, crime pre-
vented, community strengthened 

Inadvertently, the traditional, adversarial system stops people involved in a crime from learning 
these important elements of civil society. It is not uncommon for everyone in court except the 
offender to feel angry or upset about what has happened. 


Be aware that the focus of the dialogue is on identifying the harm and repairing it (see 
Restorative Justice Promotes Repairing Harm, in box). Restorative justice rejects the concept 
of getting even with the offender (as in policies reflecting the just desserts theory). Instead, 
restorative justice calls for offenders to understand that their behavior has done harm, not by 
simply telling them that this is the case, but by moral learning. Hearing the victim tell how the 
crime has affected him or her is not necessarily, by itself, going to educate the offender as to 
what he should do to take responsibility. If, however, the victim speaks about how he or she 
wants the harm addressed or repaired, the offender will have a greater chance of learning how 
his actions have done wrong. 

Be aware of the point in the dialogue when the offender can be reconciled. A critical element 
of offender accountability is when the offender accepts responsibility for making good the 
harm and taking steps to change his behaviorbecause he recognizes why this is important. It 
is then that reintegration into the community can begin. The likelihood of further 
offending behavior is reduced if the offender is supported by the community in fulfilling the 
obligations agreed at the meeting. 

Where restorative justice has been evaluated, drops in recidivism and high levels of offenders 
fulfilling the terms of agreements are recorded. This is quite different from the experience with 
traditional criminal justice processes. Moral education requires explaining, not imposition of 
punishment in the hope that the offender will understand. 

There is even a place in restorative justice processes for violent offenders, when victims are 
ready for a face-to-face dialogue. (See Restorative Justice and Violent Offenders, in the box.) 

The reparation should be relevant to the victim and achievable by the offender. It should 
be reasonable, fair, and tailored to the parties. Such reparation is much more than a mere 
alternative to a punitive sanction by the court. 

Restorative Justice Promotes Repairing Harm 

The word reparation is often used interchangeably with restitution and compensation. Reparation can 
take many forms: 

 Expressing full responsibility and making an apology 
 Monetary payment to victims for property loss/damage 
 Giving victims answers to questions they want answered about the crime 
(often the most important in cases of homicide survivors) 
 Working directly for the victim or the community or undertaking work that 
is important to them 
 Taking steps to obtain help to change behavior (e.g., drug treatment, 
counseling, education, finding work) 
 Speaking to other offenders about what they learned through the restorative 
justice processes to prevent further victimization 

The sentencing process 
attempts to force the 
offender to understand, 
but it is more likely to 
make him or her feel like a 
victim. 

Some harms cannot be 
repaired. The important 
thing is that the offender 
responds to the 
obligations identified 
through the process. In 
some cases, not offending 
again may be the most 
meaningful accountability 
to the victim and the 
community. 


Restorative Justice and Violent Offenders 

Some might find it incomprehensible how violent offenders can be dealt with by way of 
restorative justice. However, James Gilligan, who has worked with violent offenders for
 more than 25 years, comments, Human violence is complex and tragic; if we only see it 
as a criminal justice issue, we limit 
the discoursedistinguishing only between violent and nonviolent people and the sane and the 
insane.14 Restorative justice allows a discourse that goes beyond the legal definition of violence and 
violent victimization. The reintegrative shame theory is relevant to violent crime; many violent 
offenders harbor deep shame, which they seek to repress and conceal. Being sensitive to this is 
not condoning violenceit might help to break the vicious cycle of pathological shame. 

At the end of a restorative justice process, after a plan has been agreed to on how the offender 
should repair the harm, it is good practice to have a ceremony to allow people to release the 
tension experienced during the dialogue. In some cases, the ceremony occurs when reintegration 
of the offender, forgiveness of offenders, and apologies to the victim take place. What 
happens in this time out can be the most powerful symbolic reconciliation between the parties. 
The ceremony can take the form of a meal or a drink. In some processes, symbols are used 
(for example, a feather) to represent peace and are handed around the room. 

Case Study 

Restorative Justice Enables Offenders to Come to Terms With Their 
Crimes 

Many offenders dont give their crime much thought. One drug dealer who believed he had merely been 
successful at running a business told of his realization that he had victims too. He heard a woman talk 
about the loss of her daughter in a road traffic accident involving a drunk driver. The drug dealer 
serving time said, for the first time, I learned I had caused people to die (driving under the influence), to 
steal (to pay for the drugs), to live in poverty (to sustain the habit). Until that moment he had believed 
his crime was victimless. 

The end of a dialogue should be seen as a beginning, not as an end. The balanced approach 
of restorative justice seeks to build an offenders competence to become a law-abiding citizen 
and to realize his or her potential to make a contribution to society. 


Part 4

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 4. Building Community Capacity 


Part 4. Building Community Capacity

Restorative justice never denies the offender personal responsibility. But we 
must also recognize crime does not happen in a vacuum. There are environmental 
and sociological factors that are undeniable predictors of human behavior.15 

Introduction 

Communities are the primary source and recipient of crime, fear, and disorder. The 
traditional criminal justice system focuses on individual responsibility (ascertaining who is guilty) and 
individual punishment (determining how an offender should pay for his or her crime). 
Restorative justice promotes the notion of individual accountability (identifying obligations on 
the part of an offender to repair the harm caused by the crime), but the emphasis is not on 
individual responsibility alone. 

Restorative justice acknowledges that communities are victims of crime; it also asserts that 
communities have responsibilities to support crime victims as well as offenders in repairing the 
harms of crimeto restore victims and communities. Restorative justice seeks also to promote 
transformation of the conditions that contribute to crime and aims to encourage social remedies. 
In other words, restorative justice does not focus on the weakness, sinfulness, or other 
deficiencies of individual offenders without addressing the role of the community and the 
social and structural forces that promote crime. 

Case Study 
Community Has Responsibilities to Support Transformations 

A 17-year-old youth robbed a man in his fifties at gunpoint. The youth was sent to a detention center 
after admitting his offense. It was proposed that both he and the victim should go through a healing 
circle. The victim agreed to participate and told of his fear of losing his life when the youth pointed the 
gun at him. The youth explained that he had himself been robbed earlier that day after dealing in 
drugs and had been angry about losing his gains. 

The youths family was unaware he was involved in drugs and was shocked he had gained access to a 
gun. The youth admitted his life had gotten out of control and said his detention probably had saved 
his life. 

Community members present at the circle asked what the visiting hours were at the detention center; 
they acknowledged that the youth and his family needed support if the youth was to make the necessary 
changes in his life. The victim told the youth he would have lunch with him when he got out of 
the center for the same reason: the offender needed to carry out his obligations but also needed 
support to keep away from guns, drugs, and bad company. The community, including the victim, was 
exercising violence prevention through informal social controls. The community also wants to do 
something collectively about the accessibility of firearms generally in the neighborhood. 


The community, in relation to crime, occupies several roles: 

 Community as victim
-weakened and harmed by crime
 Community as responsible for its members
-victim and offender
 Community as stakeholder
-in broader issues affecting its health

How communities respond to these roles will have a significant impact on the health 
of communities and on public comity and order in the years to come. 

Is the Dream of Regenerated, Cohesive Communities Utopian? 

I see a large number of people find life so complex and overloaded that they 
are no longer participating in community life . . . 

Experience shows that people are ready for new opportunities. The real 
challenge today is to learn how to act as though what we do can make a difference.16 

These two quotations reflect disparate views about the reality of regenerating or promoting 
cohesion in community life. There are those who are bleakly pessimistic about the prospect of 
dynamic, healthy communities in light of withering family relationships, urbanization, 
technological advances, consumerism, the global economy, and mobilization of resourcesall 
compounded by the speed of change and a sense of disempowerment. Anticipating the future with 
the trends of longer working hours, lower incomes, resource shortages, 20-million-person 
cities, the automobile culture, and global health problems can cause one to question the 
legitimacy of the very concept of communityis it fact or fiction? 

A report published by a bipartisan group, the National Commission on Civic Renewal, deemed 
America dangerously near to being a nation of spectators in which community spirit and 
community life are on the wane.17 

Others, however, share optimism that community life is not only alive, butby virtue of 
peoples dismay at the problems of society and their hunger to think and work together in new 
directionsis being revitalized. These people are confident that new partnerships and 
coalitions can achieve social change; perhaps only bit-by-bit at first, but opening up 
new possibilities for broader change in the process. 

Amitai Etzioni, the founder of the communitarian movement, suggests that communities have 
centripetal forces, those that pull toward collective action, including a commitment to shared 
values, norms, and standards of behaviorand centrifugal forces, those that pull towards 
individualism and autonomy and that undermine community bonds. Communities must 
endeavor to balance these two forces.18 


What Is Community? 

Can communities be enlivened to provide a collective response to crime? Defining community 
in the context of restorative justice might seem an awesome challenge for contemporary 
society unless we accept the following: 

 A community is people. Most people belong to communities by way of 
shared interests, culture, family, neighborhood, work, friendships, school, or 
church and through associations, clubs, and support groups. There are also people 
who could be said to be excluded from communities, such as the homeless, 
gang members, prisoners, and illegal immigrants. 
 Communities need to be active in some way. Neighbors can live next 
door to one another for years with no other connection besides geographic proximity. 
Triggers to activating dormant communities might be a crisis, a crime, a 
problem, a complaint, a leader, media attention, or a precipitative event that 
promotes dialogue, engagement, sharing ideas, developing goals, identifying 
common values, and ongoing interaction. Responsive communities characterize 
active communities. 
 The whole community cannot be mobilized at once. Activating communities often 
takes time. A gathering of a few members is a startthey can participate in a 
shared event or engage in a dialogue that can precipitate further 
interest. Communities are made up of a web of relationships, which spread by 
activity. 
 No one should assume who makes up the community or what the 
issues are let the community tell you. Communities have different 
strengths, problems, and expectations at different times. A definition of community, 
therefore, must incorporate flexibility. Communities are amorphous and 
dynamic. They also can be in denial: e.g., they have the problem, its 
got nothing to do with me/us, I am not interested, I havent the time, we cant do 
anything. It is here that government has a role to playproviding opportunities for 
activating communities. 

Although communities are 
hard to define and to 
pinpoint, this does not 
mean they do not exist. 
When we learn a new 
word, or find a new street, 
it does not mean the word 
or street did not exist 
before. Its just we hadnt 
used them. Invisible is not 
the same as nonexistent. 

Etzioni also says that community can be defined, even if the term is not readily 
definable. The concept of a chair seems much simpler to define than almost any 
sociological term, let alone community; however, what is a chair? A place on 
which to sit? So are benches and sofas. A piece of furniture that has four legs? 
Some chairs have three legs. And so on. Yet we have little difficulty with using 
such a term. 

It is therefore important to be open-minded about the existence of community, 
who makes up the community, and what communities are capable of. In light of 
modern life, the notion of community might at first appear ludicrousbut not if 


we give communities a chance to show that they are not always apathetic, 
passive, uninterested, inhospitable, and lacking time. 

 Communities can become active either by self-generating or external 
forces. Individual personalities, alliances, mutual care, religious or 
cultural customs, citizenship, or self-interest can stimulate communities. Outside 
forces such as accidents, crime, environmental threats, health problems, 
business activities, or outreach by organizations can also mobilize communities. 
Here are examples of such triggering events: 

-Police organizing community meetings to build interest in crime and 
public safety issues 

-Appointing community members to an advisory board or to become 
overseers of public policy implementation 

- Volunteerism, including the training of volunteers 

- Involving community members in planning and decisionmaking 

-Building community relationships through mentoring and friendship 
programs 

-Engaging the business community to provide skills training or jobs to 
promote crime prevention 

-Providing information and inviting participation at meetings of 
local issues of concern 

-Encouraging communities to be involved in problem identification 
and problem solving 

-Holding forums to listen to diverse views, explore shared values, 
and challenge assumptions 

There is a tendency for professionals to plan without involving the community 
and for both professionals and the community to think of solutions in terms of 
professional services. Such thinking promotes an overdependence on professionals 
and weak, silent communities. 

When Planning Community Meetings, Consider: 

 Who has the right to be there? 
 Who has a need to be there? 
 Who has the energy to be there? 
 Who needs help to be there? 


In planning the implementation of restorative justice, you need to think about the following: 

 The community as a victim 
 The responsibilities of the community toward the victim 
 The responsibilities of the community toward the offender 
 The responsibilities of the community toward itself 

Itself a victim, the community needs help to determine who has been affected by a crime, and 
how. Those affected may include all the community members or only some. Some may have 
been harmed more than others (e.g., a member who was away at the time may not be as affected 
as those who were nearby when the crime happened). During the preparation of a restorative 
justice process, efforts should be made to encourage everyone affected by a crime to participate 
in the dialogue. 

Their participation, as with the victim and offender, should be voluntary. Such voluntary, direct 
participation promotes empowerment, shared ownership and responsibility, connections, and 
commitment to agreed goals. 

Achieving such outcomes requires engaging in dialogue with those who can support people to 
attend and identifying those who might be excluded who should be invited to attend. Do not 
assume that you automatically know who should be participating or who has been affected by 
the crime. 

Community participation is desirable, because the active involvement of community 
members in identifying the harm or damage caused by crime is itself helpful; it contributes 
to building a sense of togetherness within the community. I is replaced with 
we. Mutual care and respect are promoted. Members learn that no single person has the 
truthor all the answers. Members begin to readily share a sense of responsibility for the 
wellbeing of others. They learn that cooperation and mutual support are essential. Perhaps most 
important, members are encouraged to speak from the heart, openly and honestly. Community 
engagement provides the opportunity for exploring shared values, problems, aspirations, 
threats, and opportunities. Such meaningful communication is likely to promote informal 
crime controls and to reduce crime. 

Even if communities are expecting you to have all the answers, be straightforward with them 
about your capacity as well as your limitations. You can provide leadership, resources, and 
organizational skills. However, you cannot define the problem without their help. Without their 
involvement, you can identify neither solutions nor all the needed resourcesnor can you 
deliver solutions that strengthen the community without opportunities for dialogue that 
promote learning, understanding, and seeking the whole picture. 

Communities do not have 
to be dysfunctional, a 
breeding ground for 
individual and social 
irresponsibility. Like a 
living entity, with the right 
inputs, communities 
develop in positive ways. 


Community Responsibilities 

Communities have responsibilities toward both the victim of crime and the offender. Fulfilling 
responsibilities toward the victim is affected by: 

 The availability of victim services. 
 Channeling general community resources of care, help, funding, and shelter. 

Restorative justice processes are powerful vehicles for boosting the availability of victim 
resources and for mobilizing the resources in appropriate channels. Victim services programs 
traditionally have had to work tirelessly to overcome obstacles to their survival. Community 
participation in restorative justice processes spreads awareness of how important these services 
are and what can be done to improve them. 

Community members who directly participate in restorative justice dialogues also learn what 
they as individuals can do to help victim recovery and to repair the harm done. Affording 
communities education about the needs of victims is one of your primary tasks; it can be 
achieved by public presentations, media input, and circulating literature, in addition to running 
restorative justice programs. 

Community responsibilities toward the offender include: 

 Holding him or her accountable for the harm he or she has caused. 
 Providing support to help the offender become a law-abiding citizen. 

Community members can help to identify the obligations of an offender. In addition to hearing 
from victims how they have been harmed, communities can provide opportunities to the offender 
to work to repay victims. By providing these opportunities, the community is affording the 
offender a chance to make amends, to gain skills, and to build a sense of connection to others. 
Such opportunities should be worthwhile to the victim as well as to the community, and should 
be achievable by the offender. The work or service should be meaningful for gaining closure 
for the victim and for reintegrating the offender into the community. You and your agency can 
help the community develop a range of opportunities for community service. 

Restorative Community Service 

Community service can be restorative if it has the following characteristics: 

 The work is worthwhile to the victim, community, and offender. 
 The offender is seen as a valuable resource. 
 The offender is able to learn the consequence of his or her actions. 


 The work helps to change the communitys perceptions of the offender and 
vice versa (he or she feels more invested in the community). 
 The work develops skills for the offender that are likely to help him or her 
become a contributing and law-abiding citizen. 
 The work promotes relationships that strengthen the community. 
 The work allows the offender to make amends or repair the harm done by 
the crime. 
 The work increases the offenders sense of belonging. 
 The work provides positive role models for the offender. 

Building Community Decisionmaking Capacity 

Community decisionmaking capacity can be developed in many ways. Here are a few examples: 

 Hennepin County, Minnesota. Children under 10 years old whose behavior 
is considered delinquent are dealt with by a coalition of police, YMCA, staff, prevention 
workers, parents, and the county attorneys office. A plan is developed for 
each child and monitored by community members and the partnership. 
 Washington County, Minnesota. Conferencing processes, which are used 
for all types of offenses, most recently have been applied to racial tensions and 
school behavioral problems. Cases of harassment, assault, and threatening 
behavior are dealt with through large or small conferences involving community 
members. 
 Vermont. Community reparative boards have been established throughout the 
State to develop agreements with offenders about the terms of their probation. 
The terms are based on restorative justice principles: repairing the harm to the 
victim and the community, teaching offenders the consequences of their behavior, and 
supporting the offenders to avoid further offending. 
 Citizens Council Family Services. CCFS provides support to families of 
inmates to help them maintain ties with the offender and ties between the offender and 
the community while the offender is serving his or her sentence. The goal 
is reintegrating the offender back into the community on completion of the sentence. 
 Bemidji, Minnesota. A community-response-to-crime program has been 
developed to inform offenders how their offense has affected the community and 
to work through an agreement that allows the offender to make amends with the 
support of the community. 


 Dakota County, Minnesota. Crime repair crews offer the offender opportunities to repay 
the community and learn new skills to promote life changes. The 
offender can meet his or her victim and the community to discuss the impact of 
the offense, and some will join the offender in working to build facilities in the 
community. 
 Bend, Oregon. Businesses provide work opportunities for youth offenders so 
that they can repay their victims for the victims monetary losses. 
 Minnesota. Communities in Minnesota are using circles to address communitywide 
problems, such as youth delinquency and child welfare cases, as well as 
to address special education students who are at risk of dropping out of school. 
 Newbay, Vermont. Inmates pay back the community through community services that 
restore historic buildings and refurbish facilities that otherwise would 
have to close. This work is saving the state money, but it is more than free labor. 
Offenders feel they are part of the community, and the community frequently has 
cooked meals for the inmates. One offender describes the experience this way: 
I was the type of person I did what I wanted when I wanted and it didnt matter 
if I hurt people. But just seeing these people are willing to give you a choice, its 
shown me that other people have feelings too. Skepticism about whether the 
criminals would do a good job has eroded; initial awkwardness in the relationship 
between citizens and inmates has disappeared. 

Achieving an actively involved community requires strategies to engage community members, 
not just placing services in the community. The community also has a responsibility toward 
itselfto promote crime prevention and crime controls. Without the participation of community, 
community protection is always fragile. The role of the government includes breaking 
down the myth that the state can achieve order and safety without citizen participation. 

Community developmentcommunity capacity buildingstrengthens the following characteristics 
of member interactions and community life: 

 Respect 
 Relationships 
 Involvement 
 Learning 
 Understanding 
 Having a stake 
 Empowerment 
 Participation 
 Problem solving 
 Establishing standards 
 Prevention 
 Results 


The table Community-Placed vs. Community-Based Justice Processes/Services compares 
aspects of the traditional processes and services (those merely placed in the community) 
with those in which community members are actively involved (community-based). 

Community-Placed vs. Community-Based Justice Processes/Services 

Community-Placed 	
Narrow perspective 					 
-Offenders viewed primarily as 				 
criminals 						
-Individual characteristics of offenders 
viewed as primary cause of crime and, 
therefore, as primary target of change

Community-Based
Broad perspective 
-Offenders viewed as fathers,
daughters, drug addicts, employees 
-Individual characteristics, family 
dynamics, and community structure 
and organization viewed as contributors to 
crime and, therefore, as equally important 
targets of change 

Community-Placed
Closed-system approach 
-Relationship is between the offender 
and community corrections system 
-Restricts information from going to the 
community 

Community-Based
Open-system approach 
-Information is shared with community 
members and organizations 
-Information sharing expands 
the network of support for offenders; also 
protects the community 

Community-Placed
Goal: offender reform 
-Requires changes in the offender 
-Requires offender conformity to 
accepted community standards 

Community-Based
Goal: offender reintegration 
-Requires changes in the offender (e.g., 
attitudinal and behavioral) 
-Requires changes in the community 
(e.g., acceptance, support, 
opportunity) 

SOURCE: Fulton, Betsy A. Restoring Hope through Community Partnerships: The Real Deal in Crime Control. A 
Handbook for Community Corrections. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 1996. 

Actions You and Your Agency Need to Take 

Actions you need to take to build community capacity and reduce public passivity include the 
following: 

 Meet your community 
 Learn about your community 
 Identify needs and expectations 
 Establish common goals 
 Establish common values 
 Promote shared activities 
 Celebrate achievements together 


Stigmatizing and 
scapegoating of 
individuals and groups 
can occur even in 
functioning communities, 
but such social 
pathologies are more 
likely the more 
communities wash their 
hands of responsibility for 
care and control, and the 
more informal 
mechanisms have become 
defunct. . . Not only are 
communities gradually 
losing their capacity for 
local social control, they 
are learning the rationales 
and skills for actively 
avoiding it.19 

The community must be engaged to provideand to achieveongoing crime control and prevention. 
Indeed, the dominant role of the state should become unnecessary and be abandonedbut this 
will take time, adept leadership, and the will to cut back the power of the state. 
In some instances, resources are beginning to be redistributed from the state to communities; 
the establishment of justice councils in Burlington, Vermont, for example, has given the public 
a greater say in how resources are expended for justice. 

Preparing the community to do its own work builds bonds as well as confidence that more 
work can be done by lay citizens. The transition from a state-dominant system of formal crime 
controls to a system in which a strong community is able to apply informal social controls may, 
however, have to progress through several stages. 

Stages in Transition to Strong Informal Social Controls 

Stage 1: 

 The justice system defines and solves the problem. 
 Limited self-government by the community. 
 Community dependent upon the professional system. 
 Capacity of community to apply informal social controls undermined. 
 System relies on use of force and coercion. 

Justice system operates independently of community. 

Stage 2: 

 The justice system gives information to the community about what it does. 
 Community learns its dependence on the professional system 
is misplaced.
 Community likely to seek more responsiveness from the professionals to meet 
their needs/expectations. 

Justice system begins to heed community needs/view. 

Stage 3: 

 The justice system recognizes it cannot meet the needs and expectations of the 
community without its help. 
 Tensions exist between the community (losing faith in the system) and the 
system (assuming that communities are incompetent). 
 Partnerships might afford insights about what joint problem solving can achieve. 

Justice system applies more force and coercion to keep the public confident, while trying 
to figure out what communities can do. 


Stage 4: 

 Justice system recognizes that the community needs to be engaged in activities 
that promote crime control and crime prevention. 
 Contribution of the community is seen as valuable. 
 Experiments demonstrate that the community has competence and can apply 
informal controls. 
 Relationship between the justice system and community begins to turn toward a 
partnership rather than only a service provider-client relationship. 

Justice system sees itself as a partner equal with the community. 

Stage 5: 

 Communities develop confidence in their own capacity for defining problems 
and coming up with solutions. 
 Communities learn more about their role and responsibilities in relation to 
offenders and victims. 
 Justice system loosens its authoritarian stance and promotes a range of responsesformal 
and informalbut always with the community role in mind. 
 Communities develop responses that help improve crime prevention in families, 
schools, neighborhoods. 

Justice system supports the community role in controlling and preventing crime. 

Crime is in fact a community problemnot just a professional or system problem. In 
the past 20 to 30 years, we have tended to send community problems to 
professional systems and wait for professionals to fix the problems. It turns out 
that it doesnt work. Communities must be intimately involved in solving their 
own problemswith the help of professionals but with a much greater community hand 
in shaping and implementing solutions.20 

Your role as part of restorative justice is to facilitate a change in the relationship between 
government and the community, recognizing that the formal and informal systems of social control 
need to work together. Your role is one of enabling, supporting, coordinating, and providing 
resources for progress toward the engagement of citizens and communities. Your role also 
includes monitoring and oversight. We do not want oppressive communities, but the promotion 
of responsible citizenship. Despite these important roles, the community should be seen as an 
equal partner. The community has a responsibility to develop its social capital and to exert 
influence on those who seek continuing dependence on the formal system. 

Communities can provide moral authority to their members. The state provides legal authority 
and should step in when the communitys authority falters. The state must afford protection to 
individuals and invoke the formal system of controls for those who are a serious threat to public 
order and safety. 


Case Study 
Progressing Toward Community Engagement 

The Central City Neighborhood Partnership (CCNP) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, provides an example 
of the steps needed to promote a healthy partnership between the formal state system and the informal 
community authority: 

1994 Local community associations met to discuss issues of common concern. Quality-of-life 
crimes were earmarked as persistent problems for residents. Consensus emerged that the 
police and local government were not able to fully address these. 

1994-1996 Research conducted in conjunction with the local university revealed 1996 bottlenecks in 
the criminal justice system that skewed its effectiveness in relation to offenders causing problems 
that contributed to the deterioration of community life. Shoplifters, prostitutes, vandals, 
and trespassers were being allowed to repeat their behavior over and over again. Courts did 
not give the matter serious attention, and there were weak lines of accountability. 

1996 CCNP learned about the restorative justice vision and developed a local forum for resolving 
problems and conflicts. They established links with those in the formal system who were 
sympathetic. The local police chief, chief judge, and head of corrections, among others, supported 
the forum by arranging meetings in which information was exchanged on ideas, 
obstacles to change, level of support for change, and willingness to explore restorative justice. 

1997 The attorneys office diverted misdemeanor crimes to the CCNP for conferencing. The police 
were asked to consider referring cases to the CCNP. About three restorative justice conferences 
a month were run. Community service projects were developed to support offenders in meeting their 
obligations toward victims. 

1998 CCNP continues to develop with the support of the formal justice system. The system has 
supported training and technical assistance for the group. Confidentiality and data protection 
issues have been resolved. The introduction of sentencing circles is being explored. CCNP has 
been featured on local and national radio, securing public awareness of the groups work. 
Currently, many misdemeanors stay in the community for resolution without recourse to the 
formal justice system. 

Summary 

Keys to building community capacity: 

 The state should activate, not dominate. 
 Encourage the community to support victims and offenders. 
 Let the community set the priorities. 
 Keep an eye out for the excluded. 
 Allow for plenty of time and several stages. 
 Participatory dialogue is a must. 


Part 5

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 5. Developing a Program 


Part 5. Developing a Program 

Introduction 

Restorative justice requires vision, clarity of goals, and a commitment to its values and principles. 
Implementing restorative justice necessitates a new way of thinking about crime and 
offending behavior as well as shifts in roles. It also requires an understanding that community 
engagement, participation, and devolved decisionmaking are inherent characteristics of 
restorative justice. 

Because restorative justice involves fundamental changes in the way crime is addressed, tensions 
can arise among agencies, between professional service providers and communities, 
between victim services and offender treatment providers, and between traditional subcultures 
and those seeking change. Restorative justice requires a commitment to working collaboratively, 
to including people, to open communications, and to step-by-step planning, as well as 
openness to learning the need to do things differently. 

Outreach to the community and community engagement throughout the planning phase is 
important to develop a shared vision and sense of ownership for the program. In particular, 
restorative justice thrives on consensus building and partnerships, and requires bringing 
to the table those who might otherwise be excluded. For example, consider inviting youth 
representatives or ex-offenders to planning sessions. This will help to increase awareness of all 
the issues that your plan needs to incorporate. Planning meetings can be critical for ironing out 
problems and potential obstacles. 

Some jurisdictions have chosen to develop a task force of different agencies and community 
representatives to build understanding of restorative justice and to promote a common vision. 
Such a task force can help widen the focus of the program to capture all the needs and interests 
in the community. Workshops in schools, community groups, service organizations, and 
youth clubs can also help to identify levels of support for innovation. 

Gaining support for your program can take as long as 1218 months, depending on the size 
of your jurisdiction. Recognize that this time and effort is an important investment for the 
eventual success of your program. You will gain knowledge of issues that you might not have 
considered important. You will also be more confident that what you are doing will work. 

Restorative justice is a learning process that seeks to bring together people who are willing to 
work toward common goals. Bear in mind throughout the planning process that the goals (and 
the means of achieving those goals) must be consistent with restorative justice values. 
Remember also that it is easy to stray from the path and get bogged down in isolated issues, 
rather than keeping an eye on the larger picture. No program will be perfect on the first try. 
The aim should be to develop changes that promote harm reduction, respect, and sensitivity. By 
listening to the views of others and working out common objectives, you can get there. 

Developing a restorative 
justice program requires 
more than the desire to try 
something new. It requires 
sharing why you think 
change is necessary and 
inviting feedback. 


Liaison with a wide variety of community groups is recommended. Restorative justice 
processes need to be culturally sensitive so that people feel safe and comfortable. 

Requirements To Develop a Vision and Program for Restorative Justice 

 Cultivate partnerships. 
 Clarify your mission and goals. 
 Develop training. 
 Attract funding, resources, organization, and oversight. 

The primary objectives should include healing the victims harm, promoting social harmony, 
putting right the wrong, and preventing further crime. 

Stages of Developing a Restorative Justice Program 

The following are the key stages involved in developing and implementing a restorative justice 
program: 

 Hold discussion forums to generate dialogue on restorative justice, explaining the 
values and principles. Sharing the restorative justice vision will help to 
highlight that restorative justice is more than a program. This stage is important 
for gaining willingness to experiment with restorative justice in a climate where 
the get-tough-on-crime attitude is prevalent. 

 Identify who should be engaged in securing ownership and commitment 
for piloting restorative justice. This involves working with community representatives 
and community-based organizations (schools, churches, youth associations), victim services, 
criminal justice agencies, business groups, and the voluntary sector. This stage lays the 
groundwork for determining stakeholders needs and interests. 

 Develop a stakeholder coalition to develop a plan for implementing 
restorative justice. The multiagency and community-based partnership should 
work out the mission of any program, its goals, objectives, protocols, and 
resource needsand identify barriers to implementation. 

 Determine the modelthe kinds of crime problems to be addressed, the 
type of offender (e.g., adult, youth, violent, nonviolent), and the categories of victimization 
and/or disorder problem. The community in which the restorative justice pilot is to be 
implemented should have a say in this decisionmaking process, 
reflecting the principle that the proper locus of justice delivery is the community. 


 Develop a training and volunteer program, including the dissemination 
of information materials on restorative justice, protocols, ground rules, supervision, and oversight. 

 Develop evaluation and monitoring processes. These might include 
base surveys to gauge shifts in attitudes among communities, participants, and 
criminal justice professionals; victim and community levels of satisfaction; 
engagement in problem solving; changes in levels of crime, fear, and disorder; 
and the fulfillment of plans for holding offenders to account. These are the minimum 
measures that should be incorporated into program design. 

The remaining sections of Part 5. Developing a Program should help you think through some 
of the general issues to be resolved through discussion with your partners. Plan your program 
step-by-step and you will be ready for your first case referral. 

Gaining Public Support for Restorative Justice 

Restorative justice can be mistaken for a soft option, and its goals can seem unrealistic. It is 
important to explain to the public what your intentions are and how you intend to accomplish 
them. 

Ideally, community representatives should be invited to participate in the planning, design, 
and implementation of restorative justice. Media representation may also be helpful to ensure 
that the purpose and methods of your program are portrayed accurately. Community input may 
be very valuable in determining the path ahead. 

Studies across the United States have shown that the public is less vindictive than often portrayed. 
In Vermont, Minnesota, Delaware, Oregon, Maryland, and North Carolina, surveys show 
that the public is in favor of restitution and community-based sanctions rather than 
imprisonment. The public has shown consistent support for public spending on education 
and job training. In Minnesota, 82 percent of survey respondents indicated that they would be interested in 
participating in a face-to-face mediation meeting with the offender.21 These findings lend support 
to the idea of expanding restorative justice. Consider conducting a local survey to find out 
the views of your community. 

Support for restorative justice from other criminal justice practitioners and victim groups can 
be critical to the success of a program. 

It is important to build new 
programs on a solid 
foundation that reflects 
the values of 
restorative justice.

Case Referrals 

How cases get referred to your program will depend on various decisions; for example, is your 
program going to run as a pre-adjudication diversion or as part of a sanctioning process after 
a finding of guilt by the court? What kinds of offender/crime categories will be included? 
Through liaison with those responsible for making the decision to refer a case to restorative 

 


justice, you should make them aware of the rationale of the program and give them clear criteria 
on which to base their decisions. In addition, to secure as many referrals as is appropriate, 
ask those who are the referral source whether your program staff can select casesafter 
negotiation with them about the process. This will promote trust and confidence that people are 
working to the same ends, encouraging more referrals. 

To receive more cases, a very assertive and cooperative communication 
strategy must be employed to help a large bureaucracy change the manner 
in which it understands and responds to crime. This is no easy task. One 
should never assume that good intentions and philosophical support for 
mediation means more referrals. . . . More often than not, the lack of referrals 
to victim-offender mediation programs has more to do with the program itself and 
the communication strategies it uses than it does with the 
larger system actively resisting the concept. If the program staff make it easy 
for the referral source to send cases and the referral source sees it in their 
interest to reduce their caseload, most internal sources will eventually send 
plenty of cases, sometimes even too many. . . . In the quest to receive more 
referrals, it is important to never lose touch with the underlying values of 
restorative justice.22 

The process of developing 
or sharing responsibility 
for justice not only 
requires the state to allow 
communities greater 
ownership, but also 
requires communities to 
take an active role, taking 
seriously the standards of 
human rights and acting 
within the law. 

Intolerant Communities 

A major concern for anyone implementing restorative justice is the danger that the program 
might be a formal empowerment of intolerant and punitive views in a community. 

The need for safeguards against vigilantism, bigotry, and infringements of individual rights 
requires that restorative justice programs have built-in checks, such as monitoring and oversight 
by broad-based groups. These groups should receive training in the values of restorative 
justice and develop systems for protecting the rights of minorities, human rights, and the right 
to privacy. These groups should also include members who have knowledge of the law and the 
formal justice systemto monitor the proportionality and fairness of agreements. 

This work can be achieved, it is hoped, through a process of community development involving 
education and discussion. A community and an oversight board might choose to develop a 
local code of practice that reflects the values of restorative justice and can be used to 
gain commitment to working responsibly. 

Obtaining Resources and Funding 

A commitment to restorative justice will inevitably involve the need to identify dedicated 
resources to run programs, to coordinate community volunteers, to conduct monitoring and 
evaluation, and to keep other stakeholders and the public informed of what is going on. 
Equipment, telephone expenses, space, and vehicles may also be needed. These resources can 
come from redirecting existing resources (which may become easier down the line if dependence 
on the formal justice sysem declines). Otherwise, funding from other sources must be 
sought. 


Although Federal and state government grants may help, it is also worth looking at local 
resources that might be available. There is merit in considering sponsorship from local 
organizations that are willing to make a contribution to community safety. 

A key component of a restorative justice program is providing materials on restorative justice 
and giving presentations, training, and information. Technical assistance in the form of training 
facilitators and program management may be provided through collaboration with a local university 
or college that has an interest in restorative justice. 

Restorative justice promotes community engagement, and the use of volunteerssuch as 
retired people, part-time workers, parents, and youth workersshould be considered. These 
volunteers can assume roles in preparing and conducting meetings, writing letters and articles, 
maintaining records, and giving presentations. 

Advisory Board 

It is helpful to set up a board or advisory group to oversee the design, implementation, and 
evaluation of restorative processes. Ideally, the group should include the expertise and knowledge 
of a diverse range of people, including the medical profession, the church, academia, criminal 
justice agencies, community representatives, corrections facilities, counselors, and cultural 
minorities. The group should include males and females, young and old, and various religions. 
The role of the board is to provide oversight on the achievement of program goals, adherence 
to restorative justice values, resource management, and marketing. In particular, the board can 
help to ensure that program managers are equipped with the necessary skills, knowledge, and 
sensitivity to run restorative justice processes. 

Developing Skills in Sensitivity to Victims 

Those dealing with victims should possess good general knowledge of victims issues, including victim 
trauma, counseling, interview techniques, the needs of special victim groups (e.g., 
victims of domestic abuse or of hate crimes, youth victims, elderly victims, child abuse victims), 
and how to provide appropriate support. 

Bad practice will lead 
to the disrepute of 
restorative justice. 

Cultural Sensitivity 

It is important to implement restorative justice in ways that are sensitive to different cultures. 
Not everyone speaks English; not everyone is comfortable with certain kinds of practices or 
processes: some people are rather uncomfortable with direct confrontation with eye contact (in 
which cases, consider indirect mediation using proxies); some people are uneasy about sharing 
emotions; for some, saving face is more important than owning up to their own role in the 
crime; and some people are suspicious of anything that the state system does. 

Awareness of these issues should be incorporated into your program. Do not take for granted 
that you understand the differences. Be respectfully curious and promote such curiosity in the 
dialogue. Take a broad view of culture, including differences in gender, sexual orientation, 
religion, age, class, etc. Cultural values affect how people interact and can have an influence on 
outcomes. It takes a skillful facilitator to be sensitive to these issues, and feedback on your pro-


gram should be encouraged to identify cross-cultural tensions. Cultural sensitivity can be 
difficult to manage for any agency used to standard operating processes in the criminal 
justice system. Attention to cultural differences can promote more informality than the agency itself is 
comfortable with, but this is an appropriate tension. 

Key Role of Preparation Meetings 

The program design should include resources for preparatory meetings to be held with victim 
and offenders before their face-to-face meeting and dialogue. These preparation meetings 
should be built into your program. Training for those conducting these preparatory meetings 
will be required. Those conducting the meeting should be advised to explain their role and their 
agencys role and the relationship with the other parties; to tell them how long a face-to-face 
meeting will take; and to give a telephone contact number to reinforce the message that they 
are important. The people who conduct these meetings may require victim-sensitivity and 
offender-awareness training, otherwise their contact might be counterproductive. Neither party 
attending a meeting should be confronted with surprises, such as an offender not being present 
when the victim expects him or her to be there. 

Preparation meetings prior to the dialogue are essential to those who will conduct the meetings as 
well as other participants, to learn about the case in its entirety: who was victimized by 
the crime, the feelings of the people involved, and the appropriateness of referring the case. 
Preparation is also essential to secure the involvement of the parties and of the community. 

Both the victim and offender should be prepared for their participation in a restorative justice 
process. Thus the facilitators need to explain the purpose of the dialogue, to clarify expectations 
and to help them understand the ground rules and the implications in relation to the criminal 
justice system (e.g., will victims be able to ensure that their losses are recovered? will the 
offender still be prosecuted?). 

Preparatory meetings are an important part of a restorative justice process to encourage people 
to participate and to enable them, based on all the available information, to make a choice. 
Case referrals to restorative justice processes can often be thwarted when the parties are not 
adequately prepared. 

Neutral Role of the Facilitator and Agency 

An essential ingredient of restorative justice is that communities, victims, and offenders should 
have a greater say in the development and management of justice processes. However, since 
current resource distribution is stacked in favor of criminal justice professionals, it is easy for 
them to assume greater control over running those processes than is compliant with the ethos 
of restorative justice. The role of the facilitator is to enable these other key players to arrive 
at decisionsnot to dictate or control. 

It is incumbent on those running restorative justice programs to be aware of the danger of 
confusing their traditional roles with the new roles needed for restorative justice. Their job 
descriptions, in most cases, will not fit the needs of restorative justice. (See Suggested 
Traits and Skills for Restorative Justice Workers, in box.) 


Suggested Traits and Skills for Restorative Justice Workers 

Traits 

Approachable
Compassionate
Consensus-builder
Empathetic
Energetic
Flexible
Nonjudgmental
Organized
Patient
Positive attitude
Responsive
Sensitive to limitations
Team player
Walk the talk

Skills 

Communication 
Conflict management 
Letting go (sharing power) 
Managing uncertainty 
Public speaking 
Reading body language 
Victim sensitivity 

An important aim of 
restorative justice is to 
humanize the justice 
process. It is more about 
people than about 
systems. 

Participation of Relatives

A victims wish to participate in a restorative justice process may not be supported by his or her 
family or friends. It is important to recognize that the victims willingness to meet an offender 
might seem odd to those around him or her. Friends and family members can feel especially 
protective toward a crime victim, to the point that they inadvertently impinge on the victims 
right to make decisions. A facilitator should prepare victims for this potential tension in addition 
to offering to provide information to those who might object to the victim meeting the 
offender. 

In some cases, victims might be willing to have the preparatory meeting tape-recorded, which 
could then allow family members to listen to what happened in the process. This can help 
reduce the victims sense of isolation in making the decision to participate and help promote 
appropriate support of the victim after the meeting. 


Restorative justice is not 
just another legal 
intervention: it is a 
humanistic approach to 
justice in which 
assessments are made by 
people about the interests 
and needs of others. 

On the other hand, a facilitator might be wise to consider information from friends, family 
members, and others (e.g., therapist, counselor, colleagues) that might cast doubts on the 
capacity of a victim to go through a dialogue and meeting. In serious violent crime cases, or 
cases involving several abuses, a counselor should always be consulted as to the suitable 
timing and appropriateness of any meeting. 

Resource Sharing 

If justice is to become increasingly community-based, processes should engage ordinary citizens 
in decisions traditionally the preserve of justice system professionals. There will come a 
time when resource sharing is appropriate. If communities need to rely on professional agencies 
for their training, meeting venues, and program operation, community empowerment may 
be seriously eroded. One way of tackling this issue is to enable the community to have a greater 
say in how resources are distributed and to earmark funding specifically for restorative justice 
programs. 

Accountability for Public Safety 

What happens if an offender who has gone through a restorative justice process commits a 
crime that violates personal safetyand the victim (or victims family) wishes to sue for 
negligence? This is the ultimate clash of the two paradigms, and incidents are likely to occur as 
restorative justice continues to spread. Who, if anybody, should be held accountable? The 
agency that conducted the restorative justice process (even though it did so with community 
support and community involvement)? Or, is this an acceptable risk to be taken when deciding 
whether a case is suitable for this approach? 

It would be regrettable if restorative justice were to become subject to bureaucratic protocols 
and rigid mandates in an effort to preclude the risk of such lawsuits. 

While no restorative justice intervention should ever ignore the wider public safety issues 
inherent in any crime (or possibly associated with the offender), accountability should be based on 
a more holistic platformas explained in Part 6. Benchmarks for Evaluation. 

When Cases Need Specially Skilled Facilitation 

The facilitation of restorative justice processes in serious crime cases is unsuitable for police 
officers unless they are specially trained in this intensive work. This is where volunteers with 
mediation skills can be useful. The preparation for such cases can take many hours (see the 
case study, in box). 

Use of Victim/Offender Letter to Initiate a Process 

In some cases an agency will be approached by either a victim or an offender wishing to meet 
face-to-face in a restorative justice dialogue. This is likely to become more common as publicity 
about victim-offender mediation and other restorative justice processes become widespread. 


Case Study:
Dialogue in Serious Crime Case Has Powerful Effect*

In one case of aggravated robbery, sexual assault, and murder of an 18-year-old girl, the facilitator 
spent many hours over a period of 13 months to reach a point where a meeting could take place 
between the victims mother and the convict: 

Meeting with victim 			10 hours 
Meeting with offender 			9 hours 
Telephone conversations with victim 	20 hours 
Telephone conversations with offender 	0 hours 
Conflicts with prison officials 	12 hours 
Total hours before actual meeting: 	51 hours 

The actual meeting between the victim and the prisoner was spread over two sessions; in the first session 
the victim focused more on her own feelings. In the second meeting, the victims main concern 
was the accountability of her daughters killer when she pressed him for answers to questions about the 
rape/murder. She was also able to turn her attention to his self-image, how he used his time in prison, 
and how to care for the offenders children. 

The first meeting between this victim and offender took place several years after the crime. 

Comments from the victim: 

[The mediation] changed my lifeI feel like a new person. 

From the offender: 

I feel like I have made a difference. 

From a prison official: 

It was a great honor to be a part of it . . . very powerful. 

*These insights were provided by David Doerfler of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

In these cases an assessment of the case should be made based on what is known about the 
crime incident and the parties involved. It is also appropriate to suggest that the person 
requesting the meeting write a letter introducing his intention and outlining his motives in wanting to 
meet. The response of the recipient of the letter will be helpful in ascertaining the appropriateness 
of starting preparatory steps to arrange a meeting. Letters can also be used to clarify 
personal issues that either party might have, questions that one might have of others, and 
expectations. This kind of information exchange can contribute to the parties decisions to 
participate in a face-to-face dialogue and will often contribute to the creation of a safe atmosphere. 
Uncovering information that might otherwise come as a surprise at the actual meeting is an 
important part of the preparation. 


When One Victim Participates But Another Says No 

There is no reason why one victim who chooses not to participate in a restorative justice 
process should obstruct another victims choice to meet face-to-face with the offender. 
However, this requires sensitive handling by the facilitator. For example, the direct victim of a 
child abuse case might not have any desire to meet the perpetrator, but the parent(s) of the 
victim might feel very differently. Again, a tape recording of any dialogue might be useful to the 
other victim at some future stage. 

Volunteers 

The use of volunteers as facilitators or program coordinators can be a positive step toward 
sharing responsibility for the justice process with citizens. 

Recruitment and training require identifying the needed personal qualities and skills. These 
include maturity, ability to listen, commitment, and good interpersonal skills. Volunteers can 
play a crucial part in developing community capacity but they need encouragement, support, 
and respect. Teamwork can help to provide ongoing supervision and support as well as avoid 
burnout. Teamwork can also provide a structure for working on all the logistics of preparing 
and conducting meetings, reporting agreements, and monitoring the program. Volunteers 
should receive recognition for the important work they do; their involvement makes a 
program more restorative by virtue of reducing the dependence on the formal system to resolve 
crime problems. 

When community members do not feel they can impact social change 
through their participation . . . they often withdraw into their own worlds 
not so much from apathy, but from helplessness. It is not that people do not 
want to contribute to the overall resolution of social problems in their 
neighborhoodsit is that we have not allowed them meaningful access to 
our social institutions which allow community mobilization to occur.23 

Matching Cases with the Skills and Experience of the Facilitator 

The power of restorative justice dialogues and meetings is enormous. No meeting should be 
arranged unless there is an adequately trained facilitator who understands the process, 
understands the emotional risks involved for anyone who participates, and is capable of dedicating 
adequate time and attention to each of the participantswhether or not they choose to complete 
the process. Crimes should not be seen merely as cases to be processed through a system. The 
handling of all stages of any restorative justice dialogue and meeting requires sensibility, 
patience, and respect for the parties involved. It also requires an appreciation that the 
process can be easily derailed or co-opted by any failure to adhere to the values of restorative 
justice. 

Should Restorative Justice Be Entirely Voluntary? 

Many restorative justice experiments so far have included an element of coercion to secure the 
attendance of offenders. The willingness to cooperate with an organization running restorative 


justice processes may be rare among certain categories of offenders, particularly if little 
preparatory work is done. Some commentators believe restorative justice is doomed to being 
applied only to minor crimes committed by young and infrequent offenders, rather than to 
more serious crimes committed by hard-core criminalsunless the voluntary element is 
buttressed by the coercive powers of the justice system.24 

The coercion suggested by some includes court referrals to a restorative justice process and 
the application of sanctions that are restorative in nature but enforceable by the courts. 

These suggestions raise the specter of two systems of justice working on the same case, each 
with different goals and values. While it is possible for the formal system to adopt more of a 
restorative stance, it remains a moot point whether this dual-system approach would eventually 
water down the potential of restorative justice to achieve its balanced goals. The application 
of restorative justice to violent crime may, however, require such compromise to offset threats 
to public safety. Experiments on different approachesand their evaluationwill, over time, 
reveal the full range of possibilities and problems. 

Job Descriptions for Program Personnel 

You will need to think about job descriptions for those tasked with coordinating or running a 
restorative justice program. It is unlikely that existing job specifications will match the qualities 
and skills required for restorative justice. 

Summary 

Keys to program development: 

 Be clear about your goals. 
 Work closely with key stakeholders in the design and implementation. 
 Work out protocols and standards that protect peoples rights. 
 Think about the skills and training required. 
 Step-by-step planning will prepare you for your first case referral. 

Dont worry if you do not have all the answers at the outset. That would be virtually 
impossibleit takes time to adjust to a new way of thinking. 

Restorative justice is a way of thinking. It is a fundamentally different framework for 
understanding and responding to crime and victimization in communities. Correctional systems 
adopting a restorative justice approach are no longer driven by offender concerns alone. 
Instead, they acknowledge the need for a three-dimensional response involving victims, 
offenders, and the community.25 


Part 6

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 6. Benchmarks For Evaluation 


Part 6. Benchmarks for Evaluation 

Introduction 

Implementing restorative justice in the context of policing, either in partnership with other 
agencies or by a police department, requires more than a hunch that such change is desirable 
or needed. The judgment of police managers is important in assessing the merits of putting 
a new program in place; however, accountability to the public and stakeholders, before the 
program is implemented as well as after, is critical. Accountability is relevant for several reasons: 

 The response to recorded crime is important to society and should address basic 
requirements of individual and public safety, fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency. 
 The needs and expectations of different stakeholders should be assessed carefully and 
provided for to the extent practically possible. 
 Benchmarks are key targets to be met in conducting activities essential for carrying 
out the mission and for meeting stakeholders expectations. Benchmarks 
help to steer implementation toward the vision and also promote the best practice. 
 Record keeping is important for case management as well as for evaluation. 
Program monitoring tests the accomplishment of objectives and identifies areas 
needing improvement. 

Accountability is important to test your thinking about what the goals of your program should 
be, how those goals should be met, and how much planning is required. Ideally, your structure 
for developing program accountability will include the following: 

 Time for broad consultation with the public and all stakeholders. 
Their views and input should influence and shape your overall strategy. 
 Time to reflect on the values of restorative justice and their meaning in 
terms of implementation. Programs can be more restorative or less 
restorative, depending upon the attention given to all the elements that are 
described in Part 1. Values of Restorative Justice in this toolbox. 
 Time to gain support for what you want to dothis includes political 
support as well as legal justification. You will need to work with the media and 
in other communications channels to open a dialogue about restorative justice 
and how it can be applied. You will need to collaborate with other criminal 
justice agencies to ensure that your program works in tandem with other justice 
interventions. 


Restorative justice is still 
an emerging paradigm. 
There is much we do not 
know. Your program could 
provide useful lessons 
about what works well 
and what is problematic. 

 Time to gain internal and external support and accrue resources 
for operating the program. Restorative justice can, initially at least, seem 
like an attempt to decriminalize offenses or appear soft. It can also appear 
threatening to those who are used to more traditional means of handling crime. 
Accountability includes listening to those who might be skeptical and working 
out ways to provide resources. 

Accountability is also important during implementation of the program, to determine what the 
program achieves and what it fails to achieve. 

For these reasons, accountability should be seen as something that is not only essential but 
highly desirable. Accountability teaches all of us. 

Listed below are additional accountability factors that need to be considered when designing 
your program: 

 Restorative justice promotes a balanced approach to crime and requires a 
framework of performance indicators and benchmarks that reconcile and 
promote the needs of victims and offenders, as well as the community. You 
will also need to consider how your program will account to the wider public, 
which has a right to know how justice is being delivered. 
 Restorative justice promotes a new relationship between the justice system and 
the community. It is important for the community to have a say in what 
accountability measures are incorporated in the program and how these 
measures are used. An advisory board made up of different stakeholders in the 
community will provide added oversight and will promote shared ownership of 
the program. Think about the measures that could determine how the community is 
taking responsibility, e.g., the number of program volunteers, whether citizens offer 
support to victims, and whether communities monitor the offenders 
fulfillment of agreements and obligations. 
 Consider whether there is a demand for qualitative as well as quantitative measures 
of accountability. If so, this will influence the way you operate the program: 
the style and manner in which you implement restorative justice will be 
important and will require keeping more than numerical records. Oversight by 
way of qualitative research (observation, surveys, face-to-face interviews) 
will be necessary. In particular, qualitative measures will help to reveal training 
and development needs. 
 Are there perceived risks to introducing restorative justice, and if so, how can 
these be assessed in the performance of your program? For example, victims 
services may fear that crime victims will not be adequately prepared to make an 
informed choice about whether to participate in the program. Thought must be 
given to what measures could be introduced to minimize the risk of victims 
feeling coerced; the voluntary participation of victims is a key value of restora


tive justice theory. Feedback interviews from crime victims who have participated 
in a program will provide excellent insights into how sensitive your program 
staff are about what is required to allow victims to make a voluntary, informed 
choice. 

 Consider what specific benefits you hope to achieve through the program and 
how these might be assessed. For example, if offender recidivism is important, 
then consideration must be given to developing a longitudinal record-keeping 
system to monitor all offenders coming into the program. This will undoubtedly 
call for research assistance to ensure that the information required for 
monitoring is included in your records from the start. 
 Consider whether comparisons are likely to be made between what happens to 
cases dealt with by the traditional criminal justice process and those dealt with 
by the restorative justice program. Such comparisons would require early consultation 
with other agencies in the criminal justice system to ensure that separate records 
are kept for monitoring purposes. 
 Consider whether there are intangibles that you would like measured in some 
way following the implementation of the program. If so, it is probably necessary 
to conduct a baseline survey before you start the program. For example, you may 
wish to assess the attitude of crime victims or your own staff toward offenders 
generally and monitor changes in attitudes during the lifetime of the program. A 
baseline assessment might be invaluable to gauge how peoples views are 
changing. 
 Is the program susceptible to challenge on account of resources and, if so, what 
cost/ benefit analysis would be helpful? For example, if some stakeholders 
perceive that restorative justice offers savings in police time, because officers do 
not have to attend court, how can the savings be measured vis--vis the expenditure 
needed to run the restorative justice program? 
 Are there particular crimes or offenders that stakeholders especially want 
dealt with by restorative justice processes, and if so, how can case referrals be 
maintained? For example, many people support the use of restorative justice for 
nonviolent youth offenders but are skeptical of its suitability in other instances. 
Your selection criteria may need to be clarified to ensure that your program 
meets the mandate you have. In time, as the program evolves, other categories 
of offense/offender might be supported for referral to restorative justice; such 
change will necessitate altering the screening process. All this will have an impact 
on evaluation. 

 Perhaps most important, what measures will help to assess the extent to which 
the values of restorative justice are reflected in your program? For example, 
an important element of restorative justice is showing respect to all parties. Can 
you think how to measure this to promote respectful behavior? You might 


achieve respectful behavior through good training of facilitators and sound 
preparation of all those who take part in the program. However, regular surveys 
or feedback from participants about how they felt during and after their involvement 
in the program could be valuable. 

Restorative justice is 
about redrawing the lines 
of accountability within 
the criminal justice arena, 
re-engaging the 
community, and reducing 
the focus on 
accountability to the 
abstract state. . . It seems 
consistent with these 
fundamental 
principles that the 
community accept 
responsibility for making 
the project work.26 

All these factors should help you think about the benchmarks that are needed as part of your 
program to test its desirability and, over time, its strengths, areas that need improvement, and 
how well it is meeting your objectives. 

In addition to these factors, you might have a hunch that restorative justice will have an impact 
on the internal culture of the police department and that public support for restorative justice 
might lead to calls for changes in such areas as legislation, public policy, and expenditure on 
prevention. 

There is nothing wrong with having these aspirations, but be careful that they are not the only 
driving force for initiating your program. It is important to understand the extent to which 
restorative justice will change things. You need to think through what these changes may be and 
consider how they can be measured. Documenting change is important for true accountability 
and to keep the program on track in a way that optimizes the benefits and minimizes the risks 
of applying restorative justice. 

Core Aims and Related Benchmarks 

The following are core aims of restorative justice for you to think about when introducing any 
restorative justice program. Some will require monitoring or assessment before you start referring 
cases to a restorative justice process. 

Restorative justice: 

 Seeks to redefine the meaning of crime. 
 Involves victims, offenders, and the community. 
 Seeks victim restoration. 
 Seeks offender competency. 
 Seeks community safety and connectedness. 
 Seeks to learn how to prevent crime. 

Benchmarks to reflect these aims of restorative justice will help to make your program more, 
not less, restorative. Some can be measured by statistical analysis of your cases, others will 
require qualitative research, including surveys. Each of the core aims is considered below, 
along with possible indicators or benchmarks. 

1. Redefining the meaning of crime 

The focus of the restorative justice process is more on the harms of crime and less on the 
violation of the law. Therefore, identification of the harm is a critical factor. After a few months, 
you should be able to come up with two lists of identified harms that victims and communities 


experience following a crime. You will have one list for victim harms and another for community 
harms; some harms may appear on both lists. 

Use these lists for training officers who respond to crime and create awareness 
among the public of the impact of crime. Over time more people will understand 
that crime requires investment in prevention if these harms are to be avoided. 

2. Involving victims, offenders, and communities 

The more that citizens are involved in your program, the more likely it is that the benefits of 
restorative justice will be achieved. As with problem-solving policing, the more engagement 
there is, the more information you receive to identify the real issue that needs to be tackled. 
Keep a record of who participatesas well as additional information that came from participants 
who added value to the restorative justice process. In time you might be able to discern 
how influential to the process and/or outcomes are family members, peers, friends, and non-
familial guardians, as well as specific community groups. This information will help in planning 
future restorative justice meetings and dialogues. 

There is nothing more powerful than stories about what happens in a restorative justice 
process. They convey what restorative justice focuses on, how crime can be resolved through 
collaboration and problem solving, and how victims, offenders, and communities can be positively 
affected by their participation. Keeping a record of your cases is an essential part of 
spreading learning about what restorative justice can achieve. 

3. Restoring victims 

Repairing the harm experienced by victims (and communities) is necessary to help victims 
recover and to hold offenders to account in meaningful ways. Keep a record of how offenders 
have restored the losses or damage. This includes making things right in relationships (e.g., 
a letter of apology, a showing of remorse, agreeing to work for the victim or help the victim in 
some way). 

Victim involvement is a fundamental requirement of restorative justice. It is easy to assume that 
the victims feel involved simply because they were invited to participate. You must check with 
the victims themselves about whether your program is meeting their needs and expectations. This 
will often necessitate survey work or face-to-face interviews at some stage after their 
case was dealt with. You need to check: 

 The extent to which victims felt they were given ample information for deciding whether 
or not to participation in a restorative justice process. 
 The extent to which victims felt they were free to choose whether to participate or 
notand to leave the process at any time (e.g., was it really voluntary). 
 The extent to which victims felt their role was central to the process: did they, 
for example, feel their involvement was seen as important of itselfand not only 
to hold the offender accountable? 



 The level of preparation victims felt was provided prior to the restorative justice 
process. Were they, for example, confronted with surprises that ought to have 
been discussed or revealed during a preparatory meeting? 
 The extent to which victims felt able to express how they had been harmed, and 
the extent to which they felt they had been heard. 
 The extent to which victims felt they had an influence on the agreed plan to 
hold the offender accountable and to restore their losses. 
 The extent to which victims felt respected and dealt with sensitively by the 
facilitator and other program staff. 
 The extent to which victims felt sufficiently protected. 
 The extent to which victims feedback was followed up with program adjustments or improvement. 

Evaluation of these items will help ensure that your program provides victim choice, 
offers victim empowerment, and takes victims interests seriously. 

Recidivism is only one of 
a range of issues to be 
measured. Program 
outcomes have more to do 
with the mutual needs of 
victims, communities, 
offenders, and 
government.27 

4. Seeking offender competency 

Those who commit crime also suffer harm; that is seldom acknowledged by the criminal justice 
system. Identifying how offenders feel about their offenses is often the first step toward 
their reintegration into the community. Think about keeping a record of what offenders 
say about their crimethe information will help to break down stereotype images of monster 
criminals. Such images are a barrier to reintegration. 

The amount of harm repaired is a critical benchmark for any restorative justice program. The 
amount of restitution or community service completed by offenders should, therefore, be 
measured. The number of reparative agreements completed by offenders also should be monitored. 
The fulfillment of an agreement indicates that the offender understood the consequences of his 
or her behavior and wanted to change. 

Offender competency development refers to the changes offenders are willing to make to 
reduce the likelihood of committing crime again and to increase their contribution to society 
as law-abiding citizens. Offenders completing drug treatment, counseling/ therapeutic programs, 
skills training, education courses, etc., are positive signs that restorative justice is 
supporting important life changes. 

Recidivism is a traditional indicator of effectiveness and will be a useful monitor of restorative 
justice programs. The process itself may have a sufficiently powerful effect on an offenderor it 
might be the direct involvement of community members in monitoring or supporting 
the offender to complete the reparative agreement that influences the offender sufficiently to 
reduce recidivism. 


Other measures of program effectiveness in promoting offender competency include the following: 

 Are offenders given the opportunity to participate and to make amends to the 
victim? Does the program restrict the types of offenders dealt with by restorative 
justice? 
 To what extent does the reparative agreement address the needs of the offender and 
plan for his or her reintegration into the community? 

A balance should be struck between cases referred to restorative justice and those that require 
a formal justice response. Monitoring case referrals is a way of assessing whether the balance 
is right and identifying obstacles to using restorative justice processes. 

5. Seeking community safety and connectedness 

Restorative justice seeks to give primary responsibility for decisionmaking to victims, 
offenders, and the community, with the support of the state. Community empowerment and 
participation need to be monitored. Consider the following: 

 Who is invited to participate? (This could indicate how much power is really 
being shared.) 
 Are community concerns heard? 
 Are community safety issues addressed? 
 Does the community influence offender accountability and play a part in 
victim recovery? 
 Is there a focus on training community volunteers to facilitate restorative 
justice processes? 
 Are there changes that occur in the community after a restorative justice process 
or after a few months of program operation (e.g., community begins to solve its 
own problems by way of restorative justice processes, supports new victim services, 
or tackles crime prevention)? 

Community involvement in restorative justice processes will promote stronger communities in 
which members actively participate in community life and support the well-being of those who 
live, work, and play there. Benchmarks of a successful program might include the following: 

 More dialogue about crime and what can be done by the community to prevent 
crime. 
 More willingness to engage in volunteer work or participate in partnership 
activities with public organizations. 


 Improved relationships between different elements of the community. 
 Support for more restorative justice processes to address different kinds of 
conflict, e.g., in schools, businesses, local government. 
 Less fear of crime, more confidence in justice interventions. 

Relationships should be strengthened by restorative justice process interventions, 
not weakened by them. A survey of participants will afford insights into the bonds that have been 
strengthened and the divisions that have been maintained. 

6. Learning how to prevent crime 

Community involvement in restorative justice processes promotes understanding of why crime 
happens and what would help to prevent offending behavior. To examine how fruitful this 
understanding is in your community, look for: 

 A willingness to support and promote local policies aimed at reducing crime 
that focus on prevention rather than punishment. 
 More reliance on informal controls, such as mentoring, youth assistance, support 
for the elderly to protect them against crime. 
 The scope of partnership activity to address crime, fear, and disorder; for 
example, is there a citywide or community task force involving all kinds of 
groups (e.g., churches, youth, ethnic minorities, gays, businessmen, activists)? 


Testing How Restorative Your Program Is 

You can use a survey like the following to assess how restorative your program is: 

Sample Survey 

(5=Strongly agree 3=Neutral 1=Strongly disagree) 

VICTIMS

Victims and their families receive support and 5 4 3 2 1 
assistance 
Victims are made aware of the case throughout the 5 4 3 2 1 
entire process and are given choices 
Victims are directly and actively involved in the 5 4 3 2 1 
justice process (from early stages to the end) 
Victims are financially restored and restitution is 5 4 3 2 1 
given priority by the justice system 
Victims have the opportunity to shape how the 5 4 3 2 1 
offender will repair the harm 
Victims are satisfied with the justice process 5 4 3 2 1 
Victims have the opportunity to offer guidance 5 4 3 2 1 
and feedback to justice professionals by serving on 
planning and advisory groups, and through other means 
OFFENDERS 

Offenders complete financial and other forms 
of restitution in a timely fashion 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders use their assets to give back to 
the community 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders are given opportunities to develop 
relationships with the community 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders face the personal harm caused by 
their crime 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders develop the ability to be empathetic 
for their victims and others 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders learn and practice competencies to 
reduce the likelihood of returning to crime 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders understand their obligation to their 
community and learn mutual responsibility 
5 4 3 2 1 
Offenders family or significant others are 
involved in similar programs as the offender 
5 4 3 2 1 


COMMUNITY

The community allows the offender to repair 5 4 3 2 1 
harm through meaningful work 
Volunteers are recruited and trained to provide 5 4 3 2 1 
services to offenders, victims, and the community 
The community provides mentors for the offenders 5 4 3 2 1 
and their significant others, and offers assistance 
to increase their skills 
Community businesses provide training and work 5 4 3 2 1 
for offenders 
The community allows the offender to repair 5 4 3 2 1 
harm through meaningful work 
Community members have opportunities to offer 5 4 3 2 1 
guidance and feedback to justice professionals 
by serving on planning and advisory groups, 
and help set the goals of the justice system 

JUSTICE SYSTEM 

The system gives balanced attention to the 
victim, offender, and the community, and 
views each as equal 
5 4 3 2 1 
Policymakers allocate resources to meet 
objectives of safety, accountability, and 
competency development 
5 4 3 2 1 
Restoration of victim, offender, and community 
is given higher priority than cost savings, time 
saved, small caseloads 
5 4 3 2 1 
System outcome measures reflect restorative 
justice values 
5 4 3 2 1 
Measures of individual staff performance 
identify expectations 
5 4 3 2 1 
System has ongoing training and orientation 
sessions on topics central to restorative justice 
5 4 3 2 1 
System seeks to hire employees with values 
consistent with restorative justice 
5 4 3 2 1 
System provides ongoing training on victimology 
and victim sensitivity 
5 4 3 2 1 
System provides ongoing training on victimology 
and victim sensitivity 
5 4 3 2 1 


Think about these benchmarks too: 

 Participants in restorative justice processes should, ideally, perceive the process 
and outcomes as fair and satisfactory. Frequent surveys will help you to 
assess the extent to which your program is perceived as fair and satisfactory by 
all parties affected by crime. 
 You may wish to find out if the program has promoted respect for the police and 
greater trust. Again, surveys might be helpful to gauge whether there have been 
changes in police-community relations. 
 Restorative justice processes provide a vehicle for citizens to be mobilized for 
problem solving and crime prevention. A survey of police officers might help to 
ascertain how much confidence there is among officers in the capacity of lay 
communities to engage in policing and justice delivery. 
 Fear is a useful barometer of how successful an intervention is. Surveys asking 
victims and the community about the precautions they have taken since a 
crime was dealt with by the restorative justice process will help determine the 
extent to which public safety needs have been addressed. 

The role of the state in restorative justice is one of supporting the parties through a process. 
The facilitators used in a program should be assessed in terms of: 

 Making the parties feel comfortable and safe. 
 Allowing them plenty of time to speak and to be listened to. 
 Allowing the parties to work out an agreement. 
 Supporting the participants throughout the preparatory and postmeeting 
stages. 
 Being fair to reflect a balanced approach that addresses the needs of victims, 
offenders, and the community. 

Restorative justice programs should contribute to reduced investment in prisons since 
restorative justice is measured not by how much punishment is given to offenders but by how much 
reparation is achieved. Restorative justice programs should also reduce the number of cases 
that must be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Both results would free up resources for 
early intervention and treatment of offenders, as well as other crime prevention tactics. 

The table Characteristics of the Most and Least Restorative Justice Systems indicates the 
potential of fully implementing restorative justiceand the costs and dangers of limiting 
societys response to crime to a victim- and punishment-oriented adversarial process. 


Characteristics of the Most and Least Restorative Justice Systems 

Most Restorative  
Justice response balanced between 
government and community. 

Least Restorative
Justice response dominated by the state 
and very costlyemotionally and 
financially. 

Most Restorative 
Communities empowered to participate 
and contribute to health of all its 
members. 

Least Restorative
High fear in the community. Some 
communities feel angry and alienated. 

Most Restorative 
Very low crime rate. 

Least Restorative
Very high crime rate. 

Summary 

When it comes to benchmarks . . . 

 Pay attention to local conditions: every community is different. 
 Focus on qualitative, as well as quantitative, measures. 
 Dont forget the balanced approachaddress the needs of victims, offenders, 
and the community. 
 Figure out how to calculate the benefits to the state, but focus on benefits to society. 


Part 7

Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 
Part 7. Unresolved Issues 


Part 7. Unresolved Issues 

Introduction 

Restorative justice is a simple idea: 

 Recognize the harms of crime 
 Repair the damage 
 Heal relationships 
 Teach civility 
 Promote safety and harmony 
 Promote strong communities 

Who could disagree with these goals? 

The implications of changing policy and practice to support these goals, however, 
are considerable. The difficulties are exacerbated by two factors: first, the traditional system of justice 
must be maintained; second, the new system has yet to be fully developed. 

Restorative justice is a framework but has not got all the answers. Its a compass 
but not a map.28 

If there is a danger that 
we could be damaging 
people, we should limit 
activity until the model is 
properly developed. 

Threats to Guard Against 

Restorative justice, while becoming more widespread and popular, has also become a journey 
of exploring the values and different processes without a full paradigm. In short, restorative 
justice is still in the experimental stage of development with a number of unresolved 
issues and unanswered questions. The transition can be a difficult challenge with a number 
of threats or problems: 

 Co-optation of the new values and principles is a real danger, particularly 
because of the conflict between the values of retributive justice and restorative 
justice. Restorative justice does not seek to advance the traditional goal 
offender accountability through punishment. Its objectives are entirely different. 
I fear that we have not yet figured out how to avoid the introduction of 
paternalistic, discriminatory, and other attitudes and stances that are 
radically inconsistent with the loving and empowering values that 
should be at the heart of what is done in the name of restorative justice.29 

 The focus on developing familiarity with different restorative justice processes 
such as victim-offender mediation, circles, and conferencingcan divert 
attention from the need to examine the context and operating environment 



in which these are being proposed. The implementation of restorative justice by 
an organization that retains assumptions and beliefs that are not in sync with 
those of restorative justice can seriously undermine the restorative goals of the 
effort. Many agencies currently experimenting with restorative justice have 
failed to think through the contradiction between how they propose to deal 
with external conflict (between offenders, victims, and communities)and 
their methods of tackling internal conflict, which are adversarial, blame fixing, 
and focused on punishment. 

 Change advocates must be aware that their reforms can go astray; the implementation 
of restorative justice involves more than mere tinkering with the 
current system of justice. It requires, in many cases, challenging the underlying 
assumptions of the appropriateness of criminal justice. As Howard Zehr writes, 
for example, It will not do to promote alternative punishments. The concept of 
punishment itself must be questioned.30 Agents of change need to be aware 
that the values and assumptions of traditional criminal justice are deeply embedded 
in our thinking. It is easy to replicate that system; initial efforts to implement 
restorative justice, for example, can undermine the balanced approach (victim, 
offender, community) because the focus on offenders in the traditional system is 
so strong. 

 In making choices about using traditional criminal justice and restorative justice, 
more than individual discretion is required. Police officers are used to exercising 
decisionmaking authority to pursue criminal charges or to divert cases 
outside the traditional court system; but clear selection criteria need to be in 
place that respect and reflect the values of both systems, as well as allow flexibility 
for specific circumstances. The criteria also ought to take into account 
the level of skills training that has been provided vis--vis different categories of 
offense. For example, although a victim of a serious violent crime might wish to 
meet face to face with his or her offender, it would be reckless to conduct such 
a dialogue unless there is an adequately trained facilitator to work with this kind 
of case. The advice is to walk before you run, despite the temptation to 
embrace restorative justice more fully when assigning cases. (The figure 
Traditional Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice: Two Ways of Thinking and 
Working provides a cautionary reminder of how different the two approaches 
are.) 

 Maintaining consistency and equity, with which the criminal justice system has 
struggled, runs counter to the restorative justice principle that the process and 
outcomes should be tailored to individual and local needs. There will be an 
ongoing tension in accommodating both philosophies, particularly after the 
attention given to sentencing guidelines, to proportionality, and to mandatory 
minimum sanctions. How this tension will unfold depends in large part on: 


1. The extent to which the formal system is willing to share power, authority, 
and decisionmaking with the community through restorative justice 
processes. 
2. How satisfactory the accountability of restorative justice processes and 
programs is with regard to reducing reoffending rates, to victim and 
community satisfaction, and to the percentage of agreements fulfilled 
following restorative justice. 

The manner in which interventions are implemented is likely to determine 
the degree to which the interventions are actually experienced by 
victims and offenders as restorative. Interventions that appear to be 
intrinsically restorative may, in fact, not be. It is predictable that so-
called restorative interventions could easily be co-opted to meet primarily 
justice system bureaucratic needs rather than those most affected by crime . . . 
this could lead to the fast food version . . .31 

Traditional Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice: Two Ways 
of Thinking and Working 

Traditional Criminal Justice System
Criminal Laws
What laws have been broken?
What sanction?
Offender 
Criminal Justice Professionals 

Restorative Justice
Victim
Who has been harmed? 
What are the needs? 
Community
Offender 
Criminal Justice Professionals Supporting 

Role of Community? Role of Victim? 

Confidentiality 

Public accountability requires that records be kept of how crime is responded to, and with what 
results. While the fact that a case has been dealt with by restorative justice should be made 
public, and the agreements (fulfilled or otherwise) should be on record, the substance of 
the dialogue in any restorative justice intervention should be kept confidential. Without 

 

the consent of the participants, no such information should be given out at any time. This necessary 
policy, however, minimizes the opportunities for broader sharing of lessons learned and 
thus limits the opportunities for gaining support for restorative justice. Balancing the needs of 
confidentiality with those of informing the public about restorative justice can be problematic. 

All of the parties to a dialogue should be advised that there may be some information that is 
legally admissible in a court of law. 

The questions about 
coercion require further 
experimentation and 
research. We have a 
sense of what the ideal 
situation would be 
(voluntary participation) 
and the countereffect of 
coerced participation. 
How to steer an 
appropriate middle course 
will become clearer 
over time. 

The state has an 
important function in 
restorative justiceto 
support the engagement 
of victims, offenders, and 
communities in identifying 
harms done and the 
obligations that arise from 
these harms; supporting 
harm repair and victim 
restoration; and promoting 
conditions that make 
further harm less likely.

Coercion 32 

A victim should never be forced or put under pressure to participate. Although coercion is 
inappropriate, it is incumbent on the facilitator to present to victims adequate information on 
which to base a decision. While this can be interpreted as persuasion, a skillful facilitator will 
encourage victims to consider fully the risks and benefits of restorative justice without exerting
 undue influence. Voluntariness is a basic principle of restorative justice: removing choice 
disempowers victims and is likely to reduce the sense of experiencing restorative justice as fair 
and beneficial. 

For offenders, coercion is more problematic for several reasons. Although offenders ideally are 
invited to participate and their participation is voluntary, a fine line exists between: 

1. The needs of victims, who wish to meet the offender, and the needs of an offender, who 
might not feel up to such a meeting. 
2. The mere obligation of an offender, on the one hand, and ensuring that the 
offender meets the obligations in ways that are meaningful for the victims and the 
offender. Forcing an offender to participate may make any subsequent conversation or 
actions lack genuineness, thereby undercutting the learning process and 
restoration that are the aims of restorative justice. 

If a restorative justice process is conducted subsequent to a finding of guilt in court, 
via probation or as a diversion court on condition that the offender completes an agreement, 
the voluntary nature of the offenders participation can be compromised. The use of state coercion can 
be counterproductive. Preparation can be helpful to overcome some of those problems, but 
great care should be taken not to assume that offenders will repair the harm or that they will 
alter their behavior in the future; and without these results, the program is unlikely to be 
experienced as restorative by either the victim or the offender. 

Some programs insist that offenders participate but provide an option for offenders to leave the 
program. 

In all cases, the offender cannot be involved in a voluntary capacity unless he or she freely 
accepts responsibility for the harm caused by the crime. Without this acceptance, the offender 
is entitled to be treated according to due process of law, starting with the presumption of 
innocence and the right to legal representation. 


If an offender refuses to cooperate with the victims request for a meeting, the victim should 
still be afforded the opportunity to receive restoration, e.g., compensation from a victim 
fund, meeting other offenders to tell how they have been harmed, and support from the community. 

Role of the State 

Under the traditional criminal justice system, crime is seen as an act against the state. In 
restorative justice, crime is seen as harming people; the state still contributes to the justice 
process, but in different ways. 

The state has a responsibility to provide opportunities for such engagement and to safeguard 
the correct application of procedures and individual legal rights. 

The state also has a role in applying the formal system of crime control in cases where public 
safety is threatened, where the parties do not agree to participate, or where the voluntary 
agreements stemming from a restorative justice intervention are inadequate in some way. These 
assessments demand fine judgment to avoid ignoring behavior that is dangerous to restorative 
justice. Care is needed, however, to ensure that restorative justice is not used only in minor 
cases when it suits the state. 

Restorative justice calls for maximizing the opportunities for community, victim, and offender 
engagementand the state has the primary responsibility to create the framework for distributing 
cases appropriately between the formal system of justice and restorative justice. 

Even when it is deemed necessary to deal with a case by traditional criminal justice processes, 
the state has an obligation to seek ways of involving elements of restorative justiceto promote 
victim recovery, offender competency, and community safety. 

A classic example of a clash between the formal adversarial system and restorative justice is the 
categorization of crime. Courts and the traditional criminal justice system attempt to define 
crimes either as serious or not serious (felony/misdemeanor), making the assumption that 
victims of crime experience a standard reaction to criminal behavior. This not only is a gross 
oversimplification of how crime is experienced, but also is at odds with what is being discovered 
in restorative justice experiments. (See the case study Traditional Classification of Crime 
Can Be Inappropriate, in box.) 

The state has a role in developing a vision of restorative justice, educating the public about 
restorative justice, and providing technical assistance for communities trying restorative 
justice. The state also has a role in promoting research on restorative justice (as well as the 
adversarial criminal justice process), including monitoring and evaluation of programs and 
processes. This research, over time, will secure better understanding of what restorative justice 
can realistically achieve and how improvements can be made to existing practices. 

The state needs to take 
care that it does not make 
assumptions about the 
seriousness of cases 
based on traditional 
criteria. 


In all cases the police 
should work as much as 
possible with other 
agencies or volunteers, 
promoting a sense that it 
is the general community 
that is upholding 
standards of behavior and 
providing opportunities for 
restoration. 

Case Study:
Traditional Classification of Crime Can Be Inappropriate

A 68-year-old man noticed two youths attempting to steal his car outside his house. He ran after them 
and collapsed in the street. His wife, who had seen him running, was desperately worried, as he had 
suffered a heart attack several months before. She managed to get her husband safely back into their 
house, and then she ran to a nearby park to let her son know what had happened. As she approached 
her 20-year-old son who was playing football, the wife had a heart attack. The traditional approach 
would have categorized this crime as a minor property crime: an attempted theft of a motor vehicle. In 
restorative justice, the full harm experienced by the victim and his whole family would be acknowledged. 
At the conference held 2 months later, the son, whose parents were now both suffering from 
heart problems, could not avoid showing his anger toward the youths who had tried to steal his fathers 
car. An hour later, the same man was telling the offenders he would like them to call him any time they 
were tempted to get in trouble again, saying, Id do anything to help you not to do this again. 

The offenders agreed and have not been in trouble since. A property crime can hide a multitude of 
consequences! 

Relationship Between the Traditional Criminal Justice System and Restorative Justice 

The police have to serve the traditional, adversarial criminal justice system as well as any 
restorative justice programs they implement. This raises difficult questions about the response of the 
police from the time a crime is reported. The first steps they take at the scene of a crime, or in 
response to a witness or victim, can be of critical importance to the criminal justice process in 
terms of gathering evidence. Police officers also have to think about restorative justices 
requirements of problem solving, victim protection, and the engagement of those who might participate 
in the restorative justice process. 

Since it is unlikely that a decision about the appropriate disposition of the case can be made at this 
early stage, the investigative process must still be conducted. Only when the offender is identified 
and freely admits the crime can there be a cessation of the investigative process. 

In serious offenses, however, (e.g., child abuse, serious violence, domestic abuse, arson), it may 
be necessary to prepare for prosecution. In addition, the views of the victim, incidents involving 
multiple crimes and offenders, and the attitude and capacity of the offender, are factors that should 
be taken into account in deciding the course of an investigation. 

In some cases, a restorative justice process might not be the appropriate means of handling the 
crime until several months after the crimeor after the case has been dealt with by the court. For 
example, victims of serious violence may not be ready to meet their offender for several years. In 
these cases, it is unlikely that the police department is the most appropriate agency to conduct a 
restorative justice process. 

Two trends . . . are conflicting with one another. On the one hand there is a 
move towards a greater punitiveness and social exclusion in penal policy . . . 


on the other hand, there are moves towards a more inclusive penal policy 
which attempts to promote social cohesion and safer communities through 
problem-solving policing, restorative justice, and the empowering of 
communities to tackle the causes and effects of criminal behavior.33 

Nonetheless, the police can develop processes to: 

 Increase general awareness of harms done by crime (e.g., by victim 
impact panels, school programs, and sharing case studies). 
 Encourage people to take responsibility for supporting victims and 
offenders through programs that, for example, promote victim recovery and 
offender competency. 
 Foster community processes for holding offenders to account 
through community service and community reparative boards. 

In some cases a prison sentence is appropriate to secure a sense of safety in the community, 
but there still are opportunities to implement restorative justice, such as prison inmates 
working on community projects, speaking to victims to learn the impact of their behavior, treatment 
and skills training that promote behavioral change, and providing information to the victim. 
These ideas can be implemented as part of a partnership response to the aftermath of crime, 
and there is no reason why police officers cannot be engaged in facilitating these efforts. 

Police Role in Restorative Justice 

If conference coordinators fall into more authoritarian leadership and 
communication patterns, the process actually could lead to offenders 
experiencing conferences as shaming and blamingor even as processes of 
breaking down kids and then trying to build them up, rather than as 
reintegrative shaming in which criminal behavior is denounced but 
offenders are treated with respect and feel safe enough in the presence of so 
many adults to grow up and express themselves.34 

The police involvement in restorative justice can be contentious, notwithstanding the benefits of 
dealing with crime in a restorative way. The police have exposure to victims, offenders, and 
communities as well as to the workings and flaws of the formal justice system. They are used 
to working in particular ways, however, and are trained as figures of authority. Making the leap 
from traditional police methods to restorative justice can be onerous because of the prevailing 
cultural views about crime fighting, relative inexperience with dealing with victims of crime, 
skepticism about the capacity of communities, and the polices unique powers of arrest and of 
the use of force. Officers, by the very nature of their job, have to be able to work with command 
and control. Moving away from adherence to procedures and practices that made perfect sense under 
a different paradigm is not easy. 

The police have a tendency to make assessments based on information and observations that 
might not be appropriate in a restorative justice setting. Some police officers will not find it easy 



to move from being an active decision maker to a facilitator, enabling others to make decisions. 
The personnel makeup of a police department can also determine the likelihood of officers 
having the capacity for cultural sensitivity that is so often necessary in restorative justice. 

How a department deals with its own internal conflict can also be a barrier to developing 
an appropriate environment for restorative justice. For example, many police departments 
are used to dealing with personnel, welfare problems, grievances, sexual harassment complaints, 
and poor performance through processes that are adversarial and steeped in hierarchical power 
distribution. Such processes are the antithesis of what restorative justice stands 
for: sharing power and decisionmaking in relation to wrongdoing, harm, needs, and interests 
to promote healing, competency building, problem solving, and harmony. 

Police must avoid 
implementing a restorative 
justice program in 
isolation from other 
operational changes. The 
environment and context 
in which restorative 
justice is implemented 
can be a critical factor in 
determining how 
restorative the program is. 

A police department wishing to take up the challenge of implementing restorative justice must 
recognize its own strengths and weaknesses in terms of being prepared to take on such a 
different approach; considerable training and development might be necessary to acquire the 
insights and skills base that support alternative methods of conflict resolution. How the 
selection and performance review of officers is conducted might determine how serious the 
department wishes to be about restorative justice: selecting officers who are only interested 
in traditional crime fighting, or assessing officers only on numbers of arrests, can send the 
wrong message. 

Instead, a police department might promote the recruitment of people who already have experienced 
conflict resolution processes and might measure those indicators that suggest 
improved teamwork (e.g., staff sickness, staff turnover, and team problem solving 
or the number of grievances/complaints resolved informally). 

Police officers must also be aware of how the public perceives them: restorative justice 
requires facilitators of programs to be neutral. If the public sees the police as representing 
only the victim or an authority of the state, there may be problems in getting people to participate 
freely on the understanding that their input is a vital part of the decisionmaking 
process, not merely an adjunct to police decisionmaking. It is easy for the public to look to 
the police to make decisions, and the facilitator should be clear from the start about the role 
that he or she plays in the program. 

Restorative justice processes can broaden the powers of the police, compromising the separation 
of powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Police officers 
can be guilty of dominating restorative justice processes and failing to accommodate and 
promote the empowerment of victims, offenders, and the community. 

Nevertheless, citizens in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, where police-based conferences 
were started, supported police officers acting as facilitators, claiming they added 
gravity to the proceedings.35 Police officers can also lend a presence that makes people 
feel safe. One possible option, should a local community feel intimidated by the presence and 
role of the police, is to have co-mediators/facilitators who are community volunteers. This can 
provide a natural balance to the dominance of the police. 

Some would also claim that an investigating officer should not facilitate a restorative justice 
process because of the inclination to dominate the proceedings when they know so much about 


the case. The police need to be sensitive to perceptions that they are investigator, prosecutor, 
judge, and jury all rolled into one. Close monitoring of these issues is essential to avoid 
restorative justice becoming owned by one state agency. Opening restorative justice processes 
to outside observers might also help to dispel that perception. For the same reason, consider 
not holding restorative justice processes in police stations. 

Proportionality Versus Tailored Program 

In criminal justice there has been emphasis on just dessertsthe idea that sanctions should 
be proportionate in their severity to the gravity of the offense. 

This sense of proportionality runs deep in the retributive system, but its transferability to 
restorative justice is problematic. Restorative justice is not focused on punishment, and the 
assumption that crime is only or primarily a violation of law is challenged to encompass the 
notion that crime harms people. Harms are experienced differently by different people; so the 
question arises: Can there be proportionality with regard to the obligations of an offender to 
repair the harm? 

A complication arises by virtue of the fact that the people who identify the obligations are not 
representatives of the state. Experience in restorative justice to date suggests that participants 
in restorative justice processes properly focus on the needs emerging from the dialogue 
and can be creative in deciding how these needs should be met, regardless of traditional 
sanctions. Restorative justice encourages the participants to negotiate what harms require 
reparation and how they should be repaired/restoredwithout a fixed formula. On the other hand, 
the facilitator has the responsibility to ensure that the agreement is relevant, fair, and 
realistically achievable. In this way, restorative justice can be evaluated on whether an agreement 
appears to be proportionate when compared to other such agreements and when compared to 
traditional sanctions. However, the goals of the two systems are entirely different, 
and restorative justice requires flexibility. 

What if the Offender Fails to Fulfill the Agreement? 

Preparation of the victim is important, and failure of an offender to fulfill his or her agreement 
can be especially damaging to a victim who has participated in restorative justice. The courts 
can require extra reparation from the offender, but this suggests that the process is coercive 
more than voluntary. There is no ready answer to the problem of noncompliance. However, 
proper risk assessment as part of the preparation for a restorative justice meeting might help 
reduce the danger of lack of offender cooperation. (Related issues are considered in the 
Coercion section, earlier in Part 7. Unresolved Issues.) 

Widening the Net 

Restorative justice raises concerns about treating minor casesthose that would largely be 
ignored by the adversarial criminal justice systemas if they require interventions that go far 
beyond traditional expectations. On the other hand, concerns about widening the net (expanding 
the number of cases requiring time and resources) rubs up against the notion of supporting 
early intervention to reduce youth offending. A balance needs to be struck between the 
desirability of more formal state controls and that of informal community regulation. 

Communities with weak or 
nonexistent bonds present 
enormous challenges to 
restorative justice. They 
require unique leadership 
and a strong commitment 
to developing informal 
social controls that do not 
rely on being punitive or 
promote stigmatizing 
offenders. 


Scope for Applying Restorative Justice in Inner Cities and Frustrated Communities 36 

The involvement of the community is essential to restorative justice, yet many offenders (and 
victims, for that matter) lack family and community ties. Although we can be imaginative about 
the people who might be significant in the lives of the parties involved in crime, it is probably 
also fair to say that some communities have weak or nonexistent bonds, making their involvement 
unrealistic. Community in modern society is problematicand not a synonym for virtue. 
Communities can be harsh, intolerant, and exclusionary. Some communities do not share 
values: social and economic divisions can make conflict resolution virtually impossible, 
for example, if there is no consensus on how crime should be defined. Many communities feel no shared 
interest. Some tolerate racism, sexism, and homophobia and are likely to replicate the punitive 
approach of the court system. 

Case Study 
Communities With Diverse Views Can Have Shared Values 

Clementine Barfield-Dye is a mother whose sons were shot in Detroit. She began to make links with 
other victims familiesmore than 400, which grew to well over 1,000. The families decided to build 
a memorial for all those children who had been killed. Some people, including the local police, 
suggested that those who had been responsible for the shootings should not have their names included on 
the wall. But the community overcame these objections and held up their memorial as teaching peace, 
not war. 

Mentally Ill or Substance-Abusing Offenders 

The issues of mental illness and drug addiction among offenders cannot be ignored in deciding 
whether or not to include a case in a restorative justice program. Both raise safety concerns 
for the victim and other participants. There is also the possibility that the offender is neither 
willing nor able to participate in an open dialogue in which the free expression of emotions can 
take place in an atmosphere conducive to problem solving. On the other hand, restorative justice 
can offer these offenders an opportunity to learn the consequences of their behavior, and 
it might be able to promote changes that reduce the likelihood of future offending. Great care 
is needed in identifying who should be invited to participate, including the consideration of 
psychiatrists, counselors, and other experts. Restorative justice also affords opportunities for the 
community to understand more about drug and alcohol addiction and mental health problems, 
which might foster less stereotyping and more compassion and care. A person is still part of 
the community, even if he or she has health problems. 

The restorative justice movement also faces a number of important risks. 
Perhaps the greatest risk is that of window-dressing in which criminal and 
juvenile justice systems redefine what they have always done with more professionally 
acceptable and humane language while not really changing the 
policies and procedures of their system. A few pilot programs may be set up 
on the margins . . . while the mainstream of business is entirely offender-
driven and highly retributive with little victim involvement and services, and 
even less community involvement.37 


Issues for You to Resolve 

As you plan for a restorative justice program, think about and discuss the following questions. 
Formulate the best answers you can for this stage of your experience and knowledge. 

 How can your departmental environment exhibit restorative justice values? 
 How should you balance confidentiality with the publics need for information? 
 How can you bring offenders to the table without being coercive? 
 When is state intervention needed before a restorative justice intervention? 
 How can the police themselves represent to the public the values of restorative 
justice? 
 How can you make the restoration fit the offensein particular instances? 
 What should you do with communities that promote hostile or clashing values? 

Finally . . . remember the Re factor. 

Each step or decision toward the implementation of restorative justice will need to be redone 
at some time. You will need to: 

 Re . . learn 
 Re . . plan 
 Re . . develop 
 Re . . evaluate 
 Re . . assess 
 Re . . mind yourself of the restorative justice values. 

And dont forget: 

Good Luck! 


Toolbox For IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 

AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING 

References and Notes 


References and Notes 

1. For a full account of restorative justice and its relevance to policing, see the 
monograph that accompanies this toolbox, Community Policing, Community 
Justice, and Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a 
Balanced Approach to Public Safety. 

2. Wright, Martin. Justice for Victims and Offenders: A Restorative Response to 
Crime. Winchester, United Kingdom: Open University Press, 1991, p. 159. 

3. Northey, W. Restorative Justice: Rebirth of Ancient Practice. Winnipeg, 
Manitoba, Canada: Canadian Mennonite Central Committee, 1994. 

4. For a good insight into victim trauma, see Judith Hermans book Trauma and 
Recovery, New York: Basic Books, 1997. 

5. David Doerfler, conversation with the author, October 1997. 

6. Signposts: Restorative Justice. Bookmark available from the Mennonite Central 
Committee (MCC) U.S., Akron, PA, and the MCC, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 

7. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Victims Informer. 
Newsletter of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Services, Crime Victim 
Clearinghouse, Austin, TX, February 1997, page 3. 

8. Zehr, H. Changing Lenses. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995, p. 32. 

9. Pranis, K. The Minnesota Restorative Justice Initiative: A Model Experience. 
Crime Victims Report, May/June 1997; pp. 19, 20, 22. 

10. Miller, Jerome K. Last One Over the Wall: The Massachusetts Experiment in 
Closing Reform Schools. Ohio State University Press, 1992. 

11. Judge Barry Stuart, conversation with the author, November 1997. 

12. Scheff, Thomas J. Emotions and Violence: Shame and Rage in Destructive 
Conflicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1991. 

13. Pollard, C., Chief of Police, Thames Valley Police, conversation with the author, 
November 1998. 

14. Gilligan, J. 
Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes. New York: G.P. 
Putnam, 1996. 

15. Kittle, Bruce. 
Restorative Justice Project Course Materials. Available from the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. 


16. Theobald, Robert. Reworking Success: New Communities at the Millenium. 
British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1997. 

17. 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. 

18. Etzioni, A. The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective. 
American Sociological Review, February 1996;61(1):111. 

19. Marshall, T. Grassroots Initiatives Towards Restorative Justice: the New 
Paradigm? Paper prepared for the Fulbright Colloquium 1992, Penal Theory & 
Penal Practice, held at the University of Stirling, September 1992, pp. 14. 

20. 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. 

21. Pranis, K., and Umbreit, M. Public Opinion Research Challenges Perception of 
Widespread Public Demand for Harsher Punishment. Minneapolis, MN: 
Minneapolis Citizens Council, March 1994. 

22. Umbreit, Mark S. Crime Victims and Offenders in Mediation: An Emerging Area 
of Social Work Practice. Social Work, January 1993;38(1). 

23. Alford, S. Professionals Need Not Apply. Corrections Theory, Winter 1997. 

24. Walgrave, L., and Geudens, H. Restorative Community Service in Belgium. 
Overcrowded Times Newsletter, 1997. 

25. Umbreit, M., and Carey, Mark. Restorative Justice: Implications for 
Organizational Change. Probation, March 1995;59:1. 

26. Pulney, R. A Grassroots Approach to Restorative Justice. 
ICCA Journal on 
Community Corrections, 1997; pp. 2021. 

27. Walter, L., and Perry, J. Description of the Vermont Reparative Probation 
Program. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, December 1997. 

28. Zehr, H., speaking at a local community seminar on Restorative Justice in 
Washington County, MN, on September 26, 1997. 

29. Harris, K.H. Dilemmas in Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 
1998;1(1). 

30. Zehr, H. Justice Paradigm Shift? Mediation Quarterly, Spring 1995;12(3). 


31. Umbreit, M. Quality Restorative Justice Practice: Grounding Interventions in Key 
Restorative Justice Values. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, 
August 1997; pp. 5253. 

32. See also the section Should Restorative Justice be Entirely Voluntary? in Part 
5. Developing a Program. 

33. Smith, Michael. Notes on Public Safety and the Criminal Justice System. Final 
Report of the Temporary State Commission on Constitutional Revision in New 
York, October 1994, p. 47. 

34. Umbreit, M., and Zehr, H. Restorative Family Group Conferencing: Different 
Models and Guidelines for Practice. Federal Probation, September 1996. 

35. Braithwaite, J. 
Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge 
University Press, 1994. 

36. See also the section Intolerant Communities in Part 5. Developing a 
Program. 

37. Umbreit, M. Information on Research Findings Related Uniquely to 
Restorative Justice Interventions: Victim Offender Mediation and Family 
Group Conferences. St. Paul, MN: Mediation, School of Social Work, University 
of Minnesota Center for Restorative Justice, 1996. 


DOJ 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