DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Incorporating Restorative and

Community Justice Into American

Sentencing and Corrections 

by Leena Kurki

P

rograms based on restorative and community justice principles have proliferated in the United States over the past

decade simultaneously with tough-on-crime

initiatives like three-strikes, truth-in-sentencing, and mandatory minimum laws. Restorative justice and community justice represent

new ways of thinking about crime. The theories underlying restorative justice suggest that

government should surrender its monopoly

over responses to crime to those most directly

affected—the victim, the offender, and the

community. Community justice redefines the

roles and goals of criminal justice agencies 

to include a broader mission—to prevent

crime, address local social problems and

conflicts, and involve neighborhood residents

in planning and decisionmaking. Both restorative and community justice are based on the

premise that communities will be strengthened if local citizens participate in responding

to crime, and both envision responses tailored to the preferences and needs of victims,

communities, and offenders.

In contrast to this bottom-up approach,

recent changes in sentencing law are premised

on retributive ideas about punishing wrongdoers and on the desirability of controlling

risk, increasing public safety, and reducing

sentencing disparities. Restorative and community justice goals of achieving appropriate,

individualized dispositions often conflict with

the retributive goal of imposing certain, consistent, proportionate sentences. 

There are many ways to resolve this normative conflict. Restorative and community 

justice initiatives could continue to confine 

their efforts to juvenile offenders and people

who commit minor crimes. This seems

unlikely, as these approaches are expanding

rapidly and winning many new supporters

who want to extend their application.

Alternatively, retributive sentencing laws could

be revised or narrowed. But this too seems

unlikely in the near term. How precisely the

two divergent trends will be reconciled

remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it seems

Research in Brief

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

September 1999 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 

No. 3

SIssues for the 21st Century

ENTENCING & CORRECTION S S ENTENCING 

Issues for the 21st CenturyS

Directors’ Message

It is by now a commonplace that the number 

of people under criminal justice supervision 

in this country has reached a record high. As 

a result, the sentencing policies driving that

number, and the field of corrections, where 

the consequences are felt, have acquired an

unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined

more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and

expense than by any consensus about future

directions. 

Are sentencing policies, as implemented through

correctional programs and practices, achieving

their intended purposes? As expressed in the

movement to eliminate indeterminate sentencing and limit judicial discretion, on the one

hand, and to radically restructure our retributive system of justice, on the other, the purposes seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting

values. The lack of consensus on where sentencing and corrections should be headed is

thus no surprise. 

Because sentencing and corrections policies

have such major consequences—for the 

allocation of government resources and, more

fundamentally and profoundly, for the quality 

of justice in this country and the safety of its 

citizens—the National Institute of Justice and the

Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Office

of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore

them in depth. Through a series of Executive

Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, begun

CONTINUED ...
likely that restorative and community justice

values will to some extent become more institutionalized in criminal justice processes.1

■ ■ ■

What is restorative justice?

Restorative justice has evolved from a 

little-known concept into a term used

widely but in divergent ways. There is no

doubt about its appeal, although the varied

uses of the term cause some confusion. The

umbrella term “restorative justice” has been

applied to initiatives identified as restorative

by some but not by others. Examples are sexoffender notification laws,

victim impact statements,

and murder victim survivors’ “right” to be present

at executions. Most advocates of restorative justice

agree that it involves five

basic principles: 

■ Crime consists of more than violation 

of the criminal law and defiance of government authority.

■ Crime involves disruptions in a threedimensional relationship of victim, community,

and offender. 

■ Because crime harms the victim and the

community, the primary goals should be to

repair the harm and heal the victim and the

community. 

■ The victim, the community, and the offender

should all participate in determining the

response to crime; government should 

surrender its monopoly over that process. 

■ Case disposition should be based primarily

on the victim’s and the community’s needs—

not solely on the offender’s needs or culpability, the dangers he presents, or his criminal

history. 

The original goal of restorative justice was 

to restore harmony between victims and

offenders. For victims, this meant restitution

for tangible losses and emotional losses. 

For offenders, it meant taking responsibility,

confronting shame, and regaining dignity. 

This notion has evolved, with the major recent

conceptual development the incorporation of

a role for the community. Many people 

still associate restorative justice primarily with

victim-offender mediation or, more broadly

(but mistakenly), with any victim-oriented

services. The more recent conceptualization—that offenses occur within a threedimensional relationship—may change the

movement. 

All three parties should be able to participate

in rebuilding the relationship and in deciding

on responses to the crime. The distinctive

characteristic is direct, face-to-face dialogue

among victim, offender, and increasingly, 

the community.

■ ■ ■

What is community justice? 

The concept of community justice is less 

clear. It can be portrayed as a set of new

organizational strategies that change the focus

of criminal justice from a narrow, case processing orientation: operations are moved 

to neighborhood locations that offer flexible

working hours and services, neighborhoods

are assigned their own officers and are provided with more information than is standard

practice, and residents may identify crime

problems and define priorities for neighborhood revitalization. Most experience with

community justice is in the context of community policing, but prosecutors, judges, 

and correctional officers are increasingly

rethinking their roles and goals.

2 Sentencing & Corrections

in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000,

practitioners and scholars foremost in their

field, representing a broad cross-section of

points of view, are being brought together to

find out if there is a better way to think about

the purposes, functions, and interdependence

of sentencing and corrections policies. 

We are fortunate in having secured the assistance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor 

of Law and Public Policy at the University of

Minnesota Law School, as project director. 

One product of the sessions is this series of

papers, commissioned by NIJ and the CPO as

the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the

research and experience of the session participants, the papers are intended to distill their

judgments about the strengths and weaknesses

of current practices and about the most promising ideas for future developments. 

The sessions were modeled on the executive

sessions on policing held in the 1980s and

1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing

community policing and spreading it. Whether

the current sessions and the papers based on

them will be instrumental in developing a new

paradigm for sentencing and corrections, or

even whether they will generate broad-based

support for a particular model or strategy for

change, remains to be seen. It is our hope that

in the current environment of openness to new

ideas, the session papers will provoke comment, promote further discussion and, taken

together, will constitute a basic resource document on sentencing and corrections policy

issues that will prove useful to State and local

policymakers.

Jeremy Travis

Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice 

Larry Meachum

Director

Corrections Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

2 Sentencing & Corrections

Directors’ Message

CONTINUED ...

because crime harms the victim and 

the community, the primary goals [of 

restorative justice] should be to repair 

the harm and heal the victim and the 

community. 
Sentencing & Corrections 3

The most frequently cited standpoints for

community justice are problem solving and

community empowerment. Problem solving is

understood broadly: first, as an effort to build

partnerships between criminal justice and

other government agencies and between government agencies and neighborhoods; and,

second, as an attempt to address some of the

complex social problems underlying crime.

Community justice proponents suggest that

criminal justice agencies change the way they

interact with the public, learn to listen to citizens, and work together with local people to

prevent crime and solve crime-related 

problems.2

Advocates of community justice believe that 

to maximize public safety and optimize crime

prevention, residents must work on an equal

basis with government agency representatives

and elected officials. Dennis Maloney,

Director of the Deschutes County, Oregon,

Department of Community Justice has

described the connection between citizen

involvement and crime prevention: “In a 

community justice framework, the goal is to

engage as many citizens as possible in building a better community . . . . People who

share a strong sense of community are far

less likely to violate the trust of others. Their

stake in and bond with the community is the

strongest force of guardianship to prevent

crime from flourishing.”

■ ■ ■

Should restorative and 

community justice be 

incorporated into the 

criminal justice system?

Advocates of restorative justice and 

community justice often differ over the

desirability of becoming part of the official

criminal justice system. Restorative justice

proponents believe in the

efficacy of grassroots citizen efforts and thus many

want to keep restorative

justice initiatives separate

from the criminal justice

system. Community justice

advocates often support a total, systemwide

transformation that would incorporate the

new principles. Both groups are concerned

about the role of government in these

approaches and their growing popularity.

They emphasize that restorative and community justice represent 

fundamental change: comprehensive philosophies or

theories, not silver bullets

or fads. 

Proponents are also concerned that criminal justice agencies will add

new community or restorative justice programs to appear “fashionable” or to solve a

particular problem, but will do so without

fundamentally rethinking their missions.

Ronald Earle, District Attorney in Travis

County, Texas, summarized this concern: “The

question is how to focus the criminal justice

system and fashion programs on a new way of

thinking, not just another way of doing.”

Some advocates are skeptical about whether

the new goals and principles can be meaningfully adopted by criminal justice agencies,

which like many other government agencies

tend to value passionless, specialized, professionalized, and routinized operations. 

Another worry is that government agencies 

or experts will establish guidelines, standards,

and requirements for programs reflecting

these values, thereby bureaucratizing them

and once again “stealing the conflicts” from

communities. As Ronald Earle put it, the

“unstructured lack of standardization is the

genius of the movement,” but, at the same

time, he added, “there is a great temptation 

to create a national template for community

justice programs.” The challenge for government will be to encourage and support the

new initiatives without stifling the spontaneity,

creativity, and grassroots ties that are their

strengths.

■ ■ ■

What is happening now

Afundamental difficulty in documenting or

estimating the impact of restorative or

community justice in the United States is the

lack of systematic data. No one knows how

many or what kinds of programs there are;

how many offenders, victims, and volunteers

participate; the amounts of restitution paid or

community service performed; or the effects

on victims, communities, and offenders. It is

nearly impossible to monitor what is happening in different States or regions. 

Little evaluation research is available, and

there is no consensus on how to measure

“success.” Most advocates contend that

recidivism is not the correct or only measure.

Evaluations might also consider such measures as victim and offender satisfaction,

amounts of restitution or community service,

rates at which reparative agreements are fulfilled, levels of volunteer participation and

community action, and victims’ and offenders’

quality of life. 

Some advocates do not want to encourage

rigorous evaluation because that might create

pressure to standardize and “expertize” the

movements. But because the varied programs

and practices are what make restorative and

community justice visible, concrete, and distinctive, it is important to document their

Sentencing & Corrections 3

most experience with community justice is

in the context of community policing, but

prosecutors, judges, and correctional officers are increasingly rethinking their

roles and goals.

advocates of community justice believe

that to maximize public safety and optimize

crime prevention, residents must work on an

equal basis with government agency representatives and elected officials.
types, analyze their characteristics, and 

evaluate outcomes.

The dearth of information affects the writings

of practitioners and academics. There is,

however, a sizable literature on the principles

and goals of restorative justice, how it differs

from traditional criminal justice approaches,

and its processes and terminology.3 Other

works describe programs or present details

of local projects.4 Most of the literature on

community justice focuses on community

policing, with little information on community

prosecution, courts, or corrections.

Restorative justice practices 

Although something akin to restorative justice

has long been observed in premodern and

indigenous societies, restorative justice principles, in the form of victim-offender reconciliation programs, appeared in Western

industrialized countries only in the 1970s.

The first program was established in 1974 

in Kitchener, Ontario. By the 1990s, such programs had spread to all Western countries—

at least 700 in Europe and 300 in the United

States.

Victim-offender mediation. Victim-offender

mediation is the most widespread and evaluated type of restorative program. Offenders

and victims meet with volunteer mediators to

discuss the effects of the crime on their lives,

express their concerns and feelings, and work

out a restitution agreement. The agreement is

often seen as secondary to emotional healing

and growth. Victims consistently report that

the most important element of mediation is

being able to talk with the offender and

express their feelings, and offenders also

emphasize the importance of face-to-face

communication. Advocates believe that developing an offender’s empathy for the victim has

preventive effects. 

In many countries, victim-offender mediation

is widely used. In Austria, for example, it

became an official part of the juvenile justice

system as early as 1989. Public prosecutors

refer juveniles to mediation, probation officers coordinate cases, and social workers

serve as mediators. If an agreement is

reached and completed, the case is dismissed.5 In the United States, most programs

are operated by private, nonprofit organizations; handle largely juvenile cases; and 

function as diversion programs for minor,

nonviolent crimes. However, there is a movement to develop programs established and

operated (or at least initiated) by corrections

departments, police, or prosecutors and used

as a condition of either probation or dropping charges. Most studies of mediation programs report high rates of success.6

Advocates are beginning to challenge the

assumption that mediation is not suitable 

for violent or sexual crimes. Increasingly, in

the United States and Canada, for example,

victims and offenders meet in prisons. These

meetings are not oriented to a tangible goal

such as a restitution agreement, nor does the

offender obtain benefits like early release or

parole consideration. Usually the meetings

are held because the victim wants to meet 

the offender and learn more about what 

happened to reach beyond fear and anger

and facilitate healing. The results of a

Canadian survey indicated that 89 percent 

of victims of serious, violent crimes wanted 

to meet the offender.7

Serious violent crimes are usually mediated

on a case-by-case basis, but the need for permanent programs is growing. Such programs

are offered, for example, by the Correctional

Service of Canada in British Columbia and the

Yukon Territory and by the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice. 

Family group conferencing. Family group

conferencing is based on the same rationales

as victim-offender mediation, with two main

differences. Conferencing involves a broader

range of people (family, friends, coworkers,

and teachers), and family members and other

supporters tend to take collective responsibility for the offender and for carrying out his or

her agreement. The other difference is that

conferencing often relies on police, probation, or social service agencies for organization and facilitation.

Family group conferences originated in New

Zealand, where they became part of the juvenile justice system in 1989. There, the new

juvenile justice model, which incorporates

Maori traditions of involving the family and

the community in addressing wrongdoing, 

has four dispositional options: 

■ An immediate warning by the police.

■ “Youth Aid Section” dispositions in which a

special police unit may require, for example,

an apology to the victim or community service.

■ Family group conferencing.

■ Traditional youth court sentencing. 

About 60 percent of juvenile offenders receive

a warning or go to the Youth Aid Section, 

30 percent go to conferencing, and 10 percent go to youth court.8

By the mid-1990s, family group conferencing

had been adopted in every state and territory

of Australia. In South Australia, it is used

statewide as a component of the juvenile justice system and resembles the New Zealand

approach. In Wagga Wagga, New South Wales,

conferences (originally part of a police diversion program) were organized and facilitated

by police officers who were often in uniform.9

Responsibility was transferred to juvenile justice agencies in 1998, and trained community

members now facilitate conferences. In

Canberra, the Federal Police set up a program called the Reintegrative Shaming

Experiment, which involved more than 

100 trained police officers.

There is evidence that conferencing can 

be successful. A recent evaluation of the

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Family Group

4 Sentencing & Corrections 4 Sentencing & Corrections
Sentencing & Corrections 5

Conferencing program revealed that typical

police officers were able to conduct conferences in conformity with restorative justice

and due process principles if adequately

trained and supervised, and that very high

percentages of offenders, victims, and other

participants were pleased with the process.10

Evaluation of Canberra’s Reintegrative

Shaming Experiment showed similar results.11

Sentencing circles. Sentencing circles 

originated in traditional Native Canadian and

Native American peacemaking. They involve

the victim and the offender, their supporters,

and key community members, and they are

open to everyone in the community. They

attempt to address the underlying causes of

crime, seek responses, and agree on offenders’ responsibilities. The process is based on

peacemaking, negotiation, and consensus,

and each circle member must agree on the

outcomes. 

Sentencing circles are so named because participants sit in a circle, and a “talking piece”

(a feather, for example) is passed from person to person. When participants take the

talking piece, they explain their feelings about

the crime and express support for the victim

and the offender. Separate circles often are

held for the offender and the victim before

they join in a shared circle.

In Minnesota, sentencing circles are used not

only in Native American communities but also

in rural white, suburban, and inner-city black

communities (see “Minnesota—A Pioneer 

in Restorative Justice”). Community Justice

Committees, established by citizen volunteers,

handle organizational and administrative tasks

and provide “keepers” who lead the discussions. Judges refer cases, and the committees

make the final decision on acceptance. The

agreements reached are presented to the

judge as sentencing recommendations. In

some cases, the judge, prosecutor, and defense

attorney participate in the circle, and then the

agreement becomes the final sentence.

Reparative probation and other citizen

boards. Reparative probation in Vermont

involves a probation sentence ordered by a

judge, followed by a meeting between the

offender and volunteer citizen members of a

Reparative Citizen Board. Together they draw

up a contract, based on restorative principles,

which the offender agrees to carry out.

Fulfilling the contract is the only condition 

of probation (see “Vermont—Statewide

Reparative Probation”). 

Vermont’s program is different from most

other restorative justice initiatives in the

United States. Designed by the State’s

Department of Corrections, it operates

statewide, handles adult cases, and involves 

a sizable number of citizen volunteers.

Compared with family group conferencing 

or sentencing circles, the Reparative Citizen

Boards work faster, require less preparation,

and can process more cases; however, they

involve fewer community members. For

example, offenders’ and victims’ families 

and supporters usually are not present.

Citizen boards also may be established to

adjudicate minor crimes. For example, a

Merchant Accountability Board in Deschutes

County, Oregon, consists of local business

owners who adjudicate thefts of property 

valued at $50 or less, and some more serious

cases involving property valued at between

$51 and $750. Under an agreement with the

district attorney, the police refer all minor

shoplifting cases directly to the program. If

offenders decide to participate, they are typically ordered by the board to pay fines, make

restitution, or both.

Manitoba’s Restorative Resolutions Project

offers an alternative to custodial sentences 

for offenders who otherwise are likely to face

a minimum prison sentence of 6 months.

Offenders and project staff develop sentencing

plans, and victims are encouraged to particiSentencing & Corrections 5

Minnesota—A Pioneer in Restorative Justice

Minnesota has been a groundbreaker in

restorative justice. Its Department of

Corrections created the “Restorative Justice

Initiative” in 1992, hiring Kay Pranis as a

full-time Restorative Justice Planner in

1994—the first such position in the 

country. The initiative offers training in

restorative justice principles and practices,

provides technical assistance to communities in designing and implementing practices, and creates networks of professionals

and activists to share knowledge and provide support. 

Sentencing circles

Besides promoting victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and neighborhood conferencing, the department has

introduced sentencing circles. Citizen volunteers and criminal justice officials from

Minnesota have participated in training in

the Yukon Territory, where peacemaking

circles have been held since the late 1980s.

In Minnesota, the circle process is used by

the Mille Lacs Indian Reservation and in

other communities in several counties.

The circle process

The circle process usually has several phases. First, the Community Justice Committee

conducts an intake interview with offenders

who want to participate. Then, separate

healing circles are held for the victim (and

others who feel harmed) and the offender.

The committee tries to cultivate a close personal relationship with victims and offenders and to create support networks for

them. In the end, a sentencing circle, open

to the community, meets to work out a sentencing plan. In the towns of Milaca and

Princeton, followup circles monitor and

discuss the offender’s progress.
pate. The plans are presented to judges as

nonbinding recommendations. Most plans

require restitution, community service, and

counseling or therapy. A recent evaluation

revealed that offenders who participate have

significantly fewer supervision violations and

slightly fewer new convictions than those in

comparison groups.12

Community justice practices

People who have no personal experience with

community justice are often preoccupied with

what “community” means and who is involved.

Explanations vary. Reginald Wilkinson,

Director of Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, says: “In a community,

there would exist a sense of hope, belonging,

and caring . . . . A sense of commitment,

responsibility, and sacrifice would be basic

tenets of a communitarian.” For Minnesota

Department of Corrections Restorative Justice

Planner Kay Pranis, “Community self-defines

around the issue that surfaces, so everybody

who sees themselves as a stakeholder in a

particular issue [makes up the community].”

Vermont Department of Corrections

Commissioner John Gorczyk says: “Beyond

place, community is defined by relationships

and the amount of interaction. In my community, the quality of those interactions, doing

favors for one another, is what builds 

community.”

Although in “practicing” community justice, 

it is essential to identify the community and

consider possible definitions, it is at least as

important to think about the community’s

role. While many new approaches in criminal

justice have improved access to and satisfaction with justice services, often they have not

transformed the role of citizens from service

recipient to participant and decisionmaker.13

For many community justice advocates, the

ultimate goal is for communities to feel ownership of programs, but that can be achieved

only if citizens participate. Even then the

question remains whether government genuinely shares power or simply allows communities to supplement its power and exercise it

only in certain types of cases.

Community policing and prosecution.

Experiences with community policing show

there is no shared understanding of the 

community’s role, and that it is difficult to

generate citizen participation. Priorities and

routines vary; for example, some efforts rely

on heavy street-level enforcement, while 

others emphasize citizen involvement, better

quality public services, delivery of communitybased treatment, or diversionary policing that

withholds enforcement as a way to build relationships with communities.

Few studies have attempted to measure the

extent to which the rhetoric of community

empowerment, involvement, and partnership

6 Sentencing & Corrections 6 Sentencing & Corrections

Vermont—Statewide Reparative Probation

A pilot reparative probation program

began in Vermont in 1994, and the first

cases were heard by a Reparative Citizen

Board the following year. Three features

distinguish this restorative justice initiative

from most others in the United States: The

Department of Corrections, headed by

John Gorczyk, designed the program; it is

implemented statewide; and it involves a

sizable number of volunteer citizens. In

1998, the program was named a winner in

the prestigious Innovations in American

Government competition. 

The process

The concept is straightforward. Following

an adjudication of guilt, the judge sentences the offender to probation, with the

sentence suspended and only two conditions imposed: the offender will commit 

no more crimes and will complete the

reparative program. The volunteer board

members meet with the offender and the

victim and together discuss the offense, its

effects on victim and community, and the

life situations of victim and offender. All

participants must agree on a contract, to

be fulfilled by the offender. It is based on

five goals: the victim is restored and

healed, the community is restored, the

offender understands the effects of the

crime, the offender learns ways to avoid 

reoffending, and the community offers reintegration to the offender. Since reparative

probation targets minor crimes, it is not

meant as a prison diversion program.

The numbers

In 1998, the 44 boards handled 1,200

cases, accounting for more than one-third

of the probation caseload. More than 300

trained volunteers serve as board members.

Ten coordinators handle case management

and organization for the boards. The goal is

to have the boards handle about 70 percent

of the targeted probation cases. That only

about 17 percent of offenders fail to complete their agreements or attend followup

board meetings is a measure of the program’s success. These offenders are

referred back to court. 

Related initiatives

Other practices based on restorative justice

are under way. More than 150 volunteers

or Department of Corrections staff have

been trained in family group conferencing.

A Community Justice Center is operating in

Burlington, and others are being developed

elsewhere. The department is also looking

into sentencing circles and ways to become

more active in crime prevention and early

intervention. 
Sentencing & Corrections 7

building becomes reality, and the results are

not particularly encouraging. Community

input is often limited to assisting law enforcement. Many evaluations have not shown positive results, since implementation is often

uncomplete or partial.14

Many applications of community policing and

prosecution are not fundamentally different

from traditional approaches, although they

may shift control to local levels and include

the community in law enforcement efforts.

They often promote tougher responses to

crime than do traditional approaches because

the emphasis is on a broader view of crime

control that takes seriously minor, nuisance,

and quality-of-life offenses. Some approaches,

such as the one taken by the District Attorney

of Travis County, Texas, however, clearly identify themselves as restorative (see “Travis

County, Texas—Community Justice as the

Prosecutorial Response”).

Applications in courts and corrections.

The first community court in the United

States, New York City’s Midtown Community

Court, is based on the idea of partnership

with the neighborhood and focuses on 

quality-of-life crimes. Several restorative 

elements are evident: 

■ Offenders are sentenced to work on projects in local neighborhoods.

■ Court staff try to link offenders with drug

treatment, health care, education, and other

social services and thus combine punishment

with help.

■ The community is encouraged to participate

in shaping restorative, community-based

sanctions.15

Nearly 70 percent of those convicted are

ordered to perform community work, and of

these nearly 70 percent complete it without

violations. By fall 1996, almost 33,000 defendants had been arraigned.16 The court houses

health care and drug treatment providers,

organizes education and job training, maintains mediation services for community-level

conflicts, and provides counseling rooms and

space to perform community service. 

The Manhattan Court opened in 1993 and

was followed by several others. The Portland

(Oregon) Community Court began operations

in 1998, and plans for community courts 

are under way in Baltimore, Hartford

(Connecticut), Hempstead (New York),

Indianapolis, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and 

no doubt elsewhere.

Deschutes County, Oregon, has made a comprehensive effort to implement community

justice in corrections (as distinct from traditional community corrections), reinventing its

Community Corrections Department as the

Department of Community Justice. Committed

to principles of both community and restorative justice, the department differs in this

respect from most current community policing and prosecution initiatives.

The Deschutes approach is especially ambitious (see “Deschutes County, Oregon—

Reinventing Community Corrections”). A true

paradigm shift would combine operational

strategies and the crime prevention and citizen involvement goals of community justice

with the values and practices of restorative

justice.

■ ■ ■

Can the justice system 

incorporate restorative 

principles?

Although many activists would prefer that

restorative justice remain an unofficial

alternative to the criminal justice system, 

Sentencing & Corrections 7

Travis County, Texas—Community Justice as the

Prosecutorial Response

Ronald Earle, District Attorney of Travis

County (Austin), Texas, for more than 20

years, is a strong advocate of restorative

and community justice. Recognizing that

people’s natural reaction to crime is anger

and fear, particularly if they lack power to

influence responses, he believes this wasted energy can fuel positive change. This

can be done if citizens are empowered and

participate in planning and deciding on the

response to crime.

To promote such participation, he drafted

the Texas law that authorizes in each 

county a Community Justice Council and

Community Justice Task Force. The task

force includes representatives of criminal

justice agencies, social and health services,

and community organizations. With task

force assistance, the council, consisting of

elected officials, handles planning and 

policymaking and prepares a Community

Justice Plan.

Many efforts are directed at juvenile offenses. In Austin, the Juvenile Probation Office

offers victim-offender mediation for young

people in trouble. For misdemeanors, 

juveniles may be diverted from court to

Neighborhood Conference Committees.

These consist of panels of trained adult citizens who meet with the juvenile offenders

and their parents and together develop 

contracts tailored to the case. 

The Travis County Children’s Advocacy

Center provides support and help to abused

children through collaboration among

social and criminal justice agencies, medical professionals, and private citizens. 

The Child Protection Team brings together

police officers, social workers, and prosecutors to improve responses to child abuse

and to reduce traumatization when cases

are investigated and prosecuted.
others contend that there are reasons for a

systemwide shift to incorporate its values.

Why not the best?

If restorative justice is a significantly better

way to deal with crime, proponents ask why

not implement it systemwide? If it really is a

better idea, why should it not become the

governing principle of the whole criminal 

justice system rather than be confined to

small-scale, grassroots activities? Minnesota

Restorative Justice Planner Kay Pranis emphasized the need to focus on community when

she said, “It is very important for us to recognize that our current criminal justice interventions actually destroy community. So even

to get neutral would be a huge step for this

system.”

No significant or lasting effects

on values and practices 

Advocates contend that restorative justice is

unlikely to have significant or lasting effects

on the official criminal justice system if it 

continues to operate primarily as local, 

unorganized grassroots activities. It is doubtful whether any program can be truly restorative in a system based on retributive values.

Even if restorative justice principles cannot

completely transform the justice system, they

may turn criminal justice policy and values in

another, arguably better, direction.

Increased control and 

punishment

Advocates argue that if crime is seen in 

both traditional and restorative ways—as 

an offense against the state and as harm to 

the victim and the community—a double 

system of punishment may be created.

Offenders will first be processed through the

traditional system and receive punishment

and then move to the informal restorative

programs to agree to a reparative contract. 

As a consequence, they often will be subjected

to greater social control and more sanctions. 

8 Sentencing & Corrections 8 Sentencing & Corrections

Deschutes County, Oregon, is attempting to

apply community justice principles throughout its correctional system. In 1996 the

County Board of Commissioners passed 

a “Community Justice Resolution,” which

recognizes community justice as “the central mission and purpose of the county’s

community corrections effort.” It calls for

incorporating community justice principles

into corrections by striking a balance

among prevention, early intervention, and

correctional efforts; ensuring participation

by and restoration of victims; including

community decisionmaking in crime prevention and reduction; and fostering offender accountability. In recognition of this

major change, the Community Corrections

Department, headed by Dennis Maloney,

was renamed the Department of Community

Justice. 

Basic principles

A lay citizen body, the Commission on

Children and Families, was assigned 

authority over the department’s budget. 

In 1998, it set budget principles that 

for the first time included:

■ Enhancing public safety. 

■ Paying particular attention to offender

accountability, responsibility, and skill

development. 

■ Incorporating the findings of research 

on cost-effective interventions.

■ Focusing on restoration and defining

offenders’ accountability as meeting their

obligations to victims and the community.

■ Encouraging volunteer involvement and

reducing dependence on service delivery 

by professionals. 

Deschutes County, Oregon—Reinventing Community

Corrections

■ Managing crime problems as cost 

effectively as possible. 

■ Directing reallocated resources to crime

prevention.

■ Viewing investment in prevention as the

first order of business. 

State law permits the county to apply any

savings in juvenile detention to crime prevention. 

Community action and 

other initiatives 

A number of former juvenile probation 

officers constitute a Community Action

Team, which devotes most of its time and

resources to neighborhood crime prevention. The new Community Justice Center

contains space for juvenile custody facilities, houses a number of criminal justice

agencies as well as victim service and other

nonprofit organizations, and has a meeting

room available for community groups.

Deschutes County also offers victimoffender mediation in criminal cases 

and dispute resolution in other conflicts.

Merchant Accountability Boards, consisting

of local business owners, adjudicate minor

shoplifting cases. Reparative community

service projects are operated through the

collaboration of business owners, neighborhood residents, and community leaders.

As part of these projects, offenders have

built houses for Habitat for Humanity, cut

and distributed firewood for elderly citizens, and built and maintained parks.
Sentencing & Corrections 9

Trivialization of restorative 

programs 

If the criminal justice system endorses

restorative justice principles but does not 

participate in designing, implementing, and

monitoring programs based on them, it is 

not likely to refer other than trivial cases.

Criminal justice agencies and officials understandably do not want to rely heavily on practices whose outcomes they cannot comprehend,

influence, predict, or trust. For the same 

reason, judges often are reluctant to divert

offenders to these programs. 

No resource savings 

Although restorative justice advocates emphasize that the goal is not decreased criminal

justice caseloads or costs, it is unrealistic not

to consider resource savings in the current

climate of exploding correctional costs. Few

resources will be saved if restorative solutions

only supplement traditional punishments or

are used only for minor crimes.

Inconsistent practices and 

outcomes

The most common argument against restorative justice is that practices and outcomes vary

with the particular program, and that fairness

requires comparable crimes and criminals to

be punished equally. Restorative justice involves individualized responses to crimes.

Proportionality and equality in punishment

are often understood narrowly as calling 

for the same sentence for people who have 

committed similar crimes. However, they

could just as well be interpreted as requiring

comparable sentences for comparable

offenses. This would mean punishment or

responses may vary as long as they are meaningfully related to the nature and effects of the

crime. Thus, in principle, there is no reason

restorative justice cannot respect the tenets of

proportionality and equality. 

In practice, responses to

crime will be different and

inconsistent as long as

restorative justice is not

implemented systemwide.

Many people are concerned that assigning substantial punishment power to lay volunteers

will mean random, inequitable, and capriciously severe sanctions. Restorative justice,

with its positive, constructive goals, attempts

to move in the opposite direction. If participants, including the offender, understand and

accept restorative justice principles, the

requirements of fairness will not be circumvented and there will be no extreme consequences. 

If there is no systemwide shift, programs

based on restorative justice will probably 

continue to handle only minor offenses, and

problems of inequity will likely not become

serious. It will not much matter whether one

offender is sentenced to 10 hours of community service and $50 in restitution and another, who commits a similar crime, to 20 hours

of service and $100 in restitution. However,

the more serious the crimes, the more unjust

the differences could become and the greater

the need for consistent practices.

Other matters of equity relate to socioeconomic

considerations. Without official encouragement and support, restorative justice initiatives

are likely to be concentrated in middle-class

white neighborhoods or rural areas, and 

volunteers will disproportionately be white,

middle-class, and middle-aged and older

individuals, as these are the demographic

groups from which activists tend to emerge.

Moreover, if citizen activists work on their

own, new practices may be concentrated in

areas with relatively minor crime problems.

By contrast, disadvantaged urban neighborhoods with large proportions of minority

group members and immigrants—who 

are disproportionately affected by serious

crime—would be unlikely to benefit.

■ ■ ■

The future of restorative and

community justice

How deeply restorative and community 

justice ideas will penetrate the traditional

justice system remains to be seen. So far,

restorative justice approaches are used much

more for juveniles than for adults, and for

minor offenses rather than for serious crime.

Experience with community justice has consistently shown that generating citizen involvement and building relationships with the

community is a challenge. Both movements

have spread rapidly, however, and both are

increasingly reaching out to encompass adult

offenders, more serious crime, and disadvantaged urban communities where, arguably,

the need is greatest.

Notes

1. This paper is one of four in the first “round”

of publications from the Executive Sessions on

Sentencing and Corrections. Together the four

constitute a framework for understanding the

issues raised in the sessions. The other three are

Fragmentation of Sentencing and Corrections

in America, by Michael Tonry (NCJ 175721);

Reconsidering Indeterminate and Structured

Sentencing, by Michael Tonry (NCJ 175722); and

Reforming Sentencing and Corrections for Just

Punishment and Public Safety, by Michael E.

Smith and Walter J. Dickey (NCJ 175724). All:

Research in Brief—Sentencing & Corrections:

Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice/Corrections Program Office, September

1999. 

2. Barajas, Eduardo, “Moving Toward Community

Justice,” in Community Justice: Striving for Safe,

Secure, and Just Communities, Washington, DC:

Sentencing & Corrections 9

even if restorative justice principles cannot completely transform the justice system, they may turn criminal justice policy

and values in another, arguably better,

direction.
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Corrections, 1996. 

3. Examples are Braithwaite, John, “Restorative

Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic

Accounts,” in Crime and Justice: A Review of

Research, vol. 25, ed. Michael Tonry, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1999; and Van Ness,

Daniel, and Karen Heetderks Strong, Restoring

Justice, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing,

1997.

4. Galaway, Burt, and Joe Hudson, eds., Restorative Justice: International Perspectives,

Amsterdam: Kugler Publications, 1996; and

Messmer, Heinz, and Hans-Uwe Otto, Restorative

Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of

Victim-Offender Mediation, Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Kluwer, 1992.

5. Lösching-Gspandl, Marianne, and Michael

Kilchling, “Victim/Offender Mediation and 

Victim Compensation in Austria and Germany—

Stock-taking and Perspectives for Future

Research,” European Journal of Crime, Criminal

Law and Criminal Justice 5 (1997): 58–78. 

6. Umbreit, Mark, Victim Meets the Offender: 

The Impact of Restorative Justice and

Mediation, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press,

1994. It should be noted that evaluations of

restorative justice conducted in the United States

are usually not based on experimental and control

groups, do not often measure recidivism rates,

and seldom use sophisticated research designs. 

7. Gustafson, Dave, “Facilitating Communication

between Victims and Offenders in Cases of 

Serious and Violent Crime,” The International

Community Corrections Association Journal on

Community Corrections 8 (1997): 44–49.

8. Maxwell, Gabrielle, and Allison Morris, Family,

Victims, and Culture: Youth Justice in New

Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy

Agency and Institute of Criminology, Victoria

University of Wellington, 1993.

9. Wundersitz, Joy, and Sue Hetzel, “Family

Conferencing for Young Offenders: The South

Australian Experience,” in Family Group

Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and

Practice, ed. John Hudson et al., Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press, 1996. 

10. McCold, Paul, and Benjamin Wachtel, Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem

Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing

Project, Pipersville, PA: Community Service

Foundation, 1998. This evaluation was sponsored

by the National Institute of Justice.

11. Sherman, Lawrence, Heather Strang, Geoffrey

Barnes, John Braithwaite, Nova Ipken, and MinMee The, Experiments in Restorative Policing: A

Progress Report to the National Police Research

Unit in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming

Experiments (RISE), Canberra: Australian Federal

Police and Australian National University, 1998. 

12. Bonta, James, Jennifer Rooney, and Suzanne

Wallace-Capretta, Restorative Justice: An

Evaluation of the Restorative Resolutions

Project, Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada,

1998.

13. Bazemore, Gordon, “The ‘Community’ in

Community Justice: Issues, Themes, and Questions

for the New Neighborhood Sanctioning Models,”

Justice System Journal 19 (1997): 193–228.

14. Skogan, Wesley G., and Susan M. Hartnett,

Community Policing, Chicago Style, New York:

Oxford University Press, 1997.

15. Feinblatt, John, and Greg Berman,

Responding to the Community: Principles for

Planning and Creating a Community Court,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997.

16. Midtown Community Court, The Midtown

Community Court Experiment: A Progress

Report, New York: Midtown Community Court,

1997. 

10 Sentencing & Corrections 10 Sentencing & Corrections

Leena Kurki, who holds law degrees from the

University of Turku, Finland, and the University of

Minnesota, is a Research Associate at the University

of Minnesota Law School and the Project Association of the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and

Corrections.

This study was supported by cooperative agreement

97–MUMU–K006 between the National Institute of

Justice and the University of Minnesota.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported

here are those of the author and do not necessarily

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component

of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.

This and other NIJ publications can be found 

at and downloaded from the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

NCJ 175723
11 Sentencing & Corrections 11 Sentencing & Corrections

Ronald Angelone

Director

Department of Corrections

Commonwealth of Virginia

Neal Bryant

Senator

Oregon State Senate

Harold Clarke

Director

Department of Correctional Services

State of Nevada

Cheryl Crawford

Deputy Director, Program 

Development Division

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Barbara Damchik-Dykes

Project Coordinator

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections

Walter Dickey

Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law

University of Wisconsin 

Ronald Earle

District Attorney

Austin, Texas

Tony Fabelo

Director

Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

Richard S. Gebelein

Superior Court Judge

Wilmington, Delaware

John Gorczyk

Commissioner

Department of Corrections

State of Vermont

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer

Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons

U.S. Department of Justice

Sally T. Hillsman

Deputy Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Martin Horn

Secretary

Department of Corrections

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Susan M. Hunter

Chief, Prisons Division

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice 

Michael Jacobson

Professor of Law and Police Science

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

City University of New York

Leena Kurki

Research Associate 

Law School

University of Minnesota

Project Associate

Executive Sessions on Sentencing and 

Corrections 

John Larivee

Chief Executive Officer

Crime and Justice Foundation

Joe Lehman

Secretary

Department of Corrections

State of Washington

Dennis Maloney

Director

Deschutes County (Oregon) 

Department of Community Justice

Larry Meachum

Director

Corrections Program Office

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Mark H. Moore

Guggenheim Professor of Criminal

Justice Policy and Management

John F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Norval Morris

Emeritus Professor of Law and

Criminology

University of Chicago

Joan Petersilia

Professor of Criminology, 

Law and Society

School of Social Ecology

University of California, Irvine

Kay Pranis

Restorative Justice Planner

Department of Corrections

State of Minnesota

Michael Quinlan

Former Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Chase Riveland

Principal

Riveland Associates

Thomas W. Ross

Superior Court Judge, 

18th Judicial District

Chair, North Carolina Sentencing 

and Policy Advisory Commission

Dora Schriro

Director

Department of Corrections

State of Missouri

Michael Smith

Professor of Law

University of Wisconsin 

Michael Sullivan

Secretary

Department of Corrections

State of Wisconsin

Morris Thigpen

Director

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Tonry

Sonosky Professor of 

Law and Public Policy

University of Minnesota 

Project Director

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections

Jeremy Travis

Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Reginald A. Wilkinson

Director

Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction

State of Ohio

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 

Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields: