DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae: John Bradford BRAITHWAITE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Curriculum Vitae: John Bradford BRAITHWAITE Curriculum Vitae: John Bradford BRAITHWAITE Website: www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite Many publications on this CV can be found at www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite and some are also available on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=332001 (updated February 2015) Born Ipswich, Australia 1951, Married to Valerie Braithwaite 1972, father to Ben (1982) and Sari Braithwaite (1985). Academic Qualifications 1972 B.A. with a major in Psychology and IIA honours in Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Queensland. 1977 Ph.D. in Sociology, University of Queensland. Present Appointment 2002- Distinguished Professor, The Australian National University Previous Appointments 2007-2011 Second Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University 2001-2006 Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University 2001 Meyer Visiting Research Professor, New York University Law School 1988-1994 Visiting Fellow, American Bar Foundation. 1984-1988 Senior Research Fellow in Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University. 1982-1984 Director, Australian Federation of Consumer Organizations. 1978-1982 Criminologist, Australian Institute of Criminology. 1979 Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Lecturer, Program in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, and UN Centre on Transnational Corporations. 1977-1978 Lecturer, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland. 1977 Senior Teaching Fellow, School of Humanities, Griffith University. 1976 Teaching Fellow, School of Humanities, Griffith University. 1 1975 Part-time Tutor and Lecturer in social science methodology, School of Humanities, Griffith University. Awards 2014 Radzinowicz Prize shared with Dr Ali Wardak for best article in British Journal of Criminology, 2013 2012 Future Justice Prize, Australia 2012 Inaugural Winner, Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Distinguished Criminologist Award 2012 Life member, Australian Labour Party 2012 Fellow, Australian Risk Policy Institute 2009 Postgraduate and Research Students Association and ANU Dean of Students Top Supervisor Award 2008 Honourary Doctorate, KU Leuven, Belgium 2006 Stockholm Prize in Criminology 2006 Installed as a Chief of the Naboin Clan, Selau, Bougainville, PNG (clan name given – John Kiwa). 2006 Australian Research Council, Federation Fellowship (second award). 2005 Prix Emile Durkheim, International Society of Criminology, for lifetime contributions to criminology. 2005 Allen Austin Bartholomew Prize for the best article published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology in 2003-2004 (with P. Drahos). 2005 Fellow, Australian Compliance Institute 2004 Grawemeyer Award ($US200,000) for Ideas Improving World Order (for Global Business Regulation with P Drahos). 2004 Annual Braithwaite Prize for the best honours student in criminology inaugurated by University of Queeensland. 2004 Kalven Prize, Law and Society Association (first non-American to win highest honour of this association). 2004 Sutherland Prize for research contributing to American Criminology, American Society of Criminology (second non-American winner). 2003 The Australian Sociological Association Award for One of the 10 Most Influential Books in the History of Australian Sociology, for Crime, Shame and Reintegration. (Based on a vote of the TASA membership). 2 2002 Fellow of the World Innovation Foundation. 2002 Honorable Mention (second place), Herbert Jacob Book Prize, Law and Society Association (US) (for Global Business Regulation, with P. Drahos). 2002 American Sociological Association, Sociology of Law book prize (for Global Business Regulation, with P. Drahos). 2001 Australian Research Council, Federation Fellowship. 2000 Hart Socio-Legal Book Prize (for Global Business Regulation, with P. Drahos). 1998 Fellow of the American Society of Criminology. 1997 Wallace Lecture and Medal, World Congress of Gerontology, Adelaide. 1994 Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. 1992 Announced Finalist, American Sociological Association Distinguished Publication Award for Crime, Shame and Reintegration. 1992 Sellin-Glueck Award of the American Society of Criminology for lifetime scholarly contributions to the discipline of criminology by a non-North American criminologist. 1991 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology for the most outstanding contribution to criminology in the previous three years (for Crime, Shame and Reintegration). 1991 New South Wales Police Service, Award for Service to Police Education. 1990 Outstanding Scholarship Award of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (U.S.) for Crime, Shame and Reintegration. 1989-1994 Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. 1988 Donald R. Cressey Award of Society of Certified Fraud Examiners for contributions to white-collar crime education and prevention and naming of a Braithwaite building in 1991 at the Society’s Headquarters in Austin, Texas. 1986 Fellow, Institute for Financial Crime Prevention (US). 1966 & 1968 W.P. Colborne Bursary for a son or daughter of a member of the Printing Industries Employees Union (Qld). Administration Community Organizations 2009- present Patron, Asia-Pacific Forum for Restorative Justice 3 2009- 2012 International Advisor, One World Trust. 2009-2011 Advisory Board, Health Action International 2008-present Honorary Advisor, Hawaii Friends of Civic and Law Related Education 2006-2012 A Principal, John Woolman College of Equity, Restorative Justice, Peacemaking and Conflict Transformation 2005-present Member, International Academic Council, Barcelona Institute for International Studies 2005-present Global Advisory Board, Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies. 2002-2005 Reputex Committee Member, Good Reputation Index of Top 100 Australian Corporations. 1999-present International Institute for Restorative Practices Advisory Council and Honorary Trustee to the Board. 2000-present Director, Foundation for Effective Markets and Governance. 2000-2012 Member, NGO Alliance, Working Party on Restorative Justice. 1995-1999 President, Rupert Public Interest Movement. 1993-1998 Member, Fair Trade Forum. 1993-1994 Treasurer, Rupert Public Interest Movement. 1983-86, 91-99 Council Member, Australian Consumers’ Association. 1986-1987 Chair, Social Policy Committee, Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Australia. 1985 Chair, Australian Federation of Consumer Organizations. 1983-1986 Executive Member, Rupert Public Interest Movement. 1982-1984 Executive Director, Australian Federation of Consumer Organizations. 1968-present Active in a variety of environmental, human rights, health care, child care, aged care, arts and development groups and the labour movement. Government Organizations 1985-present Consultancies since 1985 with the Singapore Juvenile Court, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration, the Commonwealth Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Australian Taxation Office, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the National Road Transport Commission, the Victorian Department of Labour, the 4 Australian Law Reform Commission, the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, the Hudson Institute, the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police, the South Australian and NSW Attorney General's Departments, the Open Society Institute, Workcover (NSW), United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, United Nations Asian and Far East Institute, Family Court of Australia, Department of Education and Workplace Relations. Since 1990, approaches for paid consultancies have been eschewed in favour of regularly sitting down with government leaders for a cup of tea often followed by a formal presentation and Q&A, or a half day workshop (without charge). 2005-2008 Panel Member, Better Practice in Aged and Awards, The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency 2002-2012 International Board of Assessors, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia. 2002-2004 Member, ACT Subcommittee on Restorative Justice. 2002-2004 Member, ACT Sentencing Committee. 2002-2003 Member, Advisory Panel, Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria. 1998-1999 Member, Trade and Environment Working Group, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 1998-2010 Scientific Advisory Board, Drug Use Monitoring in Australia. 1997-99 Deputy Chair, ACT Law Reform Commission. 1996-97 Member, ACT Community Law Reform Committee. 1994-1996 Member, Council on Business Regulation. 1992-1995 Chair, NSW Police Research Advisory Council. 1987-1993 Member, NSW Police Education Advisory Council. 1985-1995 Part-time Commissioner, Trade Practices Commission (ACCC), Participating in decisions to prosecute, seek injunctions and take administrative action in relation to consumer protection, product safety and antitrust matters, in setting the policy of a major national business regulatory agency, and in authorizing conduct otherwise in breach of the Trade Practices Act. 1985-1986 Member, National Drug Education Committee. 1983 Member, Working Party on the Prices Surveillance Authority chaired by the Treasurer, Paul Keating. 1983-1987 Member, Economic Planning Advisory Council. As a member of a Council chaired by the Prime
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Australian Context – Restorative Practices As a Platform for Cultural Change in Schools
    The Australian Context – Restorative Practices as a Platform for Cultural Change in Schools. Peta Blood Paper presented at the XIV World Congress of Criminology "Preventing Crime & Promoting Justice: Voices for Change" Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA August 7-11, 2005 Contact Details: Peta Blood Circle Speak PO BOX 24 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia Ph/Fax: +61 2 9402 1273 Mob: 0418 298 875 Web: www.circlespeak.com.au Email: [email protected] 1 Introduction The implementation of Restorative Practices in Australian schools is moving at a frenetic pace, with practice developing in most states and territories. The quality of that practice and the approach by practitioners is variable, dependent on their background, experience, passion and interest. It is a time where we need to stay open, stay in communication and explore together what assists to build quality practice in an educational context. We have reached tipping point and we need to manage that so that it tilts in the right direction. Poor implementation will have a dramatic effect on how schools view the long term viability of working restoratively. In Australian schools restorative practices is developing a platform for cultural change. To do this requires a broad understanding of the implications of working in a relational context, the layers of implementation and how this contributes to key educational outcomes. Effective implementation of restorative practices requires realignment in thinking and behaviour within the school community. Repairing harm and taking responsibility for behaviour requires that we understand the environment to which we are restoring to and the business that environment is engaged in.
    [Show full text]
  • In Program Book
    !e 16th World Conference of the International Institute for Restorative Practices October 21–23, 2013 | Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA A 3-day international gathering of educators, social service providers, criminal justice professionals, researchers & others !e 16th World Conference of the International Institute for Restorative Practices October 21-23, 2013 Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA Copyright © 2013 International Institute for Restorative Practices All Rights Reserved Printed in Canada I!"#$!%"&'!%( I!)"&"*"# +'$ R#)"'$%"&,# P$%-"&-#) P.O. Box ../ Bethlehem, PA 01203 USA Restorative Works: What Works, What Doesn’t, How and Why At its 16th World Conference, the International Institute for Re- storative Practices once again welcomes a wide range of presenters who will share their thoughts and experiences with conference a4endees. We all know that restorative practices are having a positive impact in many se4ings, but we are equally aware that we have a lot to learn if we hope to sustain and expand that impact. 5ese gatherings provide for that opportunity. In the spirit of “what works, what doesn’t, how and why,” each morning plenary session will feature a panel of practitioners discussing an area where restorative practices is having a signi6cant impact. 5e panel will give brief presentations about what is working in their 6eld, followed by a discussion that will allow comments from members of the audience. 5e panels are: • Monday: Restorative practices in criminal justice • Tuesday: Restorative practices in schools • Wednesday: Restorative practices in faith communities We also realize that a conference is not just about formal sessions: People need informal opportunities to get to know each other, ask questions and share experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Restorative Justice in Schools in Australia and New Zealand – What Progress?1
    KEEPING THEM CONNECTED: Restorative JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND – WHat PROGRESS?1 SALLY VARNHAM† UNIVERSITY.OF TECHNOLOGY,.sYDNEY, AUSTRALIA The traditional response of schools to school discipline is based on the retributive approach which has long characterised the criminal justice system. Research now indicates that this approach generally fails to satisfy the victim, the offender and the community. In the context of criminal offending, attention is increasingly being paid to the application of restorative practices. In New Zealand the restorative justice model has been operating since 1989 for youth offending and is now being implemented in the context of adult offending also. The Australian states and territories are following to varying degrees. Restorative practices move the focus from punishing the offender to requiring them to take responsibility for their actions. Because of this focus they are not seen as a ‘soft option’, and there are many indications of their success. Many schools are now applying this model to school discipline. A variety of different practices are being employed to keep young people in school and connected with the education process, while still not compromising school safety. This article explores the incorporation of restorative practices as alternative and proactive responses to behavioural problems within some Australian and New Zealand schools. The focus here is on particular restorative practices with the acknowledgement that there is a much wider picture which involves changes in school cultures to embrace, in a practical manner, principles of citizenship and democracy. This concept is the subject of significant research which is discussed by the author in a previous article.2 1..iNTRODUCTION By taking the culprit out of the neighbourhood or school community (by imprisonment, or expulsion/suspension) we think we have removed the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Restorative IIRP President and Founder
    International Institute for Restorative Practices a graduate school by Ted Wachtel, Defining Restorative IIRP President and Founder cific process, with defined protocols, The use of restorative practices 1. Purpose that brings together those who have helps to: 2. Overview caused harm through their wrongdo- • reduce crime, violence and 3. History ing with those they have directly or in- bullying 4. Supporting Framework 4.1. Social Discipline directly harmed. • improve human behavior Window Others have defined teen courts, • strengthen civil society 4.2. Restorative Justice youth aid panels or reparative boards • provide effective leadership Typology as restorative justice, while the IIRP • restore relationships 4.3. Restorative Practices defines those processes as communi- • repair harm Continuum ty justice, not restorative justice. Such 4.4. Nine Affects community justice processes do not The IIRP distinguishes between the 4.5. Compass of Shame include an encounter between vic- terms restorative practices and restor- 4.6. Fair Process tims and offenders, which provides ative justice. We view restorative jus- 5. Basic Restorative Processes 5.1. Restorative Conference an opportunity to talk about what tice as a subset of restorative practices. 5.2. Circles happened and how it has affected Restorative justice is reactive, consist- 5.3. Family Group them (Van Ness & Heetderks Strong, ing of formal or informal responses to Conference/Family 2010). Rather, these courts, panels and crime and other wrongdoing after it Group Decision Making boards are comprised of appointed occurs. The IIRP’s definition of restor- 5.4. Informal Restorative community members who have no ative practices also includes the use Practices real emotional stake in the incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae: John Bradford BRAITHWAITE
    John Bradford BRAITHWAITE [Last updated July 24, 2021] Website: http://johnbraithwaite.com Many publications on this CV can be found at http://johnbraithwaite.com and some are also available on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=332001 Born Ipswich, Australia, Married to Valerie Braithwaite 1972, father to Ben and Sari Braithwaite, and grandfather to Jed, Joan and Emily. Academic Qualifications 1972 B.A. with a major in Psychology and IIA honours in Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Queensland. 1977 Ph.D. in Sociology, University of Queensland. Present Appointment 2020- Emeritus, The Australian National University Previous Appointments 2002-2020. Distinguished Professor, The Australian National University 2001-2012 Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship, The Australian National University. 2001 Meyer Visiting Research Professor, New York University Law School. 1988-1994 Visiting Fellow, American Bar Foundation. 1985-1995 Part-Time Commissioner, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (formerly Trade Practices Commission). This independent regulator combines the functions of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, in US terms. 1984-1988 Senior Research Fellow in Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University. 1983-1987 Member, Economic Planning Advisory Council Chaired by the Prime Minister. 1982-1984 Director, Australian Federation of Consumer Organizations. 1978-1982 Criminologist, Australian Institute of Criminology. 1979 Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Lecturer, Program in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, and UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, New York. 1977-1978 Lecturer, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland. 1977 Senior Teaching Fellow, School of Humanities, Griffith University.
    [Show full text]
  • An International Review of Restorative Justice
    An International Review of Restorative Justice David Miers Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 10 Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 10 An International Review of Restorative Justice David Miers The views expressed in this report are those of the author, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy). Editor: Barry Webb Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Clive House, Petty France London, SW1H 9HD Crime Reduction Research Series This report was commissioned by the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit (CCJU). CCJU is based in the Research, Development and Statistics (RDS) Directorate of the Home Office. The Unit carries out and commissions research on patterns of crime and the administration of justice, to support Home Office aims and develop evidence-based policy and practice. The Crime Reduction Research Series presents research findings and guidance material relevant to practitioners involved in crime reduction at the local level, and particularly the local crime and disorder partnerships. The series will include work funded under the Government’s Crime Reduction Programme as well as other relevant RDS work. Details of how to obtain further copies of this report can be found on the back cover. Copies of this publication can be made available in formats accessible to the visually impaired on request. © Crown Copyright 2001 ISBN 1-84082-693-2 First Published 2001 (ii) Foreword Both the use of, and interest in, restorative justice (RJ) is growing. But it is not a unified concept, in theory or practice. While many countries have embraced RJ to some degree in their criminal justice systems, the ways and extent to which they have done so varies greatly.
    [Show full text]
  • John Braithwaite, Ph.D. Iirp Presidential Paper Series
    IIRP PRESIDENTIAL PAPER SERIES, NUMBER 2 | FALL 2020 JOHN BRAITHWAITE, PH.D. SEXUAL ASSAULT, CORPORATE CRIME AND RESTORATIVE PRACTICES John Braithwaite, Ph.D. Australian National University and Honorary Trustee, International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) [email protected] ABOUT THE IIRP All humans are hardwired to connect. Just as we need food, shelter and clothing, human beings also need strong and meaningful relationships to thrive. Restorative practices is an emerging social science that studies how to strengthen relationships between individuals as well as social connections within communities. The IIRP Graduate School is the first graduate school wholly dedicated to restorative practices. IIRP faculty are the world’s leading experts in the ideas and competencies they teach. They help students tailor their studies and facilitate meaningful online engagement with fellow students from around the world. Courses are online, allowing students to study where they live and work. Based in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, the IIRP has trained more than 75,000 people in 85 countries. Along with our affiliates, partners and licensed trainers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia and Australia, we are fostering a worldwide network of scholars and practitioners. To learn more about the IIRP Graduate School, go to www.iirp.edu. ABSTRACT Recognizing that punitive approaches to inappropriate behavior were ineffective in producing desired change, schools employed restorative practices to learn with students how to recognize harmful actions, deal with conflicts effectively and change behavior. Historically, societal responses to criminal behavior also intended to educate and change behavior, but have had limited success in this outcome, often ending only in warehousing offenders.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: a Meta- Analysis Author(S): David B
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta- Analysis Author(s): David B. Wilson, Ph.D., Ajima Olaghere, Ph.D., Catherine S. Kimbrell, M.A. Document Number: 250872 Date Received: June 2017 Award Number: 2015-JF-FX-0063 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant No. 2015-JF-FX-0063 Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis David B. Wilson, PhD Ajima Olaghere, PhD Catherine S. Kimbrell, MA Department of Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia May 12, 2017 This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-JF-FX-0063 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, to George Mason University. The statements expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Restorative Practice Resource Project
    WELCOME RESTORATIVE PRACTICE RESOURCE PROJECT TOOLS AND SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES FOR RESTORATIVE SCHOOLS SUPPORTING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND WELL BEING RESTORATIVE PRACTICE CONSORTIUM • ONTARIO CANADA 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME Prepared by: The Restorative Practice Consortium No group or organization can grow, contribute to their wider We hope you find our work useful in moving your individual, school or board contexts, and create without the supports that enable their work. Restorative Practice implementation forward in some way. It is with gratitude that we would like to acknowledge many of these, although a complete listing would be impossible. The materials contained in this resource are, to the best of our knowledge, free The Restorative Practice Consortium would first like to acknowledge and thank the Ministry of of copyright unless otherwise indicated. The materials are meant to be integrated Education of Ontario, Safe Schools Branch, for their ongoing support over the course of years in into your content and goals. If we have missed something in this regard, please terms of guidance and funding. let us know. A sincere thank you to all those who attended the 2013 Restorative Practices Symposium and whose We wish you well on your restorative journey. In these interesting times in which voices informed the foundation of this work. we live, the restorative work is more important than ever. A special thank you to the school boards and organizations who supported the work of this project though generous release opportunities to And, finally, please feel free to share this work with anyone else you feel might be further the reach of Restorative Practices in this able to benefit from it.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the 2020-21 Budget Bill
    OVERVIEW OF THE 2020-21 BUDGET BILL Senate Bill 808 As Introduced on January 10, 2020 Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review Senator Holly J. Mitchell, Chair TABLE OF CONTENTS BUDGET OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................1 SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 ON EDUCATION K-14 EDUCATION ............................................................................................................1-1 HIGHER EDUCATION ........................................................................................................1-18 SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 ON RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................2-1 TRANSPORTATION ...........................................................................................................2-28 SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HOMELESSNESS ...............................................................................................................3-1 HEALTH ...........................................................................................................................3-14 HUMAN SERVICES ...........................................................................................................3-48 SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 ON STATE ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT STATE ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT .................................................4-1 LABOR .............................................................................................................................5-13
    [Show full text]
  • Family Group Conferencing Summary
    Title: An evidence review of the impact Family Group Conferencing (FGC) and Restorative Practices (RP) have on positive outcomes for children and families. Date: 26th July 2016 Family Group Conferencing and Restorative Practices – an evidence review Contents 1.0 Executive summary 3 2.0 Restorative Practice and Family Group Conferencing: theory and practice 5 2.1 Restorative Practice: a definition 5 2.2 Family Group Conferencing: the theory 5 2.3 Family Group Conferencing: the process 6 3.0 Family Group Conferencing and Restorative Practice: The evidence 7 3.1 Introduction 7 3.2 Evidence from existing reviews 8 3.3 Evidence of impact from empirical studies 9 3.4 Evidence on good practice 11 3.5 Cost benefit analysis 12 4.0 Concluding comments 13 5.0 References 14 The RTK Ltd July 26th 2016 2 Family Group Conferencing and Restorative Practices – an evidence review 1.0 Introduction and summary This review was a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), designed to establish the current state of evidence concerning the impact of restorative practices, including Family Group Conferencing (FGC), on outcomes for children and families. It was commissioned as part of the evaluation of Leeds City Council’s Family Valued programme, led by ICF. Family Valued was funded by the Department for Education’s (DfE) Social Care Innovation Programme. The review set out to establish the current state of evidence concerning the impact of restorative practices (RP), including (FGC), on outcomes for children and families. When using the term ‘evidence’ throughout this review we are referring to the body of empirical studies and not to speculative discussions or opinion pieces.
    [Show full text]
  • Fulfilling the Aspirations of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice
    FULFILLING THE ASPIRATIONS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM? THE CASE OF COLORADO By Shannon M Sliva, Elizabeth H. Porter-Merrill,& Pete Lee * A growing consensus exists among practitioners, policymakers, and scholars that the American criminal system is not fulfilling its aspirations of public safety, behavioral change, and justice. Restorative justice is a promising approach that holds criminal offenders accountable while repairing rather than perpetuating harms to victims and to the community. This article discusses historic and current applications of restorative justice in criminallaw and describes the potentialbenefits of restorativejustice for the resolution of many criminal cases, including re-centering victims' needs in the justice process while increasing accountability of offenders, redistributing power to communities to redress harms, and refocusing government resourcesmore efficiently and equitably. We provide a case example of statutorystructures in Colorado, which leads the nation in developing law to use restorativejustice in adult and juvenile criminal matters. Drawing on lessons from Colorado, we explore challenges for scaling restorative justice in court, correctional,and community settings namely, living up to its aspirationsof accountability,voluntariness, victim-centeredness, and equity. We then summarize key recommendations for effectively * Shannon M. Sliva, PhD. Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver; Elizabeth H. Porter-Merrill, Director of Restorative Justice, Office
    [Show full text]