Defining Restorative by Ted Wachtel, IIRP Founder

ence is a specific process, with defined The use of restorative practices 1. Purpose protocols, that brings together those helps to: 2. Overview who have caused harm through their • reduce crime, violence and 3. History wrongdoing with those they have di- bullying 4. Supporting Framework rectly or indirectly harmed. • improve human behavior 4.1. Social Discipline Window 4.2. Restorative Justice Others have defined teen courts, • strengthen civil society Typology youth aid panels or reparative boards • provide effective leadership 4.3. Restorative Practices as restorative justice, while the IIRP • restore relationships Continuum defines those processes as commu- • repair harm 4.4. Nine Affects nity justice, not restorative justice. 4.5. Compass of Shame Such community justice processes do The IIRP distinguishes between the 4.6. Fair Process not include an encounter between vic- terms restorative practices and restor- 5. Basic Restorative Processes tims and offenders, which provides an ative justice. We view restorative jus- 5.1. Restorative Conference opportunity to talk about what hap- tice as a subset of restorative practices. 5.2. Circles pened and how it has affected them Restorative justice is reactive, consist- 5.3. Family Group Conference/ Family Group Decision (Van Ness & Strong, 2015). Rather, ing of formal or informal responses to Making these courts, panels and boards are crime and other wrongdoing after it 5.4. Informal Restorative comprised of appointed community occurs. The IIRP’s definition of restor- Practices members who have no real emotional ative practices also includes the use 6. References stake in the incident. These bodies of informal and formal processes that meet with offenders, but victims, their precede wrongdoing, those that pro- families and friends are not generally actively build relationships and a sense 1. Purpose invited. Restorative justice, in con- of community to prevent conflict and The International Institute for Re- trast, offers victims and their support- wrongdoing. storative Practices (IIRP) has a particular ers an opportunity to talk directly with Where social capital—a network way of defining restorative and related offenders. of relationships—is already well es- terms that is consistent throughout our Our purpose is not to label other tablished, it is easier to respond ef- courses, events, videos and publica- processes or terms as positive or nega- fectively to wrongdoing and restore tions. We have developed our defini- tive, effective or ineffective. We re- social order—as well as to create a tions to facilitate communication and spect the fact that others may define healthy and positive organizational discussion within the framework of our terms differently and, of course, have environment. Social capital is defined own graduate school and for those every right to do so. Rather, we simply as the connections among individuals who are part of our restorative com- want to define and share a consistent (Putnam, 2001), and the trust, mutual munity. terminology to create a unified frame- understanding, shared values and be- For example, at one of our sym- work of understanding. haviors that bind us together and make posia, a young man insisted that his cooperative action possible (Cohen & school already held conferences with 2. Overview Prusak, 2001). students and their families, not realiz- Restorative practices is a social sci- In public health terms, restorative ing that most of the other participants ence that studies how to build social justice provides tertiary prevention, at the event were not referring to a capital and achieve social discipline introduced after the problem has oc- generic conference, but to a restor- through participatory learning and de- curred, with the intention of avoiding ative conference. A restorative confer- cision-making. reoccurrence. Restorative practices ex-

© 2016 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 2 pands that effort with primary preven- work, the term employed is “empow- Skelton, 2003; Mirsky, 2004; Roujana- tion, introduced before the problem erment” (Simon, 1994); in education, vong, 2005; Wong, 2005). has occurred. talk is of “positive discipline” (Nelsen, Eventually modern restorative jus- The social science of restorative 1996) or “the responsive classroom” tice broadened to include communi- practices offers a common thread to (Charney, 1992); and in organizational ties of care as well, with victims’ and tie together theory, research and prac- leadership, “horizontal management” offenders’ families and friends partici- tice in diverse fields such as education, (Denton, 1998) is referenced. The so- pating in collaborative processes called counseling, criminal justice, social work cial science of restorative practices rec- conferences and circles. Conferencing and organizational management. Indi- ognizes all of these perspectives and addresses power imbalances between viduals and organizations in many fields incorporates them into its scope. the victim and offender by including are developing models and methodol- additional supporters (McCold, 1999). ogy and performing empirical research 3. History The family group conference (FGC) that share the same implicit premise, Restorative practices has its roots in started in New Zealand in 1989 as a but are often unaware of the common- restorative justice, a way of looking at response to native Maori people’s con- ality of each other’s efforts. criminal justice that emphasizes repair- cerns with the number of their children For example, in criminal justice, re- ing the harm done to people and re- being removed from their homes by storative circles and restorative con- lationships rather than only punishing the courts. It was originally envisioned ferences allow victims, offenders and offenders (Zehr, 1990). as a family empowerment process, not their respective family members and In the modern context, restorative as restorative justice (Doolan, 2003). In friends to come together to explore justice originated in the 1970s as medi- North America it was renamed family how everyone has been affected by an ation or reconciliation between victims group decision making (FGDM) (Bur- offense and, when possible, to decide and offenders. In 1974 Mark Yantzi, ford & Pennell, 2000). how to repair the harm and meet their a probation officer, arranged for two In 1991 the FGC was adapted by own needs (McCold, 2003). In social teenagers to meet directly with their an Australian police officer, Terry work, family group decision-making victims following a vandalism spree O’Connell, as a community policing (FGDM) or family group conferencing and agree to restitution. The positive strategy to divert young people from (FGC) processes empower extended response by the victims led to the first court. The IIRP now calls that adap- families to meet privately, without pro- victim-offender reconciliation program, tation, which has spread around the fessionals in the room, to make a plan in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, with world, a restorative conference. It has to protect children in their own fami- the support of the Mennonite Central been called other names, such as a lies from further violence and neglect Committee and collaboration with the community accountability conference or to avoid residential placement out- local probation department (McCold, (Braithwaite, 1994) and victim-offender side their own homes (American Hu- 1999; Peachey, 1989). The concept conference (Amstutz & Zehr, 1998). mane Association, 2003). In education, subsequently acquired various names, In 1994, Marg Thorsborne, an Aus- circles and groups provide opportuni- such as victim-offender mediation and tralian educator, was the first to use ties for students to share their feelings, victim-offender dialogue, as it spread a restorative conference in a school build relationships and solve problems, through North America and to Europe (O’Connell, 1998). and when there is wrongdoing, to play through the 1980s and 1990s (Umbreit The International Institute for Restor- an active role in addressing the wrong & Greenwood, 2000). ative Practices (IIRP) grew out of the and making things right (Riestenberg, Restorative justice echoes ancient Community Service Foundation and 2002). and indigenous practices employed in Buxmont Academy, which since 1977 These various fields employ different cultures all over the world, from Native have provided programs for delinquent terms, all of which fall under the rubric American and First Nation Canadian and at-risk youth in southeastern Penn- of restorative practices: In the criminal to African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, Arab sylvania, USA. Initially founded in 1994 justice field, the phrase used is “re- and many others (Eagle, 2001; Gold- under the auspices of Buxmont Acad- storative justice” (Zehr, 1990); in social stein, 2006; Haarala, 2004; Mbambo & emy, the Real Justice program, now an

IIRP program, has trained professionals around the world in restorative conferencing. In 1999 the newly created IIRP broadened its training to informal and proactive restorative practices, in addition to formal restorative conferencing (Wachtel, 1999). Since then the IIRP, an accredited graduate school, has de- authoritarian authoritative veloped a comprehensive framework for practice and theory that expands the restorative paradigm far beyond its origins in criminal justice (McCold & Wachtel, 2001, 2003). Use of restorative practices is now spreading world- wide, in education, criminal justice, so- irresponsible paternalistic cial work, counseling, youth services, workplace and faith community appli- cations (Wachtel, 2013). Figure 1. Social Discipline Window

4. Supporting Framework of restorative practices is that “human hand, reintegrates wrongdoers back The IIRP has identified several con- beings are happier, more cooperative into their community and reduces the cepts that it views as most helpful in and productive, and more likely to likelihood that they will reoffend. explaining and understanding restor- make positive changes in their behav- ative practices. ior when those in positions of author- 4.2. Restorative Justice Typology ity do things with them, rather than Restorative justice is a process in- 4.1. Social Discipline Window to them or for them.” This hypothesis volving the primary stakeholders in de- The social discipline window (Figure maintains that the punitive and author- termining how best to repair the harm 1) is a concept with broad application itarian to mode and the permissive and done by an offense. The three primary in many settings. It describes four ba- paternalistic for mode are not as effec- stakeholders in restorative justice are sic approaches to maintaining social tive as the restorative, participatory, victims, offenders and their communities norms and behavioral boundaries. The engaging with mode (Wachtel, 2005). of care, whose needs are, respectively,! four are represented as different com- The social discipline window, whose obtaining reparation, taking responsi- binations of high or low control and dynamics of low versus high support bility and achieving reconciliation. The high or low support. The restorative and control were originally modelled degree to which all three are involved domain combines both high control by the work of University of Illinois in meaningful emotional exchange and and high support and is characterized corrections researcher Daniel Glaser, decision making is the degree to which by doing things with people, rather reflects the seminal thinking of- re any form of social discipline approaches than to them or for them. nowned Australian criminologist John being fully restorative. The social discipline window also Braithwaite, who has asserted that reli- The three primary stakeholders are defines restorative practices as a lead- ance on punishment as a social regula- represented in Figure 2 by the three ership model for parents in families, tor is problematic because it shames overlapping circles. The very process teachers in classrooms, administrators and stigmatizes wrongdoers, pushes of interacting is critical to meeting and managers in organizations, police them into a negative societal subcul- stakeholders’ emotional needs. The and social workers in communities and ture and fails to change their behav- emotional exchange necessary for judges and officials in government. ior (Glaser, 1964; Braithwaite, 1989). meeting the needs of all those directly The fundamental unifying hypothesis The restorative approach, on the other affected cannot occur with only one

© 2016 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 4 Types and Degrees of Restorative Justice Practice ative conferences, groups and circles are somewhat more structured but do victim communities of care not require the elaborate preparation

reparation victim support reconciliation needed for formal conferences. Mov- circles ing from left to right on the continuum, victim offender family services services as restorative practices become more formal, they involve more people, re- RESTORATIVE quire more planning and time, and crime family-centered compensation JUSTICE social work are more structured and complete. peace family group victimless Although a formal restorative process victim circles conferencing conferences might have dramatic impact, informal restitution community positive practices have a cumulative impact victim-offender conferencing discipline mediation because they are part of everyday life therapeutic communities (McCold & Wachtel, 2001). The aim of restorative practices is

related reparative to develop community and to man- community service boards fully restorative age conflict and tensions by repairing harm and building relationships. This youth aid victim sensitivity panels training mostly restorative statement identifies both proactive offenderoffender (building relationships and develop- partly restorative responsibilityresponsibility ing community) and reactive (repairing harm and restoring relationships) approaches. Organizations and ser- Figure 2. Restorative Justice Typology vices that only use the reactive without building the social capital before- set of stakeholders participating. The hand are less successful than those most restorative processes involve the 4.3. Restorative Practices Continuum that also employ the proactive (Dav- active participation of all three sets of Restorative practices are not lim- ey, 2007). primary stakeholders (McCold & Wach- ited to formal processes, such as re- tel, 2003). storative conferences or family group 4.4. Nine Affects When criminal justice practices in- conferences, but range from informal The most critical function of restor- volve only one group of primary stake- to formal. On a restorative practices ative practices is restoring and building holders, as in the case of governmen- continuum (Figure 3), the informal relationships. Because informal and tal financial compensation for victims practices include affective statements formal restorative processes foster the or meaningful community service work that communicate people’s feelings, as expression of affect or emotion, they assigned to offenders, the process well as affective questions that cause also foster emotional bonds. The late can only be called partly restorative. people to reflect on how their behavior Silvan S. Tomkins’s writings about psy- When a process such as victim-offend- has affected others. Impromptu restor- chology of affect (Tomkins, 1962, 1963, er mediation includes two principal stakeholders but excludes their communities of care, the process is mostly restorative. Only when all three sets of primary stakeholders are actively involved, such as in conferences or circles, is a process fully restorative (Mc- Cold & Wachtel, 2003). Figure 3. Restorative Practices Continuum

© 2016 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 5 The Nine Affects shame-humiliation. Surprise-startle is worse (Nathanson, 1997b). s t c e f f the neutral affect, which functions like By encouraging people to express Enjoyment — Joy A

ive t a reset button. The two positive affects their feelings, restorative practices si o P Interest — Excitement are interest-excitement and enjoy- build better relationships. Restorative

l ment-joy (Tomkins, 1962, 1963, 1991). practices demonstrate the fundamental a r Surprise — Startle t u Silvan S. Tomkins (1962) wrote that hypothesis of Tomkins’s psychology of Ne

Shame — Humiliation because we have evolved to experi- affect—that the healthiest environment

ence nine affects—two positive affects for human beings is one in which there Distress — Anguish that feel pleasant, one (surprise-star- is free expression of affect, minimiz- s tle) so brief that it has no feeling of its ing the negative and maximizing the ect f Disgust f A e own, and six that feel dreadful—we are positive (Nathanson, 1992). From the v ti a g Fear — Terror e hardwired to conform to an internal simple affective statement to the for- N

blueprint. The human emotional blue- mal conference, that is what restorative

Anger — Rage

print ensures that we feel best when we practices are designed to do (Wachtel,

1) maximize positive affect and 2) min- 1999). Dissmell imize negative affect; we function best Figure 4. The Nine Affects Adapted from Nathanson, 1992 when 3) we express all affect (minimize 4.5. Compass of Shame (adapted from Nathanson, 1992) the inhibition of affect) so we can ac- Shame is worthy of special atten- complish these two goals; and, finally, tion. Nathanson explains that shame is 1991) assert that human relationships 4) anything that fosters these three a critical regulator of human social be- are best and healthiest when there is goals makes us feel our best, whereas havior. Tomkins defines shame as- oc free expression of affect or emotion— any force that interferes with any one curring any time that our experience of minimizing the negative, maximiz- or more of those goalsT hmakese C ousm feelpa sthes opositivef Sha affectsme is interrupted (Tom- ing the positive, but allowing for free expression. Donald Nathanson, for- Withdrawal: • isolating oneself mer director of the Silvan S. Tomkins • running and hiding Institute, added that it is through the mutual exchange of expressed affect draw that we build community, creating the With al emotional bonds that tie us all together (Nathanson, 1998). Restorative prac- r A e t tices such as conferences and circles t h a Attack Other: t • "turning the tables" c Attack Self:

provide a safe environment for people O k

• self put-down

• blaming the victim k

to express and exchange emotion (Na- S • masochism • lashing out verbally c

or physically a

t l

thanson, 1998). f t Tomkins identified nine distinct af- A fects (Figure 4) to explain the expression of emotion in all humans. Most A e of the affects are defined by pairs of voidanc words that represent the least and the most intense expression of a particu- Avoidance: • denial lar affect. The six negative affects in- • abusing drugs and alcohol clude anger-rage, fear-terror, distress- • distraction through thrill-seeking anguish, disgust, dissmell (a word Tomkins coined to describe “turning Figure 5. The Compass of Shame (adapted from Nathanson, 1992) up one’s nose” in a rejecting way) and Adapted from Nathanson, 1992

© 2016 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 6 kins, 1987). So an individual does not 4.6. Fair Process than to them or for them.” have to do something wrong to feel When authorities do things with shame. The individual just has to expe- people, whether reactively—to deal 5. Restorative Processes rience something that interrupts inter- with crisis—or proactively, the results The IIRP has identified several - re est-excitement or enjoyment-joy (Na- are better. This fundamental thesis was storative processes that it views as thanson, 1997a). This understanding of evident in a Harvard Business Review most helpful in implementing restor- shame provides a critical explanation article about the concept of fair pro- ative practices in the widest variety of for why victims of crime often feel a cess producing effective outcomes in settings. strong sense of shame, even though it business organizations (Kim & Maubor- was the offender who committed the gne, 2003). The central idea of fair 5.1. Restorative Conference “shameful” act (Angel, 2005). process is that “…individuals are most A restorative conference is a struc- Nathanson (1992) has developed the likely to trust and cooperate freely with tured meeting between offenders, Compass of Shame (Figure 5) to illus- systems—whether they themselves win victims and both parties’ family and trate the various ways that human be- or lose by those systems—when fair friends, in which they deal with the ings react when they feel shame. The process is observed” (Kim & Maubor- consequences of the crime or wrong- four poles of the compass of shame and gne, 2003). doing and decide how best to repair behaviors associated with them are: The three principles of fair process the harm. Neither a counseling nor a • Withdrawal—isolating oneself, are: mediation process, conferencing is a running and hiding • Engagement—involving indi- victim-sensitive, straightforward prob- • Attack self—self put-down, viduals in decisions that affect lem-solving method that demonstrates masochism them by listening to their views how citizens can resolve their own • Avoidance—denial, abusing and genuinely taking their opin- problems when provided with a con- drugs, distraction through thrill ions into account structive forum to do so (O’Connell, seeking • Explanation—explaining the Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999). • Attack others—turning the reasoning behind a decision to Conferences provide victims and tables, lashing out verbally or everyone who has been in- others with an opportunity to confront physically, blaming others volved or who is affected by it the offender, express their feelings, ask • Expectation clarity—making questions and have a say in the out- Nathanson says that the attack other sure that everyone clearly un- come. Offenders hear firsthand how response to shame is responsible for derstands a decision and what their behavior has affected people. Of- the proliferation of violence in modern is expected of them in the fu- fenders may choose to participate in life. Usually people who have adequate ture (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003) a conference and begin to repair the self-esteem readily move beyond their harm they have caused by apologiz- feelings of shame. Nonetheless we all Fair process demonstrates the re- ing, making amends and agreeing to react to shame, in varying degrees, in storative with domain of the social dis- financial restitution or personal or com- the ways described by the Compass. cipline window. It relates to how lead- munity service work. Conferences hold Restorative practices, by their very na- ers handle their authority in all kinds offenders accountable while providing ture, provide an opportunity for us to of professions and roles: from parents them with an opportunity to discard express our shame, along with other and teachers to managers and admin- the “offender” label and be reinte- emotions, and in doing so reduce their istrators. The fundamental hypothesis grated into their community, school or intensity. In restorative conferences, for of restorative practices embodies fair workplace (Morris & Maxwell, 2001). example, people routinely move from process by asserting that “people are Participation in conferences is vol- negative affects through the neutral happier, more cooperative and pro- untary. After it is determined that a affect to positive affects (Nathanson, ductive, and more likely to make posi- conference is appropriate and offend- 1998). tive changes in behavior when those in ers and victims have agreed to attend, authority do things with them, rather the conference facilitator invites others

© 2016 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 7 affected by the incident—the family had on you and others?” hall and campus incidents and and friends of victims and offenders • “What has been the hardest disciplinary violations. (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999). thing for you?” • In workplaces, conferences A restorative conference can be • “What do you think needs to address both wrongdoing and used in lieu of traditional disciplinary happen to make things right?” conflict. or justice processes, or where that is not appropriate, as a supplement to Finally, the victim is asked what he Some approaches to restorative con- those processes (O’Connell, Wachtel, or she would like to be the outcome ferences, such as in Ulster in Northern & Wachtel, 1999). of the conference. The response is dis- Ireland, do not use the Real Justice In the Real Justice approach to restor- cussed with the offender and everyone script approach (Chapman, 2006). Vic- ative conferences, developed by Aus- else at the conference. When agree- tim-offender conferences do not rely tralian police officer Terry O’Connell, ment is reached, a simple contract is on a script, either. Based on the earlier the conference facilitator sticks to a written and signed (O’Connell, Wach- restorative justice model of victim-of- simple written script. The facilitator tel, & Wachtel, 1999). fender mediation, but widening the cir- keeps the conference focused but is Restorative conferencing is an ap- cle of participants, the victim-offender not an active participant. In the con- proach to addressing wrongdoing in approach to conferences still relies on ference the facilitator provides an op- various settings in a variety of ways mediators who more actively manage portunity to each participant to speak, (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999): the process (Amstutz & Zehr, 1998). beginning with asking open-ended and • Conferencing can be employed The IIRP prefers the Real Justice affective restorative questions of the of- by schools in response to truan- scripted model of conferencing be- fender. The facilitator then asks victims cy, disciplinary incidents, includ- cause we believe it has the greatest po- and their family members and friends ing violence, or as a prevention tential to meet the needs of the stake- questions that provide an opportunity strategy in the form of role-plays holders described in the Restorative to tell about the incident from their per- of conferences with primary and Justice Typology. In addition, research spective and how it affected them. The secondary school students. shows that it consistently provides very offenders’ family and friends are asked • Police can use conferences as a high levels of satisfaction and sense of to do the same (O’Connell, Wachtel, & warning or diversion from court, fairness for all participants (McCold & Wachtel, 1999). especially with first-time offend- Wachtel, 2002). However, we do not Using the conference script, offenders. mean to quibble with other approach- ers are asked these restorative ques- • Courts may use conferencing as es. As long as people experience a tions: a diversion, an alternative sen- safe opportunity to have a meaningful • “What happened?” tencing process, or a healing discussion that helps them address the • “What were you thinking of at event for victims and offend- emotional and other consequences of the time?” ers after the court process is a conflict or a wrong, the process is • “What have you thought about concluded. beneficial. since?” • Juvenile and adult probation • “Who has been affected by officers may respond to vari- 5.2. Circles what you have done?” ous probation violations with A circle is a versatile restorative • “What do you think you need conferences. practice that can be used proactively, to do to make things right?” • Correctional and treatment fa- to develop relationships and build cilities will find that conferences community or reactively, to respond to Victims are asked these restorative resolve the underlying issues wrongdoing, conflicts and problems. questions: and tensions in conflicts and Circles give people an opportunity to • “What did you think when you disciplinary actions. speak and listen to one another in an realized what happened?” • Colleges and universities can atmosphere of safety, decorum and • “What impact has this incident use conferences with residence equality. The circle process allows peo-

© 2016 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 8 ple to tell their stories and offer their speak (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, a circle, and the conference facilitator own perspectives (Pranis, 2005). 2010). Both the circle and the talking uses the order of speakers defined by The circle has a wide variety of pur- piece have roots in ancient and indig- the conference script (offender, victim, poses: conflict resolution, healing, sup- enous practices (Mirsky, 2004a, 2004b; victim supporter, offender supporter) port, decision making, information ex- Roca, Inc., n.d.) to ask each person a set of restor- change and relationship development. The sequential circle is typically ative questions (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Circles offer an alternative to contem- structured around topics or questions Wachtel, 1999). In effect, the facilitator porary meeting processes that often raised by the circle facilitator. Because serves as the talking piece, determin- rely on hierarchy, win-lose positioning it strictly forbids back-and-forth argu- ing whose turn it is to speak without and argument (Roca, Inc., n.d.). ment, it provides a great deal of de- interruption. After everyone has re- Circles can be used in any organiza- corum. The format maximizes the op- sponded to restorative questions, the tional, institutional or community set- portunity for the quiet voices, those facilitator moves to a more open, back- ting. Circle time (Mosley, 1993) and that are usually inhibited by louder and and-forth, non-ordered discussion of morning meetings (Charney, 1992) more assertive people, to speak with- what the victim needs and how those have been widely used in primary and out interruption. Individuals who want needs might be met. elementary schools for many years and to respond to something that has been A sequential restorative circle may more recently in secondary schools said must be patient and wait until it be used instead of a formal confer- and higher education (Mirsky, 2007, is their turn to speak. The sequential ence to respond to wrongdoing or a 2011; Wachtel & Wachtel, 2012). In in- circle encourages people to listen conflict or problem. The restorative dustry, the quality circle has been em- more and talk less (Costello, Wachtel, circle is less formal because it does not ployed for decades to engage workers & Wachtel, 2010). typically specify victims and offenders in achieving high manufacturing stan- Although most circle traditions rely and does not follow a script. However, dards (Nonaka, 1993). In 1992, Yukon on a facilitator or circle keeper who it may employ some of the restorative Circuit Court Judge Barry Stewart pio- guides but does not control (Pranis, questions from within the conferencing neered the sentencing circle, which in- Stuart & Wedge, 2003), a circle does script (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, volved community members in helping not always need a leader. One ap- 2010). to decide how to deal with an offender proach is simply for participants to Another circle format is the fishbowl. (Lilles, 2002). In 1994, Mennonite Pas- speak sequentially, moving around the This consists of an inner circle of active tor Harry Nigh befriended a mentally circle as many times as necessary, until participants who may discuss an issue challenged repeat sex offender by all have said what they want to say. In with a sequential approach or engage forming a support group with some this case, all of the participants take re- in a non-sequential activity such as of his parishioners, called a circle of sponsibility for maintaining the integ- problem-solving. Outside the inner cir- support and accountability, which was rity and the focus of the circle. cle are observers arranged in as many effective in preventing re-offending Non-sequential circles are often concentric circles as are needed to ac- (Rankin, 2007). more freely structured than a sequen- commodate the group. The fishbowl Circles may use a sequential format. tial circle. Conversation may proceed format allows others to watch a circle One person speaks at a time, and the from one person to another without activity that might be impractical with opportunity to speak moves in one di- a fixed order. Problem-solving circles, a large number of active participants. rection around the circle. Each person for example, may simply be focused A variation of the fishbowl format has must wait to speak until his or her turn, around an issue that is to be solved but an empty chair in the inner circle that and no one may interrupt. Optionally, allow anyone to speak. One person in allows individual observers to come a talking piece—a small object that is the group may record the group’s ideas forward one at a time, sit in the empty easily held and passed from person to or decisions. chair, say something and then return to person—may be used to facilitate this A Real Justice restorative confer- the outer circle—permitting a limited process. Only the person who is hold- ence, however, employs a different amount of participation by the ob- ing the talking piece has the right to kind of fixed order. Participants sit in servers (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel,

2010). sense of community, identity and sta- ploy an affective statement when a bility that only the family, in its various student has misbehaved, letting the 5.3. Family Group Conference forms, can provide. Families are more student know how he or she has been (FGC) or Family Group Decision likely than professionals to find solu- affected by the student’s behavior: Making (FGDM) tions that actively involve other family “When you disrupt the class, I feel sad” Originating in New Zealand with members, thus keeping the child with- or “disrespected” or “disappointed.” the Children, Young Persons and in the care of the family, rather than Hearing this, the student learns how Their Families Act in 1989, the legis- transferring care of the child to the his or her behavior is affecting others lation created a process called the government. Also, when families are (Harrison, 2007). family group conference (FGC), which empowered to fix their own problems, Or that teacher may ask an affective soon spread around the world. North the very process of empowerment fa- question, perhaps adapting one of the Americans call this process family cilitates healing (Rush, 2006). restorative questions used in the con- group decision making (FGDM). The The key features of the New Zealand ference script. “Who do you think has most radical feature of this law was its FGC/FGDM model are preparation, in- been affected by what you just did?” requirement that, after social workers formation giving, private family time, and then follow-up with “How do you and other professionals brief the family agreeing on the plan and monitoring think they’ve been affected?” In an- on the government’s expectations and and review. In an FGC/FGDM, the fam- swering such questions, instead of sim- the services and resources available to ily is the primary decision maker. An in- ply being punished, the student has a support the family’s plan, the profes- dependent coordinator facilitates the chance to think about his or her be- sionals must leave the room. During conference and refrains from offering havior, make amends and change the this “family alone time” or “private preconceived ideas of the outcome. behavior in the future (Morrison, 2003). family time,” the extended family and The family, after hearing information Asking several affective questions of friends of the family have an opportu- about the case, is left alone to arrive both the wrongdoer and those harmed nity to take responsibility for their own at their own plan for the future of the creates a small impromptu conference. loved ones. Never before in the history child, youth or adult. Professionals If the circumstance calls for a bit more of the modern interventionist state has evaluate the plan with respect to safety structure, a circle can quickly be cre- a government shown so much respect and legal issues and may procure re- ated. for the rights and potential strengths sources to help implement the plan. The use of informal restorative prac- of families (Smull, Wachtel, & Wachtel, Professionals and family members tices dramatically reduces the need for 2012). monitor the plan’s progress, and often more time-consuming formal restor- FGC/FGDM brings together family follow-up meetings are held (Morris & ative practices. Systematic use of infor- support networks—parents, children, Maxwell, 1998). mal restorative practices has a cumula- aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbors tive impact and creates what might be and close family friends—to make im- 5.4. Informal Restorative Practices described as a restorative milieu—an portant decisions that might other- The restorative paradigm is mani- environment that consistently fosters wise be made by professionals. This fested in many informal ways beyond awareness, empathy and responsibility process of engaging and empowering the formal processes. As described by in a way that is likely to prove far more families to make decisions and plans for the restorative practices continuum effective in achieving social discipline their own family members’ well-being above, informal restorative practices than our current reliance on punish- leads to better outcomes, less conflict include affective statements, which ment and sanctions (Wachtel, 2013). with professionals, more informal sup- communicate people’s feelings, as well port and improved family functioning as affective questions, which cause (Merkel-Holguin, Nixon, & Burford, people to reflect on how their behavior 2003). has affected others (McCold & Wach- Young people, who are usually the tel, 2001). focus of these conferences, need the A teacher in a classroom might em-

6. References Charney, R. (1992). Teaching children Friends Committee on Restorative Amstutz, L. S., & Zehr, H. (1998). to care: Management in the Justice. Victim offender conferencing in responsive classroom. Greenfield, Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice MA: Northeast Foundation for of a prison and parole system. system. Retrieved from https:// Children. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. www.emu.edu/cjp/publications- Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In Goldstein, A. (2006, October). and-ezines/faculty-staff/rjmanual. good company: How social capital Restorative practices in Israel: The pdf makes organizations work. Boston, state of the field. Paper presented Angel, C. M. (2005). Crime victims meet MA: Harvard Business School at the Eighth International their offenders: Testing the impact Press. Conference on Conferencing, of restorative justice conferences Costello, B., & O’Connell, T. (2002, Circles and other Restorative on victims’ post-traumatic stress August). Restorative practices in Practices, Bethlehem, PA, USA. symptoms (Doctoral dissertation). the workplace. Paper presented at Haarala, L. (2004). A community within. University of Pennsylvania. the Third International Conference In Restorative Justice Week: Retrieved from ProQuest on Conferencing, Circles and Other Engaging us all in the dialogue. Dissertations & Theses Database Restorative Practices, Minneapolis, Ottawa, Canada: Correctional (Accession No. AAI3165634). MN, USA. Service of Canada. American Humane Association (2003). Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, Harrison, L. (2007). From authoritarian FGDM research and evaluation. T. (2010). Restorative circles in to restorative schools. Reclaiming Protecting Children, 18(1-2). schools: Building community and Children and Youth 16(2), 17-20. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame enhancing learning. Bethlehem, Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (2003, and reintegration. New York, NY: PA: International Institute for January). Fair process: Managing in Cambridge University Press. Restorative Practices. the knowledge economy. Harvard Braithwaite, J. (1994). Thinking harder Davey, L. (2007, November). Business Review, 127-136. about democratizing social Restorative practices: A vision Lilles, H. (2002, August). Circle control. In C. Alder & J. Wundersitz of hope. Paper presented at sentencing: Part of the restorative (Eds.), Family conferencing and the 10th International Institute justice continuum. Paper juvenile justice: The way forward for Restorative Practices World presented at the Third International of misplaced optimism? Canberra, Conference, Budapest, Hungary. Conference on Conferencing, Australia: Australian Institute of Denton, D. (1998). Horizontal Circles and other Restorative Criminology. management. Lanham, MD: Practices, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (2000). Rowman & Littlefield. Mbambo, B., & Skelton, A. (2003). Family group decision making Doolan, M. (1999, August). The family Preparing the South African and family violence. In G. Burford group conference: Ten years on. community for implementing a new & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group Paper presented at the Building restorative child justice system. In conferencing: New directions in Strong Partnerships for Restorative L. Walgrave (Ed.), Repositioning community-centered child and Practices Conference, Burlington, restorative justice (pp. 271-283). family practice (pp. 171-183). New VT, USA. Devon, UK: Willan. York, NY: Aldine DeGruyter. Doolan, M. (2003). Restorative practices McCold, P. (1999, August). Restorative Chapman, T. (2006, June). Restorative and family empowerment: Both/ justice practice: The state of the justice: An agenda for Europe. and or either/or? Family Rights field. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Fourth Newsletter. London: Family Rights Building Strong Partnerships for Conference of the European Group. Restorative Practices Conference, Forum for Restorative Justice, Eagle, H. (2001, November). Restorative Burlington, VT, USA. Barcelona, Spain. justice in native cultures. State of McCold, P. (2002, November). Justice 3: A periodic publication of Evaluation of a restorative

milieu: CSF Buxmont school/ edu/pdf/natjust2.pdf Lansky and A. Morrison (Eds.), day treatment programs 1999- Mirsky, L. (2007). SaferSanerSchools: The widening scope of shame. 2001. Paper presented at the Transforming school culture with Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. American Society of Criminology restorative practices. Reclaiming Nathanson, D. (1997b). From Conference, Chicago, IL, USA. Children and Youth, 16(2), 5-12. empathy to community. Annual of McCold, P. (2003). A survey of Mirsky, L. (2011, May 26). Restorative Psychoanalysis, 25, 125-143. assessment research on mediation practices: Whole-school change Nathanson, D. (1998, August). and conferencing. In L. Walgrave to build safer, saner school From empathy to community. (Ed.), Repositioning restorative communities. Retrieved from Paper presented to the First justice (pp. 67-120). Devon, UK: http://www.iirp.edu/news/1891- North American Conference on Willan. restorative-practices-whole- Conferencing, Minneapolis, MN, McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2001). school-change-to-build-safer- USA. Restorative justice in everyday life. saner-school-communities Nelsen, J. (2006). Positive discipline In J. Braithwaite & H. Strang (Eds.), Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (1998). (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Ballantine. Restorative justice and civil society Restorative justice in New Zealand: Nonaka, I. (1993). The history of the (pp. 114-129). Cambridge, UK: Family group conferences as a quality circle. Quality Progress, Cambridge University Press. case study. Western Criminology 26(9), 81-83. McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2002). Review 1(1). Retrieved from http:// O’Connell, T. (1998, August). From Restorative justice theory www.westerncriminology.org/ Wagga Wagga to Minnesota. validation. In E. G. M. Weitekamp, documents/WCR/v01n1/Morris/ Paper presented at the First & H.-J. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative Morris.html International Conference on justice: Theoretical foundations Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Conferencing, Minneapolis, MN, (pp. 110-142). Devon, UK: Willan. Restorative conferencing. In G. USA. McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2003, Bazemore & M. Schiff (Eds.), O’Connell, T. (2002, August). August). In pursuit of paradigm: Restorative community justice: Restorative practices for A theory of restorative justice. Repairing harm and transforming institutional discipline, complaints Paper presented at the XIII World communities (pp. 173-197). and grievance systems. Paper Congress of Criminology, Rio de Cincinnati, OH: Anderson presented at the Third International Janeiro, Brazil. Publishing. Conference on Conferencing, Merkel-Holguin, L., Nixon, P., & Morrison, B. (2003). Regulating Circles and other Restorative Burford, G. (2003). Learning with safe school communities: Being Practices, Minneapolis, MN, USA. families: A synopsis of FGDM responsive and restorative. Journal O’Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, research and evaluation in child of Educational Administration, T. (1999). The conferencing welfare. Protecting Children, 41(6), 689-704. handbook. Pipersville, PA: The 18(1&2), 2-11. Mosley, J. (1998). Turn your school Piper’s Press. Mirsky, L. (2004a). Restorative justice round: Circle-time approach to Peachey, D. (1989). The Kitchener practices of Native American, the development of self-esteem experiment. In M. Wright and B. First Nation and other indigenous and positive behaviour in the Galaway (Eds.), Mediation and people of North America: Part primary staffroom, classroom and criminal justice: Victims, offenders one. Retrieved from http://www. playground. Wisbech, England: and community. London, England: iirp.edu/pdf/natjust1.pdf LDA. Sage. Mirsky, L. (2004b). Restorative justice Nathanson, D. (1992). Shame and Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of practices of Native American, pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of circle processes. Intercourse, PA: First Nation and other indigenous the self. New York, NY: Norton. Good Books. people of North America: Part two. Nathanson, D. (1997a). Affect theory Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. Retrieved from http://www.iirp. and the compass of shame. In M. (2003). Peacemaking circles: From

crime to community. St. Paul, MN: Circles and Other Restorative Wachtel, T. (2005, November). The Living Justice Press. Practices, Minneapolis, MN, USA. next step: Developing restorative Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: Simon, B. (1994). The Empowerment communities. Paper presented America’s declining social capital. Tradition in American Social Work. at the Seventh International Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. New York, NY: Columbia University Conference on Conferencing, Rankin, B. (2007). Circles of support Press. Circles and other Restorative and accountability: What works. Smull, E., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. Practices, Manchester, UK. Let’s Talk, 31(3). Ottawa, Canada: (2012). Family power: Engaging Wachtel, T. (2013). Dreaming of a Correctional Service Canada. and collaborating with families. new reality: How restorative Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc. Bethlehem, PA: International practices reduce crime and gc.ca/publications/lt-en/2006/31- Institute for Restorative Practices. violence, improve relationships 3/7-eng.shtml Tomkins, S. (1962-1991). Affect and strengthen civil society. Riestenberg, N. (2002, August). imagery consciousness (Vols. I – Bethlehem, PA: The Piper’s Press. Restorative measures in schools: III). New York, NY: Springer. Wong, D. (2005) Restorative justice Evaluation results. Paper Tomkins, S. (1987). Shame. In D.L. for juveniles in Hong Kong: presented at the Third International Nathanson (Ed.). The many faces Reflections of a practitioner. Paper Conference on Conferencing, of shame (pp. 133-161). New York, presented at the Sixth International Circles and other Restorative NY: Norton. Conference on Conferencing, Practices, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Umbreit, M. S., & Greenwood, J. Circles and other Restorative Roca, Inc. (n.d.). Peacemaking circles: (2000, April). Guidelines for Practices, Penrith, NSW, Australia. A process for solving problems victim-sensitive victim-offender Zehr, H. (2015). Changing lenses: and building community. Retrieved mediation: Restorative justice Restorative justice for our times. from http://ocs.archchicago.org/ through dialogue. Washington, Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press. LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=YyvmyeF DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 8KDg%3D&tabid=996&language Office for Victims of Crime. =en-US Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs. Roujanavong, W. (2005, November). gov/ovc_archives/reports/96517- Restorative justice: Family and gdlines_victims-sens/welcome. community group conferencing html (FCGC) in Thailand. Paper Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2015). presented at the Seventh Restoring justice: An introduction International Conference on to restorative justice (5th ed.). Conferencing, Circles and other Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Restorative Practices, Manchester, Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2012). UK. Building campus community: Rush, L. (2006, October). Family group Restorative practices in residential decision making: My steps in the life. Bethlehem, PA: International journey. Paper presented at the Institute for Restorative Practices. Eighth International Conference Wachtel, T. (1999, February). on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative justice in everyday Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, life: Beyond the formal ritual. PA, USA. Paper presented at the Reshaping Schnell, P. (2002, August). Toward Australian Institutions Conference: a restorative leadership. Paper Restorative Justice and Civil presented at the Third International Society, Australian National Conference on Conferencing, University, Canberra.