Journal of Moral Theology, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2016): 143-157

Restorative Justice in Baltimore

Virginia McGovern and Layton Field

HE 2000 CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ STATEM ENT Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration rightfully asserts that our re- sponse to crime is a moral test for the nation and a challenge for the Church. Imprisonment binges and increased numbers Tof offenders put to death have not provided the security we seek, and while crime rates have been falling in the past several decades, crime and the fear of it are still polarizing events for many communities.1 While the Church does state that behavior that threatens lives and violates the rights of others will not be tolerated, they argue that both victims and offenders are children of God and the dignity of both should be protected and respected. “Both the most wounded victim and the most callous criminal retain their humanity. All are created in the image of God and possess a dignity, value, and worth that must be recognized, promoted, safeguarded, and defended.” Any system of pe- nal justice must provide provisions that allow inmates to retain their dignity, including food, clothing shelter, safety, medical care, and ed- ucation, they say. For these reasons, the bishops advocate restorative practices over the punitive system currently in place. As a result, the bishops take several strong positions advocating for specific criminal justice reforms. The bishops recommend we end mandatory sentencing and “three strikes” laws. Similarly, the bishops recognize the need to combat the “culture of violence” in our homes and communities, while allowing the victims of crime to engage in the criminal justice process more completely. The bishops also rightfully acknowledge the need for a stronger effort to challenge the widespread impact of addiction and mental illness that is often treated haphazardly by the current criminal justice system, as well as reevaluating the role of the criminal justice system in detaining immigrants. Finally, bish- ops also appreciate the inherent complexity of criminal justice reform by recognizing that any serious reform will require an effort to end discrimination, racism, and extreme poverty, in addition to providing more robust support for families.

1 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Responsibility, Rehabili- tation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2000). 144 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field

Background on Criminal and Restorative Justice and Sentencing Reform, a more recent statement by the United States Conference of Catholic bishops, details the concerns of Pope Francis regarding harsh sentences and the systemic and structural barriers to healing, such as racial and economic inequality, cycles of crime, release, and re-incar- ceration, and the breakdown of the family. Inmates released from prison face unemployment, poverty, homelessness, substance abuse, stress, and social isolation. During the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has called on Catholics to make compassion, love, mercy, and solidarity a true way of life. This includes a restorative justice ap- proach for victims of crime and offenders, which is more comprehen- sive and addresses the needs of the victims, community, and offend- ers.2 Sociologists agree wholeheartedly that rehabilitation and restora- tion are preferred over the retributive system currently in place and so echo the bishops’ call. The punitive system we have neither prevents crime nor rehabilitates offenders. And while we understand the need for formal social control, we recognize that the system is fraught with corruption, racism, and dysfunction. Individuals mired in poverty, op- pressed within a system that privileges power, and devalued because of the color of their skin face monumental obstacles daily.3 The puni- tive justice system itself is one of the primary obstacles. Serious re- form is needed. Yet, there are areas in which sociologists disagree with the bishops’ stance. In Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, the Catho- lic Bishops give an insufficient analysis of poverty and race. They pro- vide such an analysis elsewhere, but do not integrate it into their ex- amination of the criminal justice system.4 Financial manipulation of the world economy by elites and misguided government policies have eroded family life and made it next to impossible for a single male to support a wife and children. Gentrification of minority areas, urbani- zation, welfare reform, the disappearance of well-paying manufactur- ing jobs, real estate redlining, and the move to a service economy have all conspired to limit the upward mobility of the poor. The bishops and the pope do acknowledge the numerous obstacles to success but differ from sociologists as to the structural nature of the

2 USCCB, Background on Criminal and Restorative Justice and Sentencing Reform, www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restora- tive-justice/background-on-criminal-justice.cfm. 3See Jeffrey Reiman and Paul Leighton, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice (Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2010); Michelle Al- exander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press 2010). 4 USCCB, Brothers and Sisters to Us: Pastoral Letter on Racism (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1979), www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac- tion/cultural-diversity/african-american/brothers-and-sisters-to-us.cfm. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 145 majority of these problems. For example, the bishops assume that the breakdown of the family is a “personal choice.” While each individual who dissolves a marriage must make a choice to do so, the structural forces that underlie that decision are often outside of their control. Conversely, those who have children, but chose not to marry, are not always making the choice because they reject marriage; they are doing so because of a host of issues that make it more economically rational to forgo marriage.5 These structural conditions are endemic to family disintegration and inseparable from individual action. More importantly, the bishops’ assertion that “Broken Windows” theory is a low-cost, high-visibility effort that can be effective in pre- venting crime, demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the com- plex social forces and latent consequences of policy implementation. 6 The “Broken Windows” approach to policing received widespread support for many years from those within and outside of the criminal justice system. However, after years of empirical research on this the- ory, it has been shown to be less effective than originally reported.7 In light of this recent research, it is perhaps time for the bishops to recon- sider their position on this specific issue. In this essay, we affirm the emphasis on restorative justice but also push for greater attention to structural inequalities that limit its effec- tiveness. To do so, we examine the role of restorative justice in Balti- more, MD, a major urban center currently plagued by the breakdown of the family, crime, racism, and discrimination.

DYSFUNCTION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Three of the six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in April of 2015 have since been acquitted of wrongdoing. The remaining four are scheduled for trial this year. Mr. Gray is one of many of the unarmed, black men in urban areas in the last few years who were killed at the hands of the police. Mr. Gray’s ordeal began when he made eye contact with police, ran, and was arrested. Mr. Gray ran not because he was guilty of a crime, but because he, like many of the black occupants in Baltimore, do not trust the police. He was thrown in a police van and was not secured with a seatbelt, as is policy. He complained of pain but was repeatedly ignored. He died a week later as a result of injuries received when he was jostled in the van. Mr. Gray’s death and the death of many other young black men, such as Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, and many others

5 Kathryn Edin and Timothy J. Nelson, Doing the Best I Can (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 6 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 60. 7 Bernard E. Harcourt, “Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, The Broken Windows Theory, and Order-Maintenance Po- licing New York Style,” Michigan Law Review 98, no.2 (1998): 291-389. 146 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field have led to demands for reform in the criminal justice system. Citi- zens, especially in black neighborhoods, feel disconnected and frus- trated, so much so that, in 2013, they began a social movement, #BlackLivesMatter, to shed light on the abuses inherent in the system and to demand much needed reform. Those working within the system are also frustrated by the disrespect and mistrust citizens express to- wards them. Rioting and looting by residents and outsiders in Balti- more after the death of Mr. Gray was cited by the establishment as evidence of the volatility of poor, black communities. Critics of the system, however, argue that it is the system that created this explo- siveness. This system, says Jeffrey Reiman in The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, is one that has grown up piecemeal over time and generally with good intentions. The current beliefs about what is crim- inal and how to deal with crime predate industrial society. Rather than being a conscious plan by the elite to oppress the poor and minorities, our system reflects attitudes so deeply embedded in tradition that they appear natural. While crime falls more frequently and more heavily on poor communities like several areas of Baltimore, those with power benefit from the downward blaming inherent in the identification of crime with the poor, so that there is no incentive to change things. The system is designed to keep the narrative focused on the poor. These sentiments are echoed by Michelle Alexander in her book, The New Jim Crow. “This system is better designed to create crime and a perpetual class of people labeled criminals, rather than to elimi- nate crime or reduce the number of criminals.”8 Reiman agrees, argu- ing that the goal of the system is not to eliminate crime or to achieve justice, but to project to the public that the threat of crime is a threat emanating from the poor. To accomplish this, there must be a sizable population of poor criminals, which is created by the failure of the system to eliminate the crimes poor people commit. Failing to elimi- nate high crime rates and blaming crime on the poor conveys the im- age that the real danger to law-abiding citizens comes from below, rather than above them on the economic ladder. “This image sanctifies the status quo with its disparities of wealth, privilege, and opportunity, and thus serves the interests of the rich and powerful in America—the very ones who could change criminal justice policy if they were really unhappy with it.”9 This downward blaming prevents attention being paid to the social factors that create the problems in the first place. One such factor is social policy, implemented by the rich and powerful with only super- ficial attention to consequences. For example, while there is no doubt that intact families offer support and structure for children, it is naïve

8 Alexander, The New Jim Crow. 236. 9 Reiman and Leighton, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, 123. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 147 to assume that family disintegration is the result of personal choice, as the bishops allude to in their policy foundations directions section of their statement.10 Family disintegration is not the result of individua l choice, but a consequence of misguided social policies, which incen- tivized single parenthood. Before the implementation of welfare poli- cies in the 1950’s, blacks had higher rates of marriage than whites ac- cording to the U.S. Census. But as blacks became more urbanized and labor unions more discriminatory, these numbers declined. Because of racism in the workplace, black men were being kept out of jobs that could support a family. In addition, misguided policy increased the welfare programs to black women with dependent children, which de- stroyed the potential for black urban families to flourish. 11 A final threat to the black family was the policy of real estate agents who “red- lined” areas of single family homes, keeping blacks from purchasing a piece of the American dream.12 What followed from these failed pol- icies was a cycle of dependence and high crime for poor urban African Americans that is still a concern today. This is especially visible in Baltimore, a city that is 60% African American. Baltimore’s downward spiral began in the 1970’s when half of the city’s jobs in steel, shipbuilding, and transportation assembly disap- peared. The jobs moved to the suburbs, offshore, or faded away in favor of the new postindustrial economy. “Ranked 87th among the na- tion’s hundred largest cities in median income, by 2000 Baltimore had become a poor city in the country’s wealthiest state.”13 Baltimore is in essence two cities—a city of developers and professionals and a city of impoverished blacks who continue to suffer from shrinking eco- nomic opportunities. The children of these second-city inhabitants are the urban disadvantaged, who live in the poorest parts of the city in concentrated poverty. Their lives are wrought by poverty, crime, and urban decay. They are surrounded by boarded-up houses and empty businesses. The open air drug markets that developed in the 1980’s are often the only jobs that individuals in the area can get. Police in Balti- more focus their energies on the poorer areas of town and arrest many more blacks than whites. The highly acclaimed book, The Corner de- scribes life in Baltimore’s inner city, but it is a horrific portrayal of life on the streets and neglects to consider the many “decent folk” who

10 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 42. 11 Anthony Bradley, “Slavery did not destroy black families. Welfare did,” LifeSite (March 28, 2013), www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/slavery -did-not-destroy-black- families.-welfare-did. 12 John Powell, “Race Place and Opportunity,” The American Prospect (September 21, 2008), http://prospect.org/article/race-place-and-opportunity. 13 Stephen Walters and Louis Miserendino, “Baltimore’s Flawed Renaissance: The Failure of Plan Control Subsidize Redevelopment,” Perspectives on Eminent Domain Abuse (Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice, 2008), 3. 148 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field also inhabit these drug infested areas.14 It is books like The Corner and the subsequent television series The Wire that reinforce the public’s perception of poor neighborhoods as dysfunctional, dangerous places. An additional dysfunction of the criminal justice system is the re- liance of its leaders on untested theory. For example, the bishops’ statement form 2000 indicates support for Broken Windows theory, but the theory’s implementation has done more to increase mistrust in the system than eliminate it. In 1982 James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling wrote an article titled “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” which was published in The Atlantic Monthly.15 The theory emphasizes proactive and aggressive enforce- ment of misdemeanor laws, such as public drunkenness, littering, graf- fiti, etc., based on the idea that unaddressed disorder is a sign that no one cares, which invites more disorder and serious crime. The sim- plicity of the theory and low cost of implementation were attractive to law enforcement, leading New York City’s Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police commissioner William Bratton to implement the strategy in a “Quality of Life Initiative” project.16 A fundamental problem with the theory is that it does not do a very good job of defining disorder. It also allows law enforcement officers to “stop and frisk” citizens in the name of crime prevention. The trou- ble with this focus is that officers routinely stopped and frisked minor- ities much more often than whites, and reports of police brutality tri- pled. Law enforcement officers, like the rest of us, are subject to im- plicit biases regarding the dangerousness of neighborhoods and people based on the number of minorities in a given area. The mere presence of African Americans plays a more important role in perceptions of disorder than does the physical signs of disorder, says Kevin Draku- lich and Laura Siller.17 The implicit biases that lie behind these views of blacks as dangerous intensified the mistrust minorities have for the police and led to tension fueled riots in Baltimore and several other major cities. These and other problems with the system, including the militari- zation of the police, excessive use of force, and a culture of silence

14 Karl Alexander, Doris Entwisle, and Linda Olson, The Long Shadow (New York: Sage, 2014). 15 James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neigh- borhood Safety,” The Atlantic Monthly 249 (March 1982): 29–38. 16 See Bernard E. Harcourt, Illusion of Order: False Promise of Broken Windows The- ory (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2001); Harcourt, “Reflecting on the Subject,” 291. 17 Kevin M. Drakulich and Laura Siller, “Presumed Danger: Race, Bias, Stigma, and Perceptions of Crime and Criminals,” in Deadly Injustice: Trayvon Martin, Race, and the Criminal Justice System, ed. Devon Johnson, Patricia Y. Warren and Amy Farrell (New York: New York University Press, 2015), 23-58. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 149 among law enforcement officers and leaders are not nearly as chal- lenging as the racism that permeates not only the criminal justice sys- tem, but is endemic in American culture.

RACIAL STEREOTYPES As Reiman alluded, it is the poor who are blamed for crime in America, and it benefits powerful individuals to keep it that way. But it is the poor, black individuals who feel the brunt of the punitive na- ture of our criminal justice system. At every level of the criminal jus- tice process, from a police officer’s initial decision to stop a citizen, arrest, conviction, and imprisonment, minorities face intense, regular, and consistent discrimination.18 Blacks constitute nearly 1 million of the 2.3 million incarcerated individuals in this country, despite the fact that they only make up approximately 12% of the population. Blacks are incarcerated at six times the rate of whites and one in four black men will be under the supervision of the criminal justice system at some point in their lives.19 This observable fact is driven by the stere- otypical association with black males as the violent, dangerous other in our society. These damaging stereotypes are not simply the product of poorly educated or troubled individuals. Critical race theorists take the posi- tion that racism is ordinary and normal in our society and may even be integral to social practices and institutions.20 Racism is difficult to address because it is not acknowledged, it is the usual way of doing business—a common everyday experience for the people of color.21 This can be seen in the media. Its portrayal of crime and viewers’ responses to such portrayals play important roles in creating and sus- taining the stereotype of black men as “criminal” and “dangerous.” Mary Beth Oliver employs cultivation theory and associative priming to show how heavy viewers of television are more likely to overesti- mate how dangerous the world is. Long-term exposure to media con- tent results in viewers perceiving that the “real world” is similar to the world depicted. What is depicted, according to Oliver, is a systematic overrepresentation of African Americans as criminal and dangerous in news and reality programming. The systematic ways in which viewers mistakenly remember race and crime information can result in a

18 Karl L. Alexander, Doris R. Entwisle, and Susan L. Dauber, On the Success of Fail- ure: A reassessment of the Effects of Retention in the Primary Grades (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 19 NAACP, “Criminal Justice Fact Sheet,” www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice- fact-sheet. 20 Angela P. Harris, “Critical Race Theory,” in International Encyclopedia of the So- cial and Behavioral Sciences, ed. J. Wright (Exeter: Cambridge University Press, 2012). 21 Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York, New York Press, 2006). 150 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field heightened probability that any black man can be mistakenly identi- fied as criminal.22 Unsurprisingly, the public estimates of black crim- inality surpass the reality. The media perpetuates ideas linking race and criminality, which are enforced by political agendas, which are then used by police to profile African Americans.23 These dynamics solidify the stereotype of the young black man as a criminal threat, and, in communities where restorative justice is practiced, the preju- dice and discrimination blacks are subjected to may hamper efforts to fully reconcile.24 The reality for poor African-American males in cities like Balti- more today is that there are dynamics over which they have no control. The complex intersection of family dynamics, inadequate education, unemployment, debt, drug dealing, adversarial contact with law en- forcement, imprisonment, and criminal records conspire to push these young, poor males into poverty and keep them there. Communities characterized as disordered by outsiders, however, are misunderstood. “It only looks like disorder because it is geared toward survival in a context of isolation and exclusion from most of the opportunities that American society supposedly guarantees its citizens. The survival strategies adopted there do not resemble those familiar to the Ameri- can mainstream.”25 Waverly Duck explains that the graffiti, broken street lights, abandoned buildings, and trash are not symptoms of dis- order, but are instead evidence of community efficacy. Trash and bro- ken street lights hide drug dealing, which is often the only job availa- ble. Abandoned buildings are evidence of community members’ ef- forts to eradicate drug houses. Graffiti is an attempt to honor fallen community members with memorials. For mainstream society, how- ever, these community characteristics fall into the “Broken Windows” theory of disorder and are symptoms of a culture of poverty.

22 Mary Beth Oliver, “African American Men as ‘Criminal and Dangerous’: Implica- tions of Media Portrayals of Crime on the ‘Criminalization’ of African American Men,” Journal of African American Studies 7, no. 2 (2003): 3-18. 23 See Michalis Lianos, Dangerous Others, Insecure Societies: Fear and Social Divi- sion (New York: Routledge, 2013); Kelly Welch, “Black Criminal Stereotypes and Racial Profiling,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23, no. 3 (2007): 276- 88. 24 See Mark Umbreit, Robert Coates, and Ann Roberts, “The Impact of Victim-Of- fender Mediation: A Cross-National Perspective,” Mediation Quarterly 17, no. 3 (2003): 215-29; Theo Gavrielides, “Bringing Race Relations into the Restorative Jus- tice Debate: An Alternative and Personalized Vision of ‘the Other’,” Journal of Black Studies 45, no. 3 (2014): 216-46. 25 Waverly Duck, No Way Out: Precarious Living in the Shadow of Poverty and Drug- Dealing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), 2. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 151

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Restorative justice provides an alternative system of justice that can overcome these well documented shortcomings. A restorative jus- tice approach is less punitive and less likely to be as devastating to individuals and communities as is the current adversarial system. As opposed to locking away an individual engaged in criminal behavior, restorative justice seeks to address the wrongdoing through a variety of mechanisms including offender conferences, family group confer- ences, and circle approaches. These methods originated in traditional societies and focus on righting the wrongs that were done to an indi- vidual or group. Crime is considered a violation of people and rela- tionships, not a violation of the law. The Catholic Bishops agree claiming that “the four traditional elements of the sacrament of Pen- ance have much to teach us about taking responsibility, making amends, and reintegrating into community.”26 In the restorative justice model, violations create obligations and the central obligation is to right the wrongs. The needs of the victim are a primary concern, but so are the needs of the offender and the community.27 To do so effectively though, restorative justice systems needs to address social structures. Communities must not only be able to rec- ommend and provide resolutions for deviant behavior, they must also have sufficient opportunities for education and gainful employment to successfully reintegrate these individuals. The ills of many minority communities, however, are widely reported and include lack of quality health care and transportation, few job opportunities, low income, in- stitutional racism, racial profiling, and police brutality.28 These factors may keep poor, minority communities from generating the kind of cit- izen participation necessary to sustain restorative justice programs. Analyzing data from the Community Conferencing Center (CCC) in Baltimore makes clear that restorative systems of justice work but are more effective if structural inequalities are addressed. The Com- munity Conferencing Center keeps data for six years at a time and in- cludes data on age, zip code, year of referral, race and ethnicity, and if each juvenile, once referred, actually participated in the program. The CCC, originally proposed by Dr. Lauren Abramson in 1995, is a nationally and internationally recognized conflict transformation and community justice organization that provides ways for people to pre- vent and resolve conflicts and crime. This center is “the only broad- based conferencing program in a large American inner-city, with most

26 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 19. 27 Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2002). 28 See Duck, No Way Out; Carlos Molina, Ruth Zambrana, and Marilyn Aguirre-Mo- lina, “The Influence of Culture, Class, and Environment on Health Care,” in Latino Health in the U.S.: A Growing Challenge, ed. Carlos Molina and Marilyn Aguirre- Molina (Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, 1994). 152 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field services provided at no cost to participants.” The Center “also pro- vides training, technical assistance, program development, and pro- gram evaluation services.”29

Figure 1. Median Household Income by Zip Code Baltimore, MD Area

The descriptive data show that Baltimore is indeed two cities, one wealthy and the other disadvantaged. As is shown in Figure 1, income is widely disparate. Pockets of poverty are clustered together outside the city center on the west side. Individuals in these areas have in- comes in the $25,000 to $44,000 range, while those in the wealthy suburbs bring home a median income of $120,000 or more.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Across All 37 Baltimore Area Zip Codes

Program Referrals Mean Std. Dev. Min Max (N=2,909) Female (%) 0.482 0.500 0.000 1.000 Age (Yrs.) 14.327 2.496 5.788 18.979 Race (%) White 0.035 0.185 0.000 1.000

29 “Overview,” Community Conferencing Center (Baltimore: Community Conferenc- ing Center, 2008), www.communityconferencing.org/index.php/about/. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 153

Black 0.939 0.239 0.000 1.000 Hispanic 0.011 0.106 0.000 1.000 Other 0.014 0.118 0.000 1.000 Participate (%) 0.340 0.474 0.000 1.000 Factors by Zip Code (N=37) Economic Unemployment (%) 0.153 0.048 0.056 0.249 Poverty (%) 0.202 0.077 0.011 0.354 Median HH Income ($) 40,577.36 12,518.68 25,522.00 121,484.00 Education (%) High School Diploma + 0.789 0.065 0.593 0.965 Bachelor’s Degree + 0.222 0.125 0.063 0.667 Crime Rates (per 100,000) Violent 309.083 60.549 57.437 348.536 Property 616.488 35.952 233.851 749.192 Demographics Population Size 37394.90 13884.40 7749.00 69893.00 NH-White 0.257 0.195 0.018 0.888 NH-Black 0.657 0.236 0.037 0.956 Hispanic 0.039 0.042 0.008 0.186

As is shown in the data for juveniles in the program, 48% of the 2,909 program referrals were female. Moreover, the average age of referrals was 14 years old. However, the age of referrals varied widely with the youngest participant listed as 6 years old and the oldest 19. Race plays a central role in referrals, with 94% of the program re- ferrals self-identified as black, 3.5% as white, 1.1% Hispanic, and 1.4% other race. The other race category includes primarily referrals whose race was marked as either “Other” or “Unknown.” Finally, of the 2,909 individuals referred to the program, 34% actually partici- pated in the program. There are no qualitative data on why referents declined to enter the program. Two variables of note are education levels and racial composition by zip code. Nearly, 79% of residents in the 37 zip codes have at least a high school diploma and 22.2% possess at least a bachelor’s degree. Yet, some zip codes have only 59.3% of the population having com- pleted at least a high school diploma, while other zip codes report pop- ulations with 66.7% having at least a bachelor’s degree. The educa- tional inequality in Baltimore is deplorable. 154 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field

The racial and ethnic distribution across the 37 zip codes was also discouraging. Approximately 66% of the population across all zip codes is black. However, in some zip codes that figure is as low as 3.7%. In others, the number climbs as high as 95.6%. Correspond- ingly, the mean percent of the population that is white across all 37 zip codes is 25.7%. Nonetheless, the figure for whites ranges from a low of 1.8% to a high of 88.8%. Referrals to the program were identified by the data and indicate that 1,498 referrals (51.5%) came from zip codes where at least 70% of the population is black. Seventy-two referrals (2.5%) came from zip codes where at least 70% of the population is white. Moreover, the predominately black zip codes are heavily clustered around the city center as is shown in Figure 2. Similarly, education was indicative of those referred to the pro- gram. In 2013, 86% of the US population 25 and older had at least a high school degree. Zip codes that fell below this national average for educational attainment contributed 87.9% of the program referrals. Zip codes that exceeded the national average level of education attain- ment only contributed about 12% of all referrals to the program.

Figure 2. Black Composition by Zip Code, Baltimore, MD Area

Similar results emerge by comparing the median household income to the number of referrals. Zip codes that fell below the 2013 median household income level of $53,046 contributed 2,307 referrals (79.3%). Additionally, zip codes with a median household income of Restorative Justice in Baltimore 155

$63,046 or higher, $10,000 more than the national average, contrib- uted just 175 referrals (6%). Even with these disparities, recidivism data for 2010-2012 indicate that the program led to a 60% reduction in recidivism among juveniles. Moreover, the restorative justice helped those that were most vulner- able. Most of the referrals came from largely from poor, black areas and those who participate in these programs had lower rates of recidi- vism. These data show that restorative justice is a necessary step toward criminal justice reform. However, it also indicates the importance of addressing structural inequality. The zip code that contributed the larg- est number of referrals to the restorative justice program (N=278) is situated in an area of Baltimore that is nearly 92% black, where ap- proximately 40% of households have an income of less than $25,000, only 11% of residents have a college degree, and about 18% of resi- dents are unemployed. Just 15 miles away, another zip code only con- tributed 1 referral to the restorative justice program from an area where 89% of residents are white, 7% have household incomes of less than $25,000 and 59% of households earn over $100,000, 59% of res- idents have at least a college degree, and unemployment in 2013 was at 6.8%. These areas represent two different worlds that are only sep- arated by a twenty minute commute. Robust criminal justice reform, including restorative justice, must necessarily include greater attention to the rampant structural inequal- ities in our communities. We suggest that future research on restora- tive justice proceed with three objectives in mind. First, methodologi- cally we hope future research will combine individual and community level indicators. This approach fully appreciates the individuality of human choice but more properly frames individual choice within the context of serious structural constraints. Second, future research should also pay particular attention to com- munity characteristics in which restorative justice programs are em- bedded. The restorative justice program in the Baltimore area analyzed in this article has been successful in reducing recidivism among par- ticipants in years prior to this analysis. However, the success rate would improve dramatically if restorative justice was part of a much broader push to improve economic, social, and racial inequality. Third, we advocate for a true interdisciplinary approach to criminal justice reform. Drawing on research from all areas will help those in positions of authority avoid problematic approaches to crime, such as “Broken Windows” policing, which ignore the dignity of victims and offenders in an effort to develop approaches that are simply less costly and more easily implemented.

156 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field

CONCLUSION We believe that restorative justice programs can contribute to this effort. Our data from a community conferencing center in Baltimore clearly show that majority black communities can and do participate in successful restorative justice programs. Black communities that have been oppressed economically, educationally, and emotionally have shown that the dangerousness stereotypes are incorrect and that these individuals do indeed care about having the sense of well-being and security that wealthy white neighborhoods take for granted. However, these programs need to address structural inequality that usually are the source of and hinder resolution to many of the problems facing these communities. In Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Res- toration, the bishops emphasize restorative justice but, if they want it to become effective, they need to better address structural inequalities. Fortunately, they can draw upon the principles of subsidiarity and sol- idarity contained within Catholic social teaching to do so. As Respon- sibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration notes, “human dignity and hu- man rights are fostered in community” and subsidiarity demands that any criminal justice reform occur within the smallest community pos- sible, i.e. the state, city, or neighborhood.30 Restorative justice pro- grams meet that need far more effectively than the current punitive system. Restorative justice places the needs of the community at the heart of justice in addressing victims and offenders, as opposed to the adversarial nature of our current punitive system that often takes ad- vantage of the victim as a tool for prosecution and has little emphasis on reforming the offender. Additionally, subsidiarity stipulates that one-size fits all crime pol- icies are problematic. This is certainly true of policies like the three strikes laws and mandatory sentencing wherein offenders are punished by the same measure but for offenses that occur in very different con- texts and for a myriad of reasons. Restorative justice, on the other hand, tailors justice to the specific setting accounting for the commu- nity context and the needs of both the victim and offender. Similarly, the principle of solidarity reminds us that we are respon- sible for more than just our own families, neighbors, and friends, but that we are responsible for all people beyond our own community bor- ders. As such, we must all actively work for criminal justice reform, even when those reforms are not specific to our neighborhood. More- over, solidarity reminds us that offenders are our “sisters and broth- ers,” which calls us to help those offenders “rehabilitate, heal, and re- store.” 31

30 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 25. 31 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 25. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 157

If followed, solidarity and subsidiarity will strengthen community and so address limited educational opportunities and economic dispar- ity. It will require that “every public policy must be assessed by how it will affect the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.”32 This requires that we all work tirelessly for those among us in need of “proper nutrition, shelter, health care, and protection from abuse and neglect.”33 In doing so, it will bring to those areas most in need of un- derstanding programs that restore, as opposed to destroy, lives.

32 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 24-5. 33 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 25.