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. of informal and formal processes that 6. References These bodies meet with offenders, precede wrongdoing, those that pro- but victims, their families and friends actively build relationships and a sense 1. Purpose are not generally invited. Restorative of community to prevent conflict and The International Institute for Re- justice, in contrast, offers victims and wrongdoing. storative Practices (IIRP) has a particular their supporters an opportunity to talk Where social capital—a network of way of defining restorative and related directly with offenders. relationships—is already well estab- terms that is consistent throughout Our purpose is not to label other lished, it is easier to respond effectively our courses, events, videos and pub- processes or terms as positive or nega- to wrongdoing and restore social or- lications. We have developed our defi- tive, effective or ineffective. We respect der—as well as to create a healthy and nitions to facilitate communication the fact that others may define terms positive organizational environment. and discussion within the framework differently and, of course, have every Social capital is defined as the con- of our own graduate school and for right to do so. Rather, we simply want nections among individuals (Putnam, those who participate in our Restor- to define and share a consistent termi- 2001), and the trust, mutual under- ative Works learning network. nology to create a unified framework standing, shared values and behaviors For example, at one of our symposia of understanding. that bind us together and make coop- a young man insisted that his school erative action possible (Cohen & Pru- already held conferences with students 2. Overview sak, 2001). and their families, not realizing that Restorative practices is a social sci- In public health terms, restorative most of the other participants at the ence that studies how to build social justice provides tertiary prevention, event were not referring to a generic capital and achieve social discipline introduced after the problem has oc- conference, but to a restorative confer- through participatory learning and de- curred, with the intention of avoiding ence. A restorative conference is a spe- cision-making. reoccurrence. Restorative practices ex-

© 2013 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 2 pands that effort with primary preven- ative justice” (Zehr, 1990); in social work 2006; Haarala, 2004; Mbambo & Skel- tion, introduced before the problem the term employed is “empowerment” ton, 2003; Mirsky, 2004; Roujanavong, has occurred. (Simon, 1994); in education, talk is of 2005; Wong, 2005). The social science of restorative “positive discipline” (Nelsen, 1996) or Eventually modern restorative jus- practices offers a common thread to “the responsive classroom” (Charney, tice broadened to include communi- tie together theory, research and prac- 1992); and in organizational leadership ties of care as well, with victims’ and tice in diverse fields such as educa- “horizontal management” (Denton, offenders’ families and friends partici- tion, counseling, criminal justice, social 1998) is referenced. The social science pating in collaborative processes called work and organizational management. of restorative practices recognizes all conferences and circles. Conferencing Individuals and organizations in many of these perspectives and incorporates addresses power imbalances between fields are developing models and them into its scope. the victim and offender by including methodology and performing empiri- additional supporters (McCold, 1999). cal research that share the same im- 3. History The family group conference (FGC) plicit premise, but are often unaware Restorative practices has its roots in started in New Zealand in 1989 as a re- of the commonality of each other’s restorative justice, a way of looking at sponse to native Maori people’s con- efforts. criminal justice that emphasizes re- cerns with the number of their children For example, in criminal justice, repairing the harm done to people and being removed from their homes by storative circles and restorative con- relationships rather than only punish- the courts. It was originally envisioned ferences allow victims, offenders and ing 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 me- North America it was renamed family how everyone has been affected by an diation or reconciliation between vic- group decision making (FGDM) (Bur- offense and, when possible, to decide tims 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 (Stutzman Amstutz & Zehr, mane Association, 2003). In education, subsequently acquired various names, 1998). In 1994 Marg Thorsborne, an circles and groups provide opportuni- such as victim-offender mediation and Australian 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 (Office of The International Institute for Re- an active role in addressing the wrong Victims of Crime, 1998). storative Practices (IIRP) grew out of and making things right (Riestenberg, Restorative justice echoes ancient the Community Service Foundation 2002). and indigenous practices employed in and Buxmont Academy, which since These various fields employ different cultures all over the world, from Native 1977 have provided programs for delin- terms, all of which fall under the rubric American and First Nation Canadian to quent and at-risk youth in southeastern of restorative practices: In the criminal African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, Arab and Pennsylvania, USA. Initially founded in justice field the phrase used is “restor- many others (Eagle, 2001; Goldstein, 1994 under the auspices of Buxmont

Academy, 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 authoritarian authoritative then the IIRP, an accredited graduate school, has developed a comprehen- sive 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 spread- irresponsible paternalistic ing worldwide, in education, criminal justice, social work, counseling, youth services, workplace and faith commu- Figure 1. Social Discipline Window nity applications (Wachtel, 2013). fundamental unifying hypothesis of re- 4.2. Restorative Justice Typology 4. Supporting Framework storative practices is that “human be- Restorative justice is a process in- The IIRP has identified several con- ings are happier, more cooperative and volving the primary stakeholders in de- cepts that it views as most helpful in productive, and more likely to make termining how best to repair the harm explaining and understanding restor- positive changes in their behavior done by an offense. The three primary ative practices. when those in positions of authority do stakeholders in restorative justice are things with them, rather than to them victims, offenders and their communities 4.1. Social Discipline Window or for them.” This hypothesis maintains of care, whose needs are, respectively, The social discipline window (Figure that the punitive and authoritarian to obtaining reparation, taking responsi- 1) is a concept with broad application mode and the permissive and pater- bility and achieving reconciliation. The in many settings. It describes four ba- nalistic for mode are not as effective as degree to which all three are involved sic approaches to maintaining social the restorative, participatory, engaging in meaningful emotional exchange! and norms and behavioral boundaries. The with mode (Wachtel, 2005). decision making is the degree to which four are represented as different combi- The social discipline window reflects any form of social discipline approaches nations of high or low control and high the seminal thinking of renowned being fully restorative. or low support. The restorative domain Australian criminologist John Braith- The three primary stakeholders are combines both high control and high waite, who has asserted that reliance represented in Figure 2 by the three support and is characterized by doing on punishment as a social regulator overlapping circles. The very process of things with people, rather than to them is problematic because it shames and interacting is critical to meeting stake- or for them. stigmatizes wrongdoers, pushes them holders’ emotional needs. The emo- The social discipline window also into a negative societal subculture and tional exchange necessary for meeting defines restorative practices as a lead- fails to change their behavior (Braith- the needs of all those directly affected ership model for parents in families, waite, 1989). The restorative approach, cannot occur with only one set of teachers in classrooms, administrators on the other hand, reintegrates wrong- stakeholders participating. The most and managers in organizations, police doers back into their community and restorative processes involve the active and social workers in communities and reduces the likelihood that they will participation of all three sets of primary judges and officials in government. The reoffend. stakeholders (McCold & Wachtel, 2003).

© 2013 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 4 Types and Degrees of Restorative Justice Practice more planning and time, and are more structured and complete. Although a victim communities of care formal restorative process might have

reparation victim support reconciliation dramatic impact, informal practices circles have a cumulative impact because victim offender family services services they are part of everyday life (McCold & Wachtel, 2001). RESTORATIVE The aim of restorative practices is crime family-centered compensation JUSTICE social work to develop community and to man- peace family group victimless age conflict and tensions by repair- victim circles conferencing conferences ing harm and building relationships. restitution community positive This statement identifies both proac- victim-offender conferencing discipline mediation tive (building relationships and de- therapeutic communities veloping community) and reactive (repairing harm and restoring rela-

related reparative tionships) approaches. Organizations community service boards fully restorative and services that only use the reactive without building the social capital youth aid victim sensitivity panels training mostly restorative beforehand are less successful than those that also employ the proactive offenderoffender partly restorative (Davey, 2007). responsibilityresponsibility

Figure 2. Restorative Justice Typology 4.4. Nine Affects The most critical function of restor- When criminal justice practices in- to formal. On a restorative practices ative practices is restoring and building volve only one group of primary stake- continuum (Figure 3), the informal relationships. Because informal and holders, as in the case of governmental practices include affective statements formal restorative processes foster the financial compensation for victims or that communicate people’s feelings, as expression of affect or emotion, they meaningful community service work well as affective questions that cause also foster emotional bonds. The late assigned to offenders, the process can people to reflect on how their behavior Silvan S. Tomkins’s writings about psy- only be called partly restorative. When a has affected others. Impromptu restor- chology of affect (Tomkins, 1962, 1963, process such as victim-offender medi- ative conferences, groups and circles 1991) assert that human relationships ation includes two principal stakehold- are somewhat more structured but do are best and healthiest when there is ers but excludes their communities of not require the elaborate preparation free expression of affect or emotion— care, the process is mostly restorative. needed for formal conferences. Moving minimizing the negative, maximiz- Only when all three sets of primary from left to right on the continuum, as ing the positive, but allowing for free stakeholders are actively involved, restorative practices become more for- expression. Donald Nathanson, for- such as in conferences or circles, is a mal, they involve more people, require mer director of the Silvan S. Tomkins process fully restorative (McCold & Wa- chtel, 2003).

4.3. Restorative Practices Continuum Restorative practices are not lim- ited to formal processes, such as restorative conferences or family group conferences, but range from informal Figure 3. Restorative Practices Continuum

ect Enjoyment — Joy ff that feel pleasant, one (surprise-startle) is free expression of affect, minimizing eA so brief that it has no feeling of its own, the negative and maximizing the posi- ositiv Interest — Excitement and six that feel dreadful—we are hard- tive (Nathanson, 1992). From the simple

lP Surprise — Startle wired to conform to an internal blue- affective statement to the formal con- Neutra print. The human emotional blueprint ference, that is what restorative practic- Shame — Humiliation ensures that we feel best when we es are designed to do (Wachtel, 1999).

Distress — Anguish 1) maximize positive affect and 2) mini- mize negative affect; we function best 4.5. Compass of Shame s

Disgust fect when 3) we express all affect (mini- Shame is worthy of special atten- Af mize the inhibition of affect) so we tion. Nathanson explains that shame is Fear — Terror Negative can accomplish these two goals; and, a critical regulator of human social be- Anger — Rage finally, 4) anything that fosters these havior. Tomkins defines shame as oc- three goals makes us feel our best, curring any time that our experience Dissmell whereas any force that interferes with of the positive affects is interrupted any one or more of those goals makes (Tomkins, 1987). So an individual does Figure 4. The NineAdapted Affects from Nathanson, 1992 us feel worse (Nathanson, 1997b). not have to do something wrong to (adapted from Nathanson, 1992) By encouraging people to express feel shame. The individual just has to their feelings, restorative practices build experience something that interrupts Institute, added that it is through the better relationships. Restorative prac- interest-excitement or enjoyment-joy mutual exchange of expressed affect tices demonstrate the fundamental (Nathanson, 1997a). This understanding that we build community, creating the hypothesis of Tomkins’s psychology of of shame provides a critical explana- emotional bonds that tie us all togeth- affect—that the healthiestTh eenvironment Compa stions o forf Swhyha victimsme of crime often feel er (Nathanson, 1998). Restorative practices such as conferences and circles Withdrawal: provide a safe environment for people • isolating oneself • running and hiding to express and exchange emotion (Na- thanson, 1998). draw Tomkins identified nine distinct- af With al fects (Figure 4) to explain the expression of emotion in all humans. Most of r A e t the affects are defined by pairs of words t h a Attack Other: t that represent the least and the most • "turning the tables" c Attack Self:

O k

• self put-down

• blaming the victim k

intense expression of a particular affect. S • masochism • lashing out verbally c

or physically a t

anger- l

The six negative affects include f

t rage, fear-terror, distress-anguish, dis- A gust, dissmell (a word Tomkins coined to describe “turning up one’s nose” in a A e rejecting way) and shame-humiliation. voidanc Surprise-startle is the neutral affect, which functions like a reset button. Avoidance: The two positive affects are interest- • denial • abusing drugs and alcohol excitement and enjoyment-joy (Tom- • distraction through thrill-seeking kins, 1962, 1963, 1991). Silvan S. Tomkins (1962) wrote that Figure 5. The Compass of Shame because we have evolved to experi- (adaptedAdap fromted fro mNathanson, Nathanson, 19 1992)92

© 2013 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 6 a strong sense of shame, even though business organizations (Kim & Maubor- 5.1. Restorative Conference it was the offender who committed gne, 1997). The central idea of fair pro- A restorative conference is a struc- the “shameful” act (Angel, 2005). cess is that “…individuals are most likely tured meeting between offenders, Nathanson (1992) has developed the to trust and cooperate freely with sys- victims and both parties’ family and Compass of Shame (Figure 5) to illus- tems—whether they themselves win friends, in which they deal with the trate the various ways that human be- or lose by those systems—when fair consequences of the crime or wrong- ings react when they feel shame. The process is observed” (Kim & Maubor- doing and decide how best to repair four poles of the compass of shame and gne, 1997). the harm. Neither a counseling nor behaviors associated with them are: The three principles of fair process a mediation process, conferencing • Withdrawal—isolating oneself, are: is a victim-sensitive, straightforward running and hiding • Engagement—involving indi- problem-solving method that demon- • Attack self—self put-down, viduals in decisions that affect strates how citizens can resolve their masochism them by listening to their views own problems when provided with a • Avoidance—denial, abusing and genuinely taking their constructive forum to do so (O’Connell, drugs, distraction through thrill opinions into account Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999). seeking • Explanation—explaining the rea- Conferences provide victims and • Attack others—turning the soning behind a decision to ev- others with an opportunity to confront tables, lashing out verbally or eryone who has been involved the offender, express their feelings, ask physically, blaming others or who is affected by it questions and have a say in the out- • Expectation clarity—making sure come. Offenders hear firsthand how Nathanson says that the attack other that everyone clearly under- their behavior has affected people. Of- response to shame is responsible for stands a decision and what is fenders may choose to participate in the proliferation of violence in modern expected of them in the future a conference and begin to repair the life. Usually people who have adequate (Kim & Mauborgne, 1997) harm they have caused by apologizing, self-esteem readily move beyond their making amends and agreeing to finan- feelings of shame. Nonetheless we all Fair process demonstrates the re- cial restitution or personal or commu- react to shame, in varying degrees, in storative with domain of the social dis- nity service work. Conferences hold the ways described by the Compass. cipline window. It relates to how lead- offenders accountable while providing Restorative practices, by their very na- ers handle their authority in all kinds them with an opportunity to discard ture, provide an opportunity for us to of professions and roles: from parents the “offender” label and be reintegrated express our shame, along with other and teachers to managers and admin- into their community, school or work- emotions, and in doing so reduce their istrators. The fundamental hypothesis place (Morris & Maxwell, 2001). intensity. In restorative conferences, for of restorative practices embodies fair Participation in conferences is vol- example, people routinely move from process by asserting that “people are untary. After it is determined that a negative affects through the neutral happier, more cooperative and pro- conference is appropriate and offend- affect to positive affects (Nathanson, ductive, and more likely to make posi- ers and victims have agreed to attend, 1998). tive changes in behavior when those the conference facilitator invites oth- in authority do things with them, rather ers affected by the incident—the fam- 4.6. Fair Process than to them or for them.” ily and friends of victims and offenders When authorities do things with (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999). people, whether reactively—to deal 5. Restorative Processes A restorative conference can be with crisis—or proactively, the results The IIRP has identified several re- used in lieu of traditional disciplinary are better. This fundamental thesis was storative processes that it views as or justice processes, or where that is evident in a Harvard Business Review most helpful in implementing restor- not appropriate, as a supplement to article about the concept of fair pro- ative practices in the widest variety of those processes (O’Connell, Wachtel, & cess producing effective outcomes in settings. Wachtel, 1999).

In the Real Justice approach to re- discussed with the offender and - ev script approach (Chapman, 2006). Vic- storative conferences, developed by eryone else at the conference. When tim-offender conferences do not rely Australian police officer Terry O’Connell, agreement is reached, a simple con- on a script either. Based on the earlier the conference facilitator sticks to a tract is written and signed (O’Connell, restorative justice model of victim-of- simple written script. The facilitator Wachtel, & 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 confer- proach to addressing wrongdoing in approach to conferences still relies on ence the facilitator provides an oppor- various settings in a variety of ways mediators who more actively manage tunity to each participant to speak, be- (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999): the process (Stutzman Amstutz & Zehr, ginning with asking open-ended and • Conferencing can be employed 1998). affectiverestorative questions of the of- by schools in response to truan- The IIRP prefers the Real Justice fender. The facilitator then asks victims cy, disciplinary incidents, includ- scripted model of conferencing be- and their family members and friends ing violence, or as a prevention cause we believe it has the greatest questions that provide an opportunity strategy in the form of role-plays potential to meet the needs of the to tell about the incident from their per- of conferences with primary and stakeholders described in the Restor- spective and how it affected them. The secondary school students. ative Justice Typology. In addition, re- offenders’ family and friends are asked • Police can use conferences as search shows that it consistently pro- to do the same (O’Connell, Wachtel, & a warning or diversion from vides very high levels of satisfaction Wachtel, 1999). court, especially with first-time and sense of fairness for all participants Using the conference script, offend- offenders. (McCold & Wachtel, 2002). However, ers are asked these restorative ques- • Courts may use conferencing we do not mean to quibble with other tions: as a diversion, an alternative approaches. As long as people expe- • “What happened?” sentencing process, or a heal- rience a safe opportunity to have a • “What were you thinking about ing event for victims and of- meaningful discussion that helps them at the time?” fenders after the court process address the emotional and other con- • “What have you thought about is concluded. sequences of a conflict or a wrong, the since the incident?” • Juvenile and adult probation process is beneficial. • “Who do you think has been officers may respond to vari- affected by your actions?” ous probation violations with 5.2. Circles • “How have they been affected?” conferences. A circle is a versatile restorative • Correctional and treatment fa- practice that can be used proactively, Victims are asked these restorative cilities will find that conferences to develop relationships and build questions: resolve the underlying issues community or reactively, to respond • “What was your reaction at the and tensions in conflicts and to wrongdoing, conflicts and prob- time of the incident?” disciplinary actions. lems. Circles give people an opportu- • “How do you feel about what • Colleges and universities can nity to speak and listen to one another happened?” use conferences with residence in an atmosphere of safety, decorum • “What has been the hardest hall and campus incidents and and equality. The circle process allows thing for you?” disciplinary violations. people to tell their stories and offer • “How did your family and • In workplaces, conferences their own perspectives (Pranis, 2005). friends react when they heard address both wrongdoing and The circle has a wide variety of pur- about the incident?” conflict. poses: conflict resolution, healing, support, decision making, information ex- Finally the victim is asked what he Some approaches to restorative change and relationship development. or she would like to be the outcome conferences, such as in Ulster in North- Circles offer an alternative to contem- of the conference. The response is ern Ireland, do not use the Real Justice porary meeting processes that often

© 2013 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 8 rely on hierarchy, win-lose positioning it strictly forbids back-and-forth argu- whose turn it is to speak without inter- and argument (Roca, Inc., n.d.). ment, it provides a great deal of deco- ruption. After everyone has responded Circles can be used in any organi- rum. The format maximizes the op- to restorative questions, the facilitator zational, institutional or community portunity for the quiet voices, those moves to a more open, back-and- setting. Circle time (Mosley, 1993) and that are usually inhibited by louder and forth, non-ordered discussion of what morning meetings (Charney, 1992) more assertive people, to speak with- the victim needs and how those needs have been widely used in primary out interruption. Individuals who want might be met. and elementary schools for many to respond to something that has been A sequential restorative circle may years and more recently in secondary said must be patient and wait until it is be used instead of a formal conference schools and higher education (Mirsky, their turn to speak. The sequential cir- to respond to wrongdoing or a con- 2007, 2011; Wachtel & Wachtel, 2012). cle encourages people to listen more flict or problem. The restorative circle In industry, the quality circle has been and talk less (Costello, Wachtel, & Wa- is less formal because it does not typi- employed for decades to engage chtel, 2010). cally specify victims and offenders and workers in achieving high manufactur- Although most circle traditions rely does not follow a script. However, it ing standards (Nonaka, 1993). In 1992 on a facilitator or circle keeper who may employ some of the restorative Yukon Circuit Court Judge Barry Stew- guides but does not control (Pranis, questions from within the conferenc- art pioneered the sentencing circle, Stuart & Wedge, 2003), a circle does not ing script (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, which involved community members always need a leader. One approach 2010). in helping to decide how to deal with is simply for participants to speak se- Another circle format is the fishbowl. an offender (Lilles, 2002). In 1994 Men- quentially, moving around the circle as This consists of an inner circle of active nonite Pastor Harry Nigh befriended many times as necessary, until all have participants who may discuss an issue a mentally challenged repeat sex of- said what they want to say. In this case, with a sequential approach or engage fender by forming a support group all of the participants take responsibil- in a non-sequential activity such as with some of his parishioners, called ity for maintaining the integrity and the problem-solving. Outside the inner cir- a circle of support and accountability, focus of the circle. cle are observers arranged in as many which was effective in preventing re- Non-sequential circles are often concentric circles as are needed to ac- offending (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 person—may be used to facilitate this A Real Justice restorative confer- to the outer circle—permitting a lim- process. Only the person who is hold- ence, however, employs a different ited 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, speak (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, a circle, and the conference facilitator 2010). 2010). Both the circle and the talking uses the order of speakers defined by piece have roots in ancient and indig- the conference script (offender, victim, 5.3. Family Group Conference enous practices (Mirsky, 2004; Roca, victim supporter, offender supporter) (FGC) or Family Group Decision Inc., n.d.). to ask each person a set of restorative Making (FGDM) The sequential circle is typically questions (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wa- Originating in New Zealand with structured around topics or questions chtel, 1999). In effect, the facilitator the Children, Young Persons and Their raised by the circle facilitator. Because serves as the talking piece, determining Families Act in 1989, the legislation cre-

© 2013 IIRP Graduate School www.iirp.edu Defining Restorative 9 ated a process called the family group empowered to fix their own problems, Or that teacher may ask an affec- conference (FGC), which soon spread the very process of empowerment fa- tive question, perhaps adapting one around the world. North Americans cilitates healing (Rush, 2006). of the restorative questions used in the call this process family group deci- The key features of the New Zealand conference script. “Who do you think sion making (FGDM). The most radi- FGC/FGDM model are preparation, in- has been affected by what you just cal feature of this law was its require- formation giving, private family time, did?” and then follow-up with “How ment that, after social workers and agreeing on the plan and monitoring do you think they’ve been affected?” other professionals brief the family on and review. In an FGC/FGDM, the fam- In answering such questions, instead the government’s expectations and ily is the primary decision maker. An of simply being punished, the student the services and resources available independent coordinator facilitates the has a chance to think about his or her to support the family’s plan, the pro- conference and refrains from offering behavior, make amends and change fessionals must leave the room. Dur- preconceived ideas of the outcome. the behavior in the future (Morrison, ing this “family alone time” or “private The family, after hearing information 2003). family time,” the extended family and about the case, is left alone to arrive Asking several affective questions of friends of the family have an opportu- at their own plan for the future of the both the wrongdoer and those harmed nity to take responsibility for their own child, youth or adult. Professionals creates a small impromptu conference. loved ones. Never before in the history evaluate the plan with respect to safety If the circumstance calls for a bit more of the modern interventionist state has and legal issues and may procure re- structure, a circle can quickly be cre- a government shown so much respect sources to help implement the plan. ated. for the rights and potential strengths Professionals and family members The use of informal restorative prac- of families (Smull, Wachtel, & Wachtel, monitor the plan’s progress, and often tices dramatically reduces the need for 2012). follow-up meetings are held (Morris & more time-consuming formal restor- FGC/FGDM brings together fam- Maxwell, 1998). ative practices. Systematic use of infor- ily support networks—parents, children, mal restorative practices has a cumu- aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbors 5.4. Informal Restorative Practices lative impact and creates what might and close family friends—to make im- The restorative paradigm is mani- be described as a restorative milieu—an portant decisions that might otherwise fested in many informal ways beyond environment that consistently fosters be made by professionals. This process the formal processes. As described by awareness, empathy and responsibility of engaging and empowering families to the restorative practices continuum in a way that is likely to prove far more make decisions and plans for their own above, informal restorative practices effective in achieving social discipline family members’ well-being leads to include affective statements, which than our current reliance on punish- better outcomes, less conflict with pro- communicate people’s feelings, as well ment and sanctions (Wachtel, 2013). fessionals, more informal support and as affective questions, which cause improved family functioning (Merkel- people to reflect on how their behavior Holguin, Nixon, & Burford, 2003). has affected others (McCold & Wachtel, Young people, who are usually the 2001). focus of these conferences, need the A teacher in a classroom might sense of community, identity and sta- employ an affective statement when bility that only the family, in its various a student has misbehaved, letting forms, can provide. Families are more the student know how he or she has likely than professionals to find solu- been affected by the student’s behav- tions that actively involve other family ior: “When you disrupt the class, I feel members, thus keeping the child with- sad” or “disrespected” or “disappointed.” in the care of the family, rather than Hearing this, the student learns how transferring care of the child to the his or her behavior is affecting others government. Also, when families are (Harrison, 2007).

6. References workplace. Paper presented at the ON, Canada:. Correctional Service Angel, C. (2005). Crime victims meet Third International Conference on of Canada. their offenders: Testing the impact Conferencing, Circles and other Harrison, L. (2007). From authoritarian of restorative justice conferences on Restorative Practices, Minneapolis, to restorative schools. Reclaiming victims’ post-traumatic stress symp- MN, USA. Children and Youth 16(2), 17-20. toms. Ph.D. thesis. University of Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair Pennsylvania. Retrieved November (2010). Restorative Circles in Schools: Process. Harvard Business Review, 7, 2007, from University of Pennsyl- Building Community and Enhanc- January 1. vania - Electronic Dissertations. ing Learning. Bethlehem, PA: In- Lilles, H. (2002, August). Circle sentenc- American Humane Association (2003). ternational Institute for Restorative ing: Part of the restorative justice FGDM Research and Evaluation. Practices. continuum. Paper presented at the Protecting Children, 18(1-2). Davey, L. (2007, November). Restorative Third International Conference on Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and practices: A vision of hope. Paper Conferencing, Circles and other Reintegration. New York, NY: Cam- presented at “Improving Citizenship Restorative Practices, Minneapolis, bridge University Press. & Restoring Community,” the 10th MN, USA. Braithwaite, J. (1994). Thinking harder International Institute for Restor- Mbambo, B., & Skelton, A. (2003). Prepar- about democratizing social control. ative Practices World Conference, ing the South African community In C. Alder & J. Wundersitz (Eds.), Budapest, Hungary. for implementing a new restorative Family Conferencing and Juvenile Denton, D. (1998). Horizontal Manage- child justice system. In L. Walgrave, Justice: The Way Forward of Mis- ment. Lanham, MD: Rowman and (Ed.), Repositioning Restorative Jus- placed Optimism? Canberra: Aus- Littlefield. tice (pp. 271-283). Devon, UK: Willan tralian Institute of Criminology. Doolan, M. (1999, August). The fam- Publishing. Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (2000). Family ily group conference: Ten years on. McCold, P. (1999, August). Restorative group decision making and family Paper presented at Building Strong justice practice—The state of the violence. In G. Burford & J. Hudson Partnerships for Restorative Practic- field. Paper presented at Building (Eds.), Family Group Conferencing: es Conference, Burlington, VT, USA. Strong Partnerships for Restorative New Directions in Community- Doolan, M. (2003). Restorative practices Practices Conference, Burlington, Centered Child and Family Practice and family empowerment: both/ VT, USA. (pp. 171-183). New York, NY: Aldine and or either/or? Family Rights McCold, P. (2002, November). Evaluation DeGruyter. Newsletter. London: Family Rights of a restorative milieu: CSF Buxmont Chapman, T. (2006, June). Restorative Group. school/day treatment programs justice: An agenda for Europe. Paper Eagle, H. (2001, November). Restorative 1999-2001. Paper presented at the presented at the Fourth Conference justice in native cultures. State of American Society of Criminology of the European Forum for Restor- Justice 3. A periodic publication of annual meeting, Chicago, IL, USA. ative Justice. Barcelona, Spain. Friends Committee on Restorative McCold, P. (2003). A survey of assess- Charney, R. (1992). Teaching Children to Justice. ment research on mediation and Care: Management in the Respon- Goldstein, A. (2006, October). Restor- conferencing. In L. Walgrave (Ed.), sive Classroom. Greenfield, Massa- ative practices in Israel: The state Repositioning Restorative Justice chusetts: Northeast Foundation for of the field. Paper presented at the (pp. 67-120). Devon, UK: Willan Children. Eighth International Conference Publishing. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In Good on Conferencing, Circles and other McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2001). Restor- Company: How Social Capital Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, ative justice in everyday life. In J. Makes Organizations Work. Boston, PA, USA. Braithwaite & H. Strang (Eds.), Re- MA: Harvard Business School Press. Haarala, L. (2004). A community within. storative Justice and Civil Society Costello, B., & O’Connell, T. (2002, Au- In Restorative Justice Week: Engag- (pp. 114-129). Cambridge, UK: Cam- gust). Restorative practices in the ing Us All in the Dialogue. Ottawa, bridge University Press.

McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2002). Restor- Morrison, B. (2003). Regulating safe Office for Victims of Crime (1998). Re- ative justice theory validation. In school communities: Being re- covered from U.S. Government Weitekamp, E. G. M., & Kerner, H-J. sponsive and restorative. Journal of website. National Criminal Justice (Eds.), Restorative Justice: Theoreti- Educational Administration, 41(6): Reference Service (NCJRS). Re- cal Foundations (pp. 110-142). De- 689-704. trieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/ von, UK: Willan Publishing. Mosley, J. (1993). Turn Your School ovc_archives/reports/96517-gd- McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2003, August). Round. Cambridgeshire, UK: Wis- lines_victims-sens/guide4.html In pursuit of paradigm: A theory of bech. Peachey, D. (1989). The Kitchener exper- restorative justice. Paper presented Nathanson, D. (1992). Shame and Pride: iment. In M. Wright and B. Galaway at the XIII World Congress of Crimi- Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self. (Eds.), Mediation and Criminal Jus- nology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New York, NY: Norton. tice. Victims, Offenders and Com- Merkel-Holguin, L., Nixon, P., & Burford, G., Nathanson, D. (1997a). Affect theory and munity. London, UK: Sage. (2003). Learning with families: A syn- the compass of shame. In M. Lansky Pranis, K. (2005). The Little Book of Circle opsis of FGDM research and evalua- and A. Morrison (Eds.), The Widen- Processes. Intercourse, PA: Good tion in child welfare. Protecting Chil- ing Scope of Shame. Hillsdale, NJ: Books. dren: A Professional Publication of The Analytic Press, Inc. Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. (2003). American Humane, 18(1&2), 2-11. Nathanson, D. (1997b). From empathy Peacemaking Circles: From Crime Mirsky, L. (2004, April & May). Restor- to community. The Annual of Psy- to Community. St. Paul, MN: Living ative justice practices of Native choanalysis, 25. Justice Press. American, First Nation and other Nathanson, D. (1998, August). From Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: Amer- indigenous people of North Amer- empathy to community. Paper pre- ica’s declining social capital. Journal ica: Parts One & Two. Restorative sented to the First North American of Democracy 6 (1): 65–78. Practices eForum. Retreived from Conference on Conferencing, Min- Rankin, B. (2007). Circles of support and http://www.iirp.edu/article_detail. neapolis, MN, USA. accountability: What works. Let’s php?article_id=NDA1 Nelsen, J. (1996). Positive Discipline Talk/Entre Nous. Vol. 31, No. 3. Ot- Mirsky, L. (2007). SaferSanerSchools: (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Ballantine tawa, ON, Canada: Correctional Transforming school culture with Books. Service of Canada. Retrieved from restorative practices. Reclaiming Nonaka, I. (1993, September). The his- http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/ Children and Youth, 16(2), 5-12. tory of the quality circle. Quality pblct/lt-en/2006/31-3/7-eng.shtml Mirsky, L. (2011, May). Restorative prac- Progress, 81-83. ASQ. Riestenberg, N. (2002, August). Restor- tices: Whole-school change to O’Connell, T. (1998, August). From ative measures in schools: Evalua- build safer, saner school communi- Wagga Wagga to Minnesota. Paper tion results. Paper presented at the ties. Restorative Practices eForum. presented at the First International Third International Conference on Retreived from http://www.iirp.edu/ Conference on Conferencing, Min- Conferencing, Circles and other article_detail.php?article_id=Njkx neapolis, MN, USA. Restorative Practices, Minneapolis, Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (1998). Restor- O’Connell, T. (2002, August). Restor- MN, USA. ative justice in New Zealand: Family ative practices for institutional dis- Roca, Inc. (n.d.). Peacemaking circles: A group conferences as a case study. cipline, complaints and grievance process for solving problems and Western Criminology Review 1(1). systems. Paper presented at the building community. Retrieved Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Restor- Third International Conference on from http://www.rocainc.org/pdf/ ative conferencing. In Bazemore, Conferencing, Circles and other pubs/PeacemakingCircles.pdf G. and Schiff, M. (Ed.), Restorative Restorative Practices, Minneapolis, Roujanavong, W. (2005, November). Community justice: Repairing Harm MN, USA. Restorative justice: Family and com- and Transforming Communities (pp. O’Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, T. munity group conferencing (FCGC) 173-197). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson (1999). Conferencing Handbook. in Thailand. Paper presented at the Publishing Co. Pipersville, PA: The Piper’s Press. Seventh International Conference

on Conferencing, Circles and other Wachtel, T. (1999, February). Restorative Restorative Practices, Manchester, justice in everyday life: Beyond the UK. formal ritual. Paper presented at Rush, L. (2006, October). Family group Reshaping Australian Institutions decision making: My steps in the Conference: Restorative Justice journey. Paper presented at the and Civil Society, The Australian Eighth International Conference National University, Canberra. on Conferencing, Circles and other Wachtel, T. (2005, November). The next Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, step: developing restorative com- PA, USA. munities. Paper presented at the Schnell, P. (2002, August). Toward a re- Seventh International Conference storative leadership. Paper present- on Conferencing, Circles and other ed at the Third International Con- Restorative Practices, Manchester, ference on Conferencing, Circles UK. and other Restorative Practices, Wachtel, T. (2013). Dreaming of a new Minneapolis, MN, USA. reality: How restorative practices re- Simon, B. (1994). The Empowerment Tra- duce crime and violence, improve dition in American Social Work. New relationships and strengthen civil York, NY: Columbia University Press. society. Bethlehem, PA: The Piper’s Smull, E., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. Press. (2012). Family Power: Engaging and Wong, D. (2005) Restorative justice for Collaborating with Families. Bethle- juveniles in Hong Kong: Reﬂections hem, PA: International Institute for of a practitioner. Paper presented at Restorative Practices. the Sixth International Conference Stutzman Amstutz, L., & Zehr, H. (1998). on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Penrith, NSW, Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice sys- Australia. tem. Retrieved from us.mcc.org/ Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A system/ﬁles/voc.pdf New Focus for Crime and Justice. Tomkins, S. (1962-1991). Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. Consciousness (Vols. I – III). New York, NY: Springer. Tomkins, S. (1987). Shame. In D.L. Na- thanson (Ed.). The Many Faces of Shame. New York, NY: Norton, pp. 133-161. Van Ness, D., & Heetderks Strong, K. (2010). Restoring Justice: An Intro- duction to Restorative Justice (3rd ed.). New Providence, NJ: Mathew Bender & Co. Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2012). Building Campus Community: Restorative Practices in Residential Life. Bethle- hem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices.