SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS
OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Elizabeth Ridzik
Jessica Valdez
SPRING 2014
SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS
OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES
A Project
by
Elizabeth Ridzik
Jessica Valdez
Approved by:
______, Committee Chair Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
______Date
ii
Students: Jessica Valdez Elizabeth Ridzik
I certify that these students have met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.
______, Department Chair ______Robin Kennedy, Ph.D. Date
Department of Social Work
iii
Abstract
of
SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS
OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES
by
Elizabeth Ridzik
Jessica Valdez
The purpose of this project was to explore the perceptions and knowledge of restorative justice by current social work students enrolled in the Master of Social Work program at
California State University, Sacramento. Eighty-two masters in social work students were surveyed regarding knowledge and perceptions of restorative justice practices. Little research has been done to date on social work students’ attitudes toward restorative justice practices. This topic is important within the field of social work due to the current job market, the number of individuals who have involvement with the criminal justice system has created a large number of employment opportunities for social workers. The survey used likert scale questions regarding the respondent’s perception about the connection of restorative justice principles with the values of social work. Participants were also asked about personal beliefs regarding the desired outcomes of interaction with the criminal justice system. The vast majority of participants reported having little to no knowledge of restorative justice practices.
iv
This study reinforces the importance of additional education regarding restorative justice in the social work program at California State University, Sacramento. The implications for social work policy and practice will be discussed.
______, Committee Chair Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
______Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank and acknowledge the following individuals who supported and encouraged me throughout the development and creation of this project: My husband,
Conan, as well as Lili and Aine who accepted the compromises and sacrifices necessary for me to complete this process. My parents, Tim and Chris for their constant encouragement and support. All of my friends who helped me to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I would also like to acknowledge my thesis partner who helped me to understand that we would make it through on the days when it seemed like it may be too much.
Elizabeth Ridzik
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the people in my life that were there for me through this process. First, my significant other for providing encouragement, motivation and a good ear to listen. To my aunty for being my biggest cheerleader! To my grandparents, my parents and my brother for making sure I know how proud they are of me. To my puppies, for loving on me in their special way and helping me get through each day!
Last but not least, to my thesis partner for all her hard work and for always making sure we were a step ahead! There's no way I could have gone it alone. So thank you.
Jessica Valdez
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Acknowledgements ...... vi
List of Tables ...... x
List of Figures ...... xi
Chapter
1. THE PROBLEM ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1
Background of the Problem ...... 3
Statement of the Research Problem ...... 6
Purpose of the Study ...... 6
Theoretical Framework ...... 7
Definition of Terms...... 9
Assumptions ...... 10
Social Work Research Justification ...... 10
Study Limitations ...... 11
Statement of Collaboration ...... 11
Summary ...... 11
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 13
Introduction ...... 13
History of Restorative Justice ...... 14
vii
Existing Restorative Justice Programs ...... 19
Principles of Restorative Justice and the Alliance with Social Work Values..21
Purpose/ Outcomes of Restorative Justice ...... 26
Difficulties in Implementing Restorative Justice ...... 30
Current Role of Social Workers in Restorative Justice Programs ...... 33
Restorative Justice in Social Work Education ...... 36
Summary ...... 37
3. METHODOLOGY ...... 39
Introduction ...... 39
Study Objectives ...... 39
Study Design ...... 40
Sampling Procedures ...... 41
Instruments ...... 42
Data Analysis ...... 43
Protection of Human Subjects ...... 43
Summary ...... 44
4. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 45
Introduction ...... 45
Analysis of Data ...... 46
Demographics ...... 46
Knowledge of Restorative Justice ...... 49
viii
Perception of the Connection to Social Work Values ...... 51
Connection of Personal Values to Restorative Justice ...... 55
Summary ...... 65
5. DISCUSSION ...... 67
Introduction ...... 67
Summary of Study ...... 67
Current Knowledge and Perceptions ...... 68
Role of Social Workers ...... 70
Implications for Social Work Practice ...... 71
Recommendations ...... 72
Limitations ...... 73
Conclusion ...... 74
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research ...... 77
Appendix B. Human Subjects Approval Letter ...... 80
Appendix C. Survey Questions ...... 82
References ...... 84
ix
LIST OF TABLES Tables Page
1. Table 4.1 Gender of Participants ...... 46
2. Table 4.2 Education Level ...... 47
3. Table 4.3 Ethnicity ...... 48
4. Table 4.4 Restorative Justice Course ...... 49
5. Table 4.5 Previous Knowledge Victim Offender Mediation ...... 49
6. Table 4.6 Previous Knowledge Family Group Conferencing ...... 50
7. Table 4.7 Previous Knowledge Healing Circle...... 50
8. Table 4.8 Previous Knowledge Community Reparation ...... 50
9. Table 4.9 Correlation with Value: Dignity and Worth ...... 52
10. Table 4.10 Correlation with Value: Human Relationships ...... 54
11. Table 4.11 Correlation with Value: Social Justice ...... 56
12. Table 4.12 Outcome: Punishment ...... 58
13. Table 4.13 Outcome: Taking Responsibility ...... 59
14. Table 4.14 Outcome: Repairing Relationships ...... 59
15. Table 4.15 Outcome: Reintegration Into Society ...... 60
16. Table 4.16 Outcome: Empowerment of the Victim ...... 60
17. Table 4.17 Outcome: Prevention of Future Offenses ...... 61
18. Table 4.18 Effectiveness: Family Group Conferencing ...... 62
19. Table 4.19 Effectiveness: Victim Offender Mediation ...... 64
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Figure 4.1 Education Level ...... 47
2. Figure 4.2 Dignity and Worth ...... 53
3. Figure 4.3 Human Relationships...... 55
4. Figure 4.4 Social Justice ...... 57
5. Figure 4.5 Family Group Conferencing ...... 63
6. Figure 4.6 Victim Offender Mediation ...... 6
xi
1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Restorative justice has developed within different disciplines in recent history.
Due to the position as an emerging practice in various fields there is no universally accepted, concrete definition. Within the criminal justice system restorative justice is viewed as a subset, and is used only in specific cases, generally non-violent, juvenile, first-time offenders. In the field of education the restorative justice model has gained exposure for its effectiveness as indicated by a decline in suspension and expulsion rates.
The field of social work has experienced a movement towards the acceptance and incorporation of restorative justice models in practice. Due to the differences in the fields that are utilizing restorative justice practices it is extremely difficult to develop a universal definition that will be accepted within all fields. However, Howard Zehr, one of the leading visionaries in the movement, offered the following framework for restorative justice
Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible (2002, p 37).
The traditional criminal justice system generally relies on a punitive model, thus the shift to restorative practices has been limited. A distinct difference between the traditional and restorative models is that criminal justice views the crime as a violation of the law and the state, while restorative justice perceives crime as a violation of people and relationships. Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm done as opposed to
2
punishment. Within the criminal justice field restorative models are used in a limited number of cases, and only those that meet very specific conditions. Generally restorative practices have been used in non-violent, juvenile offenses. There has been reluctance within the criminal justice field to use a restorative model in cases that involve violence.
Restorative justice models tend to be viewed as being too soft on offenders and therefore not effective in many cases.
Social work has played an important role in restorative justice models since their inception. The position that social workers hold in this rapidly growing area is providing them the opportunity to be involved in the development of restorative justice programs. A large number of offenders and their families will be seeking social services in the near future. It is crucial that social workers who are serving them are well versed in the most up to date research regarding the population. As culturally competent social workers it is vital that we are aware of the unique problems that this population will face throughout the course of working with them.
Social workers have a unique opportunity in the process of integrating restorative justice into practice. Due to the position of social workers within the field of criminal justice there is an opportunity to advocate for the use of a restorative model. The current justice model is essentially a retributive model, meaning that justice is restored through a unilateral imposition of punishment (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather & Platow, 2008). This model does not address the needs of those harmed, including victim, offender, or community. As an alternative, restorative justice refers to repairing harm through allowing all parties with a stake in the offense to come together in order to determine how
3
to heal in the aftermath of the offense (Bradt& Bouverne-DeBie, 2009). Currently, the perception of rehabilitation is often equated with punishment for an offense rather than focusing on repairing the harm the offense has caused. As a direct consequence involvement in the criminal justice system can result in further oppressing marginalized populations as well as placing the victim, offender and the community in a position where their needs will not be considered in relation to the punishment.
Background of the Problem
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin Prisoners in 2012, there were 1,570,400 individuals who were incarcerated at year-end in 2012 (Schwalbe,
Gearing, Mackenzie, Brewer, & Ibrahim, 2012). In addition to this African American males are disproportionately over represented and constitute approximately one half of the currently incarcerated population (Umbreit & Armour, 2011). As social workers it is our responsibility to not only advocate for marginalized populations but to also serve those populations that are underserved. Included in the list of underserved and marginalized populations are juveniles, with an overwhelming rise in rates of juveniles tried as adults for heinous crimes the focus is on harsher punishment rather than rehabilitation or reintegration into society. Given these alarming statistics there will be a need for social workers to work with this population as well as those who are released each year. The systems in place to work with this population are lacking and have led many to rely on external systems that tend to emphasize punishment as a deterrent to crime and perpetuate the indirect consequences of incarceration. As social workers currently enrolled in the MSW program at California State University Sacramento, the
4
researchers are taught to embrace our clients with an ecological perspective. Taking into account their current presenting concerns as well as expanding our perspective to encompass all other systems including macro, mezzo and micro. However, the ideas and concepts of our current criminal justice system are ingrained and so tightly weaved through the blanket of society that punishment and dehumanizing the criminal are more important than repairing and preventing future harms.
Restorative justice emerged as approach to addressing crime that relies on a focus on repairing the harm caused by the crime. It developed out of practices that were used by many Native American tribes as well as the Maori people of New Zealand. Many indigenous societies included ideology based on the idea that all things are interconnected through relationships, therefore they believed that when there was a violation the connections were damaged and needed to be repaired. The Maori justice system was built on the idea that all people are a part of one another. They attempt to repair the standing of the victim in the event of a violation of the rules of society. The central focus is on reparation and not eliminating the perpetrator from society (Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
The general current understanding of restorative justice principles was developed in the 1970’s by a small group of individual activists who sought to challenge the existing criminal justice system. The first practice in this area was victim-offender reconciliation, the victim-offender reconciliation program was created in Kitchner, Ontario in 1974
(Roche, 2001). Throughout the 1980s there were few programs established based on a restorative justice model. In 1994 the American Bar Association officially endorsed victim offender mediation, which introduced the model to a much larger audience. In
5
2002 the United Nations adopted a proposal entitled “UN Basic Principles on the Use of
Restorative Justice Programs in Criminal Matters” which encouraged the use of restorative justice practices by member states (Beck, Kropf, &Blume, 2010).
The movement in recent history towards restorative models has put social workers in the position of having an opportunity to be involved in the development of programs based on these models. However, it seems that there has been reluctance on the part of many within the field of social work to become involved in this area. Even within the academic setting there seemed to be hesitance when it comes to getting involved in the movement towards adopting restorative justice models in working with offenders and others impacted by the offenses. This led the researchers to want to find out more about what was the cause of this reluctance within our colleagues. Anecdotally we noticed that many social workers made comments about the need for punishment and expressed concern that restorative justice may be too soft on crime. It was surprising to the researchers and left us wondering if we could find out more about the perceptions that new social workers have regarding the use of restorative justice models. Education about restorative justice principles is not currently a graduation requirement in the Master’s in social work program at California State University Sacramento. Therefore, unless students seek out additional information on this topic it is unlikely there will be a significant change in their understanding as students and when they are working in the field.
6
Statement of the Research Problem
The criminal justice system is currently overwhelmed with the number of individuals who are involved in the system. It is the often the role of social workers to work with clients who are in the criminal justice system themselves, or are impacted by individuals who are. Master’s in Social Work programs have not included much content regarding working with this population at all within the curriculum. Based on the role within the criminal justice system, restorative justice is an ideal way to involve social workers within this area. This is an area of social work practice that includes very little mention within the current course curriculum. This often means that social workers graduating from the program at CSU Sacramento are ill equipped to work with this vulnerable and unique population in a manner that fulfills the requirements set forth in the NASW Code of Ethics. The researchers set out to determine the current level of understanding of the topic of restorative justice within the MSW program at California
State University Sacramento.
Purpose of the Study. The purpose of the study was to determine the degree to which California State University Sacramento is preparing graduates of the Master’s in social work program to work competently with a restorative justice program. The researchers set out to determine the level of knowledge that individuals who are currently in the MSW program have about the existence and effectiveness of restorative justice programs. The benefit of determining the level of knowledge of restorative justice practices is that the information can be used to open a dialogue about the inclusion of restorative practices into existing courses in the social work department. This can assist
7
the students in becoming well rounded social workers with an understanding of more of the growing areas within the field.
Theoretical Framework. Ecological systems theory and conflict theory are the basis on which much of the restorative justice models were formed. The Ecological systems theoretical framework is based on the principle that the human development is impacted by many interrelated multi-level systems. The ecosystems perspective was first introduced into the field of social work in 1973 by Carel Germain. This theory is consistent with the person in environment worldview of social workers. Ecosystems perspective also incorporates the idea of adaptation into the theory. Adaptation refers to the idea that people use various processes to achieve a better fit between themselves and the settings in which they exist. Individuals and systems are always adapting within the larger environment (Germain & Bloom, 1999).
The criminal justice system was created to deter crime and to punish individuals who committed crimes. However we need to understand the larger systems at play when individuals commit crimes that get them involved in this system. As social workers we should look at this individual differently than the criminal justice system would look at them. Social workers should be able to use a theory like ecosystems theory to help understand why an individual is involved in the criminal justice system without laying the blame all on the individual who is involved.
Conflict theory is another theory that is related to the ideas that were used to create restorative justice models. Conflict theory argues that problems are social and structural as opposed to individual, so they can be solved only through social change, not
8
individual changes (Johnson & Rhodes, 2010). While it may seem inconsistent to base this model on both ecosystems theory and conflict theory as they are not necessarily consistent with one another in many ways, the researchers will argue that there are aspects of both of these theories within restorative justice. Conflict theory argues that there is no unification between systems but instead that all social systems are divided based on power. While ecosystems perspective is based on the interconnectedness among the systems involved in an individual’s experience and conflict theory is based on the idea that those in positions of power are dominating an individual.
Social workers coming from an ecosystems perspective sought to change the unequal distribution of power that was present in the criminal justice system and seeking to use the ecosystems theory to develop a better model. This model would be restorative justice. Restorative justice models take into consideration the systems involved in an individual’s life and the impact that these have had on the person. They seek to correct the power that has been exerted over that individual in the past. All stakeholders have a role in restorative justice and all parties are seen as important pieces of the whole.
From the social constructionist perspective, it is important to recognize how crime and criminal behavior have been defined by society, specifically by individuals of power and with the authority to make laws that identify certain behavior as offensive. As culturally competent social workers, maintaining an open perspective that emphasizes understanding for those that face the multilayered barriers due to a label such as criminal, perpetrator or offender, is crucial when working with such populations. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of social workers to stay aware of current policies as well as various
9
systems that may further impact the populations we serve. Through the social constructionist lens, maintaining a certain level of awareness of the ability of special interest groups that “mobilize mass communications to influence the values of others through moral crusades targeted toward certain behaviors, such as drug use, homosexual relations, assisted suicide, … and so on, can significantly affect what kinds of behavior are defined as acceptable or criminal.” (Henry, 2009, p.2) As a consequence, the behaviors that are deemed deviant and criminal directly affect the type of punishment received.
Definition of Terms. Restorative Justice- A process to involve those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible.
Victim offender conferences- a process that provides interested victims an opportunity to meet their offender, in a safe and structured setting, and engage in a mediated discussion of the crime (Beck, Kropf, & Blume, 2010).
Family Group Conference- A restorative process that supports families in decision making and interaction, brings together juveniles, parents or guardians, extended family members, social service professionals, community members, and other stakeholders to make decisions (Bazemore & Schiff, 2005).
Circles- A restorative practice that brings stakeholders together to work through problems, can be used to end disputes, address conflict, foster relationships, and strengthen community (Abramson & Moore, 2001).
10
Retributive Justice- A system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation (Stevenson, 2010).
Criminal Justice- The system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses (Stevenson, 2010).
Assumptions. The primary assumption is that restorative justice is not adequately integrated into the social work curriculum at California State University Sacramento in the Social work curriculum at the Master’s level. Based on literature, restorative justice is tied closely to the ethics that should be held by all social workers as written in the NASW
Code of Ethics. There is also the assumption that the demand for social workers to work within the criminal justice system is a fast growing area. Thus, it is important that social workers who work within the area should be competent regarding information that impacts the field that they are working in. Restorative justice models are being implemented in many different areas of social work and it is important that social workers be aware of developing research and use it to improve their practice. Restorative justice has been incorporated into the criminal justice field as well as the school setting and in some cases within child welfare systems.
Social Work Research Justification. The justification for this study is to improve the level of understanding of restorative justice principles and thus increase the competence for new social workers in the field regarding restorative justice. There has been research done on the use of restorative justice models in many different fields within social work, therefore new social workers would benefit by being exposed to restorative
11
justice principles while in an educational setting. This study seeks to determine the importance of incorporating restorative justice principles into the required coursework curriculum at California State University Sacramento. Connecting the social work values to the principles of restorative justice will connect the social work field with the growing body of work regarding restorative justice.
Study Limitations. The primary limitation of this research is that this research is focused on studying the integration of material about restorative justice within the curriculum of the California State University Sacramento Social Work graduate department. The knowledge and perceptions of MSW students at CSU Sacramento was assessed using a self-report survey of MSW I and MSW II students. This project did not go beyond CSU Sacramento and did not study students in any other schools regarding the knowledge or perceptions of restorative justice. The researchers were not able to analyze the content of curriculum in any other universities beyond CSU Sacramento.
Statement of Collaboration. Both Jessica Valdez and Elizabeth Ridzik collaborated in the problem formulation for this study, the literature review, designing the study, data collection, data analysis, and completion of the writing of this project.
Summary. Chapter one served as an introduction to the topic of this research study. This chapter included a discussion on the background of the problem, statement of the research problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the theoretical framework utilized in examining the topic, definitions of terms used in this study, assumptions, justifications, and limitations of the study, as well as a statement of collaboration of the researchers. Chapter two reviews current literature that addresses this
12
topic. Specifically, chapter two explores the history of restorative justice, as well as the connections to the core values of social work. There is discussion of the current role of restorative justice within social work education programs. Chapter three describes the methodology of the study and chapter four examines the data gathered in the study. The final chapter, chapter five, summarizes the findings and describes the conclusions which are drawn using the data.
13
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The concept of restorative justice has received an increasing amount of publicity over the course of the past twenty years. However much of the research that has been done in this area has come from the field of criminal justice. There has been very limited research from within the discipline of social work. Van Wormer (2006) found only five articles while searching the heading “restorative justice” in social work abstracts. There are a number of research articles that have been published since that time, however this is an indication that this is an area that is early in the development stage within social work.
The review of literature surrounding the issue of restorative justice will consist of seven sections that will assist in creating a more complete understanding about history and current practices. First we will discuss the history and background of restorative justice, including what restorative justice is and how it was developed. The next section will review existing restorative justice programs and the specific practices that are included within these models. Section three will cover the core values of social work, as taken from the NASW Code Of Ethics, and the connection to the restorative justice model. Section four will discuss the outcomes of the existing restorative justice programs and information that has been found regarding the effectiveness of these programs.
Section five will present some of the difficulties in the implementation of restorative justice models. Section six will examine the role of social work within existing restorative justice programs. The final section will then move into a discussion about the
14
way that restorative justice is taught within social work education, as well as some of the ways that restorative justice is perceived in the field.
History of Restorative Justice
The concepts that developed into the restorative justice framework originated in the 1970’s. There was a movement away from the traditional criminal justice system that was born out of frustration with the existing court based system (Wenzel et al, 2007).
Restorative justice principles can actually be traced back further than this, as far as eleventh-century England when crime was viewed as a conflict between individuals that would be handled by repairing the harm caused (Umbreit, Vos, Coates, & Lightfoot
2005). The principles of justice in many Native American tribes also were based on the idea of restoration, or repairing the harm that was caused by a violation. While restorative justice is often discussed as a relatively new field it was notable that there have been many groups that have practiced forms of this long before the current understanding of the concept of restorative justice was created.
In the 1970’s restorative justice was started in our current understanding of the concept through victim-offender reconciliation programs (VORP). The first VORP in the
United States was in Elkhart Indiana in 1978. While this program existed for many years, restorative justice became more widely accepted in the 1990’s. In 1994 the American Bar
Association endorsed the use of restorative justice, which made the use of restorative justice practices more accepted (American Bar Association, 1994). In 2002 a proposal to the United Nations titled “U.N. Basic Principles on the use of Restorative Justice in
Criminal Matters” was adopted. This encouraged the use of restorative justice principles
15
by U.N. member states and established some basic standards for restorative justice practice (United Nations, 2000).
Howard Zehr, one of the founders of our current understanding of restorative justice programs, presented the idea of restorative justice as a new way to approach crime and justice. He aimed to focus on a crime as a violation of people and relationships and thus shift the focus to what could be done to make the violation right (Zehr, 2005). The approach that was developed in the 1970’s was an early move toward victim-offender mediation. Throughout the 1980’s there was further movement to adjust the focus back towards repairing the harm of the crime for the sake of the victim and away from the desire to punish and lock away the offender. There was the belief that if individuals were going to be living in the same setting in which the initial violation occurred then nothing would change unless the entire approach was adjusted. The purpose of restorative justice can be described as facilitating community healing by repairing the harm that results from crime (Ward & Langlands, 2009).
The current approach to criminal justice can be referred to as retributive justice.
Retributive justice refers to a system that attempts to repair justice “through unilateral imposition of punishment” (Wenzel et al, 2008). The agreement of the victim is not necessary in our current system, neither is the agreement of the offender. The punishment can be decided by a court whom is thought to represent the interests of the victim, and the emphasis is placed on punishment. Restorative justice practices differ from retributive justice, in restorative justice the attempt is to involve the entire community and provide an opportunity for the victims to be included in the process (Choi, Bazemore, Gilbert,
16
2012). Restorative justice has three primary objectives which are, to address who was harmed, what their needs are, and what should be done to rectify the harm (Braithwaite,
2002; Zehr, 2005).
Restorative justice has been presented as the antithesis of our current approach to justice. The phrase retributive justice refers to the emphasis of the criminal justice system to focus on the offender “getting what they deserve”. The emphasis or focus of restorative justice is meeting the needs of the victim and the offender. “Restorative justice is a perspective of healing that is future focused” (Lehmann, Jordan, Whitehill Bolton,
Huynh, & Chigbu, 2012). Restorative justice can be seen as similar to solution focused brief therapy in that they are both goal driven, rely on a deliberate use of strengths-based language, and have a focus on relationship building as opposed to being paternalistic and adversarial. The person/offender who participates is empowered and invited to solve their problems as opposed to being told how to change. Rather than focusing on why problems exist with an over-emphasis on deficits, a proactive set of skills ask victims and/or offenders what they want and how they will behave once they achieve their desired outcomes. (Lehmann, et al., 2012, p.52). Restorative justice allows for a more humanistic approach and becomes the vehicle to which reparation of the relationship between the community and offender(s) can occur.
Restorative justice practices differ depending on who is providing the services and what the desired goals are of the program. However, there are several models that are included in many restorative justice programs. The most commonly referenced model is victim-offender conferencing, also referred to as victim-offender mediation.
17
Victim offender mediation
This model focuses on bringing together victims and offenders of crime with a trained professional present to facilitate the conference. There is dialogue between the victim and the offender regarding the specifics of the case. The victim is asked to describe the impact of the crime to the offender and a discussion about the crime will follow (Van Wormer, 2009, Dzur, 2011). This process should be victim centered, concerned most with the impact on the victim in order for it to be most effective. This often requires extensive training in order to become trained as a professional facilitator.
The practice of victim offender mediation is often the most widely publicized restorative practice. It is crucial that if an individual victim or offender is going to participate that it be completely voluntary and that effort is put into ensuring that all parties are heard.
Family group conferencing (FGC)
Family group conferencing is another widely used model of restorative justice.
This process is used to bring families together usually for decision making purposes, often in cases of child protection involvement, or in cases when a juvenile has committed a crime. The purpose of this process is to include the extended family in decision making.
This process also uses a trained facilitator to run the conference. The group together works to reach an agreement as to an acceptable plan to address the issue and move forward. The conference should begin with the strengths of the family and throughout the process seek to build skills and find resources that will enhance these further. The process should be focused on reaching a consensus of all participants in order to be most effective
(Beck, 2012). The emphasis, within this practice, on strengths as opposed to deficits
18
aligns this with the values of social work. This encourages the focus on the strengths and resiliencies of the family or group.
Restorative/ Peacemaking Circle
A circle is another practice of restorative justice. This process is sometimes referred to as a healing circle or a peacemaking circle. A peacemaking circle brings together victims, offenders, community members as well as family and friends of both victim and offender, and a facilitator. The desired qualities of the facilitator are consistent with values of social work practice including a non-judgmental approach, respect, and empathy. A healing circle will include multiple victims or survivors who gather together to support one another through the trauma of a crime. A peacemaking circle is similar to
FGC but it includes more participants from outside of the family. It reaches into a broader community (Van Wormer, 2009). The peacemaking circle can incorporate a larger group of the community in order to promote healing on a larger scale.
Community Reparation
A practice of restorative justice that was rarely mentioned in literature was that of community reparation. This is a macro level practice that involves a violation having been committed by an entire population or a state and the reparation is therefore on a much larger scale. This practice is often used in cases of war crimes, mass murders and crimes against humanity. The primary importance of this practice of restorative justice is that it recognizes the personal impact of political crimes on entire groups of people (Van
Wormer, 2009). In the case of a community reparation the harm that was done to the
19
large population is addressed and something is agreed upon to make a restitution for the harm that was caused.
Existing Restorative Justice Programs
Restorative justice exists in many different forms and has been used for a multitude of cases. There have been applications ranging from micro to macro levels of practice. As discussed restorative justice practices got their start in our current understanding of practices in the 1970’s and has been developing and gaining acceptance slowly since that time. There have been programs that integrate restorative justice models at many different levels and throughout many different social systems or institutions through the years.
Currently in the U.S. there are 393 victim-offender mediation programs, 227 community board programs, ninety-three family group conference programs, and seventeen sentencing circle programs (Dzur, 2011). Twenty nine states have legislation regarding the use of victim-offender mediation. These states vary in the ways that restorative justice is handled. Seven states, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, Oregon and Tennessee have statutes that include comprehensive guidelines for the use of victim-offender mediation. The specific statutes differ in each of these states however they each include authority for state agencies to provide VOM and guidelines for what the programs should include. Seven states, Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia each have statutes providing authority for VOM but they do not include a detailed framework for what they should include. Nine states
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Washington,
20
and Wisconsin have a basic statutory provision for VOM, this allows for the state to include VOM as an option but provides no details or requirements for the program. Seven states, Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont have statutes that authorize the use of restorative justice dialogues but they do not discuss
VOM within their state code. Twenty one states as well as the District of Columbia had no mention of VOM within their state codes as of 2002. (Umbreit et al, 2005).
Victim offender mediation is an example of how restorative justice principles are used within states at the micro level. These methods are used with individual clients in an attempt to rehabilitate them or in order to help the victims of crime to heal and recover from the trauma of a crime. There are also examples of how restorative justice principles have been practiced at a macro level to repair the damage caused on a larger scale.
Community reparation is a model of restorative justice that operates at a macro level.
Community reparation includes violations that have been committed by a whole population, or in some cases the state. This has included wartime persecution, slave labor, and mass murder in previous cases. There have been more than thirty truth commissions that were established to investigate a pattern of abuses committed against a population.
This macro level practice includes principles related to feminist standpoint theory in that they focus on bringing together the personal experience with the political crimes that were committed. (Van Wormer, 2002).
The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) published an article in
2009 entitled, Findings from Schools Implementing Restorative Practices. The research highlighted the results of six schools located in Pennsylvania that implemented
21
restorative practices, the school settings ranged from urban to rural and disadvantaged to middle class. All six schools in this study witnessed substantial declines in the following areas: suspensions, expulsions, disruptive behavior, reoffending, violence and discipline referrals generally (Lewis, 2009). Similarly to the findings of the IIRP on restorative practices in schools in Pennsylvania, more locally, the Restorative Justice for Oakland
Youth (RJOY) has been recognized for their efforts in stream lining the Oakland initiative in restorative practices. RJOY has been the flagship for violence prevention and implementing restorative justice practices in schools, communities, legislatively as well as in other arenas.
Principles of Restorative Justice and the Alliance with Social Work Values
The primary principles of restorative justice are that crime is a violation of people and interpersonal relationships, these violations create obligations, and that the central obligation is to put right the wrongs (Zehr, 2002). These principles have been used to create many different programs based on a restorative justice model. The principles of restorative justice are closely connected with the values of social work as presented by
National Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics.
NASW Code of Ethics
The National Association of Social Workers established a code of ethics in order to codify the values that are connected with social work practice in 1960. There was a revision to the code in 1969. The second code was adopted in 1979. The current code was adopted in 1996 and included a mission statement and six core values that the mission is based on. These values are service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person,
22
importance of human relationships, integrity and competence. (Beck, Kropf, & Blume,
2010).
The empowerment approach is often presented as the basic framework for all social work practice. The NASW Code of Ethics states “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic needs of all people with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (NASW, 2012). Restorative Justice is connected to the empowerment approach through returning the conflict to those who were directly involved. The victim of a crime is given a voice in a way that retributive justice does not do. Empowerment theories are based on returning power to individuals and groups who often have little to no power. Restorative justice gives these individuals a voice and therefore returns some of the power to those who were directly impacted. For instance, while facilitating a conference for intimate partner violence, it is imperative that the facilitator be well-informed in order to adopt procedures that will address the unequal power distribution. It is also an integral part of the conferencing process to engage the community, family and friends to have a greater impact on restoring the victim’s safety, autonomy and agency (Hayden, 2012). Solution focused-brief therapy (SFBT) also focuses on empowerment and personal growth (Lehmann et. al). This is intended to provide all clients with the opportunity to create their own solutions and be empowered to make the decisions themselves.
Service. The ethical principle of service presents the expectation that social workers will work to help people in need and to assist in addressing social problems.
23
Individuals who participate in restorative justice practice models often do so in order to increase involvement in their community. This sense of community has been diminished through turning away from participation and allowing larger systems to determine what will happen in the community. (Umbreit & Armour, 2011). Restorative justice practice is a way that individuals in the social work profession have worked to address the social problems that exist within the criminal justice system.
The role of the professional is different within restorative justice than it is in other areas within the field. The facilitator is often the one who assists the stakeholders in organizing the meeting, however the facilitator maintains a non-invasive position within the restorative meeting. The facilitator should see the role as one of service, they are not the primary focus of the restorative justice meeting. This has allowed restorative practices to avoid falling into the trap of professionalization that is becoming more common in the field currently. (Sullivan & Tifft, 2004)
Social Justice. Social justice is one of the core values in social work practice.
Gumz and Grant (2009) described social justice as “distributive in nature, meaning scarce resources in society are distributed with a focus on equal opportunity for all (p. 121). This relates to the principles of restorative justice. Restorative justice has to do with providing fairness to all people involved, justice is provided to the victim, the offender, and the community. The emphasis on fairness in treatment in regards to the law is strongly related to the concept of social justice as understood by the NASW. The role of social workers within the area of criminal justice should be to continue to work towards social justice for the clients that they work with.
24
The challenge to social workers getting involved within the criminal justice system to facilitate restorative justice principles is to avoid becoming an instrument of the criminal justice system. The role of social workers does not include challenging correctional strategies (Bradt & Bouverne-De Bie, 2009). However, based on the Code of
Ethics there is an expectation that a social worker will work to find ways to make correctional strategies more consistent with social justice. Many times for social workers this can mean translating the correctional standards to a more humane and rehabilitative social work perspective thereby creating opportunities for change. It is included within the principle of social justice that social workers will challenge inequalities. Restorative justice does that by challenging the inequity created by the criminal justice system.
Injustice has been created within the criminal justice system based on the factors of economics, gender, class, and race. Due to the fact that principles of justice have not been enforced equally based on these factors, social workers should attempt to create a more equitable system for all people. Social justice principles require the social worker to be involved in the creation of a system that establishes equity in the distribution of resources. (Van Wormer, 2002).
Dignity and worth of the person. Social workers are, according to the Code of
Ethics, expected to respect the dignity and worth of all persons. Restorative justice models all emphasize the importance of inclusion of all stakeholders, thus attempting to create a healing experience for all parties. It is important to note that this is not intended to be healing only for the victim, but instead should assist in healing the victims, offenders as well as all interested community members. The methods included in
25
restorative justice practices provide the best opportunity for all people to be heard, thus recognizing the worth of all people.
Importance of Human Relationships. Restorative justice principles are also very connected to the importance of human relationships. Social workers involved in restorative justice programs work towards reestablishing and improving the relationships that have been damaged through the violation of the rules or expectations of society.
Encouraging the participation of victims and offenders in restorative justice programs allows for the repair of the community and the relationships that may have been damaged.
Social workers have a unique perspective and ability to assist those within the criminal justice system. It is crucial that social worker’s keep the ethical principle of helping to understand the importance of establishing human relationship when dealing with the clients who we work with. It can be difficult within a criminal justice system which so thoroughly dehumanizes people to make sure to emphasize the importance of healthy, connected relationships with other people.
Integrity. The ethical principle of integrity is related to both the importance of the trustworthiness of the restorative justice practices as well as the importance of honest and open disclosures between the participants. The criminal justice system values punishment and exclusion from society, as opposed to communication between the parties involved.
The importance of the principle of integrity is declared through the restorative justice student judicial model at Skidmore College. This is used on the campus to assist in
26
addressing student misconduct and the title that it was given is the “Integrity Board”
(Karp, 2004).
Competence. The principle of professional competence requires that social workers continue to learn about advances or research that is being done in the field of social work. There has been a great deal of research in the field about the effectiveness of restorative justice models. As professionals social workers should continue to incorporate the new research into their practice. Nugent, Williams, and Umbreit (2004) found in their meta-analysis on the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior after participation in victim-offender mediation that the results tentatively suggested a relationship between
VOM participation and reduced delinquent behavior.
Purpose/ Outcomes of Restorative Justice
There are several outcomes of restorative justice that have been documented in the recent literature. Victim satisfaction with the process as well as with the outcome was one purpose that was looked at in many of the articles. Another purpose was improving the community and repairing the social relationships between all parties. Another outcome that was discussed in several articles was reducing the recidivism rate. Reduced recidivism, however, was presented in some of the articles as an outcome that should not be tied to the justification for the use of restorative justice.
The evidence regarding victim satisfaction with restorative justice programs found that there was a higher level of satisfaction among victims who completed restorative justice versus those who completed court based retributive justice (Wenzel et
27
al, 2008). The difficulty in determining satisfaction of the victims was related to how the studies were conducted.
Choi, Bazemore, and Gilbert (2012) reported that crime victims felt that they were more likely to feel heard, and have their questions answered after participating in restorative justice programs. It was found in their review of the research of victims’ experiences that the outcome or feeling of the victim was most related to the quality of the interaction between the victim and the offender.
Choi, Green, and Gilbert (2011) ran a qualitative study using observation and interviews with VOM participants. In this study it was found that some victims felt pressured to participate or to forgive the offender. These pressures were related to a negative experience on the part of the victim. They found that if the victim willingly participated and if the experience was facilitated in a positive way the victim was much more likely to report having a positive experience.
Umbreit, Vos, Coates, and Lightfoot (2005) found that the key factors that were associated with reported victim satisfaction were, the victim felt good about the mediator, the victim perceived the restitution agreement as fair, and that the victim had a strong initial desire to meet the offender. They found that the higher the level of agreement with these conditions initially the higher the satisfaction was post participation.
Studies conducted on satisfaction of participants of family group conferencing found that it received ratings of 73% into the high 90% range. Umbreit et al (2005) reported that the least helpful factor of FGC was a negative attitude of parents
28
participating in the program. This study reported that over 90% of victims and offenders who participated would recommend the group conferencing program to others.
As De Beus, and Rodriguez (2007) reported, a meta–analysis of thirty-five studies found that there was a significantly higher level of satisfaction reported by victim and offender participants in restorative justice programs than any other justice system alternative. These authors found that the higher levels of satisfaction could be attributed to the connectedness experienced by the victim and offender during mediation.
Improving the community, and repairing the damaged relationships was another outcome of restorative justice that was measured in some of the studies on the restorative justice model. Public participation in the community has decreased sharply in previous years and becoming reengaged in the process is something that will likely take a great deal of relearning as a society. In order to get a greater buy-in in the restorative justice movement it will likely take some amount of reengagement in the civil process. Moving away from the tendency to view criminals as well as victims as an “other” is a meaningful way that people can be brought into the restorative justice movement. The state needs to be involved in catalyzing the community to become more involved in restorative justice. (Dzur, 2011).
As Umbreit, et al (2005) discussed there has to be a shift in the larger community and their understanding of criminal justice, as there was in Washington County Court
Services near St. Paul Minnesota. In this county there was a great deal of emphasis placed on education and training. The partnership between the community members and
29
the officials helped to establish the groundwork for the adoption of a restorative justice model.
Group conferencing models are used in order to involve victims and offenders as well as other community members in a dialogue that is aimed on repairing the harm caused through the offense. Conferencing is used not only to repair the relationship between the victim and the offender but equally to assist all of those who attend from the larger community. Conferencing puts the emphasis on the entire community and focuses on repairing the damage done among the larger population (Moore, 2004).
The impact of restorative justice on recidivism rates was seen as a controversial potential outcome throughout the literature on the topic. Some of the research used recidivism rate as the indication that restorative justice is effective while other studies looked only to victim satisfaction as the indication of success. This makes the comparison of the results of different studies very difficult. Due to the fact that there are different outcomes being measured it is nearly impossible to compare the results of different models of research (Takagi, Shank 2004).
Some authors felt that recidivism rates was the most effective outcome to look for when determining the effectiveness of the restorative justice models while others felt that the potential to lower recidivism rates creates a system where restorative justice is used as a subset of criminal justice. These authors seemed to believe that in order for restorative justice to be effective there needs to be a paradigm shift that will create a change in the way that the entire criminal justice system is run. McAlinden (2011) argues that restorative justice has been corroded by its partnership with retributive justice. Based on
30
the attempt to fit within the constructs of the traditional retributive model of criminal justice, restorative justice methods lose much of the traditional focus.
Ward and Langlands (2009) describe the goals of restorative justice as being abstract, such as repairing harm, and restoring relationships. Because of this primary focus it can be difficult to find evidence supporting the effectiveness of the model. They argue in their work that restorative justice should be maintained as a separate field from rehabilitation, despite the fact that there is some overlap in ideologies between the two areas, they believe that the blending of the two creates a murky area where restorative justice loses its distinct meaning.
Difficulties in Implementing Restorative Justice
There are many justifications given for a negative perception of restorative justice programs. The difficulties in improving public perception of restorative justice have contributed to reluctance to implement new restorative justice programs. The perception of restorative justice has been shaped by many things throughout the existence of the programs. It has proven to be very difficult to improve the public perception of restorative justice without first making changes to the entire criminal justice and correction system.
One difficulty in incorporating restorative justice ideals into our correction system is the pressure to avoid being seen as soft on crime. In the United States there has been a shift towards more zero-tolerance policies and sentencing from a “three- strikes you’re out” way of thinking. It can be extremely challenging to change the thought process that goes along with retributive justice. The idea that there are certain crimes that are seen as
31
being too risky to participate in rehabilitation has made the shift to restorative justice more difficult (McAlinden, 2011).
Despite the fact that the effectiveness of restorative justice programs is evidence based this has not been enough to bring public support to the use. There has been a continued push for revenge, particularly following a highly publicized or particularly brutal case. The media gets involved in cases and often sensationalize the term victim in an attempt to get people interested in following the case. They demonize the offender in an attempt to rationalize vengeful and increasingly harsh punishments (Nugent, Williams,
& Umbreit, 2004).
The change in public opinion will most likely be the most effective way to measure the success of restorative justice programs. In order for restorative justice to be more widely used for more types of crime it will need to become more accepted by the public. The tendency towards “populist punitiveness” makes it difficult for restorative justice programs to take hold (Dzur, 2011). Populist punitiveness refers to the process of major political groups to compete with one another to be seen as being tough on crime.
Based on the fact that restorative justice is presented as being too soft on criminals it has been difficult to convince the general public to support the use of the model. This was a concern that was raised by many individuals throughout the research who were skeptical about the use of restorative justice models as an alternative to existing punitive models. It is difficult to gain support for a program when it is extremely challenging to find politicians or public officials who will support it out of concern that they will lose public support.
32
There was a question that was addressed several times in the literature regarding the use of a restorative justice model in cases involving intimate partner violence, or gendered violence. Van Wormer (2009) discussed the difficulties in gaining support for using restorative justice in cases involving intimate partner violence. Retributive justice models create difficulties for the victims of intimate partner violence based on the ideologies of absolute justice, the tendency to require victims to participate in a way that they may not feel comfortable with. Based on feminist standpoint theory it can be extremely beneficial for a victim to have control over the process and be able to make decisions regarding how they want the case to proceed. Allowing the victim to tell a personal narrative is one way to include the victim in a non- adversarial way that can improve the perception of the individual involved in the case.
The reluctance to use restorative justice in cases of intimate partner violence is due to the fact that there is often an imbalance of power that is present in cases of IPV, this imbalance of power can create an experience where the victim may feel re-victimized through the process of restorative justice. Restorative justice cannot be effective in cases where the victim does not feel safe through the process (Hayden 2012). Hayden researched whether the use of restorative justice would increase reporting of intimate partner violence. She used qualitative methods to conduct this research. This research supported the use of restorative justice in cases of IPV as long as safety considerations were given a high priority. Much of the literature regarding intimate partner violence suggests that victims are generally experiencing an unequal or unfair power distribution and that if well informed professionals are aware of this power differential they can be
33
better prepared to create a safe and effective family group conference. Where the unequal distribution of power can be challenged and the less powerful can be supported. In alignment with the ethics and values of social work it is imperative that the facilitator not only recognize the client’s preferences but value them as well. The research concluded that the use of restorative justice offered more choices to the victims and therefore increased the sense of justice and fairness offered by the criminal justice system. It is absolutely crucial to the process that the facilitator is well trained in working with individuals who have experienced intimate partner violence in order to avoid causing the victim to feel revictimized by the process. The offender needs to participate in a way that does not reinforce the power differential that is present in cases of intimate partner violence (Proietti-Scifoni & Daly, 2011).
Current Role of Social Workers in Restorative Justice Programs
Currently there are many different restorative justice models that are operating with a variety of populations. The role of social workers within this developing area has at times been a contentious position. Burford and Adams (2004) described the difficulties in combining the role of the social worker as empowering with the role of coercion, or control of behavior that is required for the position within the criminal justice field. It is often necessary to use coercion to get offenders to participate in restorative justice. Due to the involvement of the criminal justice system there is often an incentive to participate in restorative justice in order to reduce or eliminate the punitive consequences of the justice system. This coercion to participate can be a difficult position for social workers who would like for our clients to be empowered to participate in services of their own
34
free will. At times it is difficult for a social worker to participate in the empowerment of a client who is participating in services based on coercion. It is a challenge that social workers are struggling to overcome, particularly in working with a population of offenders.
Coercion can provide social workers with the ability to get individuals to participate in restorative justice models. Androff (2012) discussed the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was a community based restorative justice intervention that was used to resolve decades of division following an incident of racial violence that occurred in 1979. The incident involved the KKK and American Nazi Party shooting into a crowd at a social justice rally, killing five and injuring ten others. The perpetrators were acquitted of all criminal charges. Although participation in this commission was completely voluntary several of the perpetrators did come forward to participate. The limited participation left many of the victims feeling that reconciliation was not truly achieved. There was very little that could be done to increase the level of participation due to the fact that the criminal justice system was not involved in the case.
Thus the coercive power of social workers working within the criminal justice system can create an environment where more people will participate in a restorative justice program.
Mandatory sentencing laws can create a situation in which individuals are serving sentences that are extremely long and intended only to be punitive. This is an area that social workers can be involved in advocating for the best outcome for all clients. It is
35
important that the individual be considered in sentencing and social workers can have a role in advocating for that outcome in the criminal justice system.
Social Workers have had an active role in implementing and operating restorative justice programs throughout the years. Many restorative justice programs have been implemented with an incarcerated population of offenders. Due to the access that social workers have to work with incarcerated populations much of the implementation of restorative justice models is left to social workers. Thus it is of vital importance that social workers get involved in the policy discussion regarding the use of restorative justice. There has long been reluctance on the part of the discipline of social work to participate in the policy aspect of restorative justice, largely, it seems, because it is seen as better left to the field of criminal justice. However, if social workers do not become more engaged in this conversation the policy decisions will be made without the input of the field of social work. Social workers have a unique perspective and experiences that can inform their ideas and should be involved in the policy decisions. Therefore, it is the role of social workers to act as agents of change within the criminal justice system and to challenge the punitive based system with opportunities of restoration.
Currently social workers role in restorative justice programs is developing. The shift towards restorative principles is a dramatic change within the system of criminal justice. Characteristically, society as well as the criminal justice system have maintained the perspective of offender responsibilization. Bradt and Bouverne-De Bie state, “The burden tends to remain on individuals to atone for or change their behavior, rather than on the state to recognize that it also has a responsibility to its citizens (Demesmaecker,
36
2010). Solely blaming the offender and mandating a harsh punishment is consistent with the idea that putting a bandaid on cancer will diminish or void the cancer altogether. As in many professional realms it is the role of the social worker in this case to implement change, to provide the opportunity for different methods than are generally used to work with people.
Restorative Justice in Social Work Education
There was limited information about the availability of restorative justice within the curriculum of social work education programs. Van Wormer (2006) addressed the importance of involving students in social work programs in education revolving around restorative justice practices if social work input is desired. It was suggested that there should be a presentation of restorative justice material in all courses throughout the masters in social work program. Van wormer discussed the possibility of including field placements in locations that offered restorative justice programs, as well as integrating material into research courses in order to analyze the type of survey techniques that have been used in the field. Policy analysis courses are an ideal setting to discuss and analyze restorative policies, as well as introduce students to the existing policies that address social work and its role in the retributive justice system that is in place. Practice courses have the opportunity to teach students about the theories behind restorative practices and give them the opportunity to learn about how to integrate restorative justice principles into the work that is being done in the field.
Within the social work education setting there is an opportunity to incorporate information about restorative justice into many of the existing required courses. Currently
37
this is not what is being done. Research on the involvement of restorative principles in existing social work programs has been extremely limited. Social work education has an opportunity to get involved in this practice at this relatively early stage. Social work is best described as a constantly evolving field and the most effective way to facilitate this evolution is to create an educational opportunity for new social workers to learn about methods that will incorporate the values of social work into diverse areas of practice.
Based on the available research this is an area that is lacking in terms of teaching about restorative justice.
Summary
Due to the position of the social worker within the ever growing field of criminal justice, there is an obligation to ensure that social workers are being exposed to the best practices for working with that population. Evidence has shown that the satisfaction rates of participants in restorative justice programs are much higher than those who participate with the current retributive justice models. In research findings both victims and offenders who participated in restorative models reported much higher levels of happiness with the outcomes than those who did not have that opportunity. The research also highlighted the use of restorative practice within the areas of education as well as within the family court system.
Due to the alignment of the values of social work to the values included within the restorative justice models it is an ideal fit for involvement with the social work profession. The core value of social justice is demonstrated through restorative justice practice and creates an opportunity for social work involvement in the development of
38
new programs that are based on the shared values. Social workers have the opportunity to create a better system that will aid a clearly underserved population, the research demonstrates the connection between these values. Education about restorative justice models has proven to be the best way to increase acceptance of professional social workers of the model.
39
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The research design and the methodology used for this study are described in this chapter. The participants, including the criteria used to determine the qualifications to participate in the study are reported, along with a description of the sample population and the sampling technique. This chapter also includes the instrumentation used to collect the data and the reporting method. The final section describes the steps taken to protect the human subjects.
Study Objectives
In the review of literature it was discussed the ways in which restorative justice principles are congruent with the values of social work. However it is often the case that it is neglected and that it is rarely discussed or even mentioned within the required courses in the master’s in social work curriculum at California State University
Sacramento.
The purpose of this study is to determine the level of knowledge and awareness that MSW students, currently in the graduate study program at CSUS, have on the topic of restorative justice. There are currently increasing opportunities for employment with offender populations and their families, due to this the researchers saw a need to conduct a study in order to determine how the curriculum is preparing students to work with these populations. This study will also assess the attitudes of MSW students in regards to the topic of restorative justice and connections to the NASW Code of Ethics.
40
The study hypothesis is that the attitudes and perceptions of the current MSW students will demonstrate a limited understanding of restorative justice and its fundamental alignment to the values expressed in the Code of Ethics. The desired outcome of the researchers is to generate discussion regarding the incorporation of restorative justice principles into the required curriculum of the MSW program at CSUS.
Study Design
The design of this study is an exploratory, quantitative, descriptive design. The data will assess the current curriculum in the following ways 1) determining the students access to restorative justice principles, 2) evaluating current MSW students knowledge of restorative justice and 3) measuring the students beliefs about the correlation between restorative justice principles and social work values. The aim of this study is to determine the current level of knowledge and exposure that MSW students at CSUS have to the restorative justice model.
According to Rubin and Babbie (2005) exploratory research designs have as the primary goal the intent to provide readers with a beginning familiarity with a topic. There is a significant amount of research on the topic of restorative justice in existence.
However, there is no research on the perceptions of restorative justice from the perspective of California State University Sacramento MSW students. Due to the lack of research on this information this is exploratory research with the goal of attaining a basic understanding of students knowledge and perceptions of the topic.
The survey design is a questionnaire, the participant reads the questions and provides a response without the researchers involvement. Dudley (2011) described these
41
types of questions as being easy to answer without assistance from the researcher. Many of the survey questions use a likert scale in order to answer. Rubin and Babbie (2005) described the value of likert scaled questions coming from the fact that there is unambiguous ordinality in the response set.
There are several weaknesses to using survey research that were considered in selecting this method of data collection. According to Rubin and Babbie (2005) survey research, while it has a relatively high level of reliability, it is noted for its lower validity.
The lower validity is due to the self-report nature of survey research. Respondents may not represent themselves accurately on a survey for a number of reasons. It can be difficult to determine the justification for the responses on a self-report survey. Due to the fact that convenience sampling was used the results cannot be generalized to the population because it may not be representative of the study population (Neuman &
Kreuger, 2003). These weaknesses were considered when this research tool was selected.
There are benefits of using self-report surveys that were considered. The larger number of respondents can assist in making the findings more generalizable than the results found in qualitative methods. It is possible to get a larger sample size using this method of research. The fixed answer set aids in limiting the possible responses for each of the questions that can assist in making it possible to find connections in the data.
Sampling Procedures
Participants will be contacted through professors at CSUS. The sample type will include currently enrolled MSW I and MSW II students at CSUS. The researchers will explain the nature of the project including voluntary participation and confidentiality. A
42
survey will be handed to them personally by the researchers and will be collected immediately after completion. Eighty-one MSW students currently enrolled at CSUS consented to participate and completed the survey. This included students who were enrolled in 235a and 204c courses. The population included individuals of varying ages, genders, and ethnicities.
Criterion sampling was the design used for this study (Marlow, 2005). The criteria was that the participants be registered in the Master’s of Social Work program at
California State University Sacramento. This sampling method was chosen in order to identify the classes that were invited to participate in the research. Four classes were given the surveys and asked to participate in the research. There were two classes of
MSW I students and two classes of MSW II students.
In consideration of confidentiality and safe handling, consent forms were obtained before the survey was completed. The participants were assured that their information and answers will be kept anonymous. The researchers are interested in the answers to the survey and not the identity of the respondents. The survey does not ask for any identifying information. The survey form and consent form were collected and stored separately. Surveys as well as consent forms and any other data will be destroyed upon approval of the project from the department of graduate studies.
Instruments
The survey used for the research consisted of ten questions (see Appendix C). The survey contained four demographic questions. The first four questions addressed the participant’s previous knowledge or understanding of restorative justice. There were then
43
three questions that presented scenarios that describe restorative practices and asked participants to rate the degree to which they felt that the practice was related to a given social work value. These questions are rated on a likert scare that ranges from completely consistent to not at all consistent. There is a question that asks participants to determine three of the outcomes of responding to an offense from a list of six given options. The final two questions described sample restorative uses and then asked the participant to determine, on a likert scale ranging from more effective than current practices to less effective than current practices, the effectiveness of the practice.
In this case we utilized closed ended questions, this makes it much easier for data to be gathered and analyzed. The concern with using these questions is that they do not allow the participants to create their own answers (Marlow & Boone, 2005). Due to the use of closed ended questions there is a potential to limit the answers that the respondents give to the survey questions.
Data Analysis
The data gathered was transported into an SPSS file. The researchers personally input the information into SPSS for statistical testing and analysis. Frequencies of the independent and dependent variables were analyzed.
Protection of Human Subjects
The researchers’ Human Subjects Application, protocol number 13-14-028 was submitted to the Division of Social Work Human Subjects Review Committee in the fall
2013 semester and was approved as exempt. The application discussed the voluntary nature of the study. Each participant was given a consent form (Appendix B). This
44
explained the purpose of the survey, the procedures, risks, benefits, compensation, and the right to not complete the survey. The confidentiality of the participants was maintained by storing the signed consent form separate from the completed surveys.
Confidentiality was upheld by not collecting names or identifying information.
The completed consent forms were stored separately from the completed surveys. The researchers and the researchers’ thesis advisor were the only people who had access to the completed surveys during the completion of the project. The data will be destroyed after the project is filed with Graduate Studies at California State University, Sacramento.
Summary
This section was designed to present an overview of the research purpose and design, instrumentation, and methodology for collecting and analyzing data. A discussion of the variables was included within the discussion. The population and sample were discussed, along with any challenges presented during the procedures. Data analysis methods were also presented along with how human subjects were protected to ensure a high ethical standard during the course of the research study. Data analysis will be the focus of the following chapter.
45
Chapter 4
Data Analysis
Introduction
This chapter will analyze the results of the survey. The analysis will include an examination of the demographics of the participants as well as the responses of the participants to the perception regarding restorative justice practices. The knowledge of restorative justice according to self-report questions will be examined. The perceptions of
MSW students regarding the desired outcome of involvement with the correction system will also be discussed.
The purpose of this study is to determine the level of knowledge and awareness that MSW students, currently in the graduate study program at CSUS, have on the topic of restorative justice. There are currently increasing opportunities for employment with offender populations and their families, due to this the researchers saw a need to conduct a study in order to determine how the curriculum is preparing students to work with these populations. This study will also assess the attitudes of MSW students in regards to the topic of restorative justice and connections to the NASW Code of Ethics.
The basis of this research study was to identify the importance of having a social work presence in the implementation of restorative justice programs. In addition the purpose of this research study was to highlight the alignment of social work values and ethics with that of restorative justice principals, in order to reinforce the immediate need for social workers in the field of restorative justice.
46
Analysis of Data
Data was analyzed according to the following themes: Demographics, student’s knowledge of restorative justice, perception of the connection to social work values, connection of personal values to the values included in restorative justice. This chapter will include an analysis of the frequency of responses to the survey.
Demographics
A total of 82 first and second year Masters of social work students were surveyed for this study. Of these participants a large majority were female, 86% (n=70), while 14%
(n=11) were male.
Table 4.1: Gender of Participants
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
male 11 13.4 13.6 13.6 Valid female 70 85.4 86.4 100.0 Total 81 98.8 100.0 Missing System 1 1.2 Total 82 100.0
The levels of participants in each of the groups, MSW I and MSW II, were relatively similar. MSW I students represented 52.4% (n=43), and MSW II students represented 46.3% of the respondents. There was one student who did not respond to this question, which represented 1.2% of the total participants.
47
Table 4.2: Education Level
Edlevel
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent MSW1 43 52.4 53.1 53.1 Valid MSW2 38 46.3 46.9 100.0
Total 81 98.8 100.0 Missing System 1 1.2 Total 82 100.0
Figure 4.1 Education Level
48
The question regarding the ethnicity of the participant allowed the individual to write in their own response. This was done in order to avoid limiting the response choices of the participant. Due to this there was a large variety in the responses that were recorded on this demographic question. The largest represented ethnicity was Caucasian with 51.2% (n=42), the next was Hispanic with 14.6% (n=12), followed by African
American with 8.5% (n=7). Beyond that there were no responses that represented more than 3.7% of the population independently.
Table 4.3 Ethnicity
ethnicity
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Caucasian 42 51.2 54.5 54.5 African American 7 8.5 9.1 63.6 Indian 2 2.4 2.6 66.2
Chinese 1 1.2 1.3 67.5 European American 1 1.2 1.3 68.8 Hispanic 12 14.6 15.6 84.4 mixed 3 3.7 3.9 88.3 Valid Vietnamese 2 2.4 2.6 90.9 Other 1 1.2 1.3 92.2 Asian 1 1.2 1.3 93.5 Hmong 2 2.4 2.6 96.1 Native American 1 1.2 1.3 97.4
Mexican 2 2.4 2.6 100.0 Total 77 93.9 100.0 Missing System 5 6.1 Total 82 100.0
49
Table 4.4 Restorative Justice Course RJ course
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent yes 6 7.3 7.3 7.3 no 72 87.8 87.8 95.1 Valid not sure 4 4.9 4.9 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Knowledge of Restorative Justice
Participants were asked to self-report knowledge and awareness of restorative
justice. There was a question that asked if the participant had taken a course on
restorative justice. There were 72 participants who responded that they had not taken a
course in restorative justice (87.8%), and only 7.3% who had taken a course in restorative
justice. The next question asked participants if restorative justice had been mentioned
previously in any of their Master’s in social work courses at CSU Sacramento.
(information %). Participants were then asked to check off which practices of restorative
justice they had knowledge or experience with. The options that were provided were 1)
Victim offender mediation, 2) Family group conferencing, 3) Healing circle and 4)
Community reparation.
Table 4.5 Previous Knowledge Victim Offender Mediation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
no 61 74.4 74.4 74.4 Valid yes 21 25.6 25.6 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
50
Table 4.6 Previous Knowledge Family Group Conferencing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
no 65 79.3 79.3 79.3 Valid yes 17 20.7 20.7 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Table 4.7 Previous Knowledge Healing Circle
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 69 84.1 84.1 84.1 Valid yes 13 15.9 15.9 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Table 4.8 Previous Knowledge Community Reparation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
no 67 81.7 81.7 81.7 Valid yes 15 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 82 100.0 100.0
Based on the responses to the questions about knowledge of models of restorative
justice practice the researchers were able to conclude that the majority of students did not
have much knowledge of what restorative justice is. The practice that had the largest
number of students familiar with it was victim offender mediation with 26% of
respondents familiar with the practice. The restorative practice of family group
conferencing had a level of 21% of respondents familiar with the practice. Community
reparation had a rate of 18% of respondents who stated they had familiarity. Healing
circles were the least known restorative practice by the respondents with only 16%
claiming familiarity.
51
If you have previous knowledge about restorative justice, what do you understand it to be?
There was a short answer question for those who had knowledge of restorative justice to briefly explain what their understanding of it was. Many participants left this blank, however there were a few responses that were included that indicated knowledge of several different restorative practices.
Perception of the Connection to Social Work Values
Questionnaire Statement: Based on the Social Work Code of Ethics, the following statement is consistent with the core value of dignity and worth of a person: “It is imperative to consider the needs of all parties impacted by the offense.”
In analyzing the frequencies of responses for each likert category it was shown that 92.7% (n=76) found the statement, “It is imperative to consider the needs of all parties impacted by the offense”, somewhat consistent or completely consistent with the social work value of dignity and worth of a person, 4.9% (n=4) were undecided, and
1.2% (n=1) found it somewhat inconsistent. One participant did not respond to this question which accounted for 1.2% of the total responses.
52
Table 4.9 Correlation with Value: Dignity and Worth
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent somewhat inconsistent 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 undecided 4 4.9 4.9 6.2 Valid somewhat consistent 26 31.7 32.1 38.3 completely consistent 50 61.0 61.7 100.0 Total 81 98.8 100.0 Missing System 1 1.2 Total 82 100.0
53
Figure 4.2 Dignity and Worth
Questionnaire statement: Based on the Social Work Code of Ethics, the following statement is consistent with the core value, importance of human relationships: “The most important fact about crime is that it causes harm to individuals, their families, and communities.”
A total of 46.3 % (n=38) of respondents found the statement, “the most important fact about crime is that it causes harm to individuals, their families, and communities”, to be completely consistent with the social work value of the importance of human relationships. Another 35.4% (n=29) found the statement to be somewhat consistent with
54
the value. There were 8.5% (n=7) who found the statement to be somewhat inconsistent and another 2.4% who found it not at all consistent. This left 6.1% (n=5) who were undecided on the connection of the statement to the value of the importance of human relationships.
Table 4.10 Correlation with Value: Human Relationships
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent not at all consistent 2 2.4 2.5 2.5 somewhat inconsistent 7 8.5 8.6 11.1 undecided 5 6.1 6.2 17.3 Valid somewhat consistent 29 35.4 35.8 53.1 completely consistent 38 46.3 46.9 100.0 Total 81 98.8 100.0 Missing System 1 1.2 Total 82 100.0
55
Figure 4.3 Human Relationships
Questionnaire Statement: Based on the Social Work Code of Ethics, the following examples are consistent with the core value of social justice: “To repair the harm caused by criminal behavior and to challenge traditional ideals to crime and punishment.”
Connection of Personal Values to Restorative Justice
In analyzing the responses to the questionnaire statement about the connection of restorative justice to the social work value of social justice the researchers found that only
36.6% (n=30) found the statement, “repair the harm caused by criminal behavior and to challenge traditional ideals to crime and punishment”, to be completely consistent with
56
the value of social justice. Another 39% (n=32) found it to be somewhat consistent with the value. There were 3.7% of the population who found the statement to be somewhat inconsistent, and a total of 14.6% who were undecided on this statement and the connection to the value of social justice.
Table 4.11 Correlation with Value: Social Justice Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent somewhat inconsistent 3 3.7 3.9 3.9 undecided 12 14.6 15.6 19.5 Valid somewhat consistent 32 39.0 41.6 61.0 completely consistent 30 36.6 39.0 100.0 Total 77 93.9 100.0 Missing System 5 6.1 Total 82 100.0
57
Figure 4.4 Social Justice
Connection of Restorative Justice Values to Personal Values
Participants were then asked to indicate what they found to be the most important outcomes of an offense. There were six possible responses and participants were asked to choose the three that they found most important. The options were, 1) punishment for the offense, 2) taking responsibility for the offense, 3) repairing relationships between victims, offenders and their communities, 4) reintegration of offender into society, 5) empowerment of the victim or those harmed, 6) prevention of future offenses.
58
Punishment for the offense
The majority of the participants in this research determined that punishment for an offense was not one of the most important outcomes of dealing with the offense. There was 82.9 % of the participants who marked that they do not consider punishment to be their primary interest in outcome. Of the participants, 17.1% (n=14) responded that punishment was one of the most important outcomes to them. All 82 participants responded, either by checking the box next to the statement to indicate the choice of this outcome, or leaving it blank to indicate a negative response to this.
Table 4.12 Outcome: Punishment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 68 82.9 82.9 82.9 Valid yes 14 17.1 17.1 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Taking responsibility
There was a close split in the participants opinion about the importance of taking responsibility for an offense. In this study it was found that 52.4% of respondents found this to be one of the most important outcomes, while 47.6% did not. All 82 participants responded, either by checking the box next to the statement to indicate the choice of this outcome, or leaving it blank to indicate a negative response to this.
59
Table 4.13 Outcome: Taking Responsibility
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 43 52.4 52.4 52.4
Valid yes 39 47.6 47.6 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Repairing relationships
Nearly two-thirds of the participants found repairing relationships to be one of the most important outcomes in responding to an offense. This left 36.6% (n=30) who felt that repairing relationships was not one of the most important outcomes. All 82 participants responded, either by checking the box next to the statement to indicate the choice of this outcome, or leaving it blank to indicate a negative response to this outcome.
Table 4.14 Outcome: Repairing Relationships Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 30 36.6 36.6 36.6 Valid yes 52 63.4 63.4 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
The concept of reintegration of an offender into society received close to an even split of responses. 51.2% of respondents felt that this was one of the most important
60
outcomes, while 48.8% of respondents did not believe that this was. All 82 participants responded, either by checking the box next to the statement to indicate the choice of this outcome, or leaving it blank to indicate a negative response to this outcome.
Table 4.15 Outcome: Reintegration into Society Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 40 48.8 48.8 48.8 Valid yes 42 51.2 51.2 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
One of the outcomes that was given was the empowerment of the victim, or of those who were harmed through the offense. In regards to the importance of this outcome
61% of those surveyed found this to be one of the most important outcomes, while 39% of participants did not think so. All 82 participants responded, either by checking the box next to the statement to indicate the choice of this outcome, or leaving it blank to indicate a negative response to this outcome.
Table 4.16 Outcome: Empowerment of the Victim Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 32 39.0 39.0 39.0 Valid yes 50 61.0 61.0 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Another possible outcome that participants could choose was the prevention of further offenses as one of the most important outcomes. In the research it was found that
62.2% of participants ranked this as one of the most important outcomes, while 37.8% did not see this as a primary outcome. All 82 participants responded, either by checking
61
the box next to the statement to indicate the choice of this outcome, or leaving it blank to indicate a negative response to this outcome.
Table 4.17 Outcome: Prevention of Future Offenses Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 31 37.8 37.8 37.8 Valid yes 51 62.2 62.2 100.0 Total 82 100.0 100.0
Respondents were then given two scenarios which described restorative practices in use and asked about the perceived effectiveness in these cases. The first scenario described the practice of family group conferencing and discussed the use in addressing habitual truancies within a school setting. The respondents were asked to determine, using a likert scale, how effective the practice would be in the case described. In this survey 83% of people found the family group conferencing practice to be somewhat more, or more effective than the current practices. There were two participants (2.2%) who found this practice to be somewhat less effective than current practices and there were 12.2% (n=10) who were undecided on this question. An additional 2.2% (n=2) of respondents did not answer this question.
Participants were then asked to respond to a scenario about the use of victim offender mediation in a case of burglary. The scenario described the situation and stated that prior to meeting the offender has taken accountability for the offense. Respondents were asked how effective they think the victim offender mediation would be in this case.
The results showed that 35.4% of respondents thought that this would be very effective
62
for repairing harm, 37.8% responded that it would be somewhat effective to use victim offender mediation in this case. A total of 6.1% of respondents felt that this practice would be somewhat ineffective for healing the harms of the offense, and 1.2% felt that it would not be effective in healing in the case of the burglary as described in the scenario.
There was a total of 17.1% of the population who were undecided on the effectiveness of the methods described in the scenario and another 2.4% who did not respond to this question.
Table 4.18 Effectiveness: Family Group Conferencing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent somewhat less effective 2 2.4 2.5 2.5 undecided 10 12.2 12.5 15.0 somewhat more effective 34 41.5 42.5 57.5 Valid more effective than current 34 41.5 42.5 100.0 practices Total 80 97.6 100.0 Missing System 2 2.4 Total 82 100.0
63
Figure 4.5 Family Group Conferencing
64
Table 4.19 Effectiveness: Victim Offender Mediation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent not effective for repairing 1 1.2 1.3 1.3 harm somewhat ineffective 5 6.1 6.3 7.5 undecided 14 17.1 17.5 25.0 Valid somewhat effective 31 37.8 38.8 63.8 very effective for repairing 29 35.4 36.3 100.0 harm Total 80 97.6 100.0 Missing System 2 2.4 Total 82 100.0
65
Figure 4.6 Victim Offender Mediation
Summary
This chapter presented the demographics of the participants of the study. The researchers then went into the level of knowledge that master’s in social work students at
CSU, Sacramento had regarding restorative justice models and practices. This chapter then presented the information gathered from participants regarding the perceptions of the link between social work values and the values of restorative justice. Then the researchers covered the values as expressed by the participants in terms of their own
66
connections to the values of social work and the values of restorative justice. The next chapter will analyze the data that was gathered as well as presenting the conclusions, limitations, and the implications for social work.
67
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the level of exposure to the concept of restorative justice individuals who are enrolled in the MSW program at CSU Sacramento have had. This chapter summarizes the key data gathered in this study. The effectiveness of restorative justice practices will be reviewed. The current knowledge and perceptions of MSW students within the program at California State University, Sacramento will be discussed. This chapter will also include the role of social workers in the implementation of restorative justice programs. The chapter will then discuss the implications of the findings for social work students, education, and policy. Recommendations for future research will be discussed. Finally, there will be discussion of the limitations that pertain to this research.
Summary of Study
The research question in this study was intended to determine the level of understanding of restorative justice of graduate students in social work at CSU,
Sacramento. This was determined using a self-report questionnaire given to MSW students while in classes at California State University Sacramento. Participants were also asked to indicate whether they felt restorative justice principles were aligned with the values of social work as laid out in the NASW Code of Ethics. Respondents were then asked to determine the most important outcomes of the criminal justice system out of a list of possible outcomes.
68
Participants in this study were most likely to be Caucasian, to identify as female.
The majority of respondents have not taken a course in restorative justice in the past. The participants were relatively evenly split between first and second year masters in social work students.
Overall the majority of participants found that the statements regarding the values that are included within the framework of restorative justice were connected to the values that they themselves hold. However, there were still many participants who did not view the restorative justice values as the most important outcomes of interactions with the criminal justice system. In consideration of the distinct alignment between restorative justice principles and the ethics and values of social work, the researchers felt that the lack correlation between personal values and restorative justice practices directly reflects those participants internalization of the social work values and ethics. Although it seems that many of the participants hold a high regard for the social work code of ethics in consideration for their professional position, the same standards are not held for their own personal position on morals and values.
Current knowledge and perceptions
Implications of the data collection regarding current knowledge of restorative justice practices showed that the majority of master’s level graduate students currently attending Sacramento, CSU are uneducated with regards to restorative justice, and lack an awareness of restorative practices. In turn the researchers feel the students are entering into the growing field of social work without knowledge of a key instrument, knowledge and the ability to practice restorative justice principles. The researchers feel it is the
69
responsibility of the Sacramento, CSU staff, professors and the cohort to actively seek out the most current and innovative practices to be able to better serve all communities.
With that being said, it is important to recognize the current trend in social work practices. Currently within the field of social work there is a majority perspective that evidence based practices are the most effective interventions. These practices are generally based on measurable outcomes that show significant improvement. This trend towards endorsing evidence based practices is reinforcing the mainstream standard that they are not only effective but that they are proven to be the best practice. The researchers feel that these mainstream ideas that have been rooted in the human services field for quite some time, creating a disadvantage for what are seen as more radical practices such as restorative justice. In essence the professionalization of the field is taking the unique perspective of the social worker out of the work. In regards to the perception of restorative justice, the researchers interpreted the responses to the data collection and attributed the lack of support in favor of restorative practices to perhaps the participants’ insufficient background and exposure to restorative justice practices. In addition to participants’ insufficient knowledge of and exposure to restorative justice, the researchers feel based on the scenarios presented in the questionnaire which provided examples of restorative practices, the respondents perception of the effectiveness of such practices were impaired by their own personal views. As social work professionals it is imperative that we maintain a certain level of awareness regarding our own biases and the judgments we harbor around specific issues.
70
Of particular interest to the researchers was the fact that some respondents who had awareness of restorative justice still ranked the adherence to social work values as low. This did not seem to align with the literature regarding the social work values. The researchers were interested in this and would need to research further to find the cause of these responses. It may be the case that the values of social work as expressed in the
NASW Code of Ethics are not emphasized throughout the MSW program. It appeared as though some respondents were unsure of the meaning of the values when a scenario was presented to them to analyze.
Role of social workers
Given the current lack of interest among social work educators on the topic of restorative justice, it is imperative that social workers who understand the importance of restorative justice practices become educated. In order to provide trainings and information to all organizations that work with populations that will benefit from restorative justice programs. The researchers feel it is the responsibility of the social work profession to not only adopt restorative justice practices but to become the sole providers of the skills necessary to effectively master this trade. In essence, social workers will ideally be the primary educators in the field of restorative justice practices and become a stronger presence for change within the criminal justice system. Although restorative justice programs have received minimal coverage within our communities and political arenas, we hope that social workers will lead the way and carry the torch of the restorative justice movement. Currently the role of social workers within restorative
71
justice programs is largely unknown, however this affords the social work profession the opportunity to clearly define our own role and contribution to the field.
Implications for Social Work Practice
Social workers provide a significant amount to micro, mezzo, macro practices, but have yet to completely secure an investment in restorative justice practices.
Consequently, it is of great need that the profession of social work increase their involvement, commitment, education, training and research participation with regards to the implementation of restorative justice practices.
In regards to implications on a micro level, although certification and training experience in restorative justice practices would be ideal, it is not entirely accessible.
Hence, the importance of social work educators is to advocate for courses offered at the academic level. Additionally, it is of great importance that social workers seek out and become familiar with restorative justice practices in order to effectively implement restorative justice practices while serving clients that can benefit from such practices.
Social workers are often working with clients at a micro level who would benefit from restorative justice practices. If this kind of training and information is available to social workers they will have the opportunity to use these practices with clients.
Mezzo level implications include the importance of the development and seeking out of continuing education units on the topic of restorative justice. The need can be seen within the research for education on the topic of restorative justice within the MSW program. Due to the ethical principle of competent practice with diverse populations
72
social workers need to continue working to serve the needs of those who are being served.
In regards to contribution on a macro level, further studies are needed to show the effectiveness as well as outcome measures of restorative justice practices. Expansion of education on restorative justice practices is needed in order to effectively address necessary policy changes and advancement in funding. Social workers are able to use their position and knowledge of practices to advocate for all underserved populations, many of whom could benefit greatly from restorative justice. The Council on Social
Work Education (CSWE) should look into creating standards that include knowledge of restorative justice principles in order to improve the perception of the model.
Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to find out the current knowledge and perceptions of MSW students at CSU, Sacramento regarding restorative justice practices. The following section is a list of recommendations developed for current and future social workers.
The curriculum at CSU, Sacramento should be examined in order to determine the degree to which it is preparing students who will be working with individuals who are involved in the criminal justice system. Within this study the researchers interpreted the data to mean that participants largely felt that there was little to no introduction to restorative justice principles in the MSW program. Perhaps that practice should be analyzed further with regards to the connection between social work values and the values included in restorative justice.
73
More emphasis should be placed on the values of social work within the graduate level social work curriculum. Within this research it seemed that many participants were unsure about the connections of social work values to restorative justice practices. It is the belief of the researchers that many participants did not fully understand the underlying values of the social worker as addressed in the NASW Code of Ethics. This could be covered further in the required policy course within the program or as an additional workshop for all students within the MSW program.
Further research should be done on the perceptions of social workers of restorative justice, particularly with regards to the values of the NASW Code of Ethics and the perception of the correlation to restorative justice. This should include using a larger sample size and more in depth analysis of the perceptions and knowledge of the participants in the study.
Limitations
A major limitation of this study was that a large majority of the population surveyed was female. The population in this survey was 86% female. The participants were also approximately 51% Caucasian. These demographics make it difficult to generalize the data to all MSW students. A larger sample of the population would be needed in order to determine if these results would be true within the population at large.
Another limitation within this study was the fact that there were very few questions that asked the participants about prior exposure to concepts of restorative justice. The question was asked if participants were familiar with the practices included in restorative justice, however there were a limited number of restorative topics included
74
within that list. The respondents did have an opportunity to fill in the open ended question that asked about what they knew about restorative justice, however very few participants responded to that question. There may have been a way to elicit the answer that would have gotten a higher level of response.
The number of participants included within the study is another limitation. There were 82 participants included in this research. In order for the results to be generalized to larger populations of MSW students the number of participants should be much higher.
This study was completed using only students at California State University Sacramento, if the research is to be generalized to MSW populations as a whole there would need to be participants at other universities.
Conclusion
This study sought to determine the level of knowledge that MSW students at
CSU, Sacramento had about restorative justice as well as to determine their beliefs about the connections to the values of social work. A secondary purpose of this study was to allow this information to inform the social work program as to how it may be able to prepare social workers to meet the needs of the population who have interaction with the criminal justice system. The findings of this study indicate that social work students have varying levels of knowledge on the topic of restorative justice. The majority of the participants in this study had very little previous exposure to the topic. However, it was shown that the majority of participants did view the values of restorative justice to be at least somewhat connected to the values of social work as expressed in the Code of Ethics.
There were many participants who were able to see the connections between the values of
75
restorative justice and social work values who did not see restorative justice outcomes as the most important outcomes of dealings with the criminal justice system. It is the belief of the researchers that this is a topic that requires further research in order to enhance the findings of this research.
76
Appendix A
Consent to Participate in Research
77
Attachment 1 Consent to Participate in Research
You are invited to participate in a research study that will be conducted by student researchers, Jessica Valdez and Elizabeth Ridzik, graduate students at California State University, Sacramento.
Purpose: The researchers are interested in the current level of knowledge and perceptions of restorative justice. There are increasing opportunities for employment with offender populations and their families, based on this it was seen as vital that a study be conducted in order to determine how the curriculum of the MSW program prepares students to address the unique needs of the population. The study will also assess the attitudes and values of MSW students in regards to the need for the content being included throughout the curriculum of the program.
Procedures: As a prospective participant in this study you will be asked to answer questions on a survey regarding your knowledge and perceptions of restorative justice practices. Completing the survey should take approximately 10 minutes.
Benefits: The results of this study will be used to assess the curriculum of the MSW program at CSUS. This research may benefit future MSW students by informing the curriculum committee of the need and importance of incorporating a restorative justice model throughout the curriculum. If you would like to obtain a copy of the final report the researchers would be glad to send you a copy.
Confidentiality: All information is confidential and every effort will be made to protect your anonymity. Any information that is published will not identify any names. Information you provide on the consent form will be stored separately from the survey data in a secure location. The final research report will not include any identifying information. All of the data will be destroyed upon completion of the project.
Voluntary Nature of Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to refuse participation or to withdraw from the study at any time. There is no penalty for refusal or withdrawal of participation.
Compensation: None
78
Risks: None
Attachment 1 (continued) Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
By signing below I certify that I am at least 18 years of age and that I fully understand the voluntary nature of my participation. My signature indicates that I have read the above and that I consent to participate in this research study.
I ______agree to participate in this research.
Signature: ______Date: ______
If you have any questions you may contact us at _#########__or email at_###############
Or, if you need further information, you may contact my thesis advisor:
Dale Russell, Ed. D., LCSW California State University, Sacramento
916-278-7170
79
Appendix B
Human Subjects Approval Letter
80
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK
To: Elizabeth Ridzik & Jessica Valdez Date: November 25, 2013
From: Research Review Committee
RE: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION
Your Human Subjects application for your proposed study, “Best Practices in Restorative Justice Working with Offenders from a Social Work Perspective”, is Approved as Exempt. Discuss your next steps with your thesis/project Advisor.
Your human subjects Protocol # is: 13-14-028. Please use this number in all official correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your approval expires one year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the Committee promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no modification in the protocol without prior approval of the Committee.
The committee wishes you the best in your research.
Research Review Committee members Professors Maria Dinis, Jude Antonyappan, Serge Lee, Francis Yuen, Kisun Nam, Dale Russell,
Cc: Russell
81
Appendix C
Survey Questions
82
Demographic Information:
Gender:______Age:______Ethnicity: ______Please circle one: MSW I MSW II
1. Have you taken a course in restorative justice?
Yes No Not sure
2. Has the topic of restorative justice been discussed in any of your master’s level courses at CSUS?
Yes No Not sure
3. Please indicate if you have any knowledge of or experience with any of the following practices:
Victim Offender Mediation ____ Family Group Conferencing ____ Healing Circle ____ Community Reparation ____
4. If you have previous knowledge about Restorative Justice, what do you understand it to be? Please provide a brief description: ______5. Based on the Social Work Code of Ethics, the following statement is consistent with the core value of dignity and worth of a person: “It is imperative to consider the needs of all parties impacted by the offense.”
1 2 3 4 5 Not at all somewhat Undecided Somewhat Completely consistent_ _ inconsistent consistent consistent 6. Based on the Social Work Code of Ethics, the following statement is consistent with the core value, importance of human relationships: “The most important fact about crime is that it causes harm to individuals, their families, and communities.” 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all somewhat Undecided Somewhat Completely consistent_ _ inconsistent consistent consistent
83
7. Based on the Social Work Code of Ethics, the following examples are consistent with the core value of social justice: “To repair the harm caused by criminal behavior and to challenge traditional ideals to crime and punishment.” 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all somewhat Undecided Somewhat Completely consistent_ _ inconsistent consistent consistent
8. Place an x indicating your opinion of the most important outcomes of an offense (choose up to 3):
___ Punishment for the offense ___Taking responsibility for the offense ___Repairing relationships between victims, offenders and their communities ___Reintegration of offender into society ___Empowerment of the victim or those harmed ___Prevention of future offenses 9. One of the components of the Restorative Justice model is Family Group Conferencing. Family Group Conferencing can be defined as a restorative practice that allows for the family, offender, social service professionals, community members and other stakeholders to create an agreement between all parties. For example, in truancy mediation, which typically consists of the offender/student, the family of the student, school administrator, counselor and attendance coordinator, all gather to create goals for the student to be successful and attend school (e.g. commitment to attend school, community service, etc). How effective do think this intervention would be for a student with habitual truancies as oppose to current practices (i.e. court appearances, fines, etc)?
1 2 3 4 5______Less effective somewhat Undecided Somewhat More effective Than current less more than current practices effective effective practices_____ 10. The most commonly recognized Restorative Justice practice is Victim-Offender Mediation. Victim-Offender Mediation is a meeting that allows for both victim and offender to meet in the presence of a trained facilitator to discuss the crime that has impacted both of their lives and possibilities for repairing harm done. For instance, in the case of a burglary, the victim and offender meet to discuss how the violation has caused harm (i.e. violation of privacy, sense of security, stolen goods, etc.). Prior to meeting, the offender has assumed personal accountability for the offense and understands that the process will not benefit her/him in any court proceedings. How effective do you think this practice would be for repairing harm caused by this offense?
1 2 3 4 5______Less effective somewhat Undecided Somewhat More effective Than current less more than current practices effective effective practices_____
84
References
Abramson, L., & Moore, D. (2001). Transforming conflict in the inner city: Community
conferencing in Baltimore. Contemporary Justice Review, 4, 321-340.
American Bar Association. (1994, Approved August 1994). Policy on legislative and
national issues. In American Bar Association (Ed.), Policies and procedures
handbook (p. 730). Chicago, IL: Author.
Androff, D. K. (2012). Reconciliation in a community-based restorative justice
intervention. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXIX(4), 73-96.
Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2005). Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice:
Building theory and policy from practice. Portland, Oregon: Willan Publishing.
Beck, E. (2012). Transforming communities: restorative justice as a community building
strategy. Journal of Community Practice, 20, 380-401.
Beck, E., Kropf, N. P., & Blume, L. P. (2010). Social work and restorative justice: Skills
for dialogue, peacemaking, and reconciliation. NY: Oxford University Press.
Bradt, L., & Bouverne-DeBie, M. (2009). Victim-offender mediation as a social work
practice. International Social Work, 52(2), 181-193.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford
Publishing.
Burford, G., & Adams, P. (2004). Restorative justice , responsive regulation and social
work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXI(1), 7-26.
85
Choi, J., Bazemore, G., & Gilbert, M. J. (2012). Review of research on victims’
experiences in restorative justice: implications for youth justice. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 35-42.
Choi, J., Green, D. L., & Gilbert, M. J. (2011). Putting a human face on crimes: a
qualitative study on restorative justice processes for youths. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 28, 335-355.
De Beus, K., & Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice practice: an examination of
program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 337-347.
DeMesmaecker, V. (2010, September). Building social support for restorative justice
through the media: is taking the victim perspective the most appropriate strategy?
Contemporary Justice Review, 13(3), 239-267.
Dudley, J.R. (2011). Research methods for social work: Being producers and consumers
of research (updated 2nd ed.) Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA
Dzur, A. W. (2011). Restorative justice and democracy: fostering public accountability
for criminal justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(4), 367-381.
Germain, C. B., & Bloom, M. (1999). Human behavior in the social environment: An
ecological view. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gumz, E., & Grant, C. L. (2009). Restorative justice: a systematic review of the social
work literature. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services, 90(1), 119-126.
Hayden, A. (2012, December). Safety issues associated with using restorative justice for
intimate partner violence. Women’s Studies Journal, 26(2), 4-16.
86
Henry, S. (2009). Social construction of crime. In J. Miller (Ed.), 21st Century
criminology: A reference handbook. (pp. 296-305). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412971997.n34.
Johnson, M. M., & Rhodes, R. (2008). Human behavior and the larger social
environment (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Karp, D. R. (2004). Integrity boards. In D. R. Karp & T. Allena (Eds.), Restorative
justice on the college campus: Promoting student growth and responsibility and
reawakening the spirit of the campus community (p. 29-41). Springfield, IL:
Charles C Thomas.
Lehmann, P., Jordan, C., Whitehill Bolton, K., Huynh, L., & Chigbu, K. (2012).
Solution-focused brief therapy and criminal offending: a family conference tool
for work in restorative justice. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31(4), 49-62.
Lewis, Sharon. (2009). Improving school climate: Findings from schools implementing
restorative practices. A report from the International Institute for Restorative
Practices Graduate School. 1-36. Retrieved from
www.realjustice.org/pdf/IIRP-Improving-School-Climate.pdf.
Marlow, C., & Boone, S. (2005). Research methods for generalist social work. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
McAlinden, A. (2011, December). “Transforming justice”: challenges for restorative
justice in an era of punishment based corrections. Contemporary Justice Review,
14(4), 383-406.
87
Moore, D. B. (2004, March). Managing social conflict: the evolution of a practical
theory. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXI(1), 71-91.
National Association of Social Workers. (2012). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp
Neuman, L. & Kreuger, K.W. (2003). Social work research methods: qualitative and
quantitative applications. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.
Nugent, W. R., Williams, M., & Umbreit, M. S. (2004, November). Participation in
victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior:
a meta analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(6), 408-416.
Proietti-Scifoni, G., & Daly, K. (2011, September). Gendered violence and restorative
justice: the views of New Zealand opinion leaders. Contemporary Justice Review,
14(3), 269-290.
Roche, D. (2001). The evolving definition of restorative justice. Contemporay Justice
Review, 4(3/4), 341-353.
Rossner, M. (2011). Emotion and interaction ritual: a micro analysis of restorative justice.
Britsih Journal of Criminology, 51, 95-119.
Rubin, A & Babbie, E.R. (2005). Research methods for social work. (5th ed.)
Brooks/Cole: Belmont,CA.
Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012).
A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile
offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 26-33.
88
Stevenson, A. (Ed.), (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English. : Oxford University Press.
Retrieved 28 Mar. 2014, from
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/a
cref-9780199571123.
Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2004). Restorative justice: Healing the foundations of our
everyday lives. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Takagi, P., & Shank, G. (2004). Critique of restorative justice. Social Justice, 31(3), 147-
163.
Umbreit, M., & Armour, M. P., (2011). Restorative justice dialogue: an essential guide
for research and practice. NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). Restorative justice: an
empirically grounded movement facing many opportunities and pitfalls. Cardozo
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8, 511-564.
United Nations. (2000). Basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in
criminal matters. New York: Author.
Van Wormer, K. (2002). Restorative justice: a model for social work practice with
families. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services,
84(3), 441-448.
VanWormer, K. (2006). The case for restorative justice: a crucial adjunct to the social
work curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26(3/4), 57-69.
89
VanWormer, K. (2009, April). Restorative justice as social justice for victims of
gendered violence: a standpoint feminist perspective. Social Work, 54(2), 107-
116.
Ward, T., & Langlands, R. (2009). Repairing the rupture: restorative justice and the
rehabilitation of offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 205-214.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and
restorative justice. Law Human Behavior, 32, 375-389.
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Zehr, H. (2005). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice (3rd ed.). Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press.