COMMUNITY REPARATION

Probably the most powerful of the restorative justice processes falls under the category of community conferencing. The power comes from the emotions aroused, the likelihood of catharsis through the healing ritual, and the involvement of the whole community. Community reparation takes place at both the individual and societal levels.

At the Individual Level

Often referred to as the "Vermont model" of reparative probation, community reparation or reparative probation, this form of restorative conferencing can be implemented more quickly within existing structures and processes of the criminal justice system. Such is the case in Vermont. Vermont's radical restructuring of its corrections philosophy and practices stems from influences of the communitarian movement and to personalist philosophy generally (Hudson and Galaway, 1990; Thorvaldson, 1990).

In 1991, Vermont decided to overhaul its system, setting up reparative boards statewide to focus on repairing the damage to the victim and community. Composed of volunteers, the reparative group is charged with ensuring that low-risk nonviolent offenders are made aware of the impact of their behavior on members of the community. Vermont, in fact, is the first state to implement such conferencing on a statewide basis and the first to institutionalize the restorative justice philosophy.

The goal is to have all offenders pay back their victims even if they are in prison (Van Wormer, 2001). Treatment is provided for the victim and to meet the offender's needs as well. As with all restorative justice programs, the goal is to reduce the harm the offender has done to the victims and community and to reintegrate the offender into the community. Preliminary studies from Vermont show that more than 80 percent of the 4,000 plus offenders who entered the mediation process have completed it successfully, and that they are less likely to reoffend than those who enter probation (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1998).

This model involves a "reparative programs" track designed for offenders who commit non-violent offenses and who are considered at low risk for reoffense. This track mandates that the offender make reparations to both the victim(s) and to the community. A reparative probation program such as Vermont's directly engages the community in sentencing and monitoring offenders, and depends heavily upon small-scale community-based committees to deal with minor crimes (Sinkinson and Broderick, 1998). Reparative agreements are made between perpetrators and these community representatives, while citizen volunteers furnish social support in order to facilitate victim and community reparation.

This model involves members of the community in meting out justice. Unlike other forms of restorative justice, the process is more formal with the "chairperson" guiding participants through a questioning process. The victim's role has been minimal in the past although this may be strengthened in the future. To gain a sense of how the process works read the following description from the US Department bulletin written by Bazemore and Umbreit (2001).

An Example of a Community Reparative Board Session

The reparative board convened to consider the case of a 17-year-old who had been caught driving with an open can of beer in his father's pickup truck. The youth had been sentenced by a judge to reparative probation, and it was the board’s responsibility to decide what form the probation should take. For about 30 minutes, the citizen members of the board asked the youth several simple, straightforward questions. The board members then went to another room to deliberate on an appropriate sanction for the youth. The youth awaited the board's decision nervously, because he did not know whether to expect something
tougher or much easier than regular probation.

When the board returned, the chairperson explained the four conditions of the offender's probation contract: (1) begin work to pay off his traffic tickets, (2) complete a State Police defensive driving course, (3) undergo an alcohol assessment, and (4) write a three-page paper on how alcohol had negatively affected his life. The youth signed the contract, and the chairperson then adjourned the meeting (p. 9).

Similar to Vermont's community process in its focus on truth-telling and reconciliation of parties is some of the programming found in Hawaii. Social workers in Hawaii have been quietly incorporating Native Hawaiian culturally based tradition into their human service interventions. The impetus for introducing the culturally-specific programming came in the 1970s when it was noted that Native children were not responding to the standard forms of psychotherapy provided. Hurdle (2002) chronicles how social workers in collaboration with Hawaiian elders worked to revitalize the use of ho’oponopono, an ancient Hawaiian conflict resolution process. This model is embedded in the traditional Hawaiian value of extended family, respect of elders, need for harmonious relationships, and restoration of good will or aloha. The process is ritualistic and follows a definite protocol. With the leader in tight control of communication; the opening prayer leads in to an open discussion of the problem at hand. The resolution phase begins with a confession of wrongdoing and the seeking of forgiveness. Uniquely, as Hurdle relates, all parties to the conflict ask forgiveness of each other; this equalizes the status of participants. This process effectively promotes spiritual healing and can be used in many contexts. In drawing on guidance of the Kupanas (or wise elders) and a reliance on the family as a natural resource in reliving social problems, social workers are tapping in to the community's natural resources, a cardinal principle of the strengths perspective (Heffernan, Johnson, and Vakalahi, 2002).

Societal Level Justice

Related to peacemaking on the small scale is conferencing at the societal level to right mass wrongs. Such wrongs generally consist of mistreatment and abuse of whole segments of the population based on differences in ethnicity, race, or creed. In contrast to the process we have explored thus far, this on often takes place years after the maltreatment; the victims may even be later generations, the descendants of the original injured parties may be the actual complainants. The complaint is often filed in court through an attorney. The connection to restorative justice is in the aim of reparation or restoring what is due to victims, also the grassroots movement out of which the impetus for justice is derived.

When reparations were made in 1988 by the US Congress to Japanese Americans for wrongs inflicted upon them after war was declared on Japan, (including confiscation of their property and confinement in concentration camps) a precedent was set for other people to seek compensatory measures. Among them are the Native Americans for treaties broken and brutal forced assimilation practices. In Australia aboriginal peoples are currently organizing to receive reparations for their "stolen childhoods." The reference is to the forced removal of mixed race children from aboriginal mothers into orphanages or white homes. In the US, the African American movement for reparations incurred by their ancestors through enslavement has been widely publicized.

In the US, the priest sexual abuse scandal, which has taken the Catholic Church by storm, lends itself to the possibility of reparations. Restorative justice principles as opposed to seeking retribution, are highly relevant to the needs of both the perpetrators and survivors of clergy sexual abuse. In one case, at least, from the diocese of Providence, Rhode Island involving lawsuits by 36 people who were sexually abused as children by priests, awards were provided in varying amounts proportionate to the severity of the abuse. What is remarkable about the case is that it was resolved not adversarily but through marathon mediation sessions. Survivors were treated with empathy by the church representatives; instead of attacking the victims’ stories, compassion was shown and apologies offered. Consistent with the principles of restorative justice the emphasis was on helping the victims, church, and community heal from the wrongs that had been done (Carroll, 2002).

In summary, the restorative process with its peacemaking and reconciliatory attributes is a powerful tool for handling conflict. Whether in a one-on-one situation or writ large, peacemaking is enhanced when amends can be made in a spirit of reconciliation. Forgiveness and healing can go hand in hand. Forgiveness—in the sense of an ability of the aggrieved party to let go—can never be forced. When it does occur, forgiveness can be a healing force for both victim and offender. Through counseling preparatory to victim-offender-community conferencing, social workers can play a key role in helping participants deal with strong feelings connected to the offense.

As a paradigm that envisions systemic social change, as one that can be applied at the micro level to reach one youth in one community, or at the macro level to help heal a nation's woundedness, restorative justice has the potential to be one of the most influential models of the 21st century. Worldwide, bolstered by endorsement from the United Nations, the European Union, and entire governments, the restorative justice concept has shifted from the periphery of justice discourse to the very center. The theme of restorative justice—violence wounds ... justice heals—holds an important message for policy makers in search of a just society. It holds an important message for the social work profession as well especially when we expand the definition of violence to include structural violence. At the time of this writing with the war in Iraq dividing the world into warring camps, the challenge for the future will be to try to somehow undo the damage that has been done, that always is done in wartime, to heal the wounds of individuals, families, and nations.


by Katherine van Wormer (University of Northern Iowa, USA).

Suggested Readings

Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M. (2001), Understanding Restorative Community Justice: What and Why Now?, in G. Bazemore and M. Schiff (eds.), Restoring Community Justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities, Anderson: Cincinnati, OH.

Bazemore, G. and Umbreit, M. (1998), Balancing the Response to Youth Crime: Prospects for a Restorative Juvenile Justice and the Juvenile Court: Exploring Victim Needs and Involvement in the Response to Youth Crime, International Review of Victimology, Vol. 6, pp. 295-320.

Carroll, M. (2002, September 10), $13.5 Million Settlement in Rhode Island Clergy Abuse, The Boston Globe, www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse.

Heffernan, K.; Johnson, R. and Vakalahi, H. (2002), Ho'okele: A Pacific Island Approach to Aging, paper presented at the Baccalaureate Program Directors Conference, Pittsburgh, October 23-25.

Hudson, J. and Galaway, B. (1990), Community Service: Toward Program Definition, Federal Probation, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 3-9.

Hurdle, D. (2002), Native Hawaiian Traditional Healing: Culturally-Based Interventions for Social Work Practice, Social Work, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 183-92.

Sinkinson, H.D. and Broderick, J.J. (1998), A Case Study of Restorative Justice: The Vermont Reparative Probation Program, in L. Walgrave (ed.), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Potentialities, Risks and Problems, Leuven University Press: Leuven, Belgium.

Sullivan, D. and Tifft, L. (2001), Restorative Justice: Healing the Foundations of Our Everyday Lives, Willow Tree: New York.

Swart, S. (2000), Restorative Processes: Mediation, Conferencing and Circles, www.restorativejustice.org.

Thorvaldson, S. (1990), Restitution and Victim Participation in Sentencing: A Comparison of Two Models, in B. Galaway and J. Hudson (eds.), Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation, Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY.

Van Wormer, K.(2001), Counseling Female Offenders and Victims: A Strengths-Restorative Approach, Springer: New York.