Exploring the Dimensionality of Community in Restorative Justice

Style:

Panel

Presenter(s):

• Brenda Morrison - Simon Fraser University
• Alana Abramson - Kwantlen Polytechnic University
• Krystal Glowatski - Simon Fraser University
• Tamara Pearl - Simon Fraser University
• Tania Arvanitidis- Simon Fraser University

Abstract:

Brenda will discuss the role of community in the theory and practice of RJ. Reflecting on victim offender mediation; community conferences, and peacemaking circles, she’ll examine a particular vision of community across models, and how this relates to the potential for community capacity building within the movement.

Alana will discuss how participation in a RJ course at the post-secondary level can impact student's lives inside and outside the university community
Krystal will discuss research approaches to understanding the experiences of people related to an offender. Preliminary findings from pilot studies will highlight the attention and resources that need to be focused on this largely overlooked community.
Tamara will discuss preliminary findings from what she has witnessed, and testimonials of staff and residents, into how healing relationships are created at Kwikwexwehlp Healing Village, a minimum-security CSC facility, who work in partnership with Sts'ailes First Nation, and Coast Salish Elders. Particular focus is given to how staff embody an ethic of “love” within a correctional facility.
Tania will discuss the Vancouver Restorative Justice Demonstration Project, a pilot study investigating the effects of restorative justice conferencing on individuals affected by the Vancouver hockey riot in June 2011.

Objectives:

1. Participants will gain an understanding of the importance and issues related to ‘community’ in restorative justice
2. Participants will be able to identify key elements (both theoretically and practically) in building community, such as but not limited to: relationship, active citizenship, and respect.

The First Nations Courts and the Impact of a Restorative Justice Process in a Sentencing Court

Style:

Lecture

Presenter(s):

• Annette Vogt - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Fraser Valley
• Yvon Dandurand - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Fraser Valley

Abstract:

First Nations Courts (FNCs) are an innovative and emerging practice in BC. These courts are recognized for their attempt to integrate restorative principles and indigenous practices in a way that recognizes the unique circumstances of Indigenous people within the framework of the traditional court system.

Established, in part, through recognition that the traditional criminal justice system does not adequately serve the needs of Indigenous offenders or their communities, the Provincial Court of British Columbia has been working together with community agencies and First Nations peoples to establish four of these specialized courts across the province. This collaborative effort has resulted in considerable variation in terms of the stated goals, processes, and extent to which the FNCs engage the community. Because FNCs are being requested in other BC communities, there is a need to understand which model(s) will lead to the most holistic and effective justice response for Canada's Indigenous peoples.
Unique to Canada, BC’s Ministry of Justice has articulated a Specialized Courts Strategy which provides a framework that emphasizes regular data collection, analysis, and reporting of that data on the outcomes and process to improve the functioning of FNCs. This presentation will briefly describe how FNCs operate and discuss some of the challenges associated with monitoring and evaluating these courts.

Objectives:

1. Participants will be introduced to First Nations Courts that operates from a blended model that borrows from restorative and traditional justice.
2. Participants will understand some of the key challenges related to evaluating the impact of First Nations Courts.

The Blueprint project: Increasing RCMP Detachment referrals to community based restorative justice programs

Style:

Lecture

Presenter(s):

• Jordan Diplock (RCMP, Crime Prevention Services)
• Darren Munroe (RCMP, Crime Prevention Services)

Abstract:

This presentation will discuss the findings and recommendations from a recent research project in British Columbia with the goal of studying what has led to higher than average referral numbers from the RCMP to some community-based restorative justice programs. A model for developing stronger referral relationships will be presented and several recommendations will be discussed which aim to help police and local restorative justice programs take the next steps toward productivity in their relationships. This presentation will help police and restorative justice programs to better understand what can be done to improve their referral relationships whether they are just starting out, running smoothly, or struggling with conflict. In this workshop, participants will learn key factors that influence the development of the referral relationship between police and restorative justice programs. Additionally, they will leave the presentation being able to describe their existing relationship from the perspective of our progressive model of police/program referral relationships, and identify some steps to advance that relationship to the next stage of productivity.

Objectives:

1. Learn key factors that will improve referral relationships between police and restorative justice programs.
2. Learn how to describe the existing relationship and identify steps towards improving said relationship.

Standards and Accreditation for Restorative Practice

Style:

Panel

Presenter(s):

• Chris Straker - CEO Restorative Justice Council, UK
• Hayley MacKenzie - Ministry of Justice, New Zealand

Abstract:

The session will explore the development of best practice standards and accreditation for restorative practice and justice in the UK and NZ, focusing particularly on the changes over the past four years. The session will cover the difference between a restorative organisation and a restorative service, and will provide participants an opportunity to assess their own practices and organisations against certain standards. The facilitator will open up discussion on the findings from the short assessment exercise; and discuss the implications for future developments in accreditation in Canada.

Objectives:

1. Attendees will understand the journey taken by the UK through the work of the Restorative Justice Council (RJC), and in NZ driven by the Ministry of Justice, to develop a framework of standards and accreditation processes.
2. Using their own contexts attendees will have the opportunity to assess their own organisation and practice against the UK and NZ restorative standards.

Family Group Conferencing: Deeper than Decision Making

Style:

Lecture

Presenter:

• Gayle Desmeules – True Dialogue

Abstract:

Learn about the significance of designing a restorative Family Group Conference (FGC) process that goes beyond risk assessment and decision making to address over-representation of Indigenous people in the social/justice system. For Indigenous families experiencing intergenerational trauma, who are involved with Child Intervention Services and/or the Justice System, FGC needs to run deeper than decision-making in hopes of restoring healthy relationships fragmented by colonization and residential school. In historic trauma recovery, the journey begins with education. To provide opportunities for individuals to connect how one’s life, one’s family and community has been impacted by cultural oppression. More specifically, coming to terms with how internalized oppression is manifested in behaviors that are harmful to self/others. This education stage gives individuals and the family an opportunity to put things into perspective; a context for their experience, linking historical trauma to present day circumstances. Once this greater awareness is realized, a natural transition to grief and loss will occur. Then, movement towards a renewed sense of energy and visioning for the well-being of a child/youth, and future generations. Spiritual recovery and reconciliation of underlying historic injustices is reflected in a shared commitment for action, and completion of planned goals to address present-day criminal justice or child protection concerns. The presentation is relatable to other historically oppressed populations.

Objectives:

1. Develop a deeper appreciation regarding the intent of a restorative process when working with historically oppressed populations.
2. Learn the stages of historic trauma recovery and creative ways to incorporate into one’s practice.

RJ as a Trauma Informed Approach

Style:

Lecture

Presenter:

• Judah Oudshoorn, Professor, Conestoga College

Abstract:

The workshop will encourage people to think more clearly about how restorative justice practices can be trauma-informed. Using case examples, participants will explore the following questions: what is trauma? What is the relationship between trauma, harm, and crime? What does it mean to be trauma-informed? What are the linkages between being trauma-informed and being anti-oppressive? Why is being trauma-informed a helpful way of doing the work of restorative justice? How can restorative justice practitioners determine whether their practice is trauma-informed? The hope is that by introducing trauma-informed principles into restorative justice practices, a more responsible, more effective version of restorative justice, in the aftermath of harm, is possible..

Objectives:

1. What does it mean to be "trauma-informed"?
2. How can restorative justice practices become trauma-informed?

Building a Restorative Region

Presenter:

• Chris Cowie

Abstract:

Community Justice Initiatives (CJI) of Waterloo Region, Ontario has a long and rich history of providing restorative justice programming. CJI is credited with starting the first victim offender mediation program in 1974 and since that time have innovated restorative responses to situations of conflict, crime, and abuse. CJI has recently begun implementing a strategy to transform our community to use restorative practices as a primary response to conflict and wrongdoing. We are working to create a restorative region where restorative practices and processes are infused into broad municipal systems that impact the entire community. To do this, CJI is influencing the systems in which we live to become restorative rather than punitive. This includes working with municipal governments, police departments, schools, retirement homes, social services, and businesses to have a discussion about restorative practices, provide training and learning opportunities about restorative practices to the public, and to assist people to utilize restorative justice in their everyday lives. CJI is building a plan to involve community members and services to create a transformative peace initiative where instead of punishment, our community will offer restorative responses first. We hope to inspire others to become restorative regions and cities, and discuss ways to build momentum on a national level.

Objectives:

1. Participants will be inspired to create restorative communities.
2. Participants will build a shared understanding of concrete ways to begin restorative community initiative.

What are the next Steps for the Values, Principles and Guidelines for RJ in Canada?

Facilitator:

• Barbara Tomporowski, Mandy Halabi

Abstract:

Hear the results from a recent consultation, and share your ideas for the next steps! The Canadian RJ Consortium recently completed a consultation regarding revised drafts of the “Values and Principles for RJ in Criminal Matters” and “RJ Program Guidelines for Criminal Matters” documents. This dialogue circle will present the findings and provide an opportunity to discuss some key issues. Potential discussion questions include: • RJ in the criminal justice system is provided by a wide range of groups. How can these documents reflect an appropriate level of training and qualifications that covers these diverse groups? • RJ can be provided at all stages of the criminal justice system. To what extent should these documents focus on the legal context within which RJ operates? • To what extent should the documents focus on the roles of accused/offenders, victims, and communities? • How can the documents be used locally, regionally, and nationally in the future, and what are the next steps?

How Do We Evaluate RJ More Effectively?

Facilitator:

• Diane Crocker

Abstract:

Evaluations consistently show that restorative justice has positive outcomes and is an effective way to respond to crime and other harms. In spite of this evidence, many RJ programs still have to prove that their model works, and undertake evaluations. These are often a requirement of funders. Some in the field express frustration about having to always show that RJ works. Given this context, this dialogue circle will explore how we can meet funders’ needs and while also building new knowledge. We will share our best and worst stories about evaluations to see what we can learn about steering them in a direction that helps us show how RJ works, not just that it does.

Moving Toward a New Paradigm: Conversations about RJ

Facilitator:

• Bruce Schenk

Abstract:

For two days in April 2017, RJ practitioners and thinkers from across Canada gathered in Ottawa for a series of conversations to consider what would be involved in moving our justice system to a one grounded in a restorative paradigm. In other words, what will it take to change our overall approach to justice from a punitive model to one where the primary focus is on building and restoring relationships and repairing harm as a way of creating stronger, healthier, safer communities? How can we shift our focus in order that the starting point in dealing with crime and harmful behaviour is based on a relational lens rather than an adversarial one? This interactive workshop will reflect on the findings from the April gathering based on what was shared there by presenters and participants in a circle sharing process regarding over 20 topic areas. The same circle process will be utilized to enable those attending this workshop to share their responses to what was learned.

The Canadian (R)Evolution: What Does Tomorrow Look Like, and How do We Get There?

Facilitator:

• Christine Peringer

Abstract:

This facilitated collaborative planning session will bring together participants who are interested in shaping a more restorative Canada both in policy and in practice. Guided by the overarching question “What does tomorrow look like?” participants will discuss how we can increase the capacity for person-centred approaches to justice. Throughout the symposium, participants will be asked to contribute ideas on the next step/priority action to improve the criminal justice system. The goal of this session is to develop those ideas into an action plan that identifies priorities and champions, and produces SMART, concrete results. That action plan will be shared with all symposium participants. The Ottawa Restorative Justice Network (ORJN) will shepherd the plan in an effort to support the “Canadian (R)Evolution” for and by individuals, communities and organizations. Other questions we will consider include: 1. How can we begin to integrate restorative practice into systems, organizations, and communities as our default approach? 2. How can we develop common ground in terms of priorities and next steps for action? Moreover, how can we maintain this momentum after the Symposium?

What are the Benefits and Challenges of a Victim-Centred Approach to Restorative Justice?

Facilitator:

• Lara Rooney

Abstract:

Restorative justice (RJ) is commonly defined as an approach to justice that focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime. Victims and survivors of crime are key stakeholders in RJ and can benefit from the opportunity to be safely and meaningfully engaged in restorative justice processes. It has been noted that in some cases, RJ processes may be more focused on the needs of offenders, with little understanding and regard for the needs of victims and survivors or the impact of the crime on their lives and the potential resulting trauma. Concerns about both physical and emotional safety for victims, potential pressures on them to participate in a RJ process or pressures to forgive an offender have been identified as key risks for victims and issues that need to be addressed in the design and delivery of RJ processes and programs. These concerns, and the focus on addressing harms resulting from crime, have led to calls for a more victim-centred approach to RJ. At the same time, it has been noted that RJ processes should balance the needs of participants and questions have been raised about promoting victim-centred RJ. This dialogue session will provide an opportunity to discuss the benefits and challenges of a victim-centred approach to RJ.

How Can We Build Confidence with the General Public that RJ is About Real Accountability?

Facilitator:

• Stacey Alderwick

Abstract:

RJ is about participants shaping a 'justice experience' and central to this experience is meeting victims' needs for offenders to be accountable for the harms they have caused but what is accountability and how do we know when we've achieved it? While an offender's demonstration of accountability can take the form of concrete actions and new behaviours, it can also be more symbolic in nature i.e. expressions of remorse, understanding, victim empathy and insight to offending behaviours. For many members of the public, these outcomes may seem to lack meaning and lasting impact. So, how do practitioners have dialogue with members of their communities who may be looking for justice outcomes that include increased safety and reduced recidivism while not being 'soft on crime' -- particularly where it regards serious and violent offences? How do practitioners critically examine the credibility of RJ? What does it mean to be accountable to stakeholders? Join us for an interactive circle dialogue to add your voice as we explore these questions.

ACEs High: WAY Too High!

Presenter:

• Dave Gustafson

Abstract:

There are NO excuses for perpetrating violent harms against another, no matter what injuries one might have suffered and is attempting to avenge. But there are increasing relevant explanations for how that violence may have been rooted in Aversive Childhood Experience, (ACE), been incubated over time, and finally, with some real or imagined triggering event, explosively broken all restraints, creating untold harm for trauma survivors and harm doers, alike. -David L. Gustafson, MA, RCC ACE, the acronym for Aversive Childhood Experience, once seen only in rare epidemiological studies, is increasingly gathering interest from those working in a wide variety of fields, including: addictions, trauma (assessment, treatment, recovery and resilience), education (learning, child development and attachment), victimology, criminology and corrections. There are now ACE Summits being convened to bring together practitioners from these and other disciplines to collaborate on understanding the downstream impacts of childhood trauma in hopes of moving beyond tertiary treatment to primary prevention. Studies show striking correlation between Aversive Childhood Experience and troublesome health outcomes through the life span. As a clinician himself, Dave was working with adolescent and adult trauma survivors on the one hand and, on the other as program developer and facilitator for the Victim Offender Mediation Program (VOMP) with federally sentenced prisoners, Dave was being constantly confronted with the impacts of early childhood trauma in the lives of the people being referred. Using a fairly simple scoring instrument, Dave began to ask those who consented about their ACEs. That research continues, but Dave and others have long since concluded that ACEs are high: WAY too high.

Objectives:

1. Provide an overview of the ACE studies’ findings, the ten-factor scoring instrument.
2. Share case studies highlighting some of the implications for restorative / transformative justice.