helfgott. restoring justice.netherlandspresentation

8/14/2019 Helfgott. Restoring Justice.netherlandsPresentation

1/49

Restoring Justice at the

Washington State Reformatory: A Prison-Based Encounter Program

J.B. Helfgott, M.L. Lovell, C.F. LawrenceSeattle University

W.H. ParsonagePenn State University

Presentation prepared for the 4 th International Conference on Conferencing, Circles, and other Restorative Practices, Veldhoven, Netherlands, August 28-30, 2003


2/49

Background

Impetus for ProgramWashington State HB 2010Nature/dynamics of prison

subcultureRestorative Justice MovementFrustration over polar groupsnot getting needs met,confusion,miscommunication,misunderstanding regardingcrime and punishment issues


3/49

Retributive v. RestorativeModels of Justice

RetributiveCrime = legal violationWrongs create guiltDebt abstract/punitive

Blame/retribution centralVictims needs ignoredOffender stigmatizedState monopoly on responseto wrongdoingBattle/ adversarial modelnormative

RestorativeCrime = harmWrongs create obligationsDebt concrete/reparative

Problem solving centralVictims needs centralOffender reintegratedVictim, offender, citizen rolesrecognizedDialogue/reconciliationnormative


4/49

Program DevelopmentCollaborative effort Developmental Committee

PrisonAdministration and staff Offender Advocates (Lifers)

CitizenStakeholders/Agencies

Victim AdvocatesRestorative JusticeEx-Offender Advocacy

Academic/ProgramEvaluators

Criminology/Criminal JusticeSociologySocial Work


5/49

Program Overview

5 seminars1997 -2000

RecruitmentScreeningOrientationSeminarTourFollow-up

ProgramEvaluation

Pre/post interviewsPre/postquestionnairesParticipantObservation

Data AnalysisReportsPublications


6/49

Program Goals

To create a safe space in the prison environment foroffenders to express empathy and remorse andsupport for taking steps toward accountability forpast, present, and future actions

To facilitate constructive communication betweenvictims, offenders, and citizens so that justice canbecome more meaningful for all parties

To contribute to new/creative thinking about justice and dealing with crime

To foster hope for the future of criminal justice andcorrections that goes beyond temporary solutionsthrough a balancing of victim, offender, andcommunity rights, interests, and responsibilities.


7/49

Key Research Questions

Can amends be Made for ViolentCrime?Can Issues be Resolved throughDiscussions with surrogates ?Can the prison culture be changedwhen opportunities are provided to

meaningfully discuss issues of accountability and reparation withinthe prison setting?


8/49

Seminar Format

Introduction to Restorative JusticeStorytelling

Transferring new knowledge intodaily lifePrison Tour

Follow-up Meetings


9/49

J. Helfgott & Offender Participants


10/49

Victim ParticipantsNumber of Victim Participants: 29Gender:

25 (86%) female4 (14%) male

Age: 22 78; M = 39, SD = 15Education: M = 14.8, SD = 1.7

Race/Ethnicity: 20 (70%) White4 (14%) Black3 (10%) Hispanic1 (3%) Native American1 (3%) Asian/Pacific Islander

Crime:

9 (32%) rape/sexual assault7 (24%) family members of homicidevictims7 (24%) domestic violence/assault5 (17.5%) burglary1 (3%) robbery

Years since crime: 6 months 43 years; M =12.8, SD = 10


11/49

Citizen Participants

Number of Citizen Participants: 25Gender:

17 female (68%)8 male (32%)

Age: 19 - 71, M = 33, SD = 15Education: M =15.4, SD = 1.5Race/Ethnicity:

21 White (84%)2 Hispanic (8%)1 Asian/Pacific Islander (4%)1 East Indian (4%)

Background: University studentsInterested citizensSocial service professionalsCriminal justice professionals


12/49

Offender Participants

Number of Offender Participants: 43(all male)

Age: 22 59; M = 40, SD = 9.6Education: M = 12.6, SD = 1.2Race/Ethnicity:

28 White (65%)11 Black (26%)4 Native American (9%)

Crime:30 murder (70%)6 robbery (14%)3 attempted murder (7%)

2 drugs/firearms (5%)1 child rape (2%)1 burglary (2%)

Years in prison: 2 33 yrs; M=13.3,SD=7.7Sentence length: 4 yrs multiple lifesentences and life without parole(calculated as 80yrs); M=38, SD =24


13/49

Key Questions Discussed in Seminars

What is justice?What does it mean to be responsible/accountable?What can be done to repair harms resulting fromcrime?

Is it possible to make amends for harms caused byviolent crime?Is it possible to resolve issues through surrogatevictims/offenders?What do victims need from offenders, criminal

justice system, and the community?Who is responsible to make things right?What stigma do both parties experience?What can an offender do while in prison?What does the public want from offenders?What does the community owe both sides?


14/49

RESULTS


15/49

GOAL #1 Significant Differences (p


16/49



17/49



18/49



19/49



20/49



21/49



22/49



23/49



24/49



25/49



26/49



27/49

Willingness to AcceptEx-Offenders Upon Release

Upon completion of the seminar, VICTIMS reported they were:

Less likely to object to having an ex-offender whohas committed murder as a neighbor

(pre=2.30/post=1.86, p


28/49

Key Findings

Participants indicated that the seminarhelped to:

Express feelings, needs, concerns aboutcrime and justice issuesBetter understand each otherDevelop creative ideas and concrete actions to achieve justice and deal with crime


29/49

Satisfaction with Program

Most (85%) of participants reported that they considered the seminar a success,were satisfied (86%),and had positivefeelings about theexperience (65%)


30/49

Percentage of participants who consideredthe seminar a success, were satisfied, andhad positive feelings about the experience

7886

10095

7384

44

7984

0

102030405060

708090

100

Success Satisfied PositiveFeelings

OffendersVictimsCitizens


31/49

Can Amends be Madefor Violent Crime?

Victims and offenders shifted beliefs about whether ornot amends could be made for violent crime uponcompletion of the seminar:

On pretest, was a significant difference between offendersand victims more offenders (81%) and fewer victims(47%) said amends could be made prior to the seminar On posttest there was no significant difference betweenvictims and offenders 63% Offenders and 65% victimssaid amends could be made after the seminar Thus, there was a significant pre/post difference for victims- a shift in number of victims who said amends could bemade before/after the seminar (pre=45%/post=66%)There was a significant pre/post difference for citizens ashift in the number who said amends could be madebefore/after the seminar (pre= 48%/post=56%)Though not significant (p,.06), results show a pre/post difference for offenders (pre=67%/post=56%) suggesting atrend may be revealed with increased sample size


32/49

Percentage of Participants who said thatamends can be made for violent crimebefore and after the seminar

81

57 5763

7378

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pretest Posttest



33/49

Can Issues be Resolved throughDiscussions with Surrogates?

There was a significant pre/post difference for victims and offenders with respect to their beliefs about whether or not it is possible toresolve issues with surrogate offendersCitizens were more hopeful than offenders and victims that discussions with surrogates wouldbe helpful in resolving issues between victimsand the actual offenders in their cases


34/49

Percentage of participants who said personalissues between victims and offenders could beresolved through discussions with surrogates

74 72

100

35 36

91

010

2030405060

708090

100

Pretest Posttest



35/49

Can the Prison Culture be Changed?

39 (79%) of the offenders thought theprison subculture could be changed if the seminar were to be regularlyofferedMany offenders discussed spending

more time thinking about anddiscussing their victims/cases withother offenders and willingness to takeconcrete action to alter everydaydialogue and norms of the convictculture

Future research is needed to explorethe impact of restorative correctionalinterventions on the informal prisonsubculture (of offenders andcorrectional staff)


36/49

New Ideas abouthow to Achieve Justice?

61

9096

0

20

40

60

80

100

New Ideas about how to achieve justice?



37/49

Concrete Ways to Participate in theRestorative Justice Process?

OFFENDERS

Remember that our past was wrong andunderstand that we must change first before

society will change for us.Encourage other offenders to see thevictims perspective and harms caused.Use information gathered in the seminar to

provoke debate in daily life as a means of promoting justice rather than violence.Express ideas about crime and justicethrough artwork -- to generatecommunication with community.


38/49


VICTIMSWork toward bringing victims rights equal withoffenders rights.Continue to tell our stories so that people can

understand the pain and suffering resulting fromcrime.Talk with people to diminish the stigma of prisoners.Volunteer to become a big sister/brother toimpact a childs life.Promote community policing and communitycorrections to prevent problems before theyoccur.


39/49


CITIZENSTalk about the concept of crime as harm.Teach about restorative justice --understanding offenders and victims,holding offenders accountable.Try to dispel misconceptions about victimsand offendersBecome involved in the community and with

newly released offenders -- pay moreattention to what happens to offenders oncetheyre released.Get to know neighbors/community.

An Example:


40/49

An Example: YMCA Murals by CVORJ Participants in

the Creative Expressions Project

As a result of a bond forged between an offenderand victim in one of the seminars, CVORJ

participants worked in conjunction with the

prisons Creative Expressions project to create twomurals that were donated to a Seattle YMCA and dedicated to the victim participant whosedaughter was murdered .

The victim participant indicated that this concreteact of reparation and dedication ceremony held at the YMCA was an important contribution to her healing process.


41/49


42/49


43/49

Did the CVORJ ProgramAchieve its Goals?

GOAL 1 (safe space/offender accountability)generally supported by results

Offender change with respect to willingness to takeconcrete action to help victims

GOAL 2 (constructive communication) strongly supported

Greater understanding among participant groupsGOAL 3 (creative ideas) strongly supported

Change in ideas about justice and ways to take actionGOAL 4 (hope) partially supported

Victims less fearful and ashamedVictims, Offenders, Citizens more hopeful with respectto what they can do to achieve justice and deal withcrime, but less hopeful with respect to the formalcriminal justice system


44/49

Qualitative Findings

The evaluation also included aqualitative/participant observation component,much of which is not reflected in the quantitativeresults.The qualitative findings showed that thebenefits achieved, in particular by victimswho reported a phenomenological/spiritual impact, may not be measurable throughtraditional methods.


45/49

(Incomplete) Findingsfrom the Qualitative Data . . .

Victim Healing some participants indicated that they had comefarther in their healing in the 12-14 weeks than they had in years.

Offender Remorse Criteria for what counted as an acceptableshow of remorse varied among participants. In many casesoffenders were unsuccessful in demonstrating empathy/showing

remorse (e.g., many offenders were not initially willing to say Imurdered___ and were not comfortable using the victims namesor going into detail in describing the victim or the crime). This wasnot acceptable for many victims and citizens.

Citizen Role and Recognition of Past Victimization manycitizens were unsure about their role in the seminar and in the

process of discussions/storytelling recalled that they had beenvictims of crime though did not originally identify such.

Variability across Seminars dynamics of each played a role.Seminars involving powerful stories by parents of homicide victimsand victims of violent rapes told in initial weeks appeared to set astronger tone and had more impact.


46/49

Concluding CommentsIn some respects, victims and citizens appeared tobenefit from the program more than expected and offenders less than expected

Offenders reported less positive feelings, more discomfort in tellingtheir stories, and change in the negative direction on some of thesurvey items designed to measure accountability (e.g., It is up tothe offender to take the first step to repair the damages caused bycrime)However, that 78% of offenders, 86% of victims and 100% of citizens considered the seminar a success suggests that offenderdiscomfort may be an inherent, necessary, and constructive part of the reparation process.

CVORJ Program offers a model through which restorative justice can be applied in the prison setting offering analternative program for victims, offenders, and citizens.

CVORJ has been successfully replicated at two womensprisons in Minnesota (MCF Shakopee and MCF - Lino Lakes).See: CVORJ/Lino Lakes Executive Summary/Burns (2001) http://fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/mn02_hburns.pdf


47/49

Challenges

Recruitment of crime victimsCriteria for selection of offenderparticipantsMaintaining a neutral position

Gender dynamicsConfidentialityWhich crimes/types of offenders andvictims should be included?Prison subculture

Security/custody issues andcorrectional staff


48/49

Future ResearchThe CVORJ Project was an exploratory pilot study thathelped to develop a model identify questions in need of systematic research:

What is the impact of restorative correctional interventions onthe informal prison subculture?What factors and forces within the prison environment impactthe success of such a program?What factors determine which victims will/should participateand the extent to which participation will be positive, neutral,or negative.What characteristics differentiate appropriate/inappropriateoffender participants (who should be involved?)

What can to be done to influence prison administration/staff tosupport, facilitate, positively impact the program?How should citizen participants be recruited/selected and whatrole should they be expected to play?Should another group (CJ Professionals) be involved asparticipants?


49/49

Contact Information

For further information about the CVORJ program/evaluation contact:

J.B. Helfgott, PhD, Principal Investigator/Program Director J.B. Helfgott, PhD, Principal Investigator/Program DirectorAssociate Professor/DirectorAssociate Professor/Director

Criminal Justice ProgramCriminal Justice Program431E Casey Bldg431E Casey BldgSeattle UniversitySeattle University

900 Broadway900 BroadwaySeattle, WA 08122Seattle, WA 08122

Phone: (206) 296-5477Phone: (206) 296-5477

E-Mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

helfgott. restoring justice.netherlandspresentation

Documents