Modified restorative circles: a reintegration group planning process that promotes desistance

Abstract

This article describes the Modified Circle process and its potential for increasing criminal desistance with the aim of influencing corrections programs to use the process. A Modified Restorative Circle is a group process for an incarcerated individual to plan for meeting his or her needs for a successful reintegration back into the community. The process is similar to the Restorative Circle process except no loved ones participate during the Modified Circle, which other incarcerated people attend instead. The process is solution‐focused and promotes desistance from crime for both the individual having the Modified Circle and the participating incarcerated people. Qualitative evidence shows the process successfully assists incarcerated people in rescripting their life stories; assists them in developing plans for reconciling with loved ones and the community; and helps them find ways to meet their other needs for a positive life and successful reintegration.

Keywords:

• incarceration
• group process
• restorative justice
• desistance
• solution‐focused brief therapy
• reintegration
• enactive learning

Acknowledgements

The author extends her thanks and gratitude to Shadd Maruna, Ph.D., for his thoughtful review of this paper, and to John Braithwaite, Ph.D., for first introducing her to the idea of using restorative group processes for transition planning.

Notes

1. Laumaka is a Hawai’i State Department of Public Safety residential work furlough program located in Honolulu.

2. Every effort is made in this article to not label people as offenders and victims, which terms are used here only for purposes of clarity. Negative labels reinforce negative thoughts and emotions. While we should disapprove of bad behavior, we should look for the strengths, possibilities, and hope in people who are more than what happens to them and what they have done.

3. Self‐efficacy is not self‐esteem. ‘Perceived self‐efficacy is concerned with judgments of personal capabilities, whereas self‐esteem is concerned with judgments of self‐worth’ (Bandura, 1997, p. 11).