Challenges to Establishing Volunteer‐Run, Community‐Based Restorative Justice Programs

Abstract

Restorative justice initiatives aim to help victims be heard and heal, offenders to take responsibility for their acts and make amends, and the community to reunite and reinforce positive values. The belief that restorative justice provides an effective and efficient response to crime and victimization has prompted the integration of restorative justice practices into traditional justice systems. Many such practices are run by volunteers. Those establishing such volunteer‐run, community‐based initiatives face several challenges. In this article we use a case study of the Restorative Justice‐Victoria program in British Columbia, Canada, to identify these challenges and suggest how they may be overcome. We focus on: (1) defining and educating the community; (2) creating partnerships with funding and referral agencies; (3) recruiting and training volunteers; and (4) obtaining financial support. The learning that has come from addressing these challenges sheds light on the practical difficulties inherent in supporting a shift from a retributive to a restorative model of justice.

Keywords:

• Restorative Justice
• Community Justice
• Volunteerism
• Offender Reintegration
• Community‐Based Justice
• Victim Healing

Notes

[1] For the purposes of the present discussion we focus on a typical understanding of the state‐administered criminal justice system, but we acknowledge that ‘the system’ is not a cohesive system.

[2] For instance, in BC, RJ represents a new tool in the police’s diversion package in addition to a verbal caution, a caution letter to parents of young offenders, a referral to a specific agency, and an informal resolution with the victim and offender.

[3] It has been argued, however, that one of the reasons why RJ programs perform relatively well is because they deal with less serious offences.

[4] In BC, when an offence is diverted or referred to a RJ program, no formal charges are laid against the offender. If the offender does not comply with the terms of the agreement reached at the family‐group conference, there is no legal authority to prosecute the original offence. The offender’s completion is, however, noted for future reference.

[5] The policies and activities of partner agencies may affect the impact of RJ programs. For example, the fact that RJVic is restricted to dealing with Category 3 and Category 4 cases by its funding partner may limit its ability to help youth from social groups who may be likely to commit more serious crimes. In addition, police discretion in referring cases may result in racial and gender discrimination. Overall, the number and type of cases dealt with by the RJ program will be limited by the resources available to the program.

[6] It is wise to obtain insurance for liability coverage in the event of unforeseen complaints and critical incidents.

[7] One issue that may arise is how to deal with keen volunteers who will never be sufficiently prepared.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mandeep K. Dhami

Portions of the manuscript were presented at the Sixth International Conference on Restorative Justice held at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, in June 2003. We would like to thank Desmond and Etta Connor and Robert Ball for their helpful comments.