“Yardsticks” for Victim Sensitive Process: Principle-Based Standards for Gauging the Integrity of Restorative Justice Process

Abstract

For almost two decades restorative justice practices have demonstrated positive impacts on crime victim satisfaction when compared to court and other adversarial processes. Although restorative justice practice has by no means addressed the myriad needs of the majority of crime victims, researchers and policy makers have puzzled about how to interpret these generally positive findings. We suggest that remaining difficulties in interpretation and application of findings are due largely to (1) the lack of clear standards for gauging the integrity, or “restorativeness,” of interventions and (2) the failure to articulate logical mechanisms (i.e., intervention theories) that connect practices to immediate and intermediate outcomes, and these outcomes to long term changes in the well-being of victims, offenders, and communities. This article focuses primarily on the first problem, defining the “independent variable” in restorative practices aimed at having an impact on crime victims. Using qualitative data from a national case study, a principle-based approach to evaluation with implications for intervention theory and both input and outcome measures in future research is proposed and briefly illustrated.

Keywords:

• crime victims
• restorative justice
• restorativeness
• victim satisfaction
• victim healing
• standards

Notes

¹ Braithwaite (2002) makes the claim that part of the ultimate appeal and value of restorative processes is their superior capacity to achieve a much higher level of procedural justice. Increasingly, researchers have begun to document positive impacts on crime victims using more rigorous research designs and also theoretical conceptualizations that go beyond procedural justice factors (Strang, 2003).

²As in most arenas of criminal justice research, offender-focused theories greatly outnumber victim-centered models in the restorative justice literature. Yet, as will be apparent in the discussion of theoretical dimensions herein, a number of theories of healing linked to restorative justice principles may be equally appropriate to understanding both victim and offender transformation. While not unique, this insight has been made explicit in recent writings by some victims' advocates (e.g., Seymour, Gregory, & Lehman, 2005; see also Toews-Shenk & Zehr, 2001; Zehr, 2003).

³For crime victims, the assumption in the programmatic definition that informal, nonprogrammatic interventions or programs labeled “partially restorative” could not provide much in the way of restorative healing seems especially problematic. This is because at any given time, many victims—because of the absence of an identified and willing offender, their own lack of readiness, or criminal justice system constraints—will be unable to participate in a so-called “fully restorative” or even “partly restorative” program. Rather than such absolute categorization of interventions, there would also appear to be some value in distinguishing between programs by systematic measurement of their capacity to engage stakeholders over time. In fairness, the programmatic model presented by McCold and Wachtel (2003) seems intended more as a guide meant to encourage policy makers and practitioners to give priority to certain practices, rather than as a tool for guiding measurement. For an example of an effort to empirically distinguish restorative group conferencing models according to the actual extent of stakeholder participation in repeated trials, see McCold and Wachtel (2002), wherein program models are compared empirically on their relative ability to accomplish certain outcomes).

⁴While derived from general normative theory that reflects values which distinguish restorative responses from other normative models of justice such as the retributive justice paradigm (von Hirsch, 1976), Braithwaite's “republican theory” defines justice as dominion, or essentially the relative absence of domination (Braithwaite, 2002; Braithwaite & Pettit, 1990). The focus on reparation as the ultimate outcome (or perhaps the intermediate link between a restorative encounter and reduction in reoffending or long term victim healing) has allowed some to tentatively conclude that a restorative obligation arrived at through an adversarial process is “more restorative” than a punitive sanction or other outcome, while also maintaining that a restorative process is much more likely to achieve a restorative outcome (Bazemore & Walgrave, 1999). Bazemore and Walgrave's broader, goal-focused definition actually is used by these authors to argue for the principle-based approach discussed in the following section of this manuscript.

⁵ Van Ness and Strong (2001) suggest important generic process dimensions that are essentially about the nature and quality of inclusion in the restorative process. These include the nature of the invitation offered, the extent of acknowledgment of stakeholder (versus system) interests in the conferencing process, the acceptance of alternative approaches (essentially the flexibility and provision of a range of choices and options for participation), and communication essentially the quality, completeness, and validity of the narrative presented, especially by victim and offender. Inclusion is also concerned with the extent to which the process allows for safe expression of emotion, as well as with the extent of understanding achieved from the dialogue between participants (Van Ness & Strong, 2001). Bazemore and Schiff (2004) also suggest that the role played by victim, offender, supporters, and community members in defining the nature of harm is an important dimension of variation in conferences that may impact both the nature and quality of the process and the resulting agreement.

⁶The general idea of multiple dimensions of restorative justice is not new. Zehr's (1990) classic work on restorative justice provides several “yardsticks” for practitioners to judge the extent to which their practice reflects restorative justice values. Although reintegrative shaming has become one of the leading theories in criminology and the sociology of deviance—independent of its restorative justice association—Hayes and Daly (2003) argue that this theory is not strictly speaking a restorative justice theory. There are, moreover, numerous theories other than reintegrative shaming applicable in restorative justice research (Braithwaite, 2002), and a number more directly linked to restorative justice principles. While we do not elaborate on these theories in this chapter (see Bazemore & Schiff, 2004), they include social support theory (Cullen, 1994), exchange theory (Molm & Cook, 1995), social disorganization theory, and recent advances focused on social capital and collective efficacy (Putnam, 2000; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).

⁷Theory-based intervention outcomes pursued in conferencing and discussed in the remainder of this paper include, for example, the extent to which participants in a given conference are primarily focused on allowing victim and offender to have a generally uninterrupted dialogue; ensuring that the offender's behavior is disapproved of in a respectful way while supporting them as a person; developing an agreement that allows the offender to make amends in a way that changes the community's image of him; and ensuring that offenders and victims make connections with prosocial community members who can provide assistance, guidance, and guardianship. Unfortunately, restorative practitioners seem committed to a number of service delivery guidelines and procedural rules that they believe are essential to program success (e.g., having the victim or offender speak first in the process, providing or not providing face-to-face preconference preparation, using or not using a script). Yet almost none of these variations—though they may reflect varying theories and philosophies of the restorative process that could be tested in research—have as of yet been subjected to empirical verification.