A ListeningProject

Harry Mika

Mary Achilles

Ellen Halbert

Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz

Howard Zehr

TAKING VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES SERIOUSLY:

A ListeningProject

Harry Mika • Mary Achilles • Ellen HalbertLorraine Stutzman Amstutz • Howard Zehr

1

TAKING VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES SERIOUSLY:

2

We must havethose core rightswe keep talking about,safety first and foremost,information, choice,testimony, validation,and restitution.

Project BackgroundThis report details the activities and outcomes of the Listening Project, acollaboration of professionals active in the victim community and thefield of restorative justice. Funding for this project came from a grantprovided by the Open Society Institute’s Criminal Justice Initiative. Theproject was housed in the Institute for Justice and Peacebuilding atEastern Mennonite University from 1999-2002.

The Listening Project was specifically designed to confront the sig-nificant deficiencies of restorative justice practice pertaining to victimparticipation and impacts for victims, their advocates and victim servicesgenerally. A core project objective was to collaboratively propose anaction plan to create more responsive restorative justice programs andbeneficial outcomes for victims. A number of strategies for gathering theinput of victims and their advocates, and for facilitating dialogue betweenvictims, victim services and restorative justice personnel were undertak-en, divided into two phases.

Phase I of the Listening Project sought to enhance and amplify thevoices of victims, victim advocates and victim services. Teams represent-ing victim and restorative justice advocates traveled to seven states dur-ing 1999-2000 (Vermont, Ohio, Washington, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsinand Florida) to listen and record the ideas and concerns of victims, vic-tim service workers, and victim advocates regarding victim needs, thevictim experience of justice, and impressions of restorative justice in gen-eral.2 One hundred twenty individuals were involved in these listeningsessions across the seven states. The detailed transcripts of these meetingsare the basis of significant portions of this report, and selected quotationsof participants are featured in the margins.3

Where Phase I of the Listening Project emphasized listening and doc-umentation, Phase II was a structured dialogue between representatives ofthe listening sites, victims, their advocates, victim services personnel, andrestorative justice practitioners. Held over two days in early 2001, thepalaver critiqued and amplified preliminary findings of the study, withthe twin objectives of identifying major areas of agreement and concernregarding restorative justice, and specifying an agenda for enhancing thevictim role and benefits from restorative justice initiatives.

Organization of the ReportThe following pages seek to capture the range of opinions and observa-tions expressed in the listening sessions of project personnel with victims,their advocates, and victim service workers during Phase I of the study, aswell as the deliberations of the Phase II palaver. A number of data sourceshave been incorporated here. Prominent among these are the full tran-scripts of the listening events from which a significant amount of directfeedback about restorative justice has been derived. Additionally, meeting

3

Restorative justice is a way of thinking and it is something that can be verypowerful and impact people in a very positive way, but it isnot for everybody. It is not forevery victim, it is not for everyoffender.

facilitators also provided reflections on what they heard and experienced,and these contributions have been incorporated as well. More than seven-ty-five percent of the participants of the listening events also completedbrief surveys to assist with the evaluation of the project, and those addi-tional observations have been included. Finally, detailed notes from thegeneral meeting and dialogue of Phase II have in large measure shapedthe presentation in the final sections of the report. This material both clar-ifies and adds to information gathered during the listening sessions, andproposes the contours of an agenda for restorative justice relative toincreasing its responsiveness to concerns of the victim community.

These data provide a comprehensive and generally consistent apprais-al of contemporary restorative justice policy and practices, largely fromthe perspectives of victims, their advocates and victim services.4 It isimportant to note that the very nature of this exercise—explicitly, toappraise and critique—is prone to result in cautious reflection andemphasis of shortcomings. The reader might therefore leave with asomewhat distorted view, perhaps an overly negative view, of the impactof restorative justice on the victim community. While that consequence iscertainly unintended and largely unsupported by much of the data, thevery nature of this project (again, to appraise and critique) may well leavethis impression. No artificial effort was made to balance this likely out-come, such as attempting to elicit more positive feedback regardingrestorative justice. While some participants in this project voiced the needfor some type of audit of existing restorative justice programs, and indeedthis has been articulated as a recommendation, the project itself was notdesigned for this purpose.

The findings and conclusions of the Listening Project are distributedamong seven interrelated sections. Impressions of Restorative Justiceincludes reflections on the definition of the concept, its values, prioritiesand promises, and expectations for restorative justice in the victim com-munity. Experiences with Restorative Justice describes encounters withrestorative justice processes, practices and programs. Impediments andChallenges to Restorative Justice details difficulties with implementingand operationalizing core values and practices, including reflections onuncertain prospects. Architecture of Responsive Restorative Justice con-siders the fundamental features of good practice, including consistency ofpolicy, objectives, processes and outcomes. Summary Reflections onRestorative Justice explores the broader context of concerns with restora-tive justice policy, practice and potential. The Working Agenda forRestorative Justice enumerates a variety of strategies, short and longerterm, for increasing the responsiveness and impact of restorative practices.The initiative and responsibility for such strategies are divided between thevictim and restorative justice communities. Finally, A Conclusion, ABeginning, features five themes that captured the most deliberationsamong project participants in charting a collaborative way forward.

4

Impressions of Restorative JusticeThere are mixed sentiments about what restorative justice has come torepresent. For some, restorative justice promotes a balanced view ofcrime as an event affecting a number of different people. A justice prac-tice should therefore encourage the direct involvement of these parties,such as promoting needed dialogue between victim and offender. Wherethe contemporary justice system does not work well for victims and oth-ers, restorative justice promotes needed change. Restorative justiceacknowledges that crime is personal: adherents of this view often suggestthat assisting victims, addressing their needs and helping them throughtheir problems, and allowing and encouraging victims to participate inprocesses and outcomes that affect them, are primary aims of restorativejustice. For some victims, working with offenders has been an essentialelement of their own healing journey.

But the idea of an offender-oriented restorative justice colors otherimpressions of its practice. Very often, restorative justice not only reflectsoffender needs—making amends, and changing and rehabilitating offend-ers—but is driven by such needs. Restorative justice may be offender ini-tiated, and may be oriented to an offender timeline. Such needs and prac-tices may not be compatible with victim needs, however. Where offendersare provided with help to change their lives, but victims are not providedhelp to deal with their trauma, victims feel betrayed by the offender ori-entation of restorative justice.

Restorative justice may also promote unrealistic or unreasonable goals.Where restorative justice appears to go hand-in-hand with expectationsfor reduced offender penalties, victims may perceive restorative justice asa way out for offenders whose primary motivation might be to avoidresponsibility or pain. It is often the expectation of restorative justice pro-grams that offenders will offer genuine apologies for what they havedone. But where offenders are not sorry for what they have done, victimsmay feel harmed again for this failure of justice. Similarly, restorative jus-tice appears to imply that victims are in some sense obligated to assistoffenders. This distorts the hope of victims to assist themselves throughrestorative justice processes. Victim participation for the purpose ofoffender rehabilitation may be at least an unreasonable burden, if not out-right objectionable. Ideas that restorative justice is a panacea are immod-est, and without merit. Restorative justice is relatively untried and untest-ed—where is the compelling proof that it works?

For some, restorative justice has not captured the central realities ofcrime and trauma from a victim’s point of view. Restorative justice is thecurrent flavor of the month, and while it may be politically astute to pro-mote ideas of “victim involvement” and “victim centered,” these appearto be mere afterthoughts and perhaps manipulations of victims. The def-initions of restorative justice are overly broad and confusing, and provide

I think this is one of the best toolswe have had to get offenders to be accountable and to take a good hard look at themselvesand their lives, and how crime affects their families,affects the victim and the com-munity...this is the importantpart of what restorative justicehas to be.

There are people in my field who when they hear the term “restorative justice” they think of a veryoffender-based system that is not informed by knowledge of victim issues. And that is a lot of the fear about restora-tive justice.

1

5

this open invitation for opportunism. For example, some mediationgroups appear to have turned their attention to violent crime largely dueto the financial incentives for this type of programming. The “cookie cut-ter” approach to restorative justice, despite even profound differences inthe circumstances from one jurisdiction to another, reveals a real lack ofresponsiveness to local needs, and a lack of basic political savvy as well.

When I think about it,the principles in themselveshave real beauty but I do nothave time to really admire thembecause the practice of restora-tive justice is causing a lot ofturmoil. What attracts me isthat I like broadening the ideaof who gets to be in the picture,but it really does not happen.

6

Experiences with Restorative JusticeThe view is widely shared that restorative justice may promote offenderdiversion, court docket relief, easing of jail and prison crowding, and evenjustice system respite from demands of victims. However, restorative jus-tice provides little victim relief. While that objective appears to be a verylow priority, there is nonetheless significant pressure and even coercionto have victims and victim services join the restorative justice bandwag-on. Too often, funding for victim programs hangs in the balance; the“choice” may involve a direct affiliation with restorative justice program-ming, or the prospect of no programming at all. In the view of some fromthe victim community, it appears that resources set aside in these times forrestorative justice have exceeded, and may have even reduced, resourcesmade available for victim services.

The issue of victim input in restorative justice has unfortunately beenlimited to consideration of victim participation in a particular conferenceor process. But victims are routinely excluded from participation in pro-gram planning. In some communities, surrogates are used to assume therole of victims on some reconciliation panels. Very often, training aboutvictims, victim trauma and victim needs involves no victims or victimadvocates. But regardless, restorative justice personnel are quick toexpect or demand that victims become advocates for restorative justice.

Many in the victim community feel that while there is significantadvocacy and “talk” about restorative justice, and though it may beenshrined as the new justice policy, there is too little pragmatic actiontaken, few changes are being made, and lines of authority and responsi-bility for program development remain obscured. Victim advocates andvictim services personnel often have difficulty enlisting restorative justiceexperts to answer questions, or to assist with training needs. Too often,prominent restorative justice practitioners have waded unsuccessfully intohighly visible cases, without proper (and available) consultation andskills, producing in their wake a backlash against restorative justice in thevictim community as well as negative results for victims.

With respect to meaningful impact on victim needs, some feel thatrestorative justice is little different from the justice status quo. Relative tovictims, it remains tone deaf to victim aspirations.

We have heard foryears that restorativejustice is coming, it iscoming, it is coming, it is goingto be here and you better get onboard. If you want any influenceas to how it is implemented youbetter get involved now in theplanning process. You betterstart supporting it. You had bet-ter stop saying, “no, no, no”because otherwise it will go onwithout you. It is hard to seehow something that is sup-posed to be good for victims isjust going to be deliveredwhether victims ask for it, orneed it, or indicate any desirefor it.

I was approached aboutdoing a sort of victim/offenderreconciliation thing, and theidea was to get the victim andoffender together and it was allon the offender court time-line.It was completely driven by thattime-line even though the vic-tim healing time-line is vastly,vastly different. That is nothelpful, and is remarkablyharmful to the healing process.So something touted as “heal-ing for everybody” turns out tobe powerfully damaging.

7

2

Impediments and Challenges to Restorative JusticeA number of assumptions, practices and prospects appear to impede therealization of restorative justice goals. Where restorative justice has cometo mean making something go away or bringing something back, the ideaof “restoring” for victims falls on its face. Such language, if not the sen-timent behind the language, is at least confusing and often offensive tovictims. For many in the victim community, one type of programmaticresponse—face-to-face meetings between victim and offender (media-tion)—is synonymous with restorative justice. This narrow conception ofrestorative justice seemingly excludes many victims, where offenders arenot identified, or offenders refuse to participate in such a process, orwhere it is inappropriate for such a meeting between victim and offenderto take place at all. The technique of mediation also presumes a “dispute”and a “relationship” between victim and offender, and for many victims,this trivializes the nature of deep harms and the character of their rela-tionship to offenders.

Further, where financial restitution remains the primary objective ofmediation practice, it is questionable whether mediation is at all appro-priate for personal crimes involving violence. Domestic violence and sex-ual assault are certainly ill-suited to an intervention with restitution as itscenterpiece. Restorative justice presumes to be a rational, contemplativeprocess in response to events (crimes). But are criminal events rational,involving as they might individuals (offenders) whose damaging and vio-lent choices, coupled with drug, alcohol and mental problems defy ration-ality to begin with? Such circumstances continue to raise fundamentalsafety concerns about restorative justice processes in the eyes of victims.

Where restorative justice functions as an adjunct or extension of theformal justice system, there are significant questions about who the ‘offi-cial’ or ‘real’ victim really is. The needs of those who are harmed byoffenders who have not been identified or arrested are going to beignored. The emphasis of restorative justice on how crime affects thecommunity tends, in the view of some, to again marginalize those imme-diately affected by crime, distorting and diverting justice responses fromvictim needs. Not unlike conventional justice programming and policy,restorative justice uses victims to promote and rationalize its agenda.Indeed, the very credibility of restorative justice is thought by its propo-nents to hinge upon victim involvement. Despite the rhetoric, the experi-ence of the victim community is only too familiar. While victim needsand aspirations are important political fodder for various causes, it is sel-dom the case that such needs and aspirations materialize in meaningfuland sustained victim enfranchisement in justice.

And what of the prospects for restorative justice? In some jurisdic-tions, where limited and routine victim services represent begrudging

Sometimes I have a little trouble with just the term “restorative justice.”It is almost offensive if you orthe community thinks that theyare going to restore me towhere I was before my son wasmurdered. I hope people do notthink that is what it is supposedto be.

Do we ask, “What dovictims really want?”?No, we think that this is goingto work so we are just. If wecannot get victims to like uswhen we first invite them tocome, or if we start the initia-tive and they say “no,” or theycome and they raise questionsthat we are uncomfortable with,we will just continue in our veinand ignore them. What aboutsaying to the victim community,“What are some things wecould do to improve the waythat victims are treated in thesystem now? How can weimprove accountability to vic-tims, victim rights, victim serv-ices?”

8

3

concessions from the formal justice system to begin with, there appearsto be no room for the development of restorative options. Without credi-ble evaluation of restorative justice programs, there will continue to beresistance to their blanket implementation and reluctance in the victimcommunity to embrace them. “Turf ” disputes, regarding the ownership ofrestorative justice ideas and programs, will deflect from their impact andpotential. In a relatively short period of time, some perceive that restora-tive justice has become overly professionalized, undermining its pro-fessed goals of inclusiveness and accessibility.

A large number ofcases are not everresolved. We have not eventouched crime and the numberof victims out there—there isno suspect and the person willnever be found. How dare westep into issues of restorativejustice when the basic needs ofthose victims cannot be met.

People look at victims andadvocates and say, “You aresupposed to forgive and youwill not.” The system isdesigned around that. Victims forgiving, forgetting and movingon, when in fact in the lifeof the victim that is nothappening at all.

9

Architecture of ResponsiveRestorative JusticeThe victim community offers numerous suggestions for how restorativejustice policy and practice might be responsive to its needs and aspira-tions. These are targeted to key dimensions of restorative justice, includ-ing its philosophy, policy and practices, and even to broader social con-cerns.

There are a number of key assumptions or tenets that should guiderestorative justice programming. Victim involvement should be reflectednot only in the processes themselves, but the planning and programmingof restorative justice should have a distinct victim imprint as well.Restorative justice should be an available option for victims, but it clear-ly is not suited for every victim, or even for every offender. Under thosecircumstances when restorative processes are appropriate, and at thedirection and initiation of the victim, dialogue directly with the offendershould be a possibility. Some victims may choose restorative justiceprocesses to seek levels of closure and peace: these victims should receiveadequate information about what these possibilities might entail, and thenbe given the support to pursue these outcomes. Restorative justice mustlook well beyond the narrow view of conventional justice regarding whothe “real” victim is, to those harms and their victims where no offender isidentified, or where an offender refuses to participate in restorative justiceprocesses. Justice for these victims must involve responses that aredetached from offender-dependent processes.

Restorative justice must be mindful that victim interests and needsmust be clearly articulated and supported before they are presumed to beincluded with those of offenders and communities in the name of justice.If victim interests and needs are valuable to the articulation of restorativejustice, its proponents should have a vested interest in advocating for thesupport of victims. Over time, those needs and interests will change, andrestorative justice must itself be flexible and dynamic in order to remainresponsive to victims. Restorative justice has set for itself an ambitiousset of goals and objectives. But from the view of the victim community,it is minimally expected that restorative justice will promote healing forthose affected by crime, respect and empathy for victims, tolerance, trustand hope among participants in justice, accountability from offenders,and uniformity, fairness and quality in its processes.

On a very practical level, restorative justice programming and process-es must be accommodating to victim needs. For example, victims shouldbe provided with complete information about processes and possible out-comes, both positive and negative, as a matter of course. Whenever pos-sible, restorative justice processes should encourage the involvement ofadvocates and family members of victims (as well as family members ofoffenders). Processes and outcomes that include restitution must involve

Restorative justice hasto start with respect.So much of the system caresthat every “i” is dotted andevery “t” is crossed for theoffender but it certainly doesnot extend that to victims andso the hurt starts right off at thebeginning. And until they cansee that victims are really notthe bad guys, the justice systemwill not progress very far.

Victims always in my experience have beenable to articulate what itis that they need and what theywant. Somehow you can helpadvocate for them, and if theywant to have a dialogue, amediation, a reconciliation, or atime of restoring/repairing withthe offender, they can articulatethat and take advantage of theopportunities that are alreadyout there. It should come fromthem, the victim should choose,not the courts.

I think the same people whowant to implement this philoso-phy and program should be thesame people that are sup-porting victim servicesat their most basiclevel. They should be sup-porting very basic victim needs.

10

4

efforts to fairly represent the financial situation of the victim (not onlythat of the offender) including the predicament and challenges caused bya criminal event. Restorative justice processes must guarantee rights tovictims, such as confidentiality, the ability to choose to become involvedor to cease involvement, the option of reconsidering an outcome, and theability to give voice to their own needs and aspirations (in lieu of beingsidestepped by surrogate voices, such as prosecution). Under all circum-stances, restorative justice processes must provide a safe environment forvictims, and its objectives must be premised on offender accountability tovictims and victim respect.

Restorative justice might address larger social needs that directly servethe interests of the victim community. For example, restorative justiceshould be educational in nature, emphasizing literacy on victim traumanot only for offenders, but for the public at large. Education on the impactof crime including the needs of victims, education about offenders andtheir situations for the victim community, and general education andawareness about restorative justice for justice professionals serve impor-tant needs and address glaring deficiencies. It is logical that restorativejustice would concern itself particularly with children and their early,formative education regarding issues of respect and accountability.Minimally, the currency and popularity of restorative justice suggestsopportunities for forging new coalitions between victim services and jus-tice personnel generally, and for encouraging community support ofcrime victims.

I want to give up onthis version of restorativejustice, the one that we have. Itgets a bad grade. It is not good.What version would I like?Somehow it would have toinclude the tough piece of hav-ing equal power shared by thevictim community. And I meandecision making, money andpower, from the start.

In order for restorative justiceto even work there needsto be more educationabout it ... my greatestconcern is that it is a fad... mygreatest fear is that programsare being thrown together with-out people being educated onvictims.

11

Summary Reflections on Restorative JusticeAmong a variety of participants in this study, including representativesfrom the victim community and restorative justice personnel, there is anoverlay of irony and even skepticism to these deliberations, when thelonger view or broader context is taken into consideration, namely, whathas been promised versus what has been experienced. These cold andsober realities are essential considerations in developing a comprehensiveunderstanding of restorative justice in this time and place, and for devel-oping an agenda for justice practice that is responsive to victims needsand aspirations.

Much of the feedback from the victim community about their experi-ences of justice (without regard to what stripe it might be) involve injus-tice, disrespect, exclusion, lack of empathy, and irrelevance. Victim inputoften emphasizes on the one hand the failure of conventional justice torespond to personal and severe trauma, while on the other hand seeks tolimit restorative justice practices to relatively minor offenses. While manyin the victim community are quite leery about the promises and record ofrestorative justice specifically, they remain skeptical that the convention-al system of justice will ever “deliver” for victims. Yet conventional jus-tice participants, while acknowledging that their forays into restorativejustice produce little victim impact (as they are offender oriented initia-tives) remain quite defensive about what they see as the generallyimproved availability of victim services over time.

The victim community is itself diverse, with often complicated rela-tions between and among victims, victim advocates and victim services.Restorative justice generally seeks to engage a monolith “victim” thatmay not exist in the first place. The victim community often questions thepragmatic differences between flavors of justice, relative to victim inter-ests and needs. Victims and their advocates who observe the slow andminimal development of victim services (including the limitations of vic-tim rights) over time often presume that restorative justice will fare nobetter. Similarly, the poor treatment of victims in conventional justiceapproaches may well be replicated in restorative justice programming,particularly where restorative justice is a mere adjunct or extension of theconventional system of justice. It follows for some that negative reactionsto restorative justice are related to other elements of the bigger picture,such as the incomplete implementation of victim rights, lack of enforce-ment of such rights, inadequate victim services generally, and the mar-ginality of victims in conventional justice processes.

While “victim input” and “collaboration” are allegedly key ingredientsof restorative justice, the precise manner in which these are operational-ized remains mysterious. Victims talk, yet no one is listening: such a rit-ual may be therapeutic for some interests, but certainly not for the victim

In theory it seems likerestorative justicewould work if every-thing is equal. Offenderrights have been defined andhave been implemented for 200years. Victim rights are justbeing defined and they are notimplemented. And we have noteven started talking about com-munity rights. So until all ofthose rights are defined, untilthey are all implemented, therestorative justice “circle” willnot work.

If we look at the struggle thatwe have been going throughjust in the traditional criminaljustice system, if we look at thehistory of all those struggles, itis more of a question whetherrestorative justice is going to bea struggle and take forever tojust get little bits, little pieces.Do we get a boneevery once in a while?

12

5

community. In the many contexts where promoting or implementing anychange in justice practices is a struggle, the needed coalitions andalliances may well be beyond the capacity of restorative justice, itself afractious collection of interests and personalities.

Some in the victim community wonder aloud if victim involvement inrestorative justice is a booby prize, a minor accommodation where fullparticipation in justice, victim rights and enforcement of rights, and a fullcomplement of victim services are unlikely scenarios and outcomes underthe conventional justice regime. Further, there is concern for a backlashfrom restorative justice (against victim services) irrespective of what itdoes or does not offer victims. If millions of justice dollars are pumpedinto new initiatives that involve little or no victim involvement, participa-tion and control, might this be interpreted as a lack of victim need, orinterest, or competence?

As noted, a brief survey was sent to all participants in the listening ses-sions in seven states. More than seventy-five percent responded.5

Regarding the process of the Listening Project, a considerable majority ofrespondents agreed that the location of the meeting was comfortable andsafe, adequate time was reserved for the meeting, they felt at ease withother participants, the group included those who should have been there,and they had the opportunity to express their views openly and be listenedto, including their frustrations with restorative justice. Regarding the out-comes of the meeting, a considerable majority agreed that the event hadmet their expectations, they were taken seriously by other participants,questions and concerns were addressed by the facilitators, and that themeeting had raised awareness about both restorative justice generally, andvictim needs and victim experiences in restorative justice processes.However, beyond the positive appraisal of the process and short-term out-comes of the Listening Project by participants in seven states, the surveydata suggests that the perhaps most important conclusion to be drawnconcerns the very salience of listening.

This is a political process and to assume thatit is anything other than that isto make a big mistake. The wayit works is that the squeakywheel gets the grease. Theunfortunate consequence ofpeople not willingly seeing whatvictims need, and people in thejustice system not being smartenough to recognize thoseneeds, is that you have to applypolitical pressure on them andthat becomes a role for the vic-tim community. It should not,but that is the reality of the sit-uation. It requires organization .. . but there are real turf battlesbetween different victim serviceproviders and that has to beresolved.

If we spend a lot of dol-lars and a lot of expertise onrestorative justice, will that beused against victims in thefuture if few victims partici-pate? An ill-conceived restora-tive justice project or programcould have far wider impactthan just the failure of that par-ticular program.

.

13

Working Agenda for Restorative JusticeThe final sections of this report present an overview of a two day, inten-sive deliberation of the foregoing input of the victim community duringlistening events in seven states, and proposed agendas or action steps thatmight be pursued independently or collaboratively by the victim commu-nity and restorative justice advocates. These agendas and action steps areonly the beginning of a longer conversation that will be needed to workout many crucial details of these proposals, through more discussion anddebate.

Reactions to the Input of Listening EventsA relatively wide range of responses characterize the reaction to the sum-mary input of the listening events among the victim community andrestorative justice advocates assembled for the Phase II palaver. Theseincluded general comments, interests and issues that emerged or wereprodded by the input, and efforts to account for (to mitigate or to support)the findings.

In general, there was acknowledgment that input varied among theseven venues where listening events were held. A number of reasons forthis seemed probable, including group size and composition, specificbackgrounds and direct experiences with restorative justice programmingamong the states represented (ranging from fairly extensive, to almostnone), how tightly or loosely the specific session was organized, whocomprised the listening team, and whether the listening event was cou-pled to a larger dialogue or discussion (such as a listening event held inconjunction with a conference or statewide meeting). Clearly, restorativejustice was unfamiliar to some participants in the listening sessions, andthey were responding to either what they had heard about restorative jus-tice generally, or the local reputation of restorative justice programs andservices. It was noted that the listening events, in addition to providinginput for restorative justice personnel on the needs and experiences of thevictim community, also functioned for some participants as learningevents about restorative justice: this appears to have been variable amongthe sites as well.

In response to the findings, there was additional discussion of the veryidea of restorative justice. Restorative justice itself was assumed to be amonolith, undifferentiated in its philosophy and practice. It was clear,however, that there was not a common, working definition of restorativejustice, nor a shared understanding (or agreement) about its benefits.Restorative justice, it was cautioned, does not reflect a systemic approachto victim communities of interest or to victim services. Training inrestorative justice is not uniform.

The findings, some thought, paint a false dichotomy between advo-cates of restorative justice and advocates for victims, in that some of the

14

We hear offenders who want to get into restorative justicebecause they see it as an endrun around accountability.How often do you hear ofoffenders who are interested in participating in restorative justice initiatives who do notsee it as a way of shorten-ing time or shorteningaccountability?

Some of these pro-grams have beenimplemented withoutever consulting a victimorganizations...there are court-based programs and correction-al-based programs where theydeveloped the program and theprotocols and the standards,and they have done the trainingand they have never brought ina victim advocacy organization.

6

latter are themselves passionate about restorative justice. Further, manyvictim advocates are hopeful and highly motivated to explore choices forvictims. Among victim advocates, some feel the conventional justice sys-tem is unlikely to be any more responsive to victim needs than it ispresently, and restorative justice is worth serious consideration for thisreason alone. Other advocates feel the victim movement has made signif-icant strides already, and restorative justice is a distraction or nuisance.

The presentation of input from the listening sessions during the twoday palaver was itself a flash point for discussion and debate. Some wereconcerned that the summary was too negative in its substance and tone,feeling that a more positive and hopeful spin on restorative justice wouldbe more appropriate. Some recalled specific dialogue leaning to a morepositive tone that did not seem to be reflected in the summary overview.Others argued that the depiction of victim input relative to restorative jus-tice was accurate, confirming hunches and experiences, and truthful(albeit an uncomfortable truth for restorative justice advocates). Therewas concern as well about the lack of deliberate efforts to differentiateamong distinct interests and needs in the victim community vis-a-visrestorative justice. Mentioned specifically were victims of domestic vio-lence and victims of specific ethnic and religious groups.

A number of common or synthesizing themes generated broad agree-ment among participants in the group discussion, as they reflected uponthe summary input from the listening meetings. For example, victim serv-ices often appear to be merely an afterthought to the development, scope,and control and ownership of restorative justice initiatives. This lack ofinclusion and lack of coalition-building fires significant disappointmentin restorative justice policy and practice. These failings also clarify to asignificant degree the fault line that exists presently between restorativejustice and victim services. Practically, it is manifest in competition forfunding and political power, and lack of relevance. It breeds suspicion,skepticism and confusion in the victim community, or worse, recklessrestorative justice programming further harms victims.

Participants agreed that the dialogue between restorative justice adher-ents and the victim community has just begun, and its continuation isvital. It is critically important to develop definitions of restorative justicephilosophy, practice and programs that are consistent. Victim-sensitivelanguage is often missing in restorative justice literatures. Similarly, edu-cation about restorative justice, including the principles and values uponwhich it is premised, is vital. Restorative justice might parlay its curren-cy, its political ascendancy and influence, to advocate on behalf of victiminterests and needs. Options for victims of violent crime remain desper-ately needed. And without question, restorative justice must remain vigi-lante and mindful of its duty to attempt to repair relationships that havebeen damaged with the victim community.

15

One thing that hasalarmed me repeatedly isthe willingness for practitionersto insert community, or theirvision of who represents thecommunity, in place of the victim, saying that meeting theneeds of the community wouldequal meeting the needs of the victim.

It would be veryimportant to me for peo-ple who are doing restorativejustice to define exactly whatthey are doing and stop tryingto increase credibility by saying“It is about victims.” It is notabout victims. This is moreoffender based that anythingwe have ever seen, so let uscall it what it is. Let us define itas an offender program and askwhat role victims and the com-munity can play to make it abetter program.

It is offender based.It focuses on offenders, itfocuses on making them feelbetter, it focuses on reintegrat-ing them into the community,and the fact that this is tenyears later and this project iscalled “Taking VictimsSeriously” says a lot.

`

An Agenda for Restorative JusticeAfter careful deliberation on the findings of the listening events and thesubsequent analysis and synthesis by a broad representation of study par-ticipants, proposals have emerged for preliminary and interrelated actionssteps targeted to restorative justice advocates and the victim community.These are presented in summary format. While their detailed exposition,their priority and a timeline for action are absent here, such gaps are high-ly suggestive of the future work and opportunity that remain.

With respect to action steps for restorative justice practitioners andadvocates, it is recommended that they take leadership roles and respon-sibility for the following ten tasks:

� Continue to engage the victim community and establish ongoing dia-logue in all states, including initiatives to conduct local “listening” withthe victim community.

� Carefully reconsider the “cookie cutter” approach to a diverse victimcommunity; in particular, reconsider the prospects (opportunities and lim-its) of restorative justice approaches to victims of domestic violence andsexual assault.

� Re-examine existing restorative justice programming, including thenature of victim participation and consultation, and effectiveness of pro-grams relative to victim needs.

� Pursue matters of peer accountability, appropriate roles, and standardsof practice and qualifications of practitioners to maximize positiveimpacts on the victim community and minimize unintended conse-quences and harms.

� Mandate training for restorative justice practitioners in victim sensitiv-ity, including education on victim trauma. Training (as well as other formsof technical intervention and assistance) should provide a springboard forcollaboration with the victim community and should include meaningfulsponsorship by the local victim community, including planning and deliv-ery roles.

� Advocacy for restorative justice programming must go hand-in-handwith rigorous evaluation and demonstrable proof of beneficial possibili-ties for the victims of crime with minimal risk of further harms. The vic-tim community must be consulted in determining the appropriate evalua-tion standards and measures of success and harm to be used. The restora-tive justice community must develop a sensitivity and genuine interest infeedback from the victim community on program impact.

� Renew and invigorate efforts to address the minimal requisite ofresponsive programming, namely, listening and responding to victimneeds.

16

I think we need to be care-ful that we do not set victimsup to expect an offender to say“I am sorry.” They are not allsorry.

When you are talking aboutrestorative justice, you aretalking about restoringjustice to a communitythat for the most part does notbelieve rape victims, does notbelieve in crime victims,already thinks they are makingit up. If you are talking aboutgoing back to community stan-dards, quite honestly commu-nity standards around rape arelousy, and the criminal justiceprocess is not much better.

� Work in partnership with the victim community, not in competition, toadvocate for the requisite justice resources to respond to victim needs.

� Advocate for victim involvement, control and leadership of program-ming that intends to address victim needs.

� Carefully delineate between and define restorative justice philosophyand practice, and remain mindful of the need to be very clear about whyjustice programming should involve victims, and who program initiativesare designed to serve.

A series of action steps are also proposed for the victim community,including its practitioners and advocates, suggesting pivotal and catalyticroles in the following six areas:

� Develop guidelines and standards for programming in the victim com-munity, including restorative justice initiatives, that seek to ensure andmaximize victim input and impact, and minimize further harms to victims.

� Advocate for restorative justice where it is responsive to and a reflexof victim needs.

� Encourage training and education in the victim community on the phi-losophy and practice of restorative justice. Take an active and leadershiprole in training (and other technical interventions and assistance) forrestorative justice advocates and practitioners that pertains to workingeffectively, responsively, and responsibly with the victim community.

� Maintain a high profile in deliberations of programs that affect victims. Participate in efforts to promote statewide and national dialogue aboutresponsive justice approaches to the harms and obligations that flow fromcrime, as well as local listening initiatives.

� Continually assess, document, and articulate the concerns and needs of victims. Advocate for what victims want, even in new and uncomfortableareas.

� Become more vocal and involved in defining the community role injustice (specifically, the community role in restorative justice), careful todifferentiate between what individual victims need, and the larger contextof societal harms and needs.

To reiterate, while these items are nominally assigned to either therestorative justice or victim communities of interest and practice, they arenonetheless highly interdependent. At the end of the day, the commonal-ity of this multifaceted agenda is most likely to produce the desired resultof effective and responsive justice for victims.

17

Even though I was a victim I would not have like a processthat was not beneficial to both sides.I am not interested in a processthat is strictly for one side,whoever it is. It would havebeen a waste of my time.

We cannot have a trulyrestorative system ofjustice if we are not sensitiveto the needs of victims andincorporate those needs intoour decisions.

A Conclusion, a BeginningFive broad areas or themes stood out in the deliberations as opportunitiesfor collaboration between restorative justice advocates and practitioners,victims, victim services personnel, and victim advocates. These ideasinvolved considerably more discussion than the foregoing action pointsand proposals, and there was a clear and convincing sense of urgency andprimacy to these proposals in particular.

First, structured community dialogue is advocated, the purposes ofwhich are to define terminology, identify program models and promisingpractices, develop appropriate evaluation criteria, and determine the basesand design of meaningful collaboration between the restorative justiceand victim communities. In essence, this action step involves the logicalextension of the Listening Project to a more focused effort to resolve dif-ferences and find areas of mutual concern and agreement. Additionalthemes or topics that might be involved in this structured community dia-logue include philosophical issues pertaining to the practice of restorativejustice, program viability (resources, timelines and outcomes), fundingconcerns and resource limitations, unintended consequences, myths andmisconceptions in these communities about the other, and specific appli-cations of restorative justice to types of crimes and types of victim needs.Such dialogue might involve as well specific identification of restorativejustice program initiatives that are failing victims, difficulties in assess-ing victim needs, and the like. Structured community dialogue might takeplace at several different levels, in local communities, statewide, ornationally (for example, requiring dialogue involving victim participationin decisions about state and/or federal funding of restorative justice pro-grams).

In response to the need for consideration (prospectively in programplanning, or retrospectively in program evaluation) of program impact, asecond proposal involves deliberate program feedback. One strategy forproviding program feedback might be to make available “teams” com-prised of representatives of the victim and restorative justice communitiesto consult with local areas, at their invitation, about restorative justiceprogramming. In essence, team members with national exposure in theirrespective areas of expertise (for example, victim services programmingor restorative justice program evaluation) would attempt to provide inputto local initiatives that is timely and cost-effective. Such feedback mightinclude assisting local programs in developing options suited to their par-ticular needs and resources, while advocating for more universal stan-dards of good practice. A complementary mechanism to promote “feed-back” would be the development of assessment tools or instrumentsdesigned to facilitate self-evaluations.

A third proposal calls for publication. A consortium, representing acollaboration of both victim and restorative justice communities, might

18

So many things arelabeled restorative justicethat a clear definition of exactlywhat it is continues to be aproblem.

Domestic violence isnot a conflict that can bemediated, it is not a disputewhen you are dealing withsomeone whose method of dis-pute resolution is to beat youup if you do not do what hewants. So for victims ofdomestic violence, this is wayout of line. And it is frustratingto spend the kind of time that Ihave to spend, taking awayfrom other things, to deal withpeople trying to make this fit.It does not fit.

7

produce a series of monographs, targeted specifically to the interests andneeds of specific groups. These might include the courts and policy mak-ers, as well as the victim community and restorative justice advocates andpractitioners. Perhaps the most vital publication need is a tool for practi-tioners to be used in the field as a guideline to standards, best practices,and “how to” strategies for facilitating local dialogue, program planning,development and implementation, evaluation, and the like.

In response to the articulation of training and education needs in vir-tually every aspect of the Listening Project deliberations, a fourth pro-posal is a collaborative approach to training that would become the norm.Experts in the respective victim and restorative justice communitieswould participate together in all aspects and types of training at the local,state and national levels, including various training opportunities at acad-emies and national conferences. Collaborative training objectives wouldinclude mutually clarifying restorative justice goals and values, workingthrough elicitive training models and techniques, exploring myths andperceptions between the victim and restorative justice communities, andthe like.

Finally, consistent with the above proposals but in special acknowl-edgment of its complexities, the articulation of standards was identifiedas especially worthy of a collaborative approach. Absent such standardsof practice, efforts to evaluate restorative justice programs are thought tobe meaningless. Time and again, participants expressed concerns aboutpoor and unresponsive practices, even injurious practices, and the veryprevalent ambiguities that exist presently about what constitutes restora-tive programming. The Listening Project has suggested a wide range ofpossible standards for consideration and implementation, ranging fromconditions of victim participation to qualifications of restorative justicepractitioners. Efforts to collaboratively propose standards are the nextstep, as well as further deliberations about ensuring compliance with min-imal standards, and the roles of program audits and evaluations in pro-moting best practice. Strategies for arriving at acceptable standards (suc-cessive rounds of structured community dialogue), the possibility of seg-menting standards (identifying minimum, preferred and exemplary stan-dards), and the importance of considering the diversity of community set-tings, needs of victims, and local resources in proposing relevant stan-dards represent only some of the many aspects of this critical piece ofremaining work.

The publication of this report on the Listening Project should in no waysuggest finality to these discussions, deliberations, and debate. Far fromit, the report documents an important and challenging conversation that isonly in a fledgling stage of listening. It is a conversation that is in need ofamplification, replication, and dogged persistence. The conclusion of thisreport signals only a transition to another phase, an invitation to collabo-ratively and respectfully pursue mutual interests in justice for victims. �

19

There are so many definitions that it meansdifferent things to different people.

I think it is still a philosophy, just like victimservices was a philosophyyears ago and kind of pie in thesky. We had to educate and getout there in the trenches andget the work done. It is thesame for restorative justice.

Endnotes1Co-authors. Harry Mika is corresponding author: harry.mika@cmich.edu. This report does not nec-essarily represent the views of all individuals affiliated in some manner with the Listening Project.

2The listening sessions were facilitated by Mary Achilles (Office of the Victim Advocate,Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), Gordon Bazemore (Florida Atlantic University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida),Aurelia Sands Belle (Victim Services Consultant, Greensboro, North Carolina), Dave Gustafson(Community Justice Institute, Langley, British Columbia), Ellen Halbert (District Attorney’s Office,Travis County, Texas), Dan Van Ness (Prison Fellowship International, Washington, D.C.), andHoward Zehr (Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia). Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz(Office on Crime and Justice, Mennonite Central Committee US, Akron, Pennsylvania) served bothas a facilitator, and the project director.

3A second activity of Phase I was a photo-documentary of 45 survivors of severe violence thatexplores how these victims give coherence and meaning to their experiences, their efforts to tran-scend their trauma, and the role of justice in this process. The photo-documentary was conducted byHoward Zehr (Eastern Mennonite University) and has been published as Transcending: Reflectionsof Crime Victims (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2001).

4No effort is made here to suggest the frequency of the various types of responses or input. Instead,the report seeks to comprehensively display the entire range of issues and concerns that were givenvoice in this project. Giving certain weights to some opinions (such as those voiced most frequently)could suppress or minimize or even marginalize the opinions of other equally valid expressions.Similarly, while there are certainly differences among the seven listening sites (such as the size andcomposition of the group, and familiarity and experience in a given state with restorative justiceand/or victim rights and/or victim services), their composite contributions are reflected in this paper.This strategy is more conducive to formulating a comprehensive and general strategy for improvingrestorative justice relative to victim needs and the involvement of the victim services community.

5This high response rate, which ranged between sixty-four and ninety-three percent at individualsites, can only be attributed in part to the survey design. For example, it was a very short survey, com-ing two to four weeks after the listening meeting, a self-addressed and stamped return envelope wasprovided, and each participant received a reminder letter about two weeks after the survey wasmailed. While these are helpful strategies to encourage participation, they appear in this instance tobe less important than two other possibilities. First, participants from the victim community are verydevoted to their work, having a strong and common interest in the subject matter (victim needs andaspirations) of the listening session. Second, the proposition that a deliberate effort would be made tolisten to the input of the victim community was itself a likely and strong inducement to participate inthe project and the survey.

20 602jrs1.5m 2nd ed.802 5m Printed in USA

Copies of A Listening Project are available fromMennonite Central Committee Office on Crime and Justice21 S. 12th St., PO Box 500, Akron, PA 17501phone: 717.859.3889 website: www.mcc.org