VIOLENCE,MASSINCARCERATIONANDRESTORATIVEJUSTICE:PROMISINGPOSSIBILITIES

KATHERINEBECKETTANDMARTINAKARTMAN*UNIVERSITYOFWASHINGTON

JUNE20,2016

*ManythankstotheUniversityofWashingtonCenterforHumanRightsandWestCoastPovertyCenterfor their support of this project. Thanks also to Jim Harms of the Washington State Department ofCorrections,DanSatterbergandCarlaLeeoftheKingCountyProsecutingAttorney’sOffice,membersofthe Concerned Lifer’s Organization at the Washington State Reformatory, Afam Ayika, and JamesWilliams for their questions, suggestions and support. Finally, we are grateful all of the IPP staff,volunteersandprogramparticipantswhotookthetimetosharetheirinsightswithus.

1

INTRODUCTIONPrograms based on restorative justice principles “involve, to the extent possible, thosewhohave a stake in a specific offense to collectively identify and address harms, needs andobligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (Zehr 2002). Increasedawareness of the problems associated with mass incarceration and the inability of currentcriminaljusticepracticestoaddressvictim’sneedshaveledmanytoconsiderrestorativejusticeasanalternativeor supplement to the traditional criminal justiceprocess.Yet little is knownabout exactly how restorative justice ideals are being put into practice around the UnitedStates.Even less isknownabouthowrestorative justicecanbeusedtoaddresstheharmassociatedwithviolence,asmostoftheprogramsthatexist intheUnitedStatesexcludecases involvingviolent crime. This is unfortunate, for several reasons. First, studies show that restorativejusticeinterventionscanbothreduceviolenceandfacilitatevictimhealingfromviolenttrauma(Angeletal.2014;Shermanetal.2015).Second,peoplewhoareconvictedofviolentcrimeshaveoftenbeenavictimofviolence(Jaggietal.2016;Western2015).Insuchcases,addressingthetraumaofthosewhohavevictimizedandcauseharmisalsocrucial.Finally,insofarasthemajority of people in state prisons were convicted of a violent crime, programs that entaildiversionandincludeviolencehavethepotentialtomeaningfullyreducerelianceonprisons.This report draws on archival research and interviews to describe an innovative restorativejustice programs currently operating in the United States that specifically includes casesinvolving violence. Insight Prison Project – is based in Marin County, California, and is nowoperatingrestorativejusticeprogramsin14stateprisons,onefederalprison,threecountyjails,several reentry facilities, and one juvenile institution throughout California.We also identifysome important lessons learnedbystakeholders involved in thisprogram.First,however,weprovideabriefoverviewoftheproblemsrestorativejusticeseekstoaddress,theprimaryformsrestorative justice programs have taken in the United States and abroad, and some of thelimitationstorestorativejusticeasitisgenerallypracticed.THEPROBLEMANDCONTEXTINTHEUNITEDSTATESRestorative justice offers a response to interpersonal harm that can avoid over-reliance onprisonsandjailswhileholdingresponsiblepartiesaccountableandofferingharmedpartiestheopportunity tohavetheirneedsaddressed.Althoughratesofcrimehavefallen in theUnitedStates for decades, the risk of violence remains unacceptably high, particularly in poorcommunities.Therateofviolentvictimizationforpeoplelivinginpoorhouseholdsismorethandouble the rate for people living in high-income households (Harrell et al. 2014). Becausepeopleofcolor,andBlackandNativepeople inparticular,experiencehigherratesofpoverty

2

thanWhites, rates of violent victimization are highest for Black and Native adolescents andyoungadults(ibid;Truman,LangstonandPlanty2013,Table7).Studies also show that adolescents and young adults are most likely to experience inter-personal violence. For example, people aged 12-24 constitute 22 percent of the generalpopulation, but 35 percent of all homicide victims and half (49 percent) of the people whoexperience other serious violent crimes (Perkins 1997; see also Truman and Langston 2015,Table5).Themajorityofpeoplewhoareconvictedofseriouscrimesarealsoyoung.Because violence often has adverse emotional and health consequences, the experience ofviolencecanhaveasignificantimpactonthetrajectoryofyoungadults.Violentvictimizationishighly correlated with negative health and social outcomes such as PTSD, socio-emotionaldistress, lost productivity, and reducedquality of life (Corso et al. 2007;Hanson et al. 2010;KilpatrickandAcierno2003;LangtonandTruman2014),presumablyasaresultofthetraumaassociatedwithviolentassault.Studiesalsoshowthatindividualswhoareexposedtotrauma(including violent victimization) are at increased risk for physical illnesses (Flett et al. 2002;Sledjeski, Speisman and Dierker 2008; Ullman and Siegel 1996), and that poor physical andmental health reduces people’s ability to engage in education or the labor market (Cutler,Lleras-Muney and Vogl 2011). Moreover, a recent study indicates that the experience oftraumatic violence is highly correlatedwith subsequent arrest and incarceration (Jaggi et al.2016).Collectively,thesestudiessuggestthattheexperienceofviolentvictimizationmaybeanimportantmechanism bywhich young people’s life trajectory is altered and socio-economicinequalityisreproducedovertime.It is also clear that current criminal justice practices and policies do not adequately addresssurvivors’needs.Mostvictimsneverenjoytheir“dayincourt,”eitherbecausetheydonotfileapolice report or because arrest and prosecution do not occur (Travis 2012). Themajority ofsurvivors do not receive the services they need even if they do report their crime (Herman2010). This is especially true for young, male crime survivors of color (Sered 2014; Stillman2015).Moreover,many of thosewho do have contactwith the legal system are dissatisfiedwiththeprocess,andtoomanyexperience“re-victimization”thatamplifiestheirpsychologicaldistress (Bennett et al. 1999; Fraser and Haney 1996; Orth 2009; Parsons and Bergin 2010).Indeed, some studies find that newly created opportunities for victim participation in theconventional criminal justice process may exacerbate survivors’ trauma (Englebrecht et al.2014).In short, despite recent drops in crime rates, violence remains a pervasive public healthproblem,onethatcausesagooddealoftraumaandsuffering.Sadly,theconventionalcriminal

3

justice response tocrimedoes little tomitigateorameliorate this suffering.This isespeciallytrueforcrimesurvivorswholiveincommunitiesthataredisproportionatelyimpactedbybothviolenceandmassincarceration.TheU.S. incarcerationrate isnowfivetofifteentimeshigherthanthosefoundinNordicandWestern European countries.1Like violence, mass incarceration disproportionately impactsyoungandpoorpeople,particularlythoseofcolor.Forexample,anestimatedone-thirdofalladultblackmenhavebeenconvictedofafelonyoffense(Uggen,ManzaandThompson2006),2andnearly60percentofyoungblackmenwithoutahighschooldegreehavespenttimebehindprison bars (Pettit and Western 2004). Criminal punishment is also overwhelminglyconcentratedinpoorurbanneighborhoods(Clear2007).Researchonmassincarcerationshowsthattheexpansionofthecriminaljusticesystemhashadavarietyofnegativeeffects.Forexample,convictionandincarcerationreducetheemploymentprospectsandearningsofthosewithcriminalrecords(Pager2007;Western2006;WesternandBeckett1999;WesternandPettit2005).Further,thefederalgovernmentandsomestateshaveadoptedpolicies thatensure that felonyconvictionentails additionalnegative consequences,includingthelossofoccupationalopportunities,eligibilityforstudentloans,publicassistance,publichousing,therighttoresideintheUnitedStates,andothercivilrights(Uggen,ManzaandThompson2006,Table4).Poorpeople,peopleofcolor,andmenaremorelikelytobeinvolvedin the criminal justice systemand therefore to incur thesedirect and “collateral” costs.As aresult of rapidly rising rates of female incarceration, increasing numbers of women are alsoexperiencing these adverse consequences (Richie 2001).Yetthenegativeeffectsofcriminalconvictionarenotlimitedtothepeoplewhoarecriminallyconvicted (Comfort 2007). For example, incarcerationworsens health outcomes not only forprisoners,butalso for their familiesandcommunities (JohnsonandRaphael2006;Massoglia2008; Massoglia and Schnittker 2009; Sykes and Piquero 2009). Mass incarceration harmsfamiliesby reducingchildwell-being, increasing the likelihoodofdivorceandseparation,andreducing family income (Braman 2002; McLanahan 2009; Wakefield and Wildeman 2013).Theseconsequencesarenotevenlydistributed:Blackwomenaredisproportionately likely tohave family members in prison or jail and to be adversely impacted by the financial andpsychological effects of their incarceration (Lee et al. 2014; Wakefield, Lee and Wildeman2016). Finally, theperennial removal and returnof largenumbersof youngmendestabilizes

1InternationalincarcerationratedataareavailablethroughtheWorldPrisonBriefathttp://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All

4

communitiesbyexacerbatingresidentialinstabilityanddiminishingthewell-beingandearningpowerofresidents(Clear2007;Travis2005).Policymakers and practitioners increasingly recognize these (and other) problems associatedwithmassincarceration.Atthesametime,awarenessoftheinabilityofconventionalcriminaljustice policies and practices to address the needs of crime victims (who are alsodisproportionatelypoorandofcolor)isincreasing.Indeed,insomestates,crimesurvivorsareleadinga criminal justice reformmovement that seeks toaddressboth theproblemofover-incarcerationandtheharmassociatedwithinter-personalviolenceandcrime(Stillman2015).Formany,restorativejusticeseemstobeapromisingmeansofaddressingtheharmassociatedwithbothviolenceandmassincarceration.THEGLOBALMOVEMENTFORRESTORATIVEJUSTICEInthecriminalcontext,restorativejusticehasdevelopedasaframeworkforguidingresponsesto crime at all levels of the justice system. Froma restorative justice perspective, crime is aviolationofpeopleandrelationships–therelationshipsbetweentheresponsiblepartyandhisorherfamily,friends,victims,andthecommunity–asopposedtomerelyacrimeagainstthestate(Zehr1990).Therestorativejusticeframeworkrestsonthreeunderlyingprinciples:(1)thefocus should be on the harm done; (2) wrongs or harms result in obligations; and (3)engagementandparticipationbyallpartiesisideal(Zehr2002).Restorativejusticethusentailsrepairing the harm caused by the wrongdoing (restoration); encourages appropriateresponsibilityforaddressingneedsandrepairingtheharm(accountability);andinvolvesthoseimpacted, including the community, in the resolution (engagement) (ibid). In the process ofcomingtogethertorestorerelationships,thecommunityisalsoprovidedwithanopportunitytohealthroughthereintegrationofthoseharmedandthosewhocausedtheharm(LlewellynandHowse 1998). Since harm is the central problem in a restorative framework, restorativejusticerequiresaresponsethatavoidscommittingfurtherharm.Restorativejusticeisthusaphilosophythatguidesalternativeresponsestocrimeratherthanafixedsetofpracticesapplieduniformlyinallcases.Still,directinteractionbetweenthepersonwhoexperiencedharmandthepersonwhocauseditisattheheartofmostrestorativejusticeprograms(Zehr2002).Theseprocessesprovidevictimstheopportunitytomeettheperson(s)whoharmed them in a safe and structured setting; to tell the personwho caused the harmabout the crime's physical, emotional, and financial impact; to receive answers to lingeringquestions about the crime and the factors that led to its commitment; and to be directlyinvolvedindevelopingarestitutionoragreementplangoingforward.The core practices that have emerged under this philosophy include victim-offender

5

mediation/victim-offender dialogue (“VOM” or “VOD”), group conferences, and restorativejustice circles. Restorative justice emerged inWestern criminal justice systems in the 1970s,withvictim-offenderreconciliationprograms(VORPs)andvictimoffendermediations(VOMs)inCanadaandtheMidwesternUnitedStates(DalyandImmarigeon1998).Manyprogramswereoperatedbyfaith-basedgroupsworkingwithstateagencies,andentailedfacilitatedmeetingsbetweencrimevictimsandresponsibleparties,usuallyaftersentencinghadoccurred.VORPs and VOMs focus primarily on restoring “the right relationships” that should existbetweentwoparties(Zehr1990).Theinitialimpetusforvictimoffendermediationsgrewoutofadesiretocreateamoreeffectiveapproachtodealingwithjuvenilesinthejusticesystem.Attimes,thesemediationsresultinaconsensusagreementaboutactivitiestheresponsiblepartywillundertaketomeettheneedsorexpectationsofthevictim(Pranis2004).VictimOffenderDialogues(VODs)involvingsevereviolencegrewoutofVOMprocessesandhavebeenprimarilyvictim-driven (Umbreit et al. 2005). That is, VOD is not stipulatedby the court, but rather isvictim-initiatedandoftenoccursduringincarceration.AnotherrestorativejusticepracticecalledFamilyGroupConferencing(FGC)wasintroducedtotheUnitedStatesinthemid1990s.ConferencingisanadaptationofatraditionalMaoriprocessfor resolving community problems and involves a dialogue between the harmed party, theresponsible party, their supporters, and a facilitator. FGCs differ from Victim OffenderReconciliationProgramsorVictimOffenderMediationsintheirinclusionofabroaderarrayofcommunitymembersintodialogueabouttheharm(DalyandImmarigeon1998).Thedialogueismeant to explorewhat happened, the impact of the harm, andwhat needs to happen tomakethingsasrightaspossible.Everyparticipanthasanopportunitytospeaktotheissuesandtocollectivelydevelopanagreementaboutobligationsgoingforward.

Similarly, circle processes, based on American Indian talking circles, involve the victim andresponsiblepersonaswellasinterestedcommunitymembersinafacilitateddialogue.Atalkingpieceisusedamongparticipantswhospeakonlywhentheyareholdingthepiece.Theprocessoften involves “pre-conferencing” or separate circles for the various parties before they arebrought together to determine an action plan. Sentencing circles are a consensus processaimed at addressing harm, accountability and healing (Stuart 1997). They involve “a broadholistic framework [that includes] crime victims and their families, an offender’s familymembers and kin, and community residents in the response to the behavior and theformulationofasanctionwhichwilladdresstheneedsofallparties”(Griffiths1996:201).

Non-Aboriginalgroups inCanadaand theUnitedStateshavebeenexperimentingwithsentencingcirclesforsometime(Pranis2004).

6

Although distinct, each of the practices described above is based on restorative justiceprinciples and involves a face-to-face dialogue between the harmed and responsible party.Many other practices also work toward restoring justice by supporting all involved parties,involving community stakeholders in repairing harm, or increasing the responsible party’sawarenessoftheconsequencesoftheiractions,butmaynotinvolvethisface-to-facedialogue.TheMovementforRestorativeJusticeintheContemporaryUnitedStatesAlthough systematic information about existing restorative justice programs in the UnitedStatesisnotavailable,itappearsthattheyvaryacrossatleasttwodimensions.First,programsvary in terms of their institutional location. Some programs provide an alternative disputeresolutionmechanismthatessentiallyreplacestheroleofthe juvenileorcriminalcourts.Stillothersarebasedprimarilyinjailsorprisonsandseektofacilitatedialoguebetweenprisonersandvictimsand,intheprocess,stimulateahealingprocessforvictimsandresponsiblepartiesalikeandreducerecidivismamongpeoplereleasedfromjailorprison.Inaddition,theoriginsofexistingrestorativejusticeprogramsvary.Some,suchastheInsightPrison Project, have emerged mainly out of community/grass-roots efforts. Others, such asCommonJustice,arebasedinnon-profits,justiceagenciesorgovernmentorganizations.IntheUnitedStates, it appears thatmost restorative justiceprograms involve juveniles rather thanadults,andmostexcludecasesinvolvingseriousviolence.RESEARCHONTHEEFFICACYOFRESTORATIVEJUSTICEPROGRAMSAgrowingnumberofstudiesevaluaterestorative justiceprograms.Althoughvariationacrossthese programs and the absence of random-assignment to them make such evaluationsmethodologically tricky, there is a growing body of evidence that programs informed byrestorativejusticeprinciplesholdagreatdealofpromise.VictimSatisfactionWhen given the option, many crime survivors choose to participate in restorative justiceprograms. A recent multistate study found that victims who choose to participate in arestorative Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) do so for a variety of reasons: to help theresponsibleparty;tolearnwhytheresponsiblepartycommittedthecrime;tocommunicatetotheresponsiblepartytheimpactofthecrime;andtobesuretheresponsiblepartywouldnotre-offend(UmbreitandArmour2011).Studiesof restorative justiceprogramsgenerally indicate thatall involvedparties reporthighlevelsofsatisfaction(Umbreit2005).ExpressionofsatisfactionwithVOMisconsistentforbothvictimsandresponsiblepartiesacrosssites,cultures,andseriousnessofoffense:typically,eight

7

ornineoutoftenparticipantsreportbeingsatisfiedwiththeVOMprocess(Umbreit2005).Foranygivenmediation, thevictimandtheresponsibleparty tendtoreport thesimilar levelsofsatisfaction, regardless of the type of offense or the agreed upon restitution, and victims’satisfaction is likely to correlatemoredirectly to their perceptionof theprocess than to theoutcome (Beven et al. 2005). In addition, research tracing the impact of restorative justiceconferencingonposttraumaticstresssymptoms(“PTSS”)associatedwithrobberyandburglaryfound that restorative justice practices reduce the traumatic impact of crime. Specifically,participants in restorative conferences reported a more than 40 percent reduction in PTSSimmediatelyandsixmonthspost-VOM(Angeletal.2014).Researchfurthersuggeststhatvictimsatisfactionisboundupwithincreasedfeelingsofsafety.Forexample,onestudyfoundthatvictimswhoparticipatedinmediationreportedfeelingsaferthantheyhadnotonlybeforethemediation,butalsobeforetheoffense,whereasvictimswhowent through traditional court processes reported that the experience had substantiallylessenedtheirsenseofsafety(Bevenetal.2005).Victimsatisfactionalsoappearstoreflectthepositiveimpactofrestorativejusticeprocessesonperceptionsoffairness.AstudyofburglaryvictimsinMinneapolis,forexample,foundthat80percentofvictimswhowentthroughvictim-offender mediation experienced the criminal justice system as fair, compared with only 38percentwhohadparticipatedinstandardcourtprocesses(Umbreit,Coates,andVos2006).RecidivismThe efficacy of any form of criminal justice intervention is often measured in terms of itscapacity to reduce recidivism. Although there are significant methodological challengesassociatedwiththeseevaluations,manystudies findthatrestorative justiceprogramsreducerecidivism (Vos, Coates, and Lightfood 2005). A recent and exhaustive meta-analysis, forexample,foundthatrestorativejusticeconferencescausea“modestbuthighlycost-effectivereduction in the frequency of repeat offending by the consenting incarcerated/formerlyincarceratedindividualsrandomlyassignedtoparticipateinsuchaconference”(Shermanetal. 2015: 1). Another recent meta-analysis of a sample of 11,950 juveniles found thatrestorative justice programs generated a 34 percent reduction in recidivism (Bradshaw andRoseborough 2005;seealsoUmbreitetal.2005).Importantly,mostofthesestudiesevaluateprogramsthatmainlyinvolvefacilitationofvictimoffenderdialogue;thetraumaofthosewhohavecausedharmisoftennotaddressedintheseprograms.Inaddition,somestudies find thatwhen formerparticipantsdid re-offend, theircrimeswereless serious than those committed by others who had not gone through restorative justiceprocesses (Umbreit et al. 2005). Although less is known about diversion programs based onrestorativejusticeprinciples,anevaluationofarestorativeprogramthatwasdesignedtodivert

8

defendantsfromincarcerationfoundthatrecidivismratesweresignificantlylowerforprogramparticipantsthanforcomparisongroups(Umbreitetal.2006).ReducingtheHarmAssociatedwithViolenceAlthoughmostrestorativejusticeprogramsdonotincludecasesthatinvolveviolence,researchsuggeststhatrestorative justicemediationmaybemosteffective insuchcases.Forexample,oneCanadianstudyfoundnosignificantresultsforindividualsconvictedoflow-leveloffenses,butdid reporta38percent reduction in recidivismforpeoplewhocommittedviolentcrimes(Shermanetal.2015).Anotherstudyfoundadirectandpositivecorrelationbetweenthelong-termsuccessof theprogramandtheseriousnessof theoffense (McColdandWachtel1998).The implication of these findings is that restorative justice programs may have the mostpotentialtoimprovevictimhealingandreducerecidivismifprogramsincludecasesthatinvolveinter-personalviolence(seealsoSered2006).LIMITATIONSOF(MANY)RESTORATIVEJUSTICEPROGRAMS

Restorativejusticeprogramshaveanumberoflimitations,althoughmanyofthesearearguablyremediable.Thefirsthastodowiththelimitedaccesstorestorativejusticethatresultswhenprogramsentaildialoguebetweencrimesurvivorsandthespecificpersonwhoharmedthem.Victim participation in restorative processes is strictly voluntary (Umbreit 1995). In manyinstances, the process is also victim-initiated. As a result, the benefits of restorative justiceprocesseshavebeenunavailabletoalargenumberofresponsibleparties.Similarly,theprocessreliesonresponsibleparties’willingnessandabilitytotakefullaccountabilityandengageinadialoguewithoutfurthervictimizingthesurvivor(s).Withtheexceptionofthoseparticipatinginthe InsightPrisonProject’sVOEGprogram, survivorswhowish toparticipate in a restorativejusticeprocesshavebeenunabletodosowhentheseconditionsdonotexist.Additionally, ifpersonwhocausedtheinitialharmisneverarrestedandconvicted,thenthevictimsinthosecases also typically unable to benefit from many restorative justice programs. This is animportant limitation, as the majority of responsible parties are never arrested. In short,although dialogue between survivors and their assailants appears to be quite powerful, it issimplynotanoptioninmanycases.Second,althoughparticipationinsomerestorativejusticeprogramsmayserveasasubstitutefor, or part of, a defendant's court sentence, most are not designed as an alternative totraditional court sentences and, consequently, are not designed to reduce the number ofdefendants sentenced to jail or prison (Bloch 2010). To the extent that this is the case, thepotentialofrestorativejusticetohelpamelioratetheharmassociatedwithmassincarcerationislimited.

9

Third,manyrestorativejusticeprograms,particularlythoseofferinganalternativetotraditionalcourtprocessesandincarceration,areavailableonlytojuvenilesortoadultschargedwithlowlevel offenses (Greenwood and Umbreit 2000; Center for Health and Justice 2014). Theapplication of classic restorative justice approaches to adults charged with or convicted ofserious criminal offenses, especially violent crimes, has been more controversial, althoughsupportfortheirapplicationappearstobegrowing(Bloch2010).Thepaucityofprogramsthatincludecasesinvolvingviolenceisunfortunate,asemergingevidencesuggeststhatthepositiveimpactof restorative justicemaybegreatestwhentheharmcaused iscomparativelyserious(McColdandWachtel1998;Shermanetal.2015).

Finally, cultural differences, prejudice, and racism cast a shadow over attempts to buildrestorative justice programs that benefit everyone. For example, a recent study found thatschoolswithmoreBlackstudentswerelesslikelytoemployrestorativejusticetechniquesthanschools with fewer Black students (Payne and Welch 2013). The risk of maintaining orexacerbating preexisting racial disparities in the criminal justice system is heightened whenrestorativejusticeprogramsarenotintentionallyrace-conscious.

CLOSEUP:THEINSIGHTPRISONPROJECTBelow,wedescribeadistinctiverestorative justiceprogramcurrentlyoperating intheUnitedStates:theInsightPrisonProject(IPP).InformationaboutIPPwasobtainedthroughdocumentsavailableontheirwebsitesand/orprovidedtousbyorganizationleaders.Wealsoconductedasite visit and interviewed a variety of stakeholders. These included: IPP leadership and staff,restorative justice program facilitators (some of whom served as inside facilitators whileincarcerated), formerly incarcerated participants, survivor participants, and IPP boardmembers.Before turningourattentionto IPP,wenotethat there isalsoanalternative-to-incarcerationand restorative justice program currently operating in the United States: Common Justice.CommonJusticedevelopsandadvancessolutionstoviolenceaimedattransformingthelivesofthose harmed and fostering racial equity without relying on incarceration.According to itswebsite,“CommonJusticeisavictimserviceandalternative-to-incarcerationprogrambasedonrestorativejusticeprinciples.BasedintheVeraInstitute,andlocatedinBrooklyn,NewYork,theprogramworkswithyoungpeople,16to24yearsold,whocommitviolentfelonies,andthosetheyharm.CommonJusticeaimstoreduceviolence,facilitatethewell-beingofthoseharmed,and transform the criminal justice system’s response to serious crime.” This program is thusquite unique in that it includes (young) adults, targets people who experience and commitviolence,andprovidesanalternativetoincarcerationinthesecases.3CommonJusticeprovides

3Formoreinformation,seehttp://www.vera.org/project/common-justice

10

acompellingmodelofhowrestorativejusticemightbecoupledwithacommitmenttoservingviolencesurvivorsandprovidingalternativestoincarcerationfordefendantsinsuchcases.InsightPrisonProjectInsightPrisonProject(IPP)isbasedinMarin,California,andwasfoundedin1997withoneclassfor 14 prisoners at San Quentin State Prison. IPP has grown significantly since that time:accordingtoitswebsite,“IPPoffersuniqueandeffectiverestorativejusticeprogramsformen,women,andyouthat14 stateprisons,one federalprison, three county jails, several reentryfacilities, and one juvenile institution. Insight Prison Project offers a certified violencepreventionclass,criticalthinkingcourses,professionalcrisis-interventiontraining,atherapeuticartistic ensemble, and pre-parole training. 4 IPP works collaboratively with the CaliforniaDepartmentofCorrectionsandRehabilitation(CDCR)tofacilitatethisprogramming,althoughthedevelopmentandimplementationofitscurriculaareentirelyindependentofCDCRandIPPhassolecontroloveradmissionstotheprogram.Recently,inrecognitionofthesuccessofIPP,CDCRhasitselfbecomeafunderofIPP’sexpansionandreplicationefforts.Oneof IPP’scoreprograms is theVictimOffenderEducationGroup (VOEG),which includesa52+weekcurriculum thatwasdesignedby licensedmentalhealth therapists in collaborationwithsurvivorsofviolentcrimesandincarceratedparticipants.Thegoalofthecurriculumistounearthandexploretherootcausesofharmfulbehaviorandtodeepenunderstandingoftheimpact of harmful behavior on survivors, the community, and on the responsible party. Theprocess utilizes a restorative justice philosophy, a trauma-healing approach, and a holisticpsychosocialmodelofhealth.VOEGprogramshaveproliferatedinrecentyears,andsometimestarget distinct groups. For example, one VOEG program operates in Spanish; anotherspecificallyincludesLGBTQprisoners.Despiteon-goingprogramexpansion,thewaitinglistsfortheseprogramsaresignificant.ThewaitinglistforthegeneralVOEGprogramatSanQuentin,forexample,isfouryearslong;fortheSpanishlanguageVOEGitissevenyearslong.TheVOEGcurriculumisdividedintothreeparts,witheachunitbuildingonthenext.Thefirstunitfocusesonaccountabilityandtheimpactofcrime.VOEGisorientedtowardtraumahealingand accountability, so the arc of the curriculum beginswith a Crime Impact Essay, inwhichparticipants share details of their crime, describe who they harmed, and discuss how theirvictimandtheircommunitywereimpactedbythecrime.Thenextunitexploresself-trauma.Inthissection,responsiblepartiesconsiderhowtheirowntraumasaffectedtheirlifeandwaysofbeing in order to uncover the causative factors that led to harmful behavior. The goal infocusingonunresolvedharmfullifeexperiencesisnottodrawattentiontodeficits,buttobuildunderstanding and insight that facilitates accountability. Once participants explore these 4Formoreinformation,seehttp://www.insightprisonproject.org/

11

harmfulearly lifeexperiences, theyareable toconnect thedotsof their lives that led to thecrimetheycommitted,whichleadstoaccountabilityandthechoicenottoharmagain.In the third unit, Victim Impact, incarcerated participants investigate the impact of theirbehavioronvictimsandthecommunitythroughafinalsetofexercises,whichexploreremorse,empathy,andforgiveness.Intheirconcludingwork,participantsexplorehowtobreakthecycleofviolenceandeachparticipantpreparesaPersonalDeclarationofSupportandAccountability.During this last stage – after participants have spent approximately a year working towardsaccountability – a panel of surrogate victims who experienced crimes similar to thosecommitted by VOEG participants share the impact of their victimization directly with theincarceratedprogramparticipants.ThesurrogatepanelsareauniqueandcriticalelementofIPP,asthepanelsprovidethespaceforresponsiblepartiestobeaccountabledirectlytosurvivorsofviolentcrime.Thesesurrogatepanels also allow survivors the rare and often healing opportunity to see and hearaccountability, remorse, and empathy directly from responsible parties. The fact that panelsinclude“surrogate”victimsmeansthatimprisonedpeoplecanparticipateevenif“theirvictim”is unavailable or uninterested in participating. Similarly, these panels afford victims whoseassailantsareneverarrestedorareotherwiseunavailable theopportunity toparticipate inarestorative justiceprocess. IPPprovideshighly trained facilitators and creates a spacewithinVOEGthatallowssurvivorsandprisonersthisuniqueopportunitytolearnfromandworkwitheachother.Althoughparticipation in IPPprograms isthusnot limitedtoresponsiblepartieswhohaveanavailable and interested survivor,when suchpairings exist, IPP alsoworkswith theOfficeofVictim Services and facilitates dialogue between the affected parties. These VictimOffenderDialogues (VODs)offer individuals theopportunity tohave a structured face-to-facemeetingwiththepersonthatharmedtheminasecure,safe,andmediatedenvironment.One youngwomanwe interviewedwas able to participate in a dialoguewith theman thatkilledherfatherinadrunkdrivingaccidentwhenshewassevenyearsold.Ateighteen,Siobhansat face-to-facewithMike, described the impact of losing her father to him, and asked himquestions about that fateful day. In our interview, Siobhan told us that she felt that Mikeansweredherquestionshonestlyandcompletely.Here, sheexplainswhy thisencounterwasimportanttoher:

I really justwanted to hear it from his perspective, not from any second-handsource.Justimaginethat.You’vemessedupinyourlifeandnowyouhavetosit

12

acrossfromthechildofthepersonwhoselifeyouareresponsibleforendinganddescribe that mistake to them in detail. That is hard stuff. That’s one of thereasons restorative justice is so damn powerful. You can’t run away from theresponsibility.

MiketoldSiobhanthatdoingrestorativejusticeworkprovidedinspirationthatisoftenhardtocomebyinprison.MikealsosaidthathewasmotivatedbythedialoguewithSiobhanandhermothertosharehisownstoryofalcoholismandhisroadtosobrietyandaccountabilityinorderto help others.Mike is now sober, out of prison, and has sponsored twenty people throughAlcoholicsAnonymous.UniqueandImportantFeaturesoftheInsightPrisonProject’sVOEGsThe facilitation of dialogue between harmed and responsible parties is a defining feature ofrestorative justice.Asnotedpreviously,one limitationthiscreates isthatonlycases involvingavailableandwilling“pairings”areeligibletoparticipateinmanyrestorativejusticeprograms,butmany people in prison would like to experience restorative justice even if their specificvictim is unavailable, and many survivors of crime don’t have the opportunity to meet thepersonresponsiblefortheirloss.Insuchcases,aprogramlikeVOEGis instrumentalforresponsiblepartiesandsurvivorsalike.AyoolaMitchell,IPP’sCommunityandSurvivorOutreachSpecialist,becameinvolvedwithIPPin2009,whensheparticipatedinVOEG’sSurvivorSpeakerPanelinsideSanQuentin.Earlierthatyear,Ayoola’seldestsonwasshot17times.Hesurvived,butjustayearlater,heryoungersonwas shot and killed by a stranger following a verbal altercation. Neither assailant was everarrested.Inreflectingonherexperiencesonthepanel,Ayoolasaid,

WhatIfoundwasthemoreIspokethemoreIhealed.ThemoreIwasabletoseeandhearotherpeopleunderstandhowmuchharmisdone,not just tome, the“victim,”but to theentire family, themore I understood that sharingmy storywasimportant.Ironically,sharingmystorywiththosethathavecausedharmhasbeen themost cathartic. I have spoken to a Senate subcommittee and serviceprovidersforcrimesurvivorsbutthereissomethingaboutsharingmystorywiththose who have caused harm when they get it. That’s really when change isgoingtooccurintermsofhavingalessviolentcommunity.

Anothersurvivor,Harriet, losther47-year-olddaughter,aHarvardgraduate, toastraybulletduringagangshootout inCalifornia.Herdaughterhadbeenwalkingdownthestreet shortlyafterhavinglunchwithhermother.WhenHarrietgothome,shehadvoicemailsfromthepolice

13

department on her phone. Here, she describes the aftermath of hearing the news of herdaughter’sdeath:

We went through all the things a family goes through. In addition, we wentthrougha6-weektrialbecauseitwasgang-related.Theychargedallthethingstheycould,andenhancementsso theycouldget the longest time for Jorge.Hewaschargedwith fourmurders.Hewasacquittedofoneandwasconvictedofthemurder ofmy daughter and two others…Hewas given two life sentenceswithout parole plus 90 years. From the beginning I just wondered who is thispersonandwhatwashedoinginagang?

HarriethasnothadtheopportunitytohaveaVictimOffenderDialoguedirectlywithJorge,butshehasgottenanswerstosomeofthosequestionsthroughletter-writingwithhisfamilythatIPPhashelped to facilitate. Shewasalso given theopportunity to shareher storyonan IPPSurvivorPanelinsideSanQuentin.Thishasbeenquiteimpactfulforher:

InVOEG the first time, Iwasamazedatmy treatmentby themen.Oneof themensaid,“I’velearnedsomuchfromthislady.Ifeltasthoughwehadanangelin the room.” Itwas like a lighteningofmygrief. After the trial, therewas noclosure-youreallydon’tevergetclosureofsomethinglikethis.ButIdogetsomekindofworkingalongwithmygriefwithVOEG.ParticipationinVOEGhasservedmewellinthatithelpsmecarrymygrief.

Harriet went on to describe how her continued work with IPP as a Survivor Panelist and afacilitatorhasassistedherincopingwithherloss:

IfigureifIcanhavemygriefengagedandaliveinsomewaythatisconstructivethenwearegoingdowntheroadtogether.Iamcarryingmygriefandmygriefhassomekindofactivityonitsown.It’sbetterthanhavingmyfeetgluedtothegroundwithmygriefjustweighingmedownasdeadweight.

Similarly, VOEG creates an opportunity for incarcerated program participants to still takeaccountability,hear frompeople impactedby similar crimes,andmake“livingamends”evenwhen survivors are unable to have a dialogue with them. Dave, an IPP VOEG graduate andinsidefacilitator,wassentencedto25yearstolifeforkillinghisbrother’swife.Heservedthefirst17yearsofhissentencedenyinghisguilttofamily,cellmates,paroleboardmembers,andeven to himself. However, after getting clean and sober, graduating from VOEG, andparticipatinginaVictimOffenderDialoguewithhisniece,thedaughterofthewomanhekilled,

14

Davehastakenfullaccountabilityandturnedhis lifearound.HeattributeshissuccesstotheopportunityhehadtofacilitateVOEGs:

Thiswas straightup copsand robbers for 17 years. Just denials andappeals. Ilived in a world of denial until I got into VOEG - because none of this wasaddressedinanyoftheotherworkIwasdoing.Itwasjustscratchingthesurface.VOEGwasmyfirststeptotakingtrueaccountabilityandbeginningtomakerealamends.

Anotherprogramparticipant, Troy,who couldnotmeetwithhis specific victims echoed thistheme,andnotedthatthepanelprovidedinsightontohisowntraumaaswell:

Before VOEG, I couldn’t understand what the victims of my crime had gonethrough.Whenpeople said,well you caused them tobe in fearof their lives. Ithought,well,I’vefearedformylifemywholelife.I’vebeeninfearsolongthatI’m pretty numb to it. So what does that mean for them to be afraid? But itwasn’tuntilavictimimpactpanelcameinandIsatinfrontofawomanandsawhowtraumatizedandparalyzedherlifehadbeenasaresultofherbeingavictimofarobbery.That’swhen Iwasabletoseehowmy lifehadbeenparalyzedbyfear. The only differencewas that I responded by acting out and she, instead,withdrew.

SeveralVOEGprogramparticipantsalsoreportedthathearingfromsurvivorsenabledthemtobetterappreciatetheimpactthattheirharmfulbehaviorhadonthecommunityasawhole.Asonegraduatesaid,

When I witnessed the victim panel, the veil was lifted. And I realized thatmyactionsimpactedalotofpeople,thecommunitybeingone.Ireflectedbackthatthere were other murders that same year in my community. People startedputting bars on their windows and keeping their homes locked down. So myactionsreverberatedandaffectedthewholecommunity.

Operating VOEGs hasmeant that issues of race have been at the forefront for IPP,which ismaking a concerted effort to ensure that participant groups, facilitators, and impact panelsreflectthedemographicsofcrimevictimizationintheUnitedStates.Forcomplicatedreasons,thisisnotalwayseasytoaccomplish,butIPPisengagedindifficultandon-goingconversationabouthowtoconducttrainingsforfacilitatorsthatincludeandcenterawarenessoftheimpactthatpowerandprivilegehaveonones’facilitationofrestorativejustice.Thisisalsoimportant

15

because,asoneIPPsurvivorpanelistofcolorsaid,“It’smoreimpactfulfortheparticipantstoseepeoplewholooklikethemortheirvictims.SomeofthemhavelostsiblingssoIwasnotjusttheirsurrogatevictimbutalsotheirsurrogatemom.” Inaddition, indiversifyingtheirsurvivorpanels, IPP has made a conscious effort to provide victim services to communities that areotherwiseunder-served.InsideFacilitatorsLivingAmends,BuildingLeadershipSkillsThe opportunity for VOEG graduates to become inside facilitators for VOEGs is anotherimportant and unique component of IPP’s work. As Billie Mizell, IPP’s Executive Director,explained, the training and on-goingwork of the inside facilitators in the prisons is a crucialcomponentofIPP’sprogramming:

The fact thatwehaveprisoner facilitators– foreverysinglegroup,oneor two“insidefacilitators”–makesusdifferent.Ithinkthat'sahuge,hugepieceofwhatmakesthiswork.Theinsidefacilitatorisgoingtostaytherewhenweleave.Theoutsidefacilitatoristheremaybetwohoursaweek.Theinsidefacilitatorisattheprison24-7,sothere'ssomebodytherethat, ifsomeoneinthegroup'shavingareally hard time with something, they have someone they can go talk to, toprocesswith. And it's somebodywho's highly, highly-trained,who's graduatedfrom the program, and also been through Next Step, and been through ourfacilitator training.That levelof leadership trainingand facilitation training forthe inside facilitators is critical. And I think the idea started with anunderstanding thatwe'renotgoing in to saveanybody;we'regoing in toofferthisprogramandwehaveajobtodowhenwegointhere,andwehavemuchtolearnwhilewe'reinthere,too.

Training incarceratedVOEGgraduates tobe“inside-facilitators”whoworkalongside“outsidefacilitators”hasseveralpositiveeffects.First,itcreatesanopportunityforpeoplewhocausedseriousharmto“liveamends”duringaswellasaftertheirincarceration.Forexample,Leonardorganized restorative justice conferences in San Quentin, and participated in violenceprevention programs and VOEG as an inside facilitator for years. Since his release, he hascontinuedthisworkinthecommunity.Hesaid,

Ihadachoice.IcouldallowbothofourlivestobewastedthatdayorIcoulddoeverythingIcouldtolivemylifeinordertohonorhers.Sothat’swhatItrytodo.

Second, many inside facilitators report that doing this work is quite transformative. Forexample,Davetoldusthat,

16

With lifers, most of us, if we could, we would try to seek out and apologize.Because we know we did something very wrong. We’ve had those momentswherewe’vedroppedtoourkneesandjustbeenwreckedbywhatwehaddone…MyworkatSanQuentinasafacilitatorwasanindirectwayofmakingamendsinhonorofTony’s life.Now,comingouthereanddoingthethingsthatIdoismylivingamendsbecauseIwillneverpaytheprice.AllIcandoisjustlivemylifeinher honor. I do a lot of volunteeringwith reentry, doing IPP restorative justicethings,going into juvenilehall to talk tokids,goingto talk tostudents. I try tostayconnectedsomehowandkeepasenseofpurpose.

Inside-facilitators also developed important skills and leadership capacity. Another of ourinterviewees,Troy,spenttwenty-fiveyearsinCaliforniaprisonsforanarmedrobbery.HespentsixofthoseyearsworkingthroughandlaterfacilitatingtheVOEGcurriculum.Hedescribedtheadmirationhefeltforinsidefacilitatorsasaprogramparticipant:

Thefacilitatorswerepeoplewhowalkedtheirwalk.Theywereaboutwhattheysaid theywere about. There’s an art to knowingwhen to push on something,when to let go andwhen to give feedback and if you haven’t done your ownwork,youwon’tbeabletodistinguishthosethings.

Davedescribedhavingacquiredanumberofusefulskillsthatheisnowusingontheoutside:

I believe it all comes frommedeveloping andmaturing as aman through theprinciplesandskills I learnedthroughVOEG- Idon’tsee itanyotherway.Thatwasthecornerstoneforeverythingtounfold inmy life. I’mverygrateful…Theworkneverendsand I just feelverygratefultobe inthispositiontobeabletogivebacktomylovedonesandallthosewhoIhaveharmed.

ParticipationinIPPisLargelyUnrestrictedAnotherunique featureof IPP’sVOEGs is thataccess to theprogram isnot limitedbasedonage,crime,or lengthofsentence. Indeed,themajorityofparticipants inCaliforniahavebeenlifers.Ensuringthatpeopleserving lifesentenceshaveaccesstotheprogramis importantonboth human rights grounds and because long termers and lifers play an important role inshaping the prison community (Kazemian and Travis 2015). Nor does the program excludepeoplebasedontheirmotivationforsigningupfortheprogram.Thereasonstakeholdersgivefor this openness is that they trust the efficacy of the process. For example, if a person is“workingthesystem”andmerelywantstoparticipateinVOEGbecauseitwilllookgoodwhen

17

theygobeforetheparoleboard,thepeergroupwilloftenfindhealthywaystodeterminewhatto do, whether that’s helping the person through the process, or, very infrequently, askingthemtoleavethegroupuntiltheyarereadytoengageintheprocessfromamoreauthenticplace.Ifandwhenthisisdone,thedoorisopenforthatpersontoparticipateinanothergroupatalaterdate.Often,thegroupsimplyallowstheprocesstodothework.Troy,forexample,admittedthatheoriginally signed up for VOEG to find language to take into his parole hearing. Butwhen hejoined,hefoundsomethingmore:

ItgavelanguagetothingsthatIintuitivelyknewbutdidn’thavewordsfor.Thatresonatedwithme….Ittookmebeyondlearningthelanguageofaccountability,or just a glance at what happened, to a real reflective and in-depthunderstandingofwhy. I’vehadsomeonepointanAK47atme.But IwasmoreafraidoftakingthejourneyinwardthatVOEGrequiresthenIwaswhenIwasattheotherend,facingthebarrelofthatAK47.BecauseIwasn’tafraidofdeath…It’snotthedarknessbutthelightthatweareafraidof.Itchangesyou.

VOEGasaHolisticResponsetoHarmandaPositiveInfluenceonPrisonLifeMany of our respondents described the positive impact that IPP programs have had in SanQuentinandother institutions inwhich IPPoperates.One former inside facilitatornow livingoutsideofprisonexplaineditthisway:

Sooftentheguysintheprogramareusingtheskillstheyaredeveloping:they'reoutintheyard,they'rementoringpeoplewhoareonthewaitinglist.Butthey'realso … taking that curriculum on the phone with these kids who are in highschoolandcollege,andgoing throughpartsof itwith theboyswhoare in theneighborhoodandfacingsomanyofthesamechallengeshefaced.Andthishasgivenhimatoolsettodiscussitwiththem.

Karena H. Montag, a licensed marriage and family therapist who serves as IPP’s ProgramsDirector and Clinical Supervisor, also reflected on the ways that IPP – with its emphasis ontrauma-healingandaccountability–impactsprisonlifeandculture:

Whatwe'redoing,theaccountability,is…notjustcounterintuitive,butcounter-institution.JuststeppingintothatisahugechangeforsomanyofthemenandwomenwhowereinVOEG.Sothat'sonepart.Butdiggingintotheactualworkofun-rooting really deep trauma is really against the grain and the culture ofprison,ofalotofthefamilialculturewherepeoplearecomingfrom,andthisis

18

somethingthatwe'retalkingabout,somethingthatwe'resharingmixed-ethnicgroups, in mixed-racial groups. So there's so many things that are beingchallenged by being in VOEG. The people who are choosing to come in arechallengingthingsonsomanydifferentlevels.

The positive impact of VOEGs inside the prison – and the transformative impact of IPP andVOEG–weresimilarlyemphasizedbyCorrectionalLt.PalmeroftheCaliforniaInstituteformeninaletterofcommendationhewrotetoIPPprogramstaff:

IhavehadtheopportunitytotalkwithmanyoftheInmatescurrentlyattendingVOEGandothers thathavegone through the course; the feedbackhasalwaysbeen positive.Many of the inmates have stated… that it is/was not until theyattend/attended VOEG and got a better understanding of the triggers andcatalyststhatcausethemtobehavethewaytheydo,thattheytrulyunderstoodhowtoapplytheNAandAAclassestotheirlives.

Withall thisoccurring, itmademewonderaboutwhat impactVOEG trulyhashadonthe InmateshereonFacilityC.AftercheckingaroundIwassurprisedtofind out that nearly all of the clerks and workers working in the Facility CAdministration Building have attended or are attending VOEG. They have allremained disciplinary free for numerous years and attribute their success toVOEG.

Withcloseto15years’experienceasaLieutenant,Idonotknowofanyprogramthat has this type of impact on people’s lives. Iwould like to take this time toexpress my sincere appreciation to your tireless effort and dedication toimprovingpeople’slives.Justsoyouknow,youaremakingadifference.

CONCLUSIONThetwinproblemsofmassviolenceandmass incarcerationhavedevastatingeffectsonpoorcommunitiesacrossthecountry,andcommunitiesofcolorhavebeenespeciallyhardhit.Sadly,current criminal justice practices and policies neither improve public safety (Travis,Westernand Redburn 2014) normeaningfully address victims’ needs (Herman 2010). In this context,interestinrestorativejusticeprogramsisgrowing.With its emphasis on ameliorating harm, restorative justice is a promising alternative toconventional criminal justice practices, especially when paired with programming thataddresses the trauma that people who cause harm have also experienced. Yet as currentlypracticed, restorative justice has limited reach, mainly because most programs limit

19

participation to cases in which all directly involved persons are available and willing toparticipate. Inaddition, theexclusionofcases involvingadultsand/orviolenceseverely limitsthepotentialimpactofmanyexistingrestorativejusticeprograms.Butrestorativejusticemaybe most effective in cases involving violence. For example, recent studies show that victimoffendermediationeffectivelyreducesrecidivismamongpeopleconvictedofviolence(Angeletal.2014;Shermanetal.2015).Thereisalsoevidencethatmostvictimsarefarmoresatisfiedwhen the criminal justice process is supplemented by victim offender mediation (VOM)(Umbreit 2005). Our interviews with IPP program participants suggest that these positiveresultsmaybeevenmoredramaticifthetraumaofpeoplewhocommitharmfulactswerealsoaddressed.Based on these findings, we believe that the systematic adoption of restorative justiceprogramsandpracticesinthePacificNorthwestandbeyondisoverdue.Ideally,theseprogramswould includeadultsandcases involvingviolence. Intheshortterm,offeringVictimOffenderEducation Groups based on the IPP curriculum would provide a means of expanding theopportunity to participate in restorative justice programming for harmed and responsiblepartiesalike.Inthelongerterm,developingtheinstitutionalcapacitytooperatealternative-to-incarcerationprogramsthat targetviolenceandsurvivorsofcolorwouldprovideaneffectivewaytoamelioratetheharmassociatedwithbothviolenceandmassincarceration.

20

REFERENCESAngel,CarolineM.,LawrenceW.Sherman,HeatherStrang,BarakAriel,SarahBennett,NovaInkpen,AnneKeane,andThereseS.Richmond.2014.“Short-termeffectsofrestorativejusticeconferencesonpost-traumaticstresssymptomsamongrobberyandburglaryvictims.”JournalofExperimentalCriminology10,3:291-307.Bennet,Lauren,LisaGoodman,MaryAnnDutton.1999.“SystemicObstaclestotheCriminalProsecutionofaBatteringPartner:AVictimPerspective.”JournalofInterpersonalViolence14:761-772.Beven,JamieP.,GuyHall,IreneFroyland,BrianSteelsandDorothyGoulding.2005.“RestorationorRenovation?EvaluatingRestorativeJusticeOutcomes.”Psychiatry,Psychology&Law12:194-206.Bloch,Kate.2010.“ReconceptualizingRestorativeJustice.”HastingsRaceandPovertyLawJournal2010:201-33.Braman,Donald.2002.“TheImpactofIncarcerationonFamilies.”Chapter7inInvisiblePunishment:TheCollateralConsequencesofMassImprisonment,MauerandChesney-Lind,editors.NewYork:TheNewPress.Bradshaw,WilliamandDavidJ.Roseborough.2005.“RestorativeJusticeDialogue:TheImpactofMediationandConferencingonJuvenileRecidivism.”FederalProbation69,2:15–21CenterforHealthandJustice.2014.NoEntry:ANationalSurveyofCriminalJusticeDiversionProgramsandInitiatives.Availableonlineathttp://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdfClear,ToddR.2007.ImprisoningCommunities:HowMassIncarcerationMakesDisadvantagedNeighborhoodsWorse.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Comfort,Megan.2007.“PunishmentbeyondtheLegalOffender.”AnnualReviewofLawintheSocialSciences3:271-96.Corso,PhaedraS.,JamesAMercy,ThomasR.SimonandEricA.Finkelstein.2007.“MedicalCostsandProductivityLossesDuetoInterpersonalandSelf-DirectedViolenceintheUnitedStates.”AmericanJournalofPreventativeMedicine32,6:474-482.

21

Cutler,DavidM.,AdrianaLleras-Muney,andTomVogl.2011.“Socio-EconomicStatusandHealth:DimensionsandMechanisms.”InTheOxfordHandbookofHealthEconomics,editedbySherryGliedandPeterC.Smith.(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).

Daly,Kathleen,andRussImmarigeon.1998.“ThePast,Present,andFutureofRestorativeJustice:SomeCriticalReflections.”TheContemporaryJusticeReview1,1:21-45.

Englebrecht,Christine,DerekT.Mason,MargaretJ.Adams.2014.“TheExperienceofHomicideVictims’FamilieswiththeCriminalJusticeSystem:AnExploratoryStudy.”ViolenceandVictims29,3:407-21.Flett,RossA.,NikolaosKazantizis,NigelR.Long,CarolMacDonald,andMichelleMillar.2002.“TraumaticEventsandPhysicalHealthinaNewZealandCommunitySample.”JournalofTraumaticStress15,4:303-312.Frazier,PatriciaA.andBethHaney.1996.“SexualAssaultCasesintheLegalSystem:Police,Prosecutor,andVictimPerspectives.”LawandHumanBehavior20,6:607-628.Greendwood,JeanE.,andMarkS.Umbreit.2000.NationalSurveyofVictimOffenderMediationProgramsintheUnitedStates.UniversityofMinnesota:CenterforRestorativeJusticeandPeacemaking.

Griffiths,CurtT.1996.“SanctioningandHealing:RestorativeJusticeinCanadianAboriginalCommunities.”InternationalJournalofComparativeandAppliedCriminalJustice20:195-208.

Hanson,RochelleF.,GenelleK.Sawyer,andAngelaM.BegleandGraceS.Hubel.2010.“TheImpactofCrimeVictimizationonQualityofLife.”JournalofTraumaticStress23,2:189-97.Harrell,Erika,LynnLangston,MarcusBerzofsky,LanceCouzensandHopeSmiley-McDonald.2014.HouseholdPovertyandNonfatalViolentVictimization,2008-2012.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics.Herman,Susan.2010.ParallelJusticeforVictimsofCrime.NationalCenterforVictimsofCrime.Jaggi,LenaJ.,BrianaMezuk,DaphneC.Watkins,andJamesS.Jackson.2016.“TheRelationshipbetweenTrauma,ArrestandIncarcerationHistoryamongBlackAmericans:FindingsfromtheNationalSurveyofAmericanLife.”SocietyandMentalHealth2016:1-20.

22

Johnson,RuckerC.andStevenRaphael.2006.“TheEffectsofMaleIncarcerationRatesonAIDSInfectionRatesamongAfricanAmericanWomenandMen.”NationalPovertyCenterWorkingPaperSeries#06-22,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor.Kazemian,LilaandJeremyTravis.2015.“ImperativeforInclusionofLongTermersandLifersinResearchandPolicy.”Criminology&PublicPolicy14,2:355-95.Kilpatrick,DeanG.andRonAcierno.2003.“MentalHealthNeedsofCrimeVictims:EpidemiologyandOutcomes.”JournalofTraumaticStress16,2:119-32.Langton,LynnandJenniferTruman.2014.Socio-emotionalImpactofViolentCrime.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics.Lee,Hedy,TylerMcCormick,MargaretT.HicksonandChristopherWildeman.2015.“RacialInequalitiesinConnectednesstoImprisonedIndividualsintheUnitedStates.”DuBoisReview12,2:269-282.Lee,Hedwig,ChristopherWildeman,EmilyWang,NikiMatuskoandJamesS.Jackson.2014.“AHeavyBurden?TheHealthConsequencesofHavingaFamilyMemberIncarcerated.”AmericanJournalofPublicHealth104,3:421-427.

Llewellyn,J.,andR.Howse.1998.RestorativeJustice:AConceptualFramework.Ottawa:LawCommissionofCanada.

Massoglia,Michael.2008.“Incarceration,HealthandRacialDisparitiesinHealth.”Law&SocietyReview42,2:275-306.Massoglia,MichaelandJasonSchnittker.2009."NoRealRelease:TheHealthEffectsofIncarceration."Contexts39-42.McCold,PaulandBenjaminWatchell.1998.RestorativePolicingExperiment:TheBethlehemPennsylvaniaPoliceFamilyGroupConferencingProject.Pennsylvania:CommunityServiceFoundation.McLanahan,Sara.2009.“FragileFamiliesandtheReproductionofPoverty.”AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialSciences621:111-31.Orth,Ulrich.2009."Theeffectsoflegalinvolvementoncrimevictims’psychologicaladjustment."InSocialPsychologyofPunishmentofCrime,ed.byMargitOswald.NewYork:Wiley&Sons.

23

Pager,Devah.2007.Marked:Race,CrimeandFindingWorkinanEraofMassIncarceration.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Parsons,JimandTiffanyBergin.2010.“TheImpactofCriminalJusticeInvolvementonVictims'MentalHealth.”JournalofTraumaticStress,23,2:182-188.Payne,AllisonAnnandKellyWelch.2013.“RestorativeJusticeinSchools:TheInfluenceofRaceonRestorativeDiscipline.”YouthandSociety2013:1-26.Perkins,CraigA.1997.AgePatternsofVictimsofSeriousViolentCrime.BureauofJusticeStatisticsSpecialReport.Pettit,BeckyandBruceWestern.2004.“MassImprisonmentandtheLifeCourse:RaceandClassInequalityinU.S.Incarceration.”AmericanSociologicalReview69:151-69.Pranis,Kay.2004.“RestorativeJusticeinMinnesotaandtheUSA:DevelopmentandCurrentPractice.”VisitingExperts'Papers,123rdInternationalSeniorSeminar,ResourceMaterialSeriesNo.63,pp.111-123.Richie,BethE.2001.“ChallengesIncarceratedWomenFaceasTheyReturntoTheirCommunities:FindingsfromLifeHistoryInterviews.”Crime&Delinquency47,1:368-89.Sered,Danielle.2006.“MatureJustice:DevelopingRestorativePracticesforSeriousYoungOffenders.”InternationalInstituteofRestorativePractices.2006Conference:TheNextStep:DevelopingRestorativeCommunities.Sered,Danielle.2014.YoungMenofColorandtheOtherSideofHarm.NewYork:VeraInstitute.Simmons,CatherineA.2014.“GettingByafteraLovedOne’sDeath:TheRelationshipBetweenCaseStatus,TraumaSymptoms,LifeSatisfaction,andCoping.”ViolenceandVictims29,3:506-22.Sherman,LawrenceW.,HeatherStrang,EvanMayo-Wilson,DanielJ.WoodsandBarakAriel.2015.“AreRestorativeJusticeConferencesEffectiveinReducingRepeatOffending?”JournalofQuantitativeCriminology31,1:1-24.

24

Sherman,L.W.,HeatherStrangandDanielWoods.“CaptainsofRestorativeJustice:Experience,LegitimacyandRecidivismbyTypeofOffence.”Pp.229-56inG.M.WeitekampandH-J.Kerner29(eds),RestorativeJusticeinContext:InternationalPracticeandDirections.Devon:WillanPublishing.Sledjeski,EveM.,BrittanySpeismanandLisaC.Dierker.2008.“DoesNumberofLifetimeTraumasExplaintheRelationshipbetweenPTSDandChronicMedicalConditions?AnswersfromtheNationalComorbiditySurvey-Replication(NCS-R).”JournalofBehavioralMedicine31,4:341-349.Stillman,Sarah.2015.“BlackWoundsMatter.”TheNewYorker,October15,2015.

Stuart,Barry.1997.BuildingCommunityJusticePartnerships:CommunityPeacemakingCircles.Ottawa:DepartmentofJustice.

Sykes,BryanL.andAlexR.Piquero.2009.“StructuringandRe-CreatingInequality:HealthTestingPolicies,Race,andtheCriminalJusticeSystem.”TheAnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience623:214-27.Travis,Jeremy.2005.ButtheyAllComeBack:FacingtheChallengesofPrisonerReentry.NewYork:UrbanInstitutePress.Travis,Jeremy.2012.“SummoningtheSuperheroes:HarnessingScienceandPassiontoCreateaMoreEffectiveandHumanResponsetoCrime.”25thAnniversaryEssays,SentencingProject,WashingtonD.C.Travis,Jeremy,BruceWestern,andStephanRedburn,editors.2014.TheGrowthofIncarcerationintheUnitedStates:ExploringCausesandConsequences.CommitteeonCausesandConsequencesofHighRatesofIncarceration.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.Truman,JenniferL.andLynnLangston.2015.CriminalVictimization,2014.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics.Truman,JenniferL.,LynnLangstonandMichaelPlanty.2013.CriminalVictimization,2012.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics.Uggen,Christopher,JeffManzaandMelissaThompson.2006.“Citizenship,DemocracyandtheCivicReintegrationofCriminalOffenders.”AnnalsoftheAmericanAssociationofPoliticalScienceStudies605:281-310.

25

Ullman,SarahE.andJudithM.Siegel.1996.“TraumaticEventsandPhysicalHealthinaCommunitySample.”JournalofTraumaticStress9,4:703-720.Umbreit,Mark.1995.“HoldingJuvenileOffendersAccountable:ARestorativeJusticePerspective.”JuvenileandFamilyCourtJournal46,2:31–42.Umbreit,MarkandMarilynArmour.2011.RestorativeJusticeDialogue:AnEssentialGuideforResearchandPractice.NewYork:SpringerPublishing.Umbreit,MarkS.,BettyVos,RobertB.CoatesandE.Lightfoot.2005.“Symposium:RestorativeJusticeInAction:RestorativeJusticeintheTwenty-FirstCentury.”MarquetteLawReview89,2:251-304.Umbreit, MarkS. , BettyVos,RobertB.Coates.2006.RestorativeJusticeDialogue:Evidence-BasedPractice.UniversityofMinnesota:CenterforRestorativeJustice&Peacemaking.Wakefield,SaraandChristopherWildeman.2013.ChildrenofthePrisonBoom:MassIncarcerationandtheFutureofAmericanInequality.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Wakefield,Sara,HedwigLee,andChristopherWildeman.2016.“ToughonCrime,ToughonFamilies?CriminalJusticeandFamilyLifeinAmerica.”TheANNALSoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience665:8-21.Western,Bruce.2006.PunishmentandInequality.NewYork:RussellSage.Western,BruceandKatherineBeckett.1999."HowUnregulatedistheU.S.LaborMarket?PenalSystemasLaborMarketInstitution,1980-1995."AmericanJournalofSociology104,3:1030-60.Western,BruceandBeckyPettit.2005.“Black-WhiteWageInequality,EmploymentRates,andIncarceration.”AmericanJournalofSociology111:553–578.

Zehr,H.(1990).ChangingLenses:ANewFocusforCrimeandJustice.Scottsdale,PA:HeraldPress.

Zehr,Howard.2002.LittleBookofRestorativeJustice(Philadelphia:GoodBooks).