This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 15 October 2014, At: 08:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Community PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

Transforming Communities: RestorativeJustice as a Community Building StrategyElizabeth Beck aa School of Social Work, Georgia State University , School of SocialWork , Atlanta , Georgia , USAPublished online: 26 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Elizabeth Beck (2012) Transforming Communities: Restorative Justiceas a Community Building Strategy, Journal of Community Practice, 20:4, 380-401, DOI:10.1080/10705422.2012.732003

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2012.732003

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Community Practice, 20:380–401, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10705422.2012.732003

Transforming Communities: Restorative Justiceas a Community Building Strategy

ELIZABETH BECKSchool of Social Work, Georgia State University, School of Social Work, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Restorative justice is entering the social work literature as a strat-egy that can transform lives harmed by violence. However, theliterature has yet to explore how restorative justice can transformcommunities. Despite the lack of published information, commu-nities across the globe and the United States are experiencingimportant benefits from restorative justice-based interventions. Thisarticle explores 4 restorative justice strategies that seek to trans-form communities: restorative boards, community conferencing,community restorative support, and truth and reconciliation com-missions. The examination of the strategies includes case studiesthat are used to support a larger discussion of application, practice,outcomes, evaluation literature, and critiques.

KEYWORDS Collaboration, community building, communitypractice, neighborhood, peace, grassroots leadership

Building on the conflict resolution values and practices found in Indianand Aboriginal communities, and those of many other indigenous people,including African tribes, Western criminal justice theorists and practition-ers began to imagine a new response to crime and its aftermath in the1970s. Specifically, theorists and practitioners argued that although the typ-ical criminal justice system response to a crime is to determine who didwhat to whom and what punishment the offender deserves, a broader setof questions might be more beneficial to victims, offenders, and communi-ties. Howard Zehr (1990) suggested that these questions included: Who washurt? What are his or her needs? Whose obligation is it to address thoseneeds? The shift to addressing the broader set of questions, which has come

Address correspondence to Elizabeth Beck, School of Social Work, Georgia StateUniversity, 140 Decatur Street, Atlanta, GA 30303. E-mail: ebeck@gsu.edu

380

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 381

to be called restorative justice, was significant because it reflected a newway of looking at crime and because it recognized that victims, offenders,and communities were all affected by crime and played a role in healingfrom the effects of crime. As restorative justice theorists were shaping newviews of crime, practitioners explored new strategies, often based on indige-nous practices, to implement those ideas (Ross, 2006). These strategies arenow used to support communities in the process of recovering from crime,to resolve community-based conflicts, and to build community (Bazemore,2000; Leonard, 2011).

Most discussions of restorative justice are found in the criminal justiceliterature, but restorative justice does have a presence in the social workliterature, including the Encyclopedia of Social Work (van Wormer, 2008).However, the discussions in the social work literature have been largelylimited to exploring restorative justice in the context of criminal harm andinterpersonal violence (Pennell & Burford, 2000). The literature contains littleabout restorative justice and its application for supporting and engaging com-munities, which is the focus of this article. The article begins with a literaturereview that explores restorative justice as both a theory and as practice, andthen provides details of restorative justice applications to communities. Thearticle ends with a discussion about the possibilities and cautions involvinga wider application of restorative justice in the community.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Restorative Justice Theory

In his 1990 book, Changing Lenses, Zehr asked readers to rethink the view ofcrime as merely a violation of the state and to see it, instead, as a violation ofpeople and an indication of relationships in need of repair. What is now con-sidered the global restorative justice movement is based on theoretical andpractical advances regarding crime and punishment that included the pop-ularity of Zehr’s book; the development of a victim-offender reconciliationprogram following a property crime in Elmira, Ontario, Canada that includedan intervention initiated by parole officer Mark Yanzi, a Mennonite; and thepassage of New Zealand’s Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in1989, which was developed under the proviso that the state must create poli-cies that are culturally relevant to Maori families and youth (Leonard, 2011).Each of the aforementioned developments are considered in turn; all arebased on responses to crime that acknowledge the interconnections amongpeople, a perspective that is foundational to many forms of restorative justicepractice (Bazemore, 2000; Zehr, 1990).

In his seminal article, “Conflicts as Property,” Nils Christie (1977) arguedthat the state had stolen conflicts from the individuals involved, resulting intwo problems: Victims are lost in the process (easily evidenced when thecriminal justice system renames the conflict the state versus the name of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

382 E. Beck

the defendant), and the conflict loses its potential to engage political debateand support norm clarification (N. Christie, 1977; Johnstone, 2002). A secondsignificant contribution to the literature was John Braithwaite’s 1989 work onreintegrative shaming, which stated that an appropriate response to deviantbehavior is the offender’s acceptance of accountability and the community’sexpression of sharp disapproval while maintaining bonds of respect andlove. Braithwaite’s approach can be viewed as aligned with the traditionalpractices used across the world, including the Navajo in the Americas andAboriginals in places such as Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia(McCold, 2008). Braithwaite argued that, at present, the dominant crimi-nal justice practice is steeped in disintegrative shaming, a punitive measurethat supports reoffending by breaking offenders’ bonds to their communi-ties, thereby relegating them to the margins of society (Braithwaite, 2002).Braithwaite’s work provides a strong argument for the effectiveness of rein-tegrative shaming and the need to incorporate indigenous community-basedpeacemaking practices with crime and punishment and conflict resolution.Although Braithwaite’s use of the term shame can be viewed as unfortunate,his belief in the process of accountability and community reintegration iscritical to restorative justice practice.

The most recognized form of the modern restorative justice movementis the victim– offender dialogue, which, in part, grew out of a property crimein Elmira, Ontario. In the intervening months between two teenagers’ guiltypleas to 22 counts of vandalism and a judge’s sentencing order, parole officerMark Yantzi thought it important for the teenagers to meet their victims.Yantzi’s idea was initially viewed as unrealistic, even radical, but the judgein the case saw its merits and instructed the boys to reach out to the victims.The young men met with and offered apologies and retribution to 21 ofthe 22 victims. The response to the teenagers’ acts of vandalism has beencredited with reshaping western ideas about justice (Leonard, 2011).

In no place has the reshaping of the criminal justice system into arestorative justice model been stronger than in New Zealand, due to thepassage of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in 1989. Thisextraordinary legislation was a response to a 1988 report commissioned bythe New Zealand Department of Justice examining the overrepresentation ofMaori individuals in the criminal justice system, as well as general concernsabout crime rates. The report concluded that the Maori should be giventhe right to deal with conflicts involving Maoris in a culturally appropriateway. The resulting act sanctioned the Family Group Conference (FGC), aculturally relevant strategy, based on notions of kinship care, for conflictsinvolving juveniles. An FGC follows an act of family violence that is noticedby the state, or a crime that was committed by a youth. In an FGC, the youngpeople and the adults who care for them, including wider kinship and com-munity entities, work with the state’s professionals to resolve concerns andformulate a plan to address the situation. When a child is accused of a crimeor when the adults in the child’s life harm him or her, an FGC, rather than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 383

a courtroom, is the preferred venue for redress (Johnstone, 2002; MacRae &Zehr, 2004; Pennell & Anderson, 2005).

Restorative Justice Practice

Restorative justice offers the possibility of healing, repair, and transforma-tion. To facilitate these outcomes, the victim(s), offender(s), and communitymembers often come together, in what is called a restorative encounter, totalk about the event. Given the gravity of many of the events that precipitateencounters, Beck and Wood (2011) suggested that restorative justice requiresboth a change in perspective and new practices and forms of interaction.Restorative encounters tend to be framed around these questions: What hap-pened? Who was affected and how? What can be done or is needed forrepair? These questions are explored within one of these four practices:

● Dialogue: A facilitated interaction, often between victims and offenders.● Peacemaking circle: An interactional group process that occurs in a cir-

cle and is used to end disputes, address conflicts and crime, fosterrelationships, and build community.

● Conference: An interaction that brings together kinship networks andthe community to address a conflict; the FGC, described earlier, is oneexample.

● Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC): An appointed commissionthat investigates and reports on a country’s or locality’s history of massviolence and abuse.

Each of these practices includes common procedural elements, andall are based on values and principles. In terms of procedures, all of theprocesses involve a facilitated interaction. A facilitator prepares participantsthrough premeetings and organizes the logistics of the interaction. The actualencounter typically involves introductions, opening and closing rituals, anda statement about what has occurred. It often ends with the signing of anagreement or, in the case of a TRC, a report (Beck & Wood, 2011; MacRae &Zehr, 2004; Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000). Leonard (2011) explained that fora practice to be restorative, it must be framed by values (as defined by thefundamental aspirations of the restorative justice movement) and principles(which are used to guide practice). Although restorative justice theorists andpractitioners have not developed an exhaustive list of agreed-upon values,some of the core values include: equality, a belief in the interconnectednessand individuality among people, and respect (Leonard, 2011; Pranis, Stuart,& Wedge, 2003). Zehr (1990) argued that restorative justice principles suchas inclusivity, voluntary participation, and accessibility are necessary aspectsof respect, and are, therefore, important to any restorative justice practice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

384 E. Beck

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND COMMUNITIES

This section explores four strategies that are rooted in restorative justice the-ory and processes that are used to support communities. The strategies arerestorative boards, community conferences, community restorative support,and TRCs. Each strategy can use restorative practices (dialogue, peacemakingcircles, conferences, and reconciliation commissions) to achieve its aims.Table 1 illustrates each strategy and examines each one from the perspectiveof the value that motivates it, the application of the strategy, the protocol andprocess used, the resolution sought by the encounter, an example of wherethe strategy is occurring, outcomes associated with the strategy, and a briefreview of the evaluation literature. So community practitioners can achievea fuller understanding of a practice, the primary criticism of the strategy isalso included.

Restorative Board

As indicated, one critical difference between the traditional criminal jus-tice system and restorative justice is the inclusion of the community as astakeholder. In early discussions, the restorative justice movement placedthe community largely in the role of victim, specifically suggesting that fol-lowing a crime, communities were harmed by such things as fear of crime,loss of cohesion, loss of property, and the erosion of norms (Johnstone,2002). In addition to providing an improved experience for victims andoffenders, the restorative justice process called the restorative board seeks torepair communities and facilitate community engagement following a crime(Bazemore & Umbreit, 2005; Karp & Clear, 2002).

Today, restorative boards are used primarily in nonfelony cases involv-ing adults and juveniles. Although a community may develop its own versionof a restorative board, in general, a restorative board is made up of trainedcommunity members who meet with the offender(s) and the victim(s), if thatis their choice. During the restorative board encounter, community membersand the victim(s) describe what happened and how it affected them andthe community. The offender(s) then provide his/her/their perspective(s).Following the meeting, the board members make a recommendation to thejudge or, in some cases, determine sanction. Through the recommendation tothe judge or the implementation of a sanction, boards often propose commu-nity service, restitution, and—when appropriate—rehabilitation, counseling,or an educational commitment, rather than prison (Bazemore & Umbreit,2005; Karp & Walther, 2001).

The motivating value of a restorative board is community engagement,a sentiment that underscored the creation of the first statewide restorativeboard in Vermont. In an effort to address increased rates of incarceration,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TAB

LE1

Res

tora

tive

Pro

cess

inth

eCom

munity

:Thei

rVal

ues

,Pra

ctic

es,U

sage

s,O

utc

om

es,an

dCritic

ism

Res

tora

tive

Pro

cess

Res

tora

tive

Boar

dCom

munity

Confe

rence

Com

munity

Res

tora

tive

Support

Tru

than

dRec

onci

liatio

n

Motiv

atin

gva

lue

Com

munity

enga

gem

ent

and

repai

rPar

ticip

atory

dem

ocr

acy

Colle

ctiv

esu

pport

syst

ems

Sust

ainab

lepea

ce

Applic

atio

nN

onfe

lony

case

sw

ithju

venile

san

dad

ults

Const

ruct

ive

enga

gem

ent

follo

win

gdis

pute

Addre

ssco

nflic

ts,fo

ster

rela

tionsh

ips,

or

build

com

munity

.

Follo

win

ga

gross

viola

tion

ofhum

anrigh

tsPro

cess

Offen

der

mee

tsw

ithRes

tora

tive

Boar

dm

ember

s;m

ember

sm

ake

reco

mm

endat

ion

toa

judge

.

Stak

ehold

ers

invi

ted

toco

nfe

rence

toad

dre

sssp

ecifi

cis

sue,

shar

eper

spec

tives

,re

ach

reso

lutio

n.

−Fa

cilit

ate

inte

ract

ion

inco

mm

unity

settin

g−

Faci

litat

ein

tera

ctio

nin

soci

alse

rvic

ese

ttin

g

Test

imony

ofin

div

idual

sw

hose

righ

tsw

ere

viola

ted

isco

llect

ed;

report

isw

ritten

and

dis

sem

inat

ed.

Pro

toco

lduring

enco

unte

rThe

offen

sean

dits

conse

quen

ces

are

dis

cuss

ed;th

eoffen

der

pro

vides

his

or

her

per

spec

tive;

the

boar

dm

akes

reco

mm

endat

ion

toa

judge

.

Dis

cuss

ion:W

hat

hap

pen

ed,w

ho

has

bee

naf

fect

ed,how

did

they

feel

,an

dw

hat

can

be

done

tore

pai

rhar

m.

Circl

e:O

pen

ing

and

closi

ng

ritu

al,ci

rcle

keep

er,ta

lkin

gpie

ce,

conse

nsu

s,va

lues

,an

dgu

idel

ine

Fam

ilyco

nfe

rence

:O

pen

ing,

shar

ing

ofin

form

atio

n,

priva

tedel

iber

atio

ns,

agre

emen

t,cl

osi

ng

Pro

toco

lsar

enotuniform

;th

epro

toco

lofth

eSo

uth

Afr

ican

Tru

than

dRec

onci

liatio

nco

mm

issi

on

incl

uded

open

ing

pra

yer,

airing

ofin

div

idual

stories

,an

da

pro

cess

of

mem

orial

izat

ion

Enco

unte

r’s

reso

lutio

nJu

dge

or

com

munity

offer

ssa

nct

ion.

Agr

eem

entre

ached

.Vie

wpoin

tssh

ared

and

agre

emen

tsca

nbe

reac

hed

.

Rep

ort

concl

uded

.

Outc

om

es−

Com

munity

repai

r−

Par

ticip

atory

dem

ocr

acy

−Colle

ctiv

eef

fica

cy

−Conflic

ttran

sform

atio

n−

Com

munity

build

ing

−Colle

ctiv

eef

fica

cy

−Posi

tive

youth

dev

elopm

ent

−Com

munity

build

ing

−In

stitu

tional

tran

sform

atio

n

−Tru

th−

Rec

onci

liatio

n−

Rep

air

(Con

tin

ued

)

385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TAB

LE1

(Contin

ued

)

Res

tora

tive

Pro

cess

Res

tora

tive

Boar

dCom

munity

Confe

rence

Com

munity

Res

tora

tive

Support

Tru

than

dRec

onci

liatio

n

Exa

mple

Ver

mont

Bal

timore

Roca

/H

ull

com

munity

Gre

ensb

oro

,N

CD

ata

−K

arp

and

Cle

ar(2

002)

90%

oforg

aniz

atio

ns

satis

fied

−78

%ofB

oar

dm

ember

sfe

ltin

crea

sed

com

munity

mem

ber

ship

−U

mbre

it,Coat

es,an

dVos

(200

2);Fa

rrin

gton

and

Wel

sh(2

003)

reduce

dre

cidiv

ism

−98

%ofco

nfe

rence

sby

CCC

reac

hag

reem

ent;

few

erca

llsto

polic

eCom

munity

Confe

renci

ng

Cen

ter

(n.d

.)

−Circl

espro

mote

trust

,re

spec

t,purp

ose

,lo

ve,

and

spiritu

ality

Boye

s-W

atso

n(2

008)

−Fa

mily

Gro

up

Confe

renci

ng

show

spro

mis

ing

outc

om

esCra

mpto

nan

dRid

eout

(201

1)

Rep

ort

gener

ated

and

public

hea

ring

occ

urs

,A

polo

gies

offer

edan

dac

cepte

d,sh

ared

mem

orial

tobe

built

Critic

ism

−Vig

ilantis

m−

Mak

e-up

ofboar

dm

ember

s−

Vic

timpar

ticip

atio

n−

Giv

enth

atm

uch

ofth

edat

ais

from

Ver

mont,

isit

gener

aliz

abili

tygi

ven

Ver

mont’s

hom

oge

nei

ty?

Notal

lco

mm

uniti

esar

enurturing.

−Pro

cess

esca

nbec

om

ero

tean

dlo

seth

eir

valu

esbas

e.

Notio

ns

ofin

div

idual

hea

ling

are

notuniform

.

386

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 387

Vermont Corrections Commissioner John Gorczky initiated a survey thatfound that 95% of Vermonters supported restitution and community servicefor nonviolent offenders. Moreover, survey respondents also indicated theirstrong belief in the notion that the community has a significant role to playin the sentencing and oversight of nonviolent offenders (Karp & Clear, 2002).

The most direct benefit of a restorative board is community repair.However, the implementation of community repair involves facilitation ofoffender accountability, participatory democracy, and collective efficacy.Examples of community repair include the obvious, such as repairing prop-erty damage, to personal encounters with victims and community-buildingactivities. For example, when several Vermont youth desecrated cemeteryheadstones, the youth were required to research and write a paper aboutthe families of the individuals whose headstones they damaged. Community-building activities also might require the offender to support interventionservices for others. In addition to requiring treatment, a restorative boardmight ask an offender who has a problem with drugs or alcohol to providevolunteer hours working in drug and alcohol prevention activities (Bazemore& Umbreit, 2005; Karp, Sprayregen, & Drakulich, 2002).

Proponents of restorative justice characterize it as a democratizing pro-cess. By engaging the community, a conflict can be resolved in the bestinterests of the victim, the offender, and the community, rather than whatthe law requires. Thus, in the implementation of many restorative boards,community members—rather than an institution—exercise authority; in othercases, the board makes a recommendation to a judge so that the final deci-sion is based on collaboration between citizens and institutions. Becausea restorative board often involves offenders’ diversion from juvenile deten-tion or prison, the community is able to circumvent these institutions, whichare often viewed with skepticism because of their high costs and rates ofrecidivism (Bazemore, 2000; Karp et al., 2002).

Research by Sampson, Radenbush, and Earls (1997) found that collec-tive efficacy, defined as neighbors knowing each other, sharing norms, andbeing willing to act on enforcing those norms, is associated with low crimerates even when controlling for variables such as income. Bazemore (2000)argues that a Restorative Board provides an important component to build-ing collective efficacy as it offers the opportunity for norm clarification aswell as norm enforcement. For example, upon review of 51 video tapes ofrestorative boards, researchers Karp and Clear (2002) found “board membersare deeply motivated to reaffirm the moral order of the community” (p. 72).Because restorative board members and the offender(s) live in the same area,ongoing opportunities are present for norm enforcement, as these individu-als’ paths cross during daily activities. The resulting informal meetings canbe used to reinforce and strengthen the norms and values identified by therestorative board, as well as support an offender’s community reintegration.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

388 E. Beck

A great deal of the literature on restorative boards comes from Vermont,where 2,800 cases were directed to restorative boards from 1995 through1998. Researchers found that over 90% of the organizations that providedsites for community service were satisfied or very satisfied with the servicesprovided by offenders (Karp et al., 2002) and 78% of those who partici-pated in a restorative board felt an increased sense of membership in thecommunity (Karp & Clear, 2002).

Umbreit, Coates, and Vos (2002) reviewed empirical studies across fivecountries to explore aspects of restorative justice, including its ability toaddress recidivism. Six of the eight studies showed significantly less recidi-vism with restorative boards, and two showed no difference. This findingwas further supported in a study by Farrington and Welsh (2003), whosemeta-analysis found restorative interventions to be associated with reducedrecidivism. Although the meta-analysis conducted by Latimer, Dowden, andMuise (2005) showed support for victim satisfaction, offender satisfaction,and compliance of restitution.

However, restorative justice is not a panacea. Concerns include the pos-sibility of vigilante justice, different demographic characteristics among boardmembers and offenders, and the minimal role victims play in the process(Arrigo, 2004; Karp & Clear, 2002; McCold, 2008). Two aspects of restorativeboards guard against vigilantism. First, all board members receive intensivetraining based on the restorative justice values. Second, in many cases therestorative board makes recommendations to a judge, who uses the board’sadvice to create sanction. Concerns remain about the make-up of boardsand the role of victims. Even though, in most cases, board members andoffenders live in the same area (Karp & Clear, 2002), because of the timecommitment associated with participation, individuals with stressful lives(low-income people, single parents, or someone who works more than onejob, for example) are underrepresented. Moreover, Takagi and Shank (2004)pointed out that not only might the data from Vermont be skewed because ofits homogeneity, additionally most evaluations of restorative justice initiativeshave occurred in homogeneous areas and, in the United States, in neighbor-hoods that are dominated by Caucasians. It is also true that restorative boardsdo not focus on victims’ needs. Although victims are invited to participate inthe process, a formal strategy does not always exist within this structure formeeting their needs. Because of the limited role of victims, McCold (2008)argued that a restorative board does not meet the criteria associated withrestorative justice practice.

Community Conference

A community conference offers individuals who are engaged in or affectedby conflict the opportunity for constructive engagement. Conflicts can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 389

among or between neighbors, institutions, or neighborhoods. When the deci-sion is made to hold a conference, stakeholders (individuals who are affectedby the situation, their supporters, and representatives of relevant community-based institutions or organizations) are invited to participate. Generally, theinvitation is made to the conference by a conference facilitator, who ofteninvites residents by knocking on their doors. The facilitator explains that aconference will be held to address a specific issue, and at this conference allindividuals will have the opportunity to speak about the issue from their per-spectives, as well as to hear their neighbors’ views. During the conference,participants typically achieve a shared understanding about the issue, devisea plan to remedy the situation, and address harm in cases where harm hasoccurred. The conference protocol is framed around three questions: Whathappened? Who was affected and how do they feel? What can be done torepair the harm and make things better in the future? (Abramson & Beck,2011; Beck & Wood, 2011).

According to Moore and McDonald (2002) community-basedparticipatory democracy can be seen as the motivating value of a communityconference. The authors explained that participatory democracy is based onthe principles of participation, equality, deliberation, and nontyranny, andthat the structure of a community conference brings these principles intoaction. Specifically, a conference allows everyone to participate (participa-tion), ensures that all participants have an equal voice (equality), ensuresthat different viewpoints are discussed (deliberation), and ensures decisionsare based on consensus (nontyranny; Moore & McDonald, 2002).

In Baltimore, Maryland, a community conferencing center (CCC) wasestablished in 1998 with the goal of supporting low-income neighborhoodswith a community-based response to conflict. Although most of the work ofthe CCC occurs in schools or following a crime, it also addresses commu-nity concerns. The example of the Streeper Street Community Conference inBaltimore illustrates the goals associated with a community conference: con-flict transformation, community building, and collective efficacy. The caseinvolved a community organization working with the CCC to address whathad been, in the organization’s view, an intractable conflict (Abramson &Beck, 2011).

In a book chapter, Abramson and Beck (2011) explored the StreeperStreet Community Conference. The conference came about because of neigh-bors’ repeated calls to police because of youths’ incessant playing of footballin the streets, despite a seemingly available nearby park. In addition to airingmultiple residents’ feelings, the conference allowed the youth the opportu-nity to say that they were not able to play in the park because it was unsafedue to drug activity. On that night 8 years ago, adults volunteered to super-vise the kids, and a football league was born in which hundreds of childrenhave participated. The league required its members to engage in communityservice, and the members determine what rules of behavior they will abide

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

390 E. Beck

by on their street. Today, the youth and adults know each other and sharenorms. The race and ethnicity of the conference participants, as well as theyouth who participated in the league, is diverse; as a result, there has beena breakdown of the previous racial tensions and a sense of mutual respectand support is normative. The conflict was transformed—neighbors workedtogether to solve a problem, and the football league’s activities and normshave built community by providing activities for youth and have supportedthe development of collective efficacy (Abramson & Beck, 2011).

A second example, also from Baltimore, involves a conflict amongneighbors who complained about the behavior of unsupervised youth liv-ing in a single household. Neighbors felt threatened by the youth and werefurious at the mother for not supervising her kids. During the conference, thesingle mother explained that she worked two jobs and wanted the best forher children. When they realized they shared the same values, the targetedmother and the rest of the neighbors shifted the conversation to what theneighborhood needed to do to support children. The conference resultedin more activities for youth at the local recreation center and a series ofmeetings between teens and public officials that led to the development ofa mentoring and reading program, field trips, and other activities for youth.Perhaps more important, the youth and the adults who previously wereangry at each other have developed new relationships based on respect(Abramson & Moore, 2002).

No scholarly data have been gathered on community conferences. TheBaltimore CCC, however, reported that 98% of its conferences end in agree-ment. The center also substantiates that, prior to one conference involvingthree sets of feuding neighbors (not on Streeper Street), the police hadlogged 75 calls to the area. One year after the conference, no calls hadbeen logged; Baltimore police now refer other residents to conferencing.Lauren Abramson, the founding director of the Baltimore CCC, attributes thesuccess of conferencing to a shared moment reached during each conferencethat she calls “collective vulnerability” (Abramson & Moore, 2002, p. 113). Atthat moment, she says, everyone feels a sense of deflation and responsibilityfor what has and what will happen (Abramson & Moore, 2002; CommunityConferencing Center, n.d.).

Because community conferences have not been an area of inquiry, theliterature contains no criticism of this methodology. However, the restorativejustice literature does raise general concerns that could affect a communityconference. For example, Verity and King (2008) noted that the assumptionsthat communities are nurturing places and support justice are not alwaystrue, and that individuals who support values that enhance, rather than stop,oppression can dominate a community. Others have noted that preexistingpower differentials may keep some participants from honestly sharing per-spectives, further disenfranchising individuals who have little power (Waites,Macgowan, Pennell, Carlton-LaNey, & Weil, 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 391

Community Restorative Support

Community restorative support is not a term found in the literature. However,it is used here to characterize those community-based or social ser-vice settings—such as schools, after school programs, and child welfareagencies—that use restorative justice initiatives to address conflicts, fos-ter relationships, and build community. In this discussion of communityrestorative support, peacemaking circles are considered in community-basedsettings, and the practice of FGCs is used in social service settings. Theprocess, protocol, and resolution of each are considered separately.

Peacemaking Circles: Process, Protocol, and Resolution

A peacemaking circle is used to support stakeholders seeking to addressconflicts, foster relationships, and build community. In its simplest form, apeacemaking circle is a unique protocol for interaction that enables par-ticipants to engage with each other in ways that promote dialogue andtransformation (Boyes-Watson, 2008). A peacemaking circle is facilitated byan individual called a circle keeper and follows a structure that includesopening and closing rituals, the use of a talking piece, and consensus deci-sion making. The opening and closing rituals can be as simple as a momentof silence or the sharing of a quote. The talking piece, which is an objectthat fits in one’s hands and often carries symbolic meaning, is perhaps themost unique aspect of the circle—it is systematically passed around the cir-cle from person to person, and participants are only allowed to speak whenthey are holding it. The talking piece works to facilitate equality as every-one is given the opportunity to talk, and its presence reminds participantsto talk for a reasonable amount of time. By eliminating distractions such asside conversations, debate, and tangents, the peacemaking circle supportsdeep listening and authentic responses. Most circles start with participantsreaching consensus about the values the circle will reflect and the guidelinesto which individuals will adhere (Boyes-Watson, 2008; Pranis et al., 2003).

Different types of circles take various forms. For example, talking cir-cles are used to explore a specific topic, understanding circles are designedto help participants understand a conflict or difficult situation, and healingcircles or celebration circles address a specific need or accomplishment ofa person or a group. Other types of circles address more difficult momentsand involve agreements. These include conflict circles to reconcile disputes,community building circles to address community problems, and sentencingcircles to determine court sanctions. In these circles, agreement is reached byconsensus. Other types of circles include reintegration circles, which weredesigned to support an individual’s reintegration to the community fromprison and, more recently, are used to reintegrate soldiers returning fromwar (CCC, n.d; Pranis et al., 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

392 E. Beck

Restorative Processes in Child Welfare: Process and Protocol

At present, a number of child welfare agencies in the United States aredeveloping and implementing variants of the FGC. In Oregon, for exam-ple, the practice is called Family Unity Meetings, and in Ohio, it is dubbedTeam Decision Making (Crampton & Rideout, 2011). Each state’s programis unique, and, for this example, I turn to the work of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation and its Community Partnership for Protecting Children (CPPC)approach. At the time of this writing, approximately 14 states in the UnitedStates have created partnerships between the state’s child welfare agency andthe Annie E. Casey Foundation to use the CPPC approach to reorient childwelfare programs. Specifically, the CPPC approach has two components:first, to build community resources for supporting children, and second, tofacilitate a type of FGC called a family team meeting.

Family team meetings bring together a specific family, its formal andinformal extended family, and representatives from community-based pro-grams to develop an action plan. The meeting is spent exploring how thefamily, working with the community, can build upon its strengths to meetits needs (Daro, Budde, Baker, Nesmith, & Harden, 2005). A family teammeeting tends to follow the protocol of a FGC, which includes an openingstatement or ceremony, information sharing, a time for private delibera-tions within the family, an agreement, and a closing. The agreement mightinclude the development of a formal strategy in which extended family mem-bers, community residents, or institutions agree to provide specific resources.A portion of the facilitator’s job is to ensure that the community supports arepresent. The resolution for the meeting is an agreement and a monitoringplan (Beck & Wood, 2011; MacRae & Zehr, 2004).

Shared Attributes: Resolution, Motivating Value, and Outcomes

The motivating value for community restorative support is the importanceof collective support, an idea articulated by the premise that it takes a vil-lage to raise a child. Not only do community restorative support activitiesbuild and strengthen community institutions, they also can foster humanconnections. Boyes-Watson (2008) explained that in modern society, citizenscan no longer take for granted that human connectedness extends betweenneighbors; rather, she suggested, there is a need to implement processesthat facilitate the process of connection. Peacemaking circles and the CPPCapproach can create or strengthen the supportive village for children andfamilies.

The outcomes associated with community restorative support includepositive youth development, community building, and institutional transfor-mation. Roca, the literature on CPPC, and the Hull Community in Englandillustrate these outcomes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 393

Roca is a multicultural organization that serves high-risk youth, includingrefugees, who live in a violence-ridden area of Roxbury, Massachusetts. Itsname means rock in Spanish, and Roca seeks to “create a foundation as solidas a rock” for young people by supporting “truth, trust, and transformation.”Roca believes that for at-risk youth to experience transformation, they mustbe truthful about what they are experiencing and the challenges in theirlives and communities, and that they must create long-term relationshipswith adults and institutions (Boyes-Watson, 2008, p. 15; Roca, n.d.).

Peacemaking circles have been a significant component of facilitatingRoca’s goals. In a book largely based on interviews with Roca staff andparticipants, Boyes-Watson described ways circles have contributed to pos-itive youth development. For example, she stated that the circles promotetrust and respect, mutual support, emotional healing, accountability, creativ-ity and problem-solving, a sense of shared purpose, love, and spirituality(Boyes-Watson, 2008, p. 60). Boyes-Watson’s descriptions of the qualitiesthat peacemaking circles promote are similar to those used by the NationalInstitutes of Health to describe attributes associated with positive youthdevelopment (National Institutes of Health, n.d.).

The FGC is a response to a state’s mandate to protect children fromabuse and neglect, and concerns about how this mandate is implemented.Although processes and protocols require the removal of children whennecessary, the FGC and the CPPC have the potential to go beyond safety con-cerns and affect positive youth development by making additional resourcesavailable to families (Holland & O’Neal, 2006; Pennell & Burford, 2000).

A second goal of community restorative support is community building.This process occurs in a number of ways. Within Roca, young people buildcommunity themselves and see the value of the collective. Moreover, becauseof their involvement in Roca, youth are less likely to engage in behaviorsthat harm communities, and instead engage in behaviors that contributeto healthy communities. The CPPC is predicated on community partnersbeing not only resource providers, but also creators of change. For example,one tenet of the CPPC is shared decision-making—local governing boardsare created that include neighborhood-based service providers, communitymembers, and child welfare professionals. Together, these individuals andagency representatives envision the actual goals and implementation of theCPPC (Annie E. Casey Foundation, n.d.; Boyes-Watson, 2008).

The third hoped-for outcome is to change institutions and organizations.Although the Roca experience (Boyes-Watson, 2005) and the FGC litera-ture offer important examples, the Hull Community in England offers thebest illustration. Hull, a multicultural city where one-third of the youth arelow-income, now considers itself the first restorative city. The effort startedmodestly, with one school implementing restorative practices. Over time,enough schools have shifted to this model to catch the attention of poli-cymakers. In 2007, the Hull City Council initiated the Children and Young

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

394 E. Beck

People’s Partnership, a pilot program in which all professionals who interactwith children in the Riverside community would be trained in restorativepractices. At the time of this writing, training has occurred for 3,500 staffmembers from schools and social service and health services agencies, alongwith the police and other criminal justice professionals, foster caregivers, andvolunteers. “The goal is to enable young people, educators, parents, and care[givers] to adopt practices that enhance personal well-being, promote appro-priate behaviors, and strengthen acceptance of responsibility” (Institute ofRestorative Practices, n.d.).

Data on community restorative practices such as the Roca program arepositive, but lacking a large empirical base. A qualitative book publishedby Living Justice Press speaks to the significance of Roca in young peo-ple’s lives. Data on family group conferencing are more robust; for example,The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well Being reported that 11%of children in the child welfare program participated in an FGC, and that45 states in the United States are using the practice. The data support thatthe meetings keep children connected with their families and cultural groupswithout endangering safety, and that families report high levels of satisfaction(Crampton & Rideout, 2011; Pennell & Burford, 2004).

Because the field of community restorative support practices is small atpresent, there is not a great deal of criticism. However, one caution concern-ing the FGC holds meaning. Some critics suggest implementation of suchprocesses in child welfare agencies can move from a values-based practiceto a rote meeting. Thus, if the practice is conducted without attention to thetheory and values on which it is based, conferences can degenerate into anexercise that does not address underlying issues and, therefore, could haveno benefit or could adversely affect the interaction of the family.

TRCs

Historically, a TRC is a response to a country’s or community’s experiencewith mass violence or abuse. It is intended as a temporary body whosecharge is to investigate a pattern of human rights abuse and to submit aformal report to a governing authority. As Christie (2000) explained, the actof investigation is significant, as TRCs “have the task of seeing the unsee-able, revealing the concealed, and finding and remembering the obliterated”(p. 5). A TRC is based on the premise that for a society to move forward inpeace, former adversaries must be able to live together. To achieve that out-come, an accurate history, based on an honest airing of abuses along withthe opportunity to tell one’s story, is an important component to mendinghostilities between people. A TRC seeks to provide information that allowspeople and society to acknowledge and learn from past mistakes so theywill not replicate them (Daly & Sarkin, 2007). The TRC’s motivating goal issustainable peace.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 395

The primary way a TRC investigates abuses is by taking the testimonyof victims and offenders. Although the first TRC occurred in El Salvador in1972–1973, the most publicized commission is the South African TRC, whichcollected statements from over 22,000 victims of apartheid violence. Fromits start, Archbishop Desmond Tutu indicated that the spirit of the processwould be familiar to many, as it is based on the traditional Black SouthAfrican value of ubuntu. Although difficult to translate into English, ubuntuis a concept that captures the interwoven nature of humanity and the way inwhich, according to Archbishop Tutu, one’s humanity is inextricably linkedto another’s (Tutu, 2000). The Liberian TRC, enacted in 2005, was the firstto collect statements from its diaspora’s population, including those in theUnited States and other countries in Africa.

Once statements are collected, the TRC creates a formal report that ispresented to the governing authority. The report is generally accompaniedby recommendations that may include suggestions to reform state institu-tions and/or provide reparations to victims. A TRC formally ends when thereport is finished and presented, and its conclusion signals memorializingand moving forward. Although TRCs have served an important role in post-conflict areas, they are not without controversy, including the view that theperpetrator is never really brought to justice (see, for example, Hayner, 1994).

Generally, a TRC is set up by a government, but examples also exist ofnongovernmental and community-based organizations establishing a TRC.One such example is the TRC set up to examine the Greensboro Massacre,in which five people were killed and nine were injured while participating ina social justice and anti-Ku-Klux-Klan forum in Greensboro, North Carolinain 1979 (Hayner, 1994; Magarrell & Wesley, 2008).

The Greensboro TRC (GTRC) used the standard protocol of selectingcommissioners to investigate, hold hearings, and compile information tocreate a report for local government. Specifically, the GTRC was commis-sioned to investigate the “context, causes, sequence, and consequences,”(GTRC, 2012) of the Klan and Nazi party induced violence that occurred onNovember 3, 1979, and the criminal justice system’s response. All the individ-uals killed had been participants in the forum, and the police’s and the court’shandling of the situation raised grave concerns, as few people were arrestedand those arrested were acquitted at trial by all-White juries. Moreover, anumber of people who were caught on video tape firing into the crowd werenot even brought in for questioning (GTRC, 2006; Magarrell & Wesley, 2008).

Present at each hearing were five roses to symbolize those who died,and 150 individuals provided testimony. The report offered recommen-dations, which included, but were not limited to: (a) offering apologiesand restitution from individuals who were responsible for the tragedy,as well as by institutions such as the police department; (b) conveningcommunity forums to discuss the report and bring together those who par-ticipated on opposite sides; and (c) erecting a public monument. Additional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

396 E. Beck

recommendations designed to prevent future violence included the enact-ment of a living wage, antiracism training for city and county employees,and the development of a citizen committee to create police review boards.Further recommendations spoke to the importance of community engage-ment both as strategy to affect social justice and as a place for unlearningracism (GTRC, 2006).

The outcomes of a TRC include repair, reconciliation, and peace build-ing. Repair occurs on many levels and in many ways. Based on the ideasof trauma expert Judith Herman and a host of others, the act of telling ofone’s story publicly can support individuals in moving forward. The repairthat often accompanies telling one’s story can be further facilitated whenindividuals choose to offer or accept apologies and retribution is made.Community rifts begin the process of repair when a formal history is agreedupon that reflects the multiple and collective experiences of individual com-munity members. Moreover, this process enables communities to evaluatepresent institutions that perpetrated or supported violence but are necessaryto public life, such as (in the Greensboro case) the police. Reconciliationmeans different things to different people, but at its core is the notion ofpeople coming together as equals, which allows them to move forward asparticipants in community and public life.

It is postulated that reconciliation supports democracy and peace-building. The GTRC demonstrates this supposition—it sought to bring thoseharmed and isolated from public life back into the community and to limit theauthority of those who abused power (Daly & Sarkin, 2007). Peace-buildingis larger than the absence of conflict; rather it as a dynamic process. FormerUnited Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called it the “construction of anew environment” that can only be built and sustained on efforts to addresseconomic, social, and cultural disparity (cited in Mani, 2002, p. 13). At thecommunity level, peace-building includes efforts to support a living wage,access to services, and the absence of community violence.

Data regarding the effectiveness of the TRCs, however, remain mixed.Supporters generally agree that a TRC is important in dismantling or changinginstitutions that played a role in carrying out crimes and that a TRC helpsin the process of developing a new legal framework for a nation, as wellas establishing credibility for new leadership. However, results regardinghealing in the international context have been both positive and negative.Because only a fraction of the victims of apartheid could speak and thecriminal process was foregone in many cases, two-thirds of individuals polledin South Africa indicated the TRC harmed race relations. Studies of TRCs inother countries, such as El Salvador, have found support of the process(Lederach, 2003).

Critics have identified several problems of TRCs, including their ability toretraumatize individuals by bringing up past abuses, as well as their inabilityto hear the voices of all involved. A truth commission, which only seeks to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 397

compile address facts, is different from a TRC, which seeks reconciliation aspart of the process. Some critics state that some people are left harmed whenonly one portion of the party, i.e., victims or offenders, seek reconciliation.Thus, it has been suggested that the needs of the state as it moves towardpeace may be incompatible with the needs of individuals (Lederach, 2003).

DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS

The restorative processes described in this article should not be viewedas replacements for traditional community-building practices and organizingactivities. Rather, restorative processes can partner with traditional commu-nity practice methods to further strengthen communities and the individualswithin them. For example, restorative processes can be used to leveragepublic resources. Specifically, community groups can advocate for the useof restorative boards and restorative-based child welfare processes. Theservices, paid for by the public sector, can foster a public–communitypartnership and bring additional community-based resources to the area.These resources can then provide a community-based response to commu-nity issues, strengthen communities through community-building efforts, andfortify local leadership through shared leadership.

Another type of partnership involves using restorative processes withtraditional community practice methods to address conflict, as well asto build social capital and collective efficacy within neighborhoods andstrengthen ties among and between organizations, agencies, and residents.

Finally, the leaders of Roca and the Hull Community provide examplesof what restorative justice theorists Sullivan and Tifft (2005) have referred toas restorative justice’s ability to heal the foundations of people’s everydaylives. They explained that restorative relationships require new, structurallyinclusive social arrangements. They argue that a radical reframing is neededof self, community, and equality. Aspirants to this radical reframing, “mustmake a commitment to open the self up to inner scrutiny continuously sothat they might gain a continuing assessment of their residual commitment topower and its corollary, disregard for the needs of others” (Sullivan & Tifft,2005, p. 169). In this regard, restorative processes can provide traditionalcommunity practice with another vision of transformation. Restorative justicesupports the idea that transformation can occur when individuals interactwith each other from a place of shared values. John Paul Lederach statedthat what is needed is to change the structure of the relationship so that cre-ative responses and solutions are found (Lederach, 2003). Thus, a short-termresolution would be healthy engagement, and a longer-term hope would bethe ability to use that engagement to affect the social structure.

However, it is important to also understand the vulnerabilities associ-ated with restorative practices. Two significant ones are the loss of values

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

398 E. Beck

and principles to meet expectations of expediency, and the potential forpower imbalances. As indicated, a common concern of an FGC as imple-mented in the United States is the possibility of it becoming an add-on androte structure mandated by a policy or agency, rather than a vehicle fortransformation. To insure its transformative ability, restorative justice—in allof its forms and processes—requires time. For example, training needs to bemore than a process of gaining skills; it also needs to include opportunitiesfor participants to interact with values and principles that are foundationalto all restorative processes. Additionally, all components of an agency’s hier-archy need to understand and commit to the core components of restorativeprocesses. Moreover, workers need to be allotted time for preparation andfollow-up.

Although restorative processes are built upon notions of participatorydemocracy, and restorative principles support equality among participants,manipulation and abuse of power can occur, e.g., participants can create theillusion of inclusivity and transformation. For this reason, the literature takesa cautious view of restorative justice in cases of domestic violence. Somepractitioners favor restorative practices within a circle as they view the circlestructure, both in terms of its physicality and the processes associated withit, as facilitating inclusivity and setting the tone to negate power imbalancesthat come from hierarchical or patriarchal structures. At the same time, otherpractitioners highlight the importance of preparation as a way to achieveequality among participants.

Although important literature exists about the role of native, First NationsPeoples, and adapted Westernized approaches in restorative justice (see, forexample, Ross, 2006), concerns may arise over power imbalances whenusing restorative process in cases of domestic violence. Little research hasfocused on the use of restorative justice processes with respect to culture andcultural competency. The examples in this article involve racial and ethni-cally diverse populations, as well as homogeneous ones, but more research isneeded to determine restorative justice’s efficacy for the multicultural natureof the United States, which contains pockets of great diversity and greatseparation, including pockets comprised of homogeneous or heterogeneousethnic and racial minorities whose values and cultures may carry uniquecomponents.

Against the backdrop of some important cautions, more work needsto be done for restorative processes to reach their full potential in theUnited States. This work necessitates schools of social work including infor-mation about restorative justice in their curricula, empirical understandingsof restorative practices in the community, and the collection of data onpractices, such as peacemaking circles, which support the development ofindividuals and communities in evidence-based practice. As noted, moreacademic work must be completed for restorative justice to reach its fullpotential to support healthy communities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 399

REFERENCES

Abramson, L., & Beck, E. (2011). Using conflict to build community: Communityconferencing. In E. Beck, N. Kropf, & P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work & restorativejustice: Skills for dialogue, peacemaking, and reconciliation (pp. 149–174). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Abramson, L., & Moore, D. B. (2002). The psychology of community conferencing.In J. Perry (Ed.), Restorative justice: Repairing communities through restorativejustice (pp. 123–140). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/Arrigo, B.A. (2004). Rethinking restorative and community justice: A postmodern

inquiry. Contemporary Justice Review, 3, 91–100.Bazemore, G. (2000). Community justice and a vision for collective efficacy: The

case of restorative conferencing. In National Institute of Justice (Eds.), Policies,processes, and decisions of the Criminal Justice System: Vol. 3, criminal justice.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2005) A comparison of four restorative conferencingmodels. In Johnstone G. (Ed.), A restorative justice reader: Texts, sources,context (pp., 225–244). Devon, UK; William.

Beck, E., & Wood, A. (2011). Restorative justice practice. In E. Beck, N. Kropf,& P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work & restorative justice: Skills for dialogue,peacemaking, and reconciliation (pp. 64–89). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress

Boyes-Watson, C. (2008). Peacemaking circles & urban youth: Bringing justice home.St. Paul, MN: Living Justice Press.

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation, New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Christie, K. (2000). The South African truth commission. New York, NY: Palgrave.Christie, K. (2002). The South African Truth Commission. New York, NY: St. Martin’s

Press.Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17 , 1–15.Community Conferencing Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.

communityconferencing.orgCrampton, D., & Rideout, P. (2011). Restorative justice and child welfare: Enaging

families and communities in the case of protection of children. In E. Beck,N. Kropf, & P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work & restorative justice: Skills for dia-logue, peacemaking, and reconciliation (pp. 149–174). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Daly, E., & Sarkin, J. (2007). Reconciliation in divided communities. Philadelphia,PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Daro, D., Budde, S., Baker, S., Nesmith, A., & Harden, A. (2005). Creating communityresponsibility for child protection: Findings and implications from the evaluationof the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children Initiative. Retrieved fromhttp://www.chapinhall.org/experts/pubs/157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

400 E. Beck

Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2003). Family-based prevention of offending:A meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36 ,127–151.

Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2006). Greensboro Truth andReconciliation Commission Report Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.greensborotrc.org/exec_summary.pdf.

Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission. (2012). About. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greensborotrc.org/about_the_commission.php

Hayner, P. B. (1994). Fifteen truth commissions—1974 to 1994: A comparative study.Human Rights Quarterly, 16(4), 597–655.

Holland, S., & O’Neill, S. (2006). We had to be there to make sure it was what wewanted. Childhood, 13, 91–111.

Institute of Restorative Practices. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.iirp.edu.Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Cullumpton, UK:

Willan.Karp, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (2002). The community justice frontier: An introduction.

In D. R. Karp & T. R. Clear (Eds.), What is community justice? Case studies ofrestorative justice and community supervision (p. ix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karp, D. R., Sprayregen, M., & Drakulich, K. M. (2002). Vermont ReparativeProbation: Year 2000 outcome evaluation. Final report. Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.vt.us/about/reports/reparative-v-pro

Karp, D. R., & Walther, L. (2001). Community reparative boards in Vermont. In G.Bazemore & M. Shiff (Eds.), Restorative Community Justice: Repairing harm andtransforming communities (pp. 199–218). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Latimer, D., Dowden, C., & Muise, J. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justicepractices: A meta analysis. Prison Journal, 85, 127–144.

Lederach, J. P. (2003). Conflict transformation. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation/

Leonard, P. (2011). An introduction to restorative justice. In E. Beck, N. Kropf,& P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work & restorative justice: Skills for dialogue,peacemaking, and reconciliation (pp. 149–174). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

MacRae, A., & Zehr, H. (2004). The little book of family group conferences NewZealand style: A hopeful approach when youth cause harm. Intercourse, PA:Good Books.

Magarrell, L., & Wesley, J. (2008). Learning from Greensboro: Truth & reconciliationin the United States. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mani, R. (2002). Beyond retribution: Seeking justice in the shadows of war. Malden,MA: Polity Press.

McCold, P. (2008). The recent history of restorative justice: Mediation, circles, andconferencing. In D. Sullivan & L. Tifft (Eds.). Handbook of restorative justice(pp. 23–51). London, UK: Routledge.

Moore, D. B., & McDonald, J. M. (2002). Transforming conflict. In workplace andother communities. Sydney, Australia: TJA.

National Institute of Health. (n.d.). Reducing risk behaviors by promoting positiveyouth development. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-08-242.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming Communities 401

Pennell, J., & Anderson, G. (2005). Widening the circle: The practice and evalu-ation of Family Group Conferencing with children, youth and their families.Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decesion making: Protecting childrenand women. Child Welfare 79(2), 131–158.

Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. (2003). Peacemaking circles: From crime tocommunity. St. Paul, MN: Living Justice Press.

Roca. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.rocainc.org.Ross, R. (2006). Return to the teachings: Exploring Aboriginal justice (2nd ed.).

Ontario, Canada: Penguin.Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime:

A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2005). Restorative justice healing the everyday foundations of

our lives (2nd ed.). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.Takagi, P., & Shank, G. (2004) Critique of restorative justice. Social Justice, 31,

147–163.Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B. & Vos, B. (2002). The impact of restorative jus-

tice conferencing: A multi-national perspective. British Journal of CommunityJustice, 1, 49–62.

Umbreit, M. S., & Greenwood, J. (2000). Guidelines for vicitm-sensative vicitm–offender mediation: Restorative jsutice through dialogue. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Justice.

van Wormer, K. (2008). Restorative justice. In T. Mizrahi and L. Davis (Eds.),Encyclopedia of social work (20th ed., pp. 531–533). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Verity, F. & King, S. (2007). Responding to intercommunal conflict—What canrestorative justice offer? Community Development Journal, 4, 470–482.

Waites, C., Macgowan, M. J., Pennell, J., Carlton-LaNey, I., & Weil, M., (2004).Increasing the cultural responsiveness of family group conferencing. SocialWork, 49(2), 291–300

Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice (1st ed.).Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

45 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014