Experiences in Reconciling Risk Management and Restorative Justice
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X11432538 |
| Date | 01 March 2013 |
| Published date | 01 March 2013 |
| Author | Stacey Hannem |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
Articles
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Experiences in Reconciling
Comparative Criminology
57(3) 269 –288
Risk Management and
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Restorative Justice: How
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11432538
ijo.sagepub.com
Circles of Support and
Accountability Work
Restoratively in the Risk
Society
Stacey Hannem1
Abstract
Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) is a restorative justice–based model
that originated in Canada in the mid-1990s for the postincarceration reintegration of
those who have offended sexually. Although the roots of COSA are in restorative
justice philosophy, the program has also found favour, to some degree, with
organisations such as police services and corrections that are traditionally concerned
more with protecting community safety than with the ideals of restorative justice.
Informed by the author’s research and personal experience as a COSA volunteer,
and analysis of recent and historical representations of COSA, this article explores
theoretically how the development of the COSA initiative has been influenced by
the seemingly disparate concerns of both the restorative justice and community
protection movements, and examines the importance of balancing these paradigms in
the everyday practices of circles.
Keywords
sexual offending, reintegration, restorative justice, circles of support and accountability,
community protection
1Wilfrid Laurier University, Brantford Campus, Brantford, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Stacey Hannem, Wilfrid Laurier University, 73 George Street, Brantford, Ontario, N3T 2Y3.
Email: shannem@wlu.ca
270
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57(3)
Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) was created in 1994 by members of the
Mennonite Central Committee of southern Ontario, Canada, as a community-based
initiative to deal with the release of high-risk sex offenders from prison at warrant
expiry. Within the Canadian context, the former offenders served by this initiative (or
“core members,” as they are called) are assessed by correctional psychologists as
being at high risk to reoffend. As such, these individuals have been denied parole and
statutory release (normally given at the two-thirds point of the individual’s sentence)
by the Parole Board of Canada, and held to the completion of their judicial sentence
(warrant expiry). The practice of detaining high-risk offenders to warrant expiry cre-
ates a small but noteworthy class of offenders who are released into the community
without the supervision or support of parole services.1 The subsequent stressors of
isolation, social stigma, and negative media coverage that often accompany a high-risk
release increase the likelihood of reoffence and can thus endanger the community. The
COSA initiative was designed to meet the needs of victims and the community for
safety and reassurance, and to meet the needs of ex-offenders for support and assis-
tance in returning to the community. COSA uses community volunteers to help these
individuals to integrate into society and to live healthy, productive lives, free from
offending (sexually or otherwise). To this end, COSA aims to operate by the mottos
“no one is disposable” and “no more victims” (Petrunik, 2007).
Although COSA is generally presented as a restorative justice initiative, it would
appear that, rather than arising in the first instance from a purely restorative philoso-
phy, the COSA initiative was also based on a recognition of risk and desire to protect
the community, and the need to deal with the widespread public fear and loathing of
offenders who have sexually assaulted children. While the concept of community pro-
tection is not contradictory to the aims of restorative justice, it is commonly associated
with conservative and punitive attitudes toward crime and punishment. Reactive,
punitive measures that originate in the community protection movement are exclu-
sionary in nature and often allow concern for the prevention of possible victimisation
to eclipse broader ideals of prisoners’ rights, reintegration, and the restoration of
healthy communities. Although COSA is rooted in the principles of restorative justice,
it operates within a sociopolitical context in which concern for community protection
predominates. Drawing on the Canadian experience of COSA, I argue here that while
the substance of the COSA program is typically presented as a useful means of surveil-
ling and policing convicted sex offenders, its daily practice is still characterized by
redemptive and supportive functions. As a result of this seemingly disparate combina-
tion of concerns, the COSA model is a fascinating hybrid of restorative and commu-
nity protection practices that challenges assumptions and forces us to rethink theoretical
boundaries.
Perspective and Method
This article provides a critical theoretical analysis of the philosophical and social roots
of the COSA initiative from the perspective of an “insider” to the program and is the
Hannem
271
culmination of 10 years of involvement with COSA in Canada, as a researcher, a
volunteer, and an organiser. My perspective is informed by my ethnographic immer-
sion in the COSA model, first as part of a master’s-level research project (involving
participant observation and semistructured interviews) and then over 6 years as a
COSA volunteer in a Canadian city. I have participated in 2 circles, have attended
more than 200 circle meetings and individual meetings with core members, have been
involved in the creation of local COSA procedures and policies, and have interviewed
key players in the formation and oversight of COSA in Canada. I have also conducted
interviews with 22 COSA volunteers from across Ontario, Canada.2 I kept field notes
of meetings that I participated in, written after I left the setting, and derived analytic
insights about the COSA model from these observations and experiences (see also
Hannem & Petrunik, 2007).
When conducting participant observation in sensitive and confidential settings,
ethical considerations are always important. The other volunteers and core members
with whom I worked were made aware at the outset of my role as a university researcher
studying the COSA model and were willing to allow my participation in the circle(s).
As a full participant of the circle(s), I agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the
circle and to protect the identities of the core members and other volunteers whom
I have observed and worked with. The ethic of the field researcher is to “do no harm”;
the likely benefits of the research must always outweigh the potential for harm. The
incidents that I have chosen to discuss in this article provide valuable insight into the
COSA model and how it operates; their revelation poses no harm to anyone involved
in these situations. All names provided are pseudonyms, all accounts have been decon-
textualized, and all nonrelevant identifying information has been altered to protect the
identities of those involved.
It is my opinion that true insight into such a complex social phenomenon as COSA
can only be gained by delving into the “messy realities” of everyday interaction and
praxis. This cannot be accomplished through the use of outsider observation nor
through interviews alone, which may gloss over the very real and practical issues of
how best to respond to the needs and problems of an individual who has been classi-
fied as a high-risk sex offender. Here, I have endeavoured to present some of these
everyday realities and challenges, drawing on my own experiences and on accounts
related to me by the COSA volunteers whom I interviewed. In the next section, I will
provide a brief overview of the practicalities of the COSA model as it operates in
Ontario, Canada, to provide the reader with a context to understand the discussion that
follows.
Overview of the COSA Model
Prior to his3 release from prison, an individual who has offended sexually may indi-
cate that he wishes to participate in a COSA. Four to six community volunteers are
trained and assigned to each released offender, the “core member” of the circle. The
precise nature and scope of training varies, depending on the local COSA organisation,
272
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57(3)
but generally requires potential volunteers to attend sessions dealing with various
aspects of sexual offending, restorative justice, the COSA model of practice, sexual
victimisation, relapse prevention, boundaries, and self-care (Heise et al., 2000).
Upon his release from prison, the volunteers meet with the core member and create
a “covenant” agreement that outlines the support and confidentiality that the core
member can expect from his circle, and the expectations that the volunteers have of
their core member in terms of his behaviour in the community and with the circle
(Heise et al., 2000). The circle meets weekly as a group, and the volunteer members
take turns to meet with the core member individually on a daily basis. The volunteers
offer assistance with practical life issues, such as learning to cook meals or do laundry,
or in dealing with government agencies, such as the police, sex offender registry, or
social assistance agents, and they act as a sounding board and...
To continue reading
Request your trial