Implementing and Evaluating Restorative Justice Projects in Prison
| Author | Diane Crocker |
| DOI | 10.1177/0887403413508287 |
| Published date | 01 February 2015 |
| Date | 01 February 2015 |
research-article2013
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
2015, Vol. 26(1) 45 –64
Implementing and Evaluating
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Restorative Justice Projects in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887403413508287
cjp.sagepub.com
Prison
Diane Crocker1
Abstract
This article describes a restorative justice project run in three Canadian prisons.
The project, Partners in Healing, aimed to promote restorative justice by running
restorative justice committees inside and recruiting volunteers from the community
to participate along with prisoners. The main goals of the project were to increase
participants’ awareness of restorative justice and help prisoners gain an understanding
of the effects of their crime(s). An evaluation of the project solicited stories about
the restorative justice committees and this article reports on some of the evaluation
findings. The qualitative data offer insights into how to best design a restorative justice
project in prisons. It also reveals dilemmas associated with evaluating such projects.
The article concludes that projects need to be guided by a clear conceptualization of
restorative justice.
Keywords
criminal justice policy, prison, program evaluation, restorative justice
In recent years, restorative justice has become a viable response to crime in many
countries around the world. This response to crime, or other wrongdoing, typically
involves having victims, offenders, and community members come together to find a
way to restore the relationships harmed by an offense. Sometimes restorative justice
takes the form of victim–offender mediation, whereby the victim and the offender
meet and agree to a means of repairing the harms done. Ideally, however, restorative
justice offers opportunities for the involvement of the wider community. Restorative
justice programs are becoming widespread, with many focused on youth offending.
Restorative justice programs in prison are less common. Typically ad hoc and tem-
porary (Dhami, Mantle, & Fox, 2009), they have varied widely. Some provide an
1Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Diane Crocker, Saint Mary’s University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3C3.
Email: diane.crocker@smu.ca
46
Criminal Justice Policy Review 26(1)
opportunity for victims to meet the people responsible for harming them (Bagley,
2001; Devroey, 2003). Others have worked toward institutionalizing restorative jus-
tice principles and practices in the prisons themselves (Guidoni, 2003; Petrellis, 2007).
Still others aim to educate prisoners about restorative justice principles in the hopes of
helping enhance their potential to reintegrate successfully (Beech & Chauhan, 2013;
Feasey & Williams, 2009; Helfgott, Lovell, Lawrence, & Parsonage, 1999, 2000;
Jones, 2003; Lovell, Helfgott, & Lawrence, 2002). All, however, work on the premise
that prisoners can gain from participating in a process quite distinct from the type of
correctional programming usually offered in prisons.
This article reports on a restorative justice project run in three Canadian prisons.
The project, Partners in Healing,1 aimed:
to create safer communities by creating greater awareness of the impacts of crime and
inviting citizen engagement through participation in restorative justice opportunities in our
prisons and in the community.
The project had three specific objectives: provide increased opportunities for com-
munity engagement with the justice sector; support offenders as they prepare to be
reintegrated into the community; and provide increased opportunities for victims to
feel understood and heard.
These ambitious goals reflect a genuine concern among those involved with the
project to promote the use of restorative justice and, in line with the principles of
restorative justice, embark on a dialogue with victims. The project objectives have
been operationalized in three main ways. First, staff initiated and facilitated restorative
justice committees in three prisons. Second, staff recruited community volunteers to
participate in the restorative justice committees. Third, the project organized and spon-
sored events for victims’ groups and invitations for them to participate in the restor-
ative justice committees and the Partners in Healing project.
This article focuses mainly on the restorative justice committees and presents the
results of an evaluation of the Partners in Healing project.2 I present narratives from
participants to show how they came to understand the need to restore relationships
affected by the offenses they committed. Their experiences of restorative justice reflect
what Jennifer Llewellyn (2011) has called a “relational” form of justice. The article
also reflects on the methodological constraints of typical evaluation research and how
this evaluation used a different approach in an effort to study this restorative justice
project on its own terms.
Literature Review
Much of the existing research on restorative justice in prisons comes from evaluations
of projects around the world. Some of this research has applied psychometric scales to
assess whether participants in restorative justice programs have changed their behavior
(Petrellis, 2007) or their attitudes (Beech & Chauhan, 2013; Feasey & Williams, 2009;
Petrellis, 2007). Others describe more qualitative data from interviews with participants
in programs (Fortune, Thompson, Pedlar, & Yuen, 2010; Keeva & Newell, 2004; Lovell
Crocker
47
et al., 2002). The literature ranges from quantitative assessments of outcomes to com-
mentaries from researchers who have participated in a program in some capacity.
The diversity in approaches to research perhaps reflects the diversity of programs.
Some programs have worked toward the development of restorative prisons or special-
ized units within the prisons (Coyle, 2001; Mirsky, 2010; Petrellis, 2007). These proj-
ects aim to change institutional practices and cultures. Other projects offer opportunities
for prisoners to make amends for their offenses either through direct victim–offender
mediation (Allard & Allard, 2009; Bagley, 2001; Devroey, 2003) or more indirectly
through community service (Coyle, 2001; Stern, 2004). A good many projects
described in the literature involve educating inmates about restorative justice or doing
work to help them gain an understanding of the effects of their crime. Many also focus
on developing empathy among participants (Beech & Chauhan, 2013; Bracken, 2013;
Feasey & Williams, 2009; Guidoni, 2003; Hagemann, 2003; Jones, 2003; Keeva &
Newell, 2004). These projects are among the most recent developments.2 They also
most closely resemble the Partners in Healing project described in this article.
The body of research is, however, limited methodologically (Dhami et al., 2009)
and has produced mixed results on the effectiveness of restorative justice programs
(Bitel, 2003; Guidoni, 2003; Petrellis, 2007).3 Research does consistently show that
participants like the programs (Bracken, 2013; Katounas & McElrea, 2001) and that
prisoners can gain empathy and understanding of the effects of their crime (Beech &
Chauhan, 2013; Devroey, 2003; Feasey & Williams, 2009). Whether these programs
have changed prisoners’ behaviors or offending post-release has yet to be fully
assessed.
The literature that reports more generally on restorative justice programs describes
several common themes. Inmates tend to find some comfort in restorative justice
programs—Programs often succeed in creating a welcoming space for inmates and a
reprieve from the prison environment (Helfgott et al., 1999; Keeva & Newell, 2004).
Participants report feeling empowered and that they have developed important relation-
ships with others (Fortune et al., 2010). Rich descriptions of the experiences of partici-
pants in restorative justice programs in prisons are, however, few and far between.
Indeed, some commentators have noted that evaluations of and research about
restorative justice have failed to adequately measure the aspects of restorative justice
that make it different from our mainstream approaches. At the heart of the complaint
is the idea that the success of restorative justice is not being measured on its own terms
(Llewellyn, Archibald, Clairmont, & Crocker., in press; Piché & Strimelle, 2007;
Presser & Van Voorhis, 2002). Helfgott et al. (1999, p. 394) conclude that the “phe-
nomenology” of the experience of restorative justice may not be easily captured with
traditional social science research methods.
Prison-based restorative justice programs exist in the context of debates about
whether the goals of prisons and the goals of restorative justice can be complementary.
Some commentators argue that corrections and restorative justice have reintegration of
offenders as central goals (Aertson & Peters, 1998). Others see restorative justice as
offering the possibility to improve the rehabilitative potential of prison (Dhami et al.,
2009; Fortune et al., 2010; Lehman et al., 2013). Restorative justice can provide prisoners
with the opportunity to develop relationships with people outside prisons and that
48
Criminal Justice Policy Review 26(1)
these relationships may help cement positive personal growth. On the contrary, others
see the goals of prison and restorative justice as antithetical and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial