International Perspectives on Restorative Corrections: A Review of the Literature

"With a little imagination and a lot of courage."

Introduction

This literature review will provide a comprehensive examination from which to understand the emerging worldwide interest in the application of restorative principles to the prison environment. In order to provide a context from within which to understand the concept of 'restorative corrections' (sometimes referred to as 'restorative detention'), a number of issues will be addressed in this paper. First, the definition, principles and practices of restorative justice will be discussed. Second, international perspectives on the idea of restorative corrections will be examined. Countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, South Africa and Canada will make up this international analysis. Third, a number of concerns and/or challenges regarding restorative corrections will be addressed. Fourth, similar themes as well as different perspectives that exist internationally regarding restorative corrections will be identified and discussed. Lastly, this literature review will then conclude by providing some suggestions as how a restorative corrections system should fit within the larger context of the criminal justice system in general.

It should be noted that this literature review seeks to build upon the previous work of Liberian & Braithwaite (1999) of the Restorative Justice Working Group; and Vivien Francis (2001) of the International Centre of Prison Studies. These authors have previously explored the literature with regards to the application of restorative justice to prisons. This present paper owes a great deal to their work.

Restorative Justice Summarized

Defining Restorative Justice
How does one define restorative justice? Despite the increased attention given to restorative justice, the concept still remains somewhat problematic to define as numerous responses to criminal behavior may fall under the 'restorative umbrella' (Latimer, Dowden & Muise: 2001). Although a universally accepted and concise term has yet to be established, the Correctional Service of Canada has developed the following:

In the face of crime or conflict, restorative justice is a philosophy and approach that views these matters as principally harm done to people and relationships. It strives to provide support and safe opportunities for voluntary participation between those affected (victims, offenders, community) to encourage accountability, reparation, safety and movement towards understanding, feelings of satisfaction, healing and closure.

According to Howard Zehr (1990), the restorative justice paradigm begins with the premise that crime is a violation of people and relationships rather than merely a violation of law. The most appropriate response to criminal behavior, therefore, is to repair the harm caused by the wrongful act. As such the criminal justice system should provide those most closely affected by the crime (the victim, the offender and the community) an opportunity to come together to discuss the event and attempt to arrive at some understanding about what can be done to provide appropriate reparation (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2001: 2).

Restorative Principles

Everyone engaged in restorative justice tends to have his or her own perspective of what it means. While no single universal definition of restorative justice has yet emerged, understanding its roots leads to examining some common core elements. Adhering to these elements is fundamental to ensuring that restorative justice approaches remain consistent with the philosophy underpinning it. The following is a list of common elements found among many restorative justice writings:

Harm
At the core of restorative justice is an appreciation of the full effects of criminal behavior. Restorative justice views crime, not only as law breaking, but also primarily as damage to individuals, their property, their relationships and their communities. As such, any appropriate response requires a principal focus on the harm caused by crime. In addition, there is also an acknowledgement of the harm created by the criminal justice process on the participants.

Inclusion
Restorative justice is driven by an engagement of all people affected by crime. These are most often identified as the victim, offender, their individual support people (family, friends, others) and the community (Zehr, 1990). This requires elevating the roles of those traditionally excluded from the process, particularly the victim and the community (Umbreit, 1996). Government, criminal justice professionals and society in general also need to be included in appropriate ways within these processes (Van Ness, & Heetderks, 2001). Inclusion involves the important elements of giving voice, accessibility, and ownership of the process and support.

Accountability
Restorative justice is about creating processes that allow offenders to take responsibility for the harms created by their actions, directly to those harmed (Zehr, 1990). As well, it is an opportunity for community to see its role in contributing to the crime. This requires an ability to hear all points of view and understand the 'truth' of what occurred. In all cases, accountability involves not only accepting responsibility for the crime, but also accepting responsibility for addressing the harms and needs arising from it. For many, accountability also represents the opportunity to denounce the criminal act and reinforce social rules and law.

Safety
A complicated element, safety has two primary aspects. First, safety is identified as the need to restore a sense of security to those impacted by the crime. Second, safety refers to the need to create processes for restorative justice that are safe (physically, emotionally, psychologically) for those participating. This often involves creating support structures within and around the restorative intervention. In cases of power imbalances among the participants, these dynamics can be powerfully destabilizing to the creation of a safe environment for restorative justice. Safety also involves ensuring the rights of the participants are respected.

Transformation
Another complex element, transformation implies the forward-looking aspects of restorative justice. The potential outcomes of restorative justice interventions typically include healing, personal growth, reparation of harms, restoration of positive relationships, and creation/re-creation of enhanced personal and communal situations. These goals apply equally to all parties involved but are not always possible within the scope of all circumstances. Restorative justice interventions foster movement towards these goals.

Choice
Many authors identify the need for choices among the participants, these choices range from choices about participation, to process design, to limitations, to timeframes. As restorative justice is designed to fully engage the range of needed participants, the degree to which the processes reflect their needs, wants and desires becomes essential.

Humanism
This element refers to a wide subset of values that describe the nature of interactions between those involved. These include respect, compassion, dignity, honesty, openness and growth. Fairness and equality/equity are essential. Multi-cultural issues are important in ensuring the processes are balanced for all those involved.

Interaction
Communication, either direct or indirect, between those impacted by the crime is typically required. This communication is most often facilitated and supported and can take many formats from face-to-face meetings, correspondence and video exchanges, shuttle communication, online discussions and multi-party representation.

Holism
Restorative justice processes take into consideration and value the full breadth of each individual participant as well as the larger context in which they function. This includes appreciation of the physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual and social context surrounding each person as well as the environment. It is important to note that the spiritual component is important for many participants and a restorative experience can connect deeply to their belief systems. For example, at the heart of many Aboriginal processes are the reflection of the worldview of the interconnected nature of all things.

Restorative Practices

Victim offender mediation
This is a process that provides an interested victim the opportunity to meet their offender in a safe and structured setting, where they can engage in a discussion of the crime with the assistance of a trained mediator. The goals of this mediation process include: (1) permitting victims to meet their offenders on a voluntary basis; (2) encouraging the offender to learn about the crime's impact on the victim and to take responsibility for the resulting harm; and (3) providing the victim and the offender an opportunity to develop a plan that addresses the harm.

Community justice conferencing
It has been suggested that community justice conferences may possess the strongest potential for influencing offenders about the harm their behavior causes to their victims (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1998). The community justice conference process itself typically takes place between offenders, supporters and/or family of offenders, victims, their supporters and/or family of victims, social services and a coordinator (Braithwaite & Mugford, 1996; & Semenchuk & Williams, 2002). The goals of community justice conferences include: 1) giving the victim an opportunity to be directly involved in responding to the crime, 2) increasing the offender's awareness of the impact of his or her behavior, thus providing the offender with an opportunity to take responsibility for it; and 3) allowing the offender and victim to connect to receive needed community supports.

Peacemaking Circles
Peacemaking Circles are rooted in Aboriginal experience and tradition, and are based on the belief that the primary responsibility for addressing the problems of crime lies in the community and not just with those directly impacted by the crime and their immediate families. Peacemaking Circles, be they healing circles, or community circles or sentencing circles, also have at their core, the belief that it is important to address not only the presenting criminal problem but also to build a community. These circles focus on trying to uncover the underlying problems, and to restore balance where possible. Discussions in these types of circles often explore wider issues of local crime and prevention issues, going beyond just the situation at hand.

Surrogate Victim/Offender Restorative Justice Dialogue
A variation of the victim offender mediation model, this model provides an opportunity for dialogue between victims and offenders who are not associated by a particular offence (often referred to as surrogate victims and offenders). This surrogate process is an effective method for offenders to acknowledge the consequences of their offending behavior to someone not directly involved in their crime while at the same time addressing the concerns and questions expressed by victims. Victims are given the chance to tell an offender about the impact of the crime and to understand the factors that contributed to a similar crime. These programs can be very helpful when it is not possible for a victim and their offender to meet for any number of reasons. Surrogate victim/offender dialogues can also be helpful in preparing victims and offenders for an anticipated meeting in the future.

Restorative Prisons: International Perspectives

In the last few years, several countries have begun to explore the potential of developing restorative corrections. These organizations and individuals are investigating and researching opportunities to apply the basic principles of restorative justice within the correctional context. The majority of restorative justice programs developed to deal with crimes that were of a less serious nature and most often they involved juvenile offenders. As experience with restorative justice grew, however, its application to serious crime became both inevitable, and clearly successful with such programs as the Victim Offender Mediation of Serious Crime Program, run by the Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives Association in Langley, BC, the Collaborative Justice Program in Ottawa, Ontario, and the application of the community conferencing models by its advocates to cases of serious crime. As these experiences grew, it became evident that correctional services around the world would have to probe and wrestle with the concepts of restorative justice. As some of these agencies explored these ideas, restorative justice clearly had two principle applications that affected the correctional systems. The first principle application could be classified as prison-based restorative opportunities-creating possibilities for offenders, victims and community members affected by serious crime. They could participate in restorative processes while at the same time respect the ongoing public desire for existing institutions that have been deemed as quite effective institutions for providing programming, risk management and reintegration.

The second principle application that had an impact on correctional systems involved restorative correctional environments. Exploring restorative justice concepts to address serious crime challenges correctional environments to revisit their internal processes for responding to conflict and wrongdoing in the prison environment. Creating restorative justice within prisons, not only creates more positive environments for those living and working there, but also fosters an experience that may prepare and assist offenders to participate in restorative experiences with their victims and communities in a more meaningful way.

Several countries, including Belgium, UK and Canada embraced these principle applications. With regards to restorative prison projects, a lack of available research is prevalent. According to Latimer, Dowden & Muise (2001), only 2.9% of restorative justice programs were offered exclusively in a post-sentencing setting. Furthermore, only 25.7% of the programs dealt with adult offenders.

The remainder of this section will focus on the current state of the literature on restorative prisons worldwide. Specifically, countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, South Africa and Canada will be examined with reference to their contributions to the literature on restorative prisons.

United Kingdom

In the UK, support for the application of restorative justice to prisons could be traced to a couple of events; one was the publication of the Woolf Report in 1991, which led to the idea of the 'community prison'. The other involved the existence of bad publicity in the early and mid 1990s regarding the current state of the criminal justice system in the UK. Andrew Coyle from the Restorative Justice Prison Project (2002) has suggested that restorative principles in prisons could provide a more effective substitute to the 'myth of prison work' that has existed in British society for over a century. This myth is based on the long-standing notion that in order to reduce re-offending, young men and women should engage in some form of industrial work while in prison. According to Coyle, this myth persists to this day and that an alternative model is necessary if the objective of reducing reoffending is to occur (Coyle, 2002).

The Restorative Prison Project
The need for an alternative model appears to have arrived though the application of restorative justice principles and practices to a series of prisons in the form of the 'Restorative Prison Project that started in January 2000 as part of the International Centre of Prison Studies' examination of the future of imprisonment in the 21st century. The project seeks to introduce the principles of restorative justice into the way prisons are run and the way prisoners spend their time (Restorative Prison Project-Kings College, 2002: 5). There are four pillars on which the project stands, they include the following:

• Prisoners work with victims-stimulating more involvement of victims' groups and raising awareness of the suffering of the victims of crime
• Prisoners working for the benefit of others-work that is publicly recognized, thus allowing prisoners to be altruistic
• A new basis for resolving conflict in prison-creating an environment with an educational rather than a disciplinary ethos
• A new relationship between the prison and the community-encouraging greater community involvement

The project initially focussed on prisoners working for the benefit of others and thereby developing a new relationship between the prison and the community. The project has been developed in three prisons, Holme House, Deerbolt Young Offenders Institution, and Kirklevington Grange Resettlement Prison. The advantages for the prisoners are said to include the following:

• They acquire knowledge and skills
• Enhance self-esteem and self-worth
• Improve attitudes towards community responsibility

The prisons have benefited from:

• Introducing purposeful activities which can maximize opportunities to learn
• Demonstrating the perception that prisoners' time is being used positively
• Increasing interaction with the community by promoting work undertaken by prisoners and securing feedback

The community has gained by:

• Enabling the community to receive tangible benefits
• Having an enhanced awareness of the contribution that is made by prisoners to the community
• Providing a focus for more public debate and information about the purpose of imprisonment

The project has written and distributed four papers on the application of restorative justice to prisons, they are (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2000-2001):

• Restorative principles in the prison setting - A vision for the future
• Restorative Practices in Prison - A Review of the Literature - Work with Victims
• The Myth of Prison Work
• Prisoners working for the benefits of others

Thames Valley Partnership
The Thames Valley Partnership is a charity established to support partnerships to reduce crime and the fear of crime. In June 2001 they produced their first newsletter highlighting various restorative justice approaches in adult prisons, young offender and juvenile establishments in England and Wales (see http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk). Tim Newell, former Governor of Grendon and Spring Hill Prisons (and affiliated with the Thames Valley Partnership), headed up a project from Oct 2001 to March 2002, that involved the development of policy and practice on restorative justice in prisons. According to Newell (2001b), restorative justice in prisons should cover the following (keeping in mind that this all needs to be done in partnership with the local community):

• Operational styles-using mediation and conflict resolution within the prison community to make it a safer place, where constructive work can be done.
• Victims' needs - if they wish to be involved and proper care is taken.
• Victim empathy - developed through courses and sometimes with the help of Victim support.
• Victim-offender groups, for instance through the Sycamore Tree project (to be discussed later in this paper).
• Building links with Victim Support
• Reparation to the community, through charity workshops, inviting the community into the prison, or going out to the community.
• Restoration of offenders, through programmes which encourage them to take responsibility for themselves and their lives in the future

In connection with this project, correctional practitioners such as Stephanie Braithwaite, Eleanor McLean from Winchester Prison, Rob Fenwick & Marion Phillips from Bristol Prison; and Caroline Vine from Norwich prison (2002) identified several key issues regarding the potential for restorative practices in their respective prisons. The first issue was that staff development and awareness is crucial in this kind of work. The second is that a whole prison approach is more effective in establishing and developing good practice. The third issue involves the idea that partnerships with agencies in the community are essential, as are links with statutory groups like police and probation. Fourth, the involvement of victims is difficult but the goal of including them in the work should not be lost. Fifth, families of prisoners are a resource and an opportunity. And the final key issue focuses on the idea that the development of restorative justice to prisons need not be resource intensive (Braithwaite, McLean, Fenwick, Phillips & Vine, 2002: 18-20).

Sycamore Tree Project
This project was pioneered by a Christian voluntary organization called Prison Fellowship and is based on the Biblical story of Zacchaeus who climbed a sycamore tree before meeting Jesus and making restitution to his victims (Leibmann & Braithwaite, 1999; & Francis, 2001). This project began in 1998 in the Mount in Hertfordshire (which is a category C closed training prison). Ten prisoners volunteered to take part in the programme of five sessions. Prisoners and trained volunteers went through steps concerning the concept of restorative justice; taking responsibility; saying sorry and acting sorry and finally reconciliation. Prisoners were encouraged to make symbolic acts of restitution to 'volunteer victims at the final event. Some volunteers who had been victimized shared their stories. Both prisoners and volunteers got to see 'the other side'. With the probation service, Prison Fellowship now offer six courses per year in the prison, which reaches 60 men, as part of a planned sentence. Some prisoners who finish the course go on to make contact with their victim through the probation service. Since the launch, Sycamore Tree has also been run in New Zealand and the United States (Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999; & Francis, 2001).

The "Cultural Web" Paradigm
Thus far, various prison practices involving restorative justice principles have been identified and discussed, however, it is equally important to examine some theoretical foundations regarding restorative justice in prisons. Tim Newell, former Governor of Grendon and Spring Hill Prisons, introduces the cultural web paradigm, which he defines as a form of mind set. The web consists of six elements, they are:

• Symbols
• Power Structures
• Organizational Structures
• Control Systems
• Routines
• Rituals & Myths

Newell points out that traditionally, strategic change within an organization has focused on addressing elements such as power structures, organizational change, and control systems. However, it is often the case that the latter three elements - routines & rituals, symbols, and myths & stories - may resist strategic change (Newell, 2002: 119). The cultural web can be used to identify what features of the criminal justice system must be addressed if change is to be brought about successfully in restorative ways. Newell argues that the application of restorative ideas in prison is possible using the model of the cultural web and goes on to suggest that through audit and developing practice there are opportunities in the following areas of functional activity in prisons (Newell, 2002: 120-122):

• Induction programs for prisoners
• Complaints and requests systems
• Adjudications
• Anti-bullying strategy
• Race relations
• Anti-violence strategy
• Preparation for release
• Offending behavior courses (victim empathy and accountability for criminal behavior)
• Resettlement
• Circles on release
• Prison outreach
• Staffing processes: In order to integrate RJ practices, principles and processes into the prison's life it is important that prison staff feel that they are treated with the same respect and consideration.

Newell concludes his discussion by presenting a chart identifying areas of impact on the cultural web (See chart below), which he argues shows how the importance of developing ideas in several settings in order to address all aspects of the web (Newell, 2002: 122).

Chart Identifying Areas of Impact on the Cultural Web

	Power Structures PS	Organ Structures OS	Control Systems CS	Routines & Rituals R&R	Myths & Stories M&S	Symbols S
Induction
Complaints and Requests
Adjudications
Anti-Bullying Strategy
Race Relations
Anti-Violence Strategy
Resettlement
Offending Behaviour Programmes
External Outreach
Release Circles
Staff Arrangements

Ethics & Restorative Justice in Prisons
It is clear from a correctional standpoint that the development and implementation of any correctional program must take into account any potential ethical implications. Robert MacKay, a lecturer at the University of Dundee in Scotland explores this theme in some detail. He begins by noting that his aim is not to create a theoretically justified vision of a Restorative Prison System. He simply seeks to address three separate questions, which are as follows (2002):

1. What are the complexities involved in attempts to introduce restorative justice into the prison system?
2. Do restorative justice principles face particular problems in application in this setting?
3. Are restorative justice values compatible with progressive views about how prisons should develop and perform their service to the community?

One of the sources of complexity that MacKay identifies is the nature of the prison system itself. He includes such factors as the diversities of the physical manifestations of prisons, the diversities of prison regimes, and the diversities that exist among prisoners and staff. Another source of complexity involves the different views held about restorative justice as process or outcome, about its connection with or separation from the reduction of punishment as an incentive for making reparation. As MacKay notes, the meanings attached to restorative justice can have repercussions on criminal justice policy. Finally, MacKay identifies a complexity that embraces both prison staff and restorative justice advocates. The relationship between the prison and restorative justice is not a one-to-one relationship, but rather a symbiotic relationship between two collective sets of entities within which are tensions and potential contradictions. This presents many difficulties.

In the final section of his paper, MacKay examines the policy framework of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), and suggests ways in which its work could be aligned with a restorative justice perspective. He also suggests that his approach has the potential of being replicated in other jurisdictions (MacKay, 2002: 18). Essentially, he argues that what restorative justice practitioners are required to do is convince prison managers and prison staff that it is through the application of restorative principles that they can most effectively achieve their goals of meeting victim needs, reducing offending behavior, and making prisons and the wider community safer places to be. They must also show that this can be done in a way that fulfils rather than overthrows the aims, objectives and policy requirements laid upon the prison service (MacKay, 2002: 21).

As to the question of what the ethical implications of introducing restorative justice practices into the prison system are, MacKay's response is that (MacKay, 2002: 6):

…has to be to seek clarifications: It depends on what you are proposing to introduce; where you are going to introduce it, and whom you are intending to involve in the process.

The United States

The 'Virtuous Prison' & Restorative Rehabilitation
The high rates of incarceration in the United States have been well documented over numerous years. Many criminologists are aware of this problem and are quick to suggest that there should exist several alternatives to incarceration. The logic behind this is quite simple, if too many people are locked up then alternatives to imprisonment are essential. What appears to be of concern to American criminologists such as Cullen, Sundt and Wozniak is a neglected related question: Short of releasing them, what should be done with the offenders who remain incarcerated (Cullen et al, 2001: 2)? Cullen et al argue that criminologists have a tendency to remain silent on precisely what prisons should be like and that this failure to participate in this topic of discussion has served to provide the 'get-tough' crowd with an unprecedented opportunity to redefine the purpose and nature of imprisonment. In addition, the generic critique of prisons as inherently inhumane, while correct on many levels, fails to capture the reality that not all prisons are equally depriving, and, that to ignore this reality is to forfeit the opportunity to improve the quality of life for America's inmate population (Cullen et al: 2001: 4).

Later in their paper, Cullen et. al. begin to outline their idea of a virtuous prison. They begin by stating that the mission of their proposed virtuous prison is to use offenders' time of incarceration to cultivate moral awareness and the capacity to act virtuously. According to the authors, two principles form the foundation of the virtuous prison: restorative justice and the rehabilitative ideal (Cullen et al, 2001: 20). Can restorative justice be imported into the prison? According to the authors, restorative justice has been limited to 'community-based' approaches. In a country where over 1.8 million people now reside, the authors suggest that the potential for restorative justice approaches within the prison environment must be examined. The authors highlight two challenges that prisons present to restorative justice: the removal of the offender from the local community and a population of more serious, hardened offenders. According to the authors, the removal of the offender from the community will make offender conferences less likely to occur, and yet it is also argued that even if a specific victim could not be involved, a virtuous prison could be organized around the principle that inmates should be engaged in activities that are restorative such as contributing to a victim compensation fund or community service. In essence, making amends for the harm to society that they and their fellow offenders have caused. (Cullen et al, 2001: 21).

The authors suggest that the 'rehabilitative ideal' should be merged with restorative justice for two reasons. First, even more strongly than restorative justice, rehabilitation identifies the reform of the offender as a legitimate and important correctional goal (i.e. preventing crime and benefiting inmates). Second, there is now a growing body of empirically based knowledge specifying the correctional interventions that 'work' to reduce recidivism, including among high-risk offenders (Cullen et al, 2001: 22). This research suggests that certain "principles of effective intervention" should be followed in seeking to rehabilitate offenders. It is suggested that "restorative corrections" will likely fail to impact recidivism if it is not informed by the extant research on rehabilitation. Put another way, the principles of effective intervention can be seen as supplying the needed technology for offender restoration (Cullen et al: 2001: 23).

In concluding their paper, Cullen et. al. (pp. 23-26), suggest seven general considerations that would likely be present in a virtuous prison organization they are as follows:

• Elimination of inmate idleness. Productive environment reducing prisoner violence and fostering a sense of purpose-among inmates.
• Inmates engaging in 'restorative activities'. This might include wages used to compensate victims or activities that give back to the community such as making toys for poor children or building houses for Habitat for Humanity.
• Contact with virtuous people would be encouraged. Inmates have the potential to learn pro-social virtuous behavior from such persons.
• Inmate participation in rehabilitation programs that are based on criminological research and the principles of effective correctional intervention. This might include such programs as cognitive-behavioral interventions.
• Standard of living for inmates would be as high as possible. A low standard of living-inflicting pain on offenders-serves no defensible moral or utilitarian purpose.
• Prison guards would be encouraged to function as 'correctional officers'. In addition to traditional tasks such as maintaining order, ensuring custody, and enforcing rules, the roles of these 'correctional officers' would be to advance, not stymie, the restoration or correction of the offenders in their charge.
• The virtuous prison would be for all inmates. There may be exceptions in the form of inmates who are intractably recalcitrant, violent or mentally disturbed.

Wisconsin VORP Project
One of the earlier Victim Offender Reconciliation Projects in a prison setting in the US could be traced to the work of Dave Cook of the University of Wisconsin Law School. He helped to run a project which included about 25 cases a year, where a suitable offender and volunteer victim met with a trained mediator in a minimum or maximum security prison in the area. Offences involved burglary and assault, and mediation focused on reconciling relationships and addressing the feelings resulting from criminal activity and victimization. These meetings usually took place a few months before release and could be followed up with further meetings in the community after release (as cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999; & Zehr, 1994).

Victim/Offender workshops at Sing Sing Correctional Facility
In New York State, the Sing Sing Correctional Facility offers a series of victim/offender workshops that are facilitated by psychologists. Funds are secured to pay for victims' transportation to and from the facility. This workshop offers a dialogue between offenders and surrogate victims of crime, or their family members in the case of homicide. Prior to the victims coming into the prison, the offenders undergo a period of readiness to help them understand victim issues and to orient them about what to expect. Mark Bitel's 1991 (cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999; Zehr, 1994; & Francis, 2001) evaluation of this program seems to show that the meetings have proved to be very successful and transforming for both victims and offenders. Both groups report that often for the first time they are able to see the humanity in the other.

Graterford State Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania
In this institution, a three-phase program was introduced and run by volunteers. The focus of this program was to encourage offender accountability and to assist the prison by promoting good public relations and a cost-free program. Offenders in this program were serving sentences for serious offences including murder (Zehr, 1994). The first two phases consisted of weekly sessions to help inmates understand the effects of crime on victims and take responsibility for their actions. In the second phase, the group followed different tracks on alternative weeks. In one track, the offenders met and interacted with actual crime victims (not involved in their own cases). On the other weeks, they worked on a letter to their own victims, or the victim's survivors in the case of murder. In the third phase, these letters were put on deposit with a cooperating victim assistance program. They attempted to contact the victims and survivors to let them know the letter was available, if they wished to receive it. Exchanges of letters or actual encounters were then facilitated between the victim and the offender, if the victims/survivors wished to do so (Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999; & Francis, 2001).

Evaluation of this project was conducted by Hall in 1993 (as cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999). According to Hall, Phase One was a successful period of awareness of crime's impacts and emotional sensitivity and growth. Hall also notes that, "because individuals differ not only in how they cope with the trauma of crime but also in the time needed to reach each stage in the process, it is quite possible that a victim may not be ready for a reconciliation at the same time that the offender needs to express remorse, or ever (as cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

Rochester Youth Custody Centre Project
Described by Liebmann & Braithwaite (1999) as an exceptionally well designed, controlled and evaluative project, this program consisted of three sessions that were attended by victims, offenders, organizers, Victim Support and police representatives (to support their referrals). At the first session, victims described their reactions and feelings about being burgled to give offenders some understanding of their distress. The offenders then had to accept the responsibility for their crimes and the effects it had on such victims. The second and third sessions involved role-plays and exercises that served to cement the relationships between victims and offenders. Evaluation of this program involved the use of questionnaires before and after, and attitude scales for both victims and offenders so that changes could be measured. Some of the findings include the following (as cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite; & Francis, 2001):

• Victims rated themselves as less anxious and angry after meetings, and rated offenders more positively
• Offenders rated victims more positively afterwards, and had a better understanding of victims' attitudes and the impact that the offence committed had on them.

Minnesota Correctional Facility - Shakopee
According to Angeles (1999), the program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee (the women's prison in Minnesota) consists of the following:

• Developing offender awareness of injury to victims
• Involving the offender in repairing the harm
• Involving the community in holding the offender accountable
• Increasing offender competency
• Increasing offender connections to conventional community members
• In striving to achieve these objectives, the program uses mediation and conferencing to sort out conflicts in prison (Angeles, 1999; & Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

Washington State Reformatory Restorative Justice Prison Project
In 1997-1998 a pilot study took place to explore ways in which a restorative justice model may be practically applied in a prison setting. The goals of the project included:

• Providing a safe environment for inmates to make amends for their crimes and for victims to heal
• Facilitating constructive communication between groups
• Encourage participants to develop creative ways of thinking about justice and strategies for dealing with crime

The project consisted of the development, implementation and evaluation of three sequential courses on restorative justice, involving victims, offenders and citizens as participants. The first two courses were ten weeks long each, and dealt with issues such as; what is restorative justice? How can you repair the harm to victims? Is it possible for violent crimes? What does it mean for offenders to be held accountable for their crimes? What can they do in prison to repair the damage? What does the public want of their offenders? The sessions moved on to more concrete solutions as the second course came to an end. The third course was 12 weeks long and involved more criminal justice officials, while covering similar issues to the previous ones (Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

A detailed evaluation of this program was conducted in 1998 by Helfgott, Lovell & Lawrence of the University of Seattle. Some of the finding include (as cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

• 81% of offenders felt that if such seminars were offered on a regular basis, it would have a positive impact on prison subculture
• The terms 'accountability' and 'responsibility' became more real for offenders.
• Victims felt it had been a healing experience and they found it easier to discuss the gruesome details of the offence with offenders than with members of their family or friends.
• 100% of citizens felt it had been a positive experience
• A number of victims and offenders said they would be willing now to meet their actual victim or offender
• There was agreement that victims and citizens should play a greater role in the justice process and that the existing criminal justice system needed an overhaul.

The recommendations for the future were that the project should continue on an ongoing basis and should be extended to other prisons in the area, in particular Washington Correctional Centre for women and the Minimum Security Camp in Monroe (Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

Pennsylvania Prison Society's Restorative Justice Program
This program gained impetus from the call from male and female offenders who have not been afforded meaningful opportunities for accountability and restoration. The Prison Society's approach is unique in that it approaches restorative justice from the perspective of the offender. The goals of the Prison Society Include:

• To provide avenues for inmates and community members about their crime
• To challenge the values and culture of the prison environment toward a restorative ideal
• To invite the community to accompany inmates in restorative & reintegration processes
• The mission of the Prison Society is to promote a humane, just and restorative correctional system. As such, they have developed several restorative justice initiatives that include:
• Restorative Justice Seminars
• "Day of Responsibility"-a concept developed by inmates. The Day of Responsibility is a daylong seminar that invites approximately 75 inmates to explore the meaning of responsibility through conversation with and presentations by guest speakers who represent offenders, victims, the community, families and corrections. The Day ends with the opportunity for each participant to sign the Prisoners Pledge, a pledge written by a Pennsylvania inmate. A team of inmates coordinates the day from the inside while the Prison Society provides the necessary external support.
• Mediation Support Services
• Restorative Justice and Alternatives to Violence Project-exploration of methods of applying restorative justice principles to the conflict resolution workshop

Further information on this program can be found on the Pennsylvania Prison Service's web site at: http://www.prisonsociety.org/restorativejustice/index.html

New Zealand & Australia

New Zealand's 'Whakatikatika' Project
In the 1999 literature review conducted by Liebmann & Braithwaite, the authors noted that despite the innovative work being done in New Zealand & Australia, there appeared to be little activity with regards to the application of restorative justice to custodial settings. The application of restorative justice to prisons began in New Zealand in August 2000, when a community group known as 'Hawkes Bay Restorative Justice' secured funding for a project through the Crime Prevention Unit of the Prime Minister's Office, to take restorative justice into the Hawkes Bay Regional Prison. According to Katounas & McElrea (2002), this was the first project of its kind in a New Zealand prison. The project itself was called 'Whakatikatika' which is Maori for 'putting things right'. To date, the majority of restorative justice conferences and practices have been reported as positive for the most part. The authors suggest that offenders need to engage in self-healing and addressing the roots of their offending behavior before consideration for restorative justice (Katounas & McElrea, 2002: 17). One of the issues that the authors identify as an obstacle to their programs is that many of the victims do not live within the wider Hawkes Bay area. In such cases, letters of apology have often been sent after victims have indicated a willingness to receive the same (Katounas & McElrea, 2002: 17). Judge Fred McElrea supports the idea of widespread application of restorative justice in prisons. It would be consistent with victims' rights as well as consistent with the desire to help prisoners deal with their own needs for reconciliation and change. In addition, McElrea notes that some crimes are unlikely to leave a victim ready to meet the offender before sentencing, and a post-sentencing conference may be the only possibility. Of all institutions, prisons must have the greatest concentrations of people in need of restoration (Katounas & McElrea, 2002: 18).

Australia: The Restorative Justice Unit
Roberts & Roach (2003) have noted that in addition to Canada and New Zealand, Australia is considered a worldwide leader in the field of restorative justice. An ideal example of applying restorative justice to prisons in Australia can be seen through the work of the NSW Department of Corrective Services in Sydney. In 1999, this department created the Restorative Justice Unit as a three-year pilot project to provide victim-offender family group conferencing and protective mediation. The program is a post sentence program; therefore offenders have been sentenced prior to participating in the program. The program also differs from other correctional programs in that the focus is upon the well being of the victim rather than the needs of the offender. The strategic objectives of this Unit are as follows:

• Ensure victims of crime are adequately informed about their rights and opportunities to participate in restorative justice programs.
• Promote the concept of restorative justice amongst victims of crime, offenders, in criminal justice circles and in the wider community.
• Ensure case plans of offenders include assessment of potential benefits and the suitability for participation in restitution or reparation activities and one of the forms of conferencing.
• Liaise with offender case planning staff to facilitate referrals for conferencing.

Restorative justice programs offered by the Unit range from the minimal involvement of victims who join the Victims Register, through to the intensive involvement of victims and offenders by way of family group conferences. Processes are tailored to meet the expressed needs of those involved. Programs include (NSW Department of Corrective Services, 2003; & Booby, 2001: 1):

• Victims Register, where victims can register to be informed about when an incarcerated offender is due for release, has escaped, is applying for external leave programs, or is due for parole consideration.
• Victim Awareness Sessions, where offenders are taken through a series of exercises aimed at increasing their awareness of the impact of crime on victims.
• Victim-Offender Mediation, where victims and offenders wish to communicate but not to meet in person. Trained mediators assist victims and offenders to exchange information such as issues involved in the criminal event, agreements about future community living or child-care, or apologies.
• Victim-Offender Information and Communication Exchange (VOICE), an 8hr group program where representative victims give offenders first hand accounts of the effects of crime and the needs of victims.
• Victim-Offender Meetings, where the victim can ask specific questions about the crime or give specific information about the effects of the crime, and the offender can explain issues, give information, offer apologies and, if possible, make amends.
• Victim-Offender or Family-Group Conferences, where all the people affected by a crime meet to hear what actually happened, to find out how people have been affected, and, if possible, to see how best to repair the harm caused.

Since it was established in July 1999, the Restorative Justice Unit has received more than 200 applications for restorative justice programs. Restorative justice programs are available for offenders in prisons, in Periodic Detention Centres, in Home Detention, in Community Service, or on supervised or unsupervised bonds. In other words, the program is available to all sentenced offenders at any stage of their sentence.

According to the Rhonda Booby, the Director of the Restorative Justice Unit (2001), as a post-sentence adult program, the NSW Restorative Justice Program is one of only four such programs worldwide. Similar programs have begun in Europe and America, and in a modified format, in Queensland. However, there are moves currently underway to establish similar programs in Europe, UK, other American states, and other states in Australia.

Germany & Switzerland

At Saxerriet Prison in Switzerland, a small open prison for first time offenders, rehabilitative efforts have included both debt regulation and contacts with victims, with the aim of reconciliation. Social workers investigated the suitability of reparation in individual cases, and if appropriate, workers caring for victims initiated contact between the victim and offender. The project workers felt that, important as the material reparation was, the discussion of the offence was more so (Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

In Hamelin Prison in Germany, victim related therapy for sexual offenders has taken place. This was run by prison psychologists as a 'sexual role seminar' with voluntary female non-professional therapists. The therapy program aimed to achieve respect for female sexual self-determination. In exceptional cases the offender met his victim. The intention was for the offender to experience the effect of his action on the total life of the victim and to develop inhibitions against repetition. During the observation period of three and a half years there was no recidivism from participants in the programme (as cited in Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999). In addition to this program, Germany also has 11 social therapy institutions (covering only 2% of custodial capacity), where they work through an offender's guilt using social/practical training and individual or group therapy. This can include face to face discussions with the victim but this takes place only exceptionally (Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999).

Belgium

It has been suggested that the idea of applying restorative justice principles to prisons in Belgium, occurred largely as a result of the Dutroux affair during the summer of 1996. In August of that year, several children had been abducted, locked in a cell constructed in the basement of Marc Dutroux, and died there (Newell, 2001a; Van Camp, 2002; & Robert & Peters, 2002). In the following months after Dutroux had been arrested, the concerns of the Belgian people turned towards the institutions of the police and the judiciary and the malfunctioning of the criminal justice system. During this time, victims united and manifested themselves and the decision was made to involve victims within the criminal justice system using the principles of restorative justice. The demands of the victims and the dysfunctions discovered in the Belgian penal system gave impulse to the strengthening and speed of the restorative trend that had started rolling a few years earlier. It is important to note that restorative justice initiatives became especially victim-oriented after the event in 1996 (Van Camp, 2002).

Belgian criminologists are quick to point out that the Dutroux affair was not the catalyst that set restorative justice principles in motion. Elements of restorative justice had already been in place for many years. As early as 1986, research from the Penology and Victimology Group at the University of Leuven, has helped to identify failings in the criminal justice system as it pertained to victims. In the 1990s a shift in research approach to the study of criminality occurred. It was referred to as action research, which concentrates on the development and evaluation of new practices and is also focused upon the fine-tuning or restructuring of existing practices (Robert & Peters, 2002). Such an approach allows researchers to approach the criminal justice system from a more problem solving point of view. The research conducted by the Research Group highlighted the fact that in order for the criminal justice system to be effective, the victim's perspective must be integrated in all stages of the criminal justice procedure, including any period of study. In other words restorative justice may not be allowed to end with punishment or at the walls of the prison (Robert & Peters, 2002).

In addition to the research produced, many victim-friendly initiatives were beginning to be put into place. For example, article 46 for the Act of 5 August 1992 on the Duties of the Police, for the first time in history of Belgian police legislation, mentions the task of assisting the victims of criminal offences. In addition, the search for new victim-sensitive arrangements for parole had begun, prior to the Dutroux affair (Robert & Peters, 2002).

In January 1998, the project 'Restorative Detention' was launched and action was initiated in six Belgian prisons: Andenne, Tournai, Jamioulx, Leuven Central, Leuven Auxiliary and the Hoogstraten Penal Educational Centre. This project sought to answer the question concerning how punishment in general and the prison context in particular can contribute to a more just and more balanced administration of criminal justice for offender, victim and society (Robert & Peters, 2002). It was determined in advance that the involvement of governors, officers and treatment services in prison would be crucial and that placement of research workers in the prisons would be required to achieve this. The process was evaluated step-by-step to ensure that lessons were regularly learned and good practice identified and spread. Through the results of the initial project, in autumn of 2000, the project underwent a profound metamorphosis. The Minister of Justice decided to recruit a 'restorative justice consultant' for all Belgian prisons at the level of the central prison administration (Newell, 2001a; & Robert & Peters, 2002).

In order to facilitate the application of restorative justice principles into the prison, cultivation of a 'restorative justice prison culture' was necessary so it would allow and stimulate restorative processes between victims and offenders. This was addressed through the use of strategies to target four key groups. The first group and arguably, the most important group from a restorative detention standpoint, were the prison personnel. Training sessions raised awareness among prison staff about restorative theories and practices. Also included in the sessions were courses that addressed victims and restorative justice, as well as courses that focused on possible restorative approaches to the prison situation. The second group targeted were the offenders themselves. The approach taken towards prisoners was to help them benefit from a more personal, open way of dealing with the aftermath of crime from the beginning of their period in custody. Prisoners are given awareness training in the form of brochures, workshops, and forums, so they are conscious of the psychological and emotional consequences their offence could have caused for the victims (Robert & Peters, 2002). The third groups targeted were the victims. One of the strategies employed was to develop brochures to be given to victims groups, the victims themselves, and their neighbors that would serve to present a more realistic view of the situation of imprisoned offenders and what is likely to occur at the end of their sentence. The fourth and final group targeted was the community as a whole. It was recognized at the outset of the 'restorative detention' project that the successful cultivation of a restorative justice prison culture would only succeed if supported by the outside world (Robert & Peters, 2002 & Newell, 2001a). These strategies included prison tours, brochures, and the development of an information game that allowed for young people to learn how to deal with conflicts in a more constructive way. In addition, it is interesting to note that the evaluation of prison tour visits highlighted the importance for the self-esteem of prisoners and prison staff.

Practitioners in Belgium have decided that the facilitation of restorative justice principles into prisons should involve practices that serve to reduce any potential polarization between victim aid services and offender aid services. One method that has been employed has been in the form of discussion groups between the treatment staff of the prison and those from victim and offender aid services. Such an approach has served to build bridges toward each other as these professionals have since been made aware of the problems that each group encounters in their work. This may have the potential of developing victim-offender mediation strategies that are truly effective with regards to reparation and healing (Newell, 2001a).

An interesting restorative practice that currently exists in Belgium involves a restoration fund that was created for the prisoners. This fund enables them to earn money through work (whether it is in the prison or through community service) so that institutional payments for victims can be made and so communication can be established (Robert & Peters, 2002).

Penal researchers and other criminal justice officials in Belgium have recognized that there is evidence of a degree of tension between the new researchers policies and past practices. The fact that the restorative justice paradigm is a demanding one has already been documented. According to Newell (2001a),

"The challenging concept is that prisoners are fully responsible for their own lives and for their acts and that those who are not yet prepared to assume their responsibilities should get the opportunity during their time in prison to engage in self-restoration."

Belgium has recognized that restorative justice in prisons should be seen in the context of a restorative justice policy in the whole of the criminal justice system. Thus, restorative justice principles must be applied at all stages of the criminal justice system (pre-charge, post-charge, trial and sentencing stages) (Van Camp, 2002).

South Africa

Although not as developed as the other countries mentioned, South Africa is currently in the initial stages of advancing a restorative justice approach to corrections. On November 26, 2001, Ben Skosana, Member of Parliament and Minister of Correctional Services, made a public announcement that 'Correctional Services has decided to put rehabilitation and restorative justice at the centre of its operations.'

In a country still recovering from apartheid and believing in a measure of success from the Truth and Reconciliation process, it was a natural extension to pursue corrections from a restorative angle. While much of this work remains preliminary, the Department of Corrections has identified the following key programmes:

• Victim offender mediation and dialogue
• Family group conferences
• Financial restitution to victims
• Personal services to victims
• Community service
• Written or verbal apology to victims and other affected persons
• Victim or community impact panels
• Community or neighborhood impact statements
• Victim empathy and support groups

Through these and other initiatives, it was hoped that the following outcomes might be realized:

1. For the victims
   • Repayment for material losses
   • A sense of acknowledgement of the harm caused and some degree of repair and reconciliation
2. For the community
   • Increased capacity to accept and integrate offenders
   • Increased involvement and understanding of the justice system by community members
   • A sense of the offender having made some degree of amends
   • Reduced levels of fear
3. For the offender
   • Increased awareness of the impact of crime on other people
   • Increased capacity of offenders to contribute productively to the community
   • Higher educational status and improved occupational, social and decision-making skills
   • Improved self image and improved public image of the offender
   • Increased sense of belonging to the community
   • Improved generosity of the community towards the offender

Restorative Prisons in the Canadian Context
Correctional Service Canada: Restorative Justice & Dispute Resolution Unit & Its Pilot Projects

As a leader in the restorative justice community in Canada, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has been active in promoting the use of restorative principles and processes to 1) advance broader criminal justice reform, 2) create restorative opportunities for victims, offenders and community members, and to 3) establish restorative correctional environments for our offenders and staff.

CSC also maintains its position that restorative justice is not and cannot be driven by the correctional agenda. For example, victims of criminal acts should not feel responsible for the reintegration of the offender that has harmed them. CSC's interest in restorative justice can be traced back to a series of a series of key initiatives that took place in the early 1990s. Some of these initiatives include the following:

• The inclusion of consideration of victims' into the CSC mission
• The promising results from the Victim Offender Mediation of Serious Crime program run by the Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives Association in Langley, BC
• The creation of Aboriginal initiatives, based on traditional practices aimed at better meeting the needs of Aboriginal offenders and communities

In 1996, CSC developed a Restorative Justice and Dispute Resolution Unit to explore the potential implications of restorative justice on corrections. Since its creation, this Unit has made many contributions within the realm of restorative justice. Some of these contributions include:

• The coordination of the first national restorative justice conferences, which resulted in the development of a Framework Paper on Restorative Justice. This paper contains applications of interest in restorative justice as well as references to the restorative justice activities that were in existence in 1998.
• The development of a National Steering Committee on Restorative Justice & Dispute Resolution
• The development of 14 pilot projects that have contributed to a better understanding of restorative justice in the correctional environment and elsewhere (to be discussed later in this section)
• A leader in providing educational sessions to staff, offenders, victims, and volunteers across the service. Many of these events have contributed to the development of unique locally sponsored initiatives, most notably the development of restorative justice coalitions. Restorative justice coalitions first took shape at William Head Institution when offenders and interested community members formed a weekly study to explore the implications of restorative justice. Since then, restorative justice coalitions have spread to no less than four institutions (Restorative Prisons in the Canadian Context: 6).

CSC's contribution to the growing literature on restorative prisons worldwide can be best understood through the fourteen pilot projects that sought to implement a restorative approach to address and evaluate some element of crime, conflict or wrongdoing within the correctional environment. A more thorough discussion of these projects is available through CSC and is beyond the scope of this paper. As such, only four of the fourteen restorative justice projects will be discussed. The first project to be discussed is the Mediation Centre at Fenbrook Institution. The Fenbrook and Beaver Creek institutions in Gravenhurst wanted to establish a mediation centre that would serve staff and inmates of both institutions, giving them access to a part-time mediator. One of the key objectives of this project was to promote mediation as an effective method for resolving conflict. An outcome of the project appeared to be some support for mediation in the form of management commitment. The second restorative justice project to be discussed is the Making Things Right Project. This project was conducted at Grande Cache Institution at Alberta and introduces offenders to restorative justice. It does so by intensely focussing on offenders' experiences of offending and victimization. The outcomes of this project showed that offenders had displayed a better understanding of the impacts of their criminal activity on their victims. In addition, this project resulted in higher levels of willingness to participate in restorative justice processes. The third project worth noting is the Prairie Region Training Project. The idea behind this project was to introduce staff (senior regional management, parole officers and institutional staff) to the principles or restorative justice, in the hope that this new knowledge would lead to further action and change. From this project, four outcomes are worth noting, they include the following:

• Increased understanding of restorative justice among participants
• Increased understanding of impacts on victims
• Interest in applying restorative justice in work increased
• Growth of local networks of interest

The fourth and final project to be discussed refers to the Victim Sensitivity Training Project. A common problem with program development is that too many program designers forget to consult the victim community beforehand. Some objectives of this project are worth noting, they include the following:

• Increase awareness and understanding of the needs and reactions of victims
• Increase understanding of the need to partner and consult with victims and victims organizations in a restorative paradigm
• Identify potential behaviors, attitudes, agendas that can negatively impact on victims and further re-victimize them

The outcomes of this project seem to indicate a greater understanding of victims' issues as well as an enhancement with regard to victim participation and/or partnerships.

Grande Cache Institution: Restorative Justice Living Unit
The pilot projects conducted by CSC have led to the creation of a Restorative Justice Unit at Grande Cache Institution in Alberta, Canada. This Living Unit has taken the various lessons learned from the original fourteen pilot projects and concentrated them in one location. The Unit opened in 2001 and during the 12-month period from Jan 1st to December 31st, 2002, a total of 44 offenders have resided in the unit. In April 2002, CSC began its first evaluation of the Grande Cache Unit. The evaluators identified four objectives they wanted to assess, they are as follows:

• Assess the extent to which the physical environment fosters, promotes and cultivates a positive living environment of mutual respect among both staff and offender, and to determine the extent to which operational practices are in place to implement, maintain and monitor the Grande Cache Initiative
• Determine the extent to which offenders develop necessary skills, attitudes and behaviors as a result of their participation in the restorative justice Unit and the level to which these skills are transferable when released into the community
• Determine the extent to which voluntary networks are established in the community to provide:
  1. Increased understanding and empathy for both offenders and communities
  2. Support to the offender in taking responsibility and accountability for their actions
  3. Opportunities for the offender to understand the impact of his crime and helping to decide on how to make things right
• Identify the overall impact of the restorative justice Unit on the institutional environment and to assess the extent to which restorative justice principles contribute to a healthier, safer, more respectful environment

The evaluation of the Restorative Justice Unit is being conducted in two phases: implementation, maintenance and monitoring of this program will be evaluated through the first phase of this evaluation. Phase I will detail best practices and lessons learned and will also focus on facilitators and barriers that enable or limit the achievement of the objectives of the Unit. This phase will be conducted at the end of the fiscal year 2002/03, approximately one year after the official opening of the Restorative Justice Unit. The second phase of the evaluation will be conducted at the end of the fiscal year 2004/05 and will assess the results and impact of the program on the offenders, the institution and the community. It is important to note that although restorative justice concepts include the voluntary participation of victims, it is not the intention of the Restorative Justice Unit to facilitate victim/offender mediation. Rather, the aim is to help offenders understand and accept responsibility for their actions and the harm caused to the victims and the communities (CSC Evaluation Framework Paper, 2002).

Aboriginal Healing Lodges
Recent statistics show that Aboriginal peoples in Canada represent 2.8% of the Canadian population, but account for 18% of the federally incarcerated population. CSC has also recognized that mainstream prison programs do not work for Aboriginal offenders. In response, Aboriginal programs and services are available in all federal facilities.

In the last few years, CSC has also attempted to address these issues through the creation of 'Healing Lodges'. These facilities are mandated under Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This section allows for Aboriginal groups to provide specific services to Aboriginal offenders, allows for greater involvement by the Aboriginal communities, and allows greater autonomy in decision making (Nielsen, 2003). CSC describes them as follows:

Healing Lodges offer services and programs that reflect Aboriginal culture in a space that incorporates Aboriginal peoples' tradition and beliefs. In the healing lodge, the needs of Aboriginal offenders serving federal sentences are addressed through Aboriginal teachings and ceremonies, contact with Elders and children, and interaction with nature. A holistic philosophy governs the approach, whereby individualized programming is delivered within the context of community interaction, with a focus on preparing for release. In the healing lodges, an emphasis is placed on spiritual leadership and on the value of the life experience of staff members, who act as role models (Correctional Service Canada. (n. d., p. 2).

There are currently six healing lodges operating in Canada for federal offenders. Two healing lodges are managed by CSC. The remaining four healing lodges are managed by Aboriginal agencies and/or communities.

Information taken from: Crutcher, N. & Trevethan, S. (2002). "An examination of healing lodges for federal offenders in Canada" Forum on Correctional Research, 14(3), 52-54.

Healing Lodge	Location	Clients	Opened as Healing Lodge	# of Section 81 Beds
Okimaw Ohci	Maple Creek, Saskatchewan	Women	November 1995	28*
Pê Sâkâstêw	Hobbema, Alberta	Men	August 1997	40*
Wahpeton Spiritual Healing Lodge	Prince Albert, Saskatchewan	Men	August 1997	5
Stan Daniels Community Corrections Centre	Edmonton, Alberta	Men	June 1999	15-20
Ochichakkosipi Healing Lodge ***	Crane River, Manitoba	Men	February 2000	24
Willow Cree Healing Lodge***	Duck Lake, Saskatchewan	Men		40
Waseskun	St. Alphonse-de-Rodriquez, Quebec	Men	August 2001	15

* These are not technically Section 81 beds as these are federal facilities operated by the Correctional Service of Canada.

***Ochichakkosipi is now closed and Willow Cree Healing Lodge is set to open and begin taking offenders in June 2003.

According to Crutcher & Trevethan (2002), although healing lodges share a number of characteristics, there is also a great deal of diversity. In addition to differences in size, location, design and operation, the main differences are between the CSC-managed & Aboriginal-managed healing lodges. CSC-managed lodges focus on traditional Aboriginal ideologies but are considered minimum-security CSC facilities. Aboriginal-managed lodges are privately run and operate within certain guidelines as outlined in their contracts with CSC.

However, they do not necessarily maintain the structured approach of a CSC facility (Crutcher & Trevethan, 2002: 52). Okimaw Ochi is the only healing lodge for women offenders and it is also the only facility that accepts both minimum and medium-security offenders. The other lodges only accept minimum-security offenders.

A recent follow-up study by CSC of Aboriginal offenders who had been admitted to the various healing lodges such as Okimaw Ochi, Pe Sakastew, and the Stan Daniels Healing Centre, revealed a relatively low federal recidivism rate for some Aboriginal healing lodge participants (aboriginaltimes, 2001: 23; & Nielsen, 2003). In addition, 80% of healing lodge residents interviewed said they were very satisfied with their experience at the healing lodge. It was noted that the healing lodge helped them better understand themselves and furthered their healing journey. Important aspects included Elders, access to sweat lodges, cultural activities as well as access to outside activities. Furthermore, 95% of the offenders reported high satisfaction with regards to their relations with the staff at the lodges (Crutcher & Trevethan, 2002: 53). It was noted that one of the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge was the focus on Aboriginal culture and tradition.

Issues facing these healing lodges include lack of resources, lack of communication between healing lodges and federal corrections facilities (lack of understanding about the role of healing lodges by federal corrections staff), and lack of community involvement which is crucial to the effectiveness of a healing lodge (Crutcher & Trevethan, 2002; & aboriginal times, 2001). Many of these issues it seems, can be resolved for the most part, through an effective communication strategy.

In concluding this section on restorative prisons in the Canadian context, it is worth noting that the Restorative Justice and Dispute Resolution Unit at CSC has identified three specific priorities with regard to restorative corrections, these include:

• Exploring the impact of restorative justice initiatives on inmate and employee subcultures, and their combined interaction
• Exploring the benefit of creating restorative correctional environments in facilitating participation by offenders and in enhancing outcomes of restorative justice programs between victims, offenders and community members
• Supporting the development of a national and international network of restorative justice experts specifically with respect to the development of restorative prisons and with respect to serious crime

Restorative Corrections: Challenges & Concerns

The notion of applying restorative justice to prisons has received some international support, nonetheless, it is important that any potential problems and concerns be identified and effectively addressed. Howard Zehr (1994) identified several issues in developing restorative justice programs in prison settings that are worth consideration, they include:

• Getting started - programs can be started by a wide range of people: victims, offenders, prison workers, lawyers, chaplains or members of the local community. Suspicion and resistance are not unusual responses and need to be recognized and allayed.
• Gaining entry to prison facilities - it is important to recognize that most prison facilities are security oriented, and to accept this and work within such rules.
• Vagaries of prison schedules - changes and interruption of schedules may occur, so it is best to design programmes with limited schedules in mind. Prisoners may be transferred at short notice. Having a good working relationship with prison staff can allay many of these problems.
• Fear & Doubts - victims, offenders and prison staff are frequently dubious of new programme initiatives, particularly ones that 'humanize' the penal process.
• Clarity & openness of purpose - it is essential to be clear about aims and objectives, values and philosophy in developing the programme.
• Counselling and preparing victims and offenders - considerable preparation is necessary for both victims and offenders prior to meeting/mediation. Areas such as motivation, benefits and process must be clear to all.
• Gender - in most countries there are far fewer programme opportunities for female inmates. It is important to establish such programmes for women too.
• Feedback & Evaluation - it is vital that process evaluation and outcome studies are conducted with empirical data and critical perspectives. This information can be used to improve programmes, and to establish whether they achieve their aims and objectives.
• Acceptance - although restorative justice processes such as victim/offender mediation and reconciliation is more than 20 years old, it is still new to many people. People can be skeptical or downright resistant to such ideas.

In the Belgian context, Bastiansen and Vercruysse (2002) have suggested that there appears to be a large gap between ideas/ideals and practice/reality. They note that while it is true that every prison has a restorative justice consultant, those who are appointed to that position are generally young and inexperienced newcomers to prison life and realities. In response, Van Camp (2002) has suggested that these consultants tend to be enthusiastic and creative, and that most importantly, they are open-minded and have a still unbiased look on detention. Issues that seem normal to prison staff are being questioned by the restorative justice consultants. Another useful criticism that is identified by Bastiansen And Vercruysse is that prison staff are resentful to the new restorative justice approach because their role has been ignored for so many years and now all the attention of the public and of politicians is being concentrated on victims and offenders. They also note that the sudden introduction of restorative justice across the board based on results from only two prisons suggests a reality that the results obtained are not representative of Belgian prisons. In addition, they note that the action research worker in the other prisons changed regularly due to the need to find other jobs, leading to the idea that it is impossible from any research perspective to establish what real changes have taken place. Regarding resistance from prison officers, Van Camp simply suggests that training courses and educational seminars will be required to help acclimate the prison officers into the restorative milieu.

Bastiansen & Vercruysse identify an issue that may have worldwide implications for countries contemplating the idea of establishing restorative prisons. They suggest that the systemization of restorative justice in the prisons have the potential of perverting any genuine feelings of remorse and concern by the offender. Prisoners in the restorative prison system in Belgium are familiarized with consideration for the victim. Knowing this, prisoners know what they have to say to obtain conditional release. These authors also suggest that the situation for the prisoners themselves is also much worse than before the changes, an offender had more time for therapy and self-restoration with the attention of psychologists and social work staff focused upon him. Now the focus is on the victim and communities, and as a result, the prisoners have to wait for treatment sessions and many are becoming bitter about it.

The Belgian system expects all offenders to find a therapist outside the institution prior to and during conditional release. In the case of sex offenders, it is mandatory. However, many therapists do not want to work with ex-offenders and to make matters worse; they are expensive and in short supply. Bastiansen and Vercuysse suggest that the focus should surely be that offenders should receive therapy while in custody and while on release should be able to be managed by a few supervising staff.

With the exception of the various issues identified by Zehr (1994), the majority of the criticisms discussed thus far have originated from Belgian officials and this makes sense given that the Belgian system from a restorative justice standpoint, is arguably the most systematic in the world. For the remainder of this section, various other criticisms and/or issues facing restorative prisons will be identified and discussed.

One such issue that warrants discussion involves the issue of voluntariness. For a restorative process to be successful, it is suggested that it is important to engage the voluntary participation of both the victim and the offender (MacKay, 2002; & Semenchuk & Williams, 2002). The empowerment of the key stakeholders involved in the restorative justice process is viewed as central by Boyes-Watson, involving a commitment to victims, offenders and communities (Cited in Semenchuk & Williams, 2002: 14). The idea of the concept of 'voluntary participation' raises issues that need to be overcome for both victims and offenders for a number of reasons. Coercion or force cannot be expected to result in commitment. Mere compliance is unlikely to achieve any of the goals of restorative justice. The importance of voluntariness was raised by Tony Marshall (1999), who had observed in some previous studies that early victim-offender mediation programs had essentially coerced victims to take part so as to make a greater impression on offenders. Coercion, if applied to offenders might lead to revictimization or other negative outcomes toward the victim such as grudging or insolent compliance.

A related issue to voluntary participation and a controversial issue to say the least concerns the idea of the participation of offenders in programs in the hopes of obtaining a reduced sentence. According to Semenchuk & Williams (2002), clarity is required about the separation of restorative justice from sentencing considerations. Offenders serving custodial sentences may be particularly susceptible to mistaken beliefs that participation may affect early release or some other benefit. As such, in a restorative prison environment, there should be little room for doubt as to the benefits (or lack there of) that offenders may receive (Semenchuk & Williams, 2002; & MacKay, 2002).

Carolyn Hoyle (2001) has noted that prisons have internal hierarchies. There are differences in the power and status between governors and uniformed staff, amongst the uniformed officers themselves, and between officers and other prison staff such as probation officers, psychologists, and auxiliary staff. Most starkly, there are enormous power differences between staff and prisoners (Hoyle, 2001: 39). Power imbalances could inhibit participation in a restorative justice process. High rates of unreported victimization suggest that an open complaints procedure, based on conferencing would face an uphill struggle to win the trust of inmates (Hoyle, 2001: 39). One possible strategy that could circumvent the whole power imbalance issue could come in the form of effective support networks. This could include support from family, friends and others close to the participant, as in the restorative cautioning process employed in throughout much of the UK .

Restorative Prisons: Common Themes & Diverging Views

This review of the literature has identified various themes that appear to be for the most part, quite consistent across international perspectives. One of the most common of these themes is the idea that the application of restorative justice principles to the prison environment should include programs that allow offenders to engage in self-restoration. For example, Bastiansen & Vercruysse (2002) argue that this need to engage in self-restoration is vital before the victim meets with offenders. Many of the offenders are simply not ready to consider the victim, many offenders have not the psychological tools to do it with ease and many of them are resistant to any change possibility. Those who wish to develop restorative prisons should keep in mind that there will need to be much work done to prepare the offenders to take on this new dimension of responsibility for the future (Van Camp, 2002).

Additional consistent themes found in the literature include ideas that community support as well as support from prison staff are absolutely crucial to the success of a restorative prison program. In addition, most of the literature addresses the importance of maintaining a safe and clean community in prison as being essential to restoration.

What appears to differ from country to country in the field of restorative prisons pertains to the role of victims. In Belgium, victims are heavily involved in the prison process. MacKay (2002) and Tim Newell (2001b) have endorsed this practice to a large extent in that they feel that correctional activity should be devoted to not only victim awareness, or information to victims, but to direct involvement to victims. In short, victims and prisoners should be enabled to participate in victim-offender mediation, conferencing and other Restorative activities (MacKay, 2002: 23).

What role should a restorative prison play with regards to potential reductions in recidivism was another theme that generated different responses worldwide. Edgar (2000), Newell (2001b), & MacKay (2002) suggest that a restorative prison should not seek to reduce recidivism. According to Edgar,

"Restorative initiatives should be guided by restorative standards, not those drawn from the present accreditation system (Edgar, 2000: 18)."

On the other hand, the American, New Zealand, Belgian, and Canadian perspective all seemed to consider the idea of restorative prisons contributing to reduced re-offending. Recent reports from Aboriginal Healing Lodges in Canada appear to examine the success of its programs through such statistics as recidivism rates (Crutcher & Trevethan, 2002: 53).

Conclusion

According to Kimmett Edgar (1999) of the Oxford Centre for Criminological Research,

"With a little imagination and a lot of courage, prisons could become a natural setting for restorative justice.

This paper has sought to provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature regarding theory and/or practice involving restorative corrections. Various perspectives on this topic were presented from such countries as Canada, United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. There appears to be potential for further development of prisons based on restorative principles. However, it should be noted that historically, prisons had become places where offenders were sent not just for punishment but for social training (Coyle, 2002). Thus, it is important to state that restorative prisons should only be created within a broader restorative justice movement. As Belgian researchers such as Van Camp (2002) note, without the support of restorative initiatives at every level of the criminal justice system, the project would be rather paradoxical. We would be transforming the prison into a good place to be for offenders instead of diverting them away from custody, and in this way reaffirming the retributive dimension of imprisonment. In other words, restorative prisons should only exist within a criminal justice system that has restorative justice principles at all levels (i.e. pre and post charge; pre and post-sentence; and pre and post-release initiatives in place). A total system reform, allows for less chance that the concept of restorative justice will be "hijacked" by the corrections system. Stanley Cohen once wrote, "good intentions become bad practices". Let us hope that restorative justice does not follow this path.

References

aboriginaltimes. Special Report: Justice, featuring Correctional Service Canada. aboriginaltimes. Calgary, 17-29.

Angeles, J. (1999). Restorative Justice in Prison. In Minnesota Corrections Association Newsletter, February Issue.

Bastiansen, R. & Vercruysse, J. Commentary to 'Responding to the Crisis.' Prison Service Journal. No. 140, March 2002. pp. 18-20.

Bazemore, G. & Umbreit, M. (1998).
Conferences, circles, boards and mediations:
Restorative Justice and citizen involvement to youth crime. Report prepared for the Balanced and Restorative Project, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department Of Justice, 1-35.

Booby, R. (2001). Restorative Justice-Motivating Offenders to Change. From Retribution to Reintegration. A public seminar presented by the Institute Of Criminology, Sydney, Australia.

Braithwaite, J., & Mugford, S. (1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 34(2), 139-171.

Braithwaite, S., McLean, E., Fenwick, R., Phillips, M., & Vine, C., (2002). Developing Practice.
Restorative Justice in Prisons: Resource Book and Report. Presented at the conference held at Friends House in London, England, February 2002. pp. 18-20.

Correctional Service of Canada (no date). Healing Lodges for Aboriginal
Federal offenders. (pamphlet). Ottawa: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2002). An Evaluation Framework
Paper on Restorative Justice: Grande Cache Institution. Performance Assurance Sector. Ottawa: Author.

Coyle, A. (2002). The Myth of Prison Work. Prison Service Journal. No. 144, November 2002. pp. 22-29.

Crutcher, N. & Trevethan, S. An Examination of Healing Lodges for Federal Offenders in Canada. Forum on Corrections Research. September 2002, Vol. 13 (3). pp. 52-54. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Cullen, F., Sundt, J., & Wozniak, J. (2001). The Virtuous Prison: Toward a Restorative Rehabilitation. In H, Pontell & D. Shichnor (eds.) From Contemporary Issues
in Crime & Criminal Justice: Essays in Honor Of Gilbert Geis (pp. 265-286).

Edgar, K. Restorative Justice in Prison? Prison Service Journal. May 1999. No. 123. pp. 6-7.

Edgar, K. Restorative Justice in Prisons: Promotion of restorative policies and Practices in prisons in England and Wales. Prison Service Journal. July 2000. No. 130. pp. 17-18.

Francis, V., (2001). Restorative Practices in Prison - A Review of the Literature: Paper one: Work with Victims. A Discussion Paper for the International Centre for Prison Studies.

Hoyle, C. Restorative Justice in the Thames Valley: Changes in the Complaints And Discipline Process. Prison Service Journal. January 2001, No. 133. pp. 37-40.

Katounas, J., & McElrea, F. Restorative Justice in New Zealand Prisons. Prison Service Journal. March 2002. No. 141. pp. 16-18.

King's College London. "We don't waste prisoners' time and we don't waste Bicycles": the impact of restorative work in prisons. The Restorative Prison Project. London: International Centre for Prison Studies King's College London.

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2001). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis (Research and Statistics Division Methodological Series), Canada: Department of Justice.

Liebmann, M. & Braithwaite, S., (1999). Restorative Justice in Custodial Settings. Report for the Restorative Justice Working Group in Northern Ireland.

MacKay, R. (2002). Towards a Restorative Prison System-Ethics and Restorative Justice in prisons. In ed. J. Vanaker, Herstel en Detentie - Hommage aan Prof. Dr. Tony Peters. pp. 42-56. Brussels: Uitgeverij Politeia.

Marshall, T. F. (1999). Restorative Justice: An Overview. London: Home Office.

Newell, T. (2001a). Responding to the Crisis - Belgium establishes Restorative Prisons. Prison Service Journal. No. 138, November, 2001. pp. 45-48.

Newell, T (2001b). Restorative justice in Prisons. Restorative Justice Consortium [see web site: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/prisons4.html]

Newell, T. Restorative Practice in Prisons: Circles and Conferencing in the Custodial Setting. A Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices. "Dreaming of a New Reality." Aug 8-10, (2002). Minneapolis: Minnesota.

New South Wales Department of Corrective Services. (2003). Restorative Justice Unit. [see web site: http://www.dcs.nsw.gov.au/res_just/main.htm].

Nielsen, M. (2003). Canadian Aboriginal Healing Lodges: A Model for the United States? The Prison Journal. Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 67-89.

Pennsylvania Prison Society. (n.d.). Justice Heals: Restorative Justice Program. See web site http://www.prisonsociety.org/restorativejustice/index.html

Restorative Justice Consortium. See their web site at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk

Robert, L., & Peters, T. (2002). How restorative justice is able to transcend the prison walls: a discussion of the project 'restorative detention'. In Weitekamp, E., & Kerner, H. (eds.) Restorative Justice in Context: International practice & directions. Devon, England: Willan Publishing.

Roberts, J., & Roach, K., (2003). Restorative Justice in Canada: From Sentencing Circles to Sentencing Principles (pp. 237-256). In Roberts, J. V. & Von Hirsch, A. (eds.) Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice. Studies in Penal Theory and Penal Ethics. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Semenchuk, M., & Williams, B. Secure Estate Restorative Justice Project: Literature Review (3rd Draft--June 18, 2002). Community and Criminal Justice Division: De Montfort University. Leicester, England.

Umbreit, M. (1996). Responding to important questions related to restorative Justice. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, School of Social Work, University of Social Work.

Van Camp, T. Advancing Restorative Justice in Belgium. Prison Service Journal. No. 141 (May 2002). pp. 26-27.

Van Ness, D. & Heetderks, K. (2001). Restoring Justice (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

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

Zehr, H. (1994). Reconciliation between victims and imprisoned offenders: Program models and issues. Mennonite Central Committee. Office of Crime & Justice. Akron. Pa.