Restorative Justice Week 2009

Events

National Restorative Justice Symposium
"Communities Responding to Human Need"
and National Ron Wiebe Award Ceremony

REFLECTIONS FROM A WOMEN’S FORUM ON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Presentation to:
National Restorative Justice Symposium
St. John’s, NL
November 19, 2009

Coalition Against Violence – Avalon East

In partnership with the Violence Prevention Initiative,
Government of Newfoundland & Labrador

Restorative Justice & Women - Coalition Against Violence

HISTORY OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN ST.JOHN’S

• 1979: Youth Diversion Program launched
• 1979: Unified Family Court established (first of its kind)
• 1994: Family Group Decision Making Project launched
• 1995: Community Mediation Services formed
• 1997: Department of Justice commissions first study “Alternative Measures Discussion Paper”
• 1999:Provincial Association Against Family Violence commissions research & produces “Keeping An Open Mind” & “Making It Safe”
• C. 2000: MiawpukekFirst Nation (aka ConneRiver) offers sentencing and healing circles. Supreme Court in Goose Bay builds a circle sentencing room as part of the new court house
• 2000: RCMP offers Community Justice Forums in Labrador, & establishes a program in Conception Bay North the following year
• 2002: Restorative Justice Coalition of Newfoundland and Labrador is established
• 2002: Department of Justice strikes a committee to look at “Innovative Approaches to Justice,” which develops a draft discussion paper
• 2005: Mental Health Court established
• 2006: Study on Adult Alternative Programs in Canada finds that NL is the only province without a government supported program
• 2007: Family Justice Services opens sites in four regions offering mediation services in family law cases
• 2007: Department of Justice secures money from the Poverty Reduction Strategy to create an Adult Alternative Justice section
• 2008: The Adult Alternative Justice section is created.
• 2009: Specialized Family Violence Treatment Court pilot project rolls out in St. John’s Region
• Restorative Justice & Women forum held

PRESMISES BEHIND THE PROJECT

• To take a further look at RJ services and processes specifically for women victims
• To discover the level of information that women & women victims have about RJ
• To explore the current practices of RJ in St. John’s
• To invite exploration & discussion by service providers & women

FOUNDATION DOCUMENTS

• Explored content of “Keeping An Open Mind –A Look at Gender Inclusive Analysis, Restorative Justice & Alternative Dispute Resolution” & “Making It Safe –Women, Restorative Justice & Alternative Dispute Resolution”
• Sponsored by the Provincial Association Against Family Violence & funded by Status of Women Canada
• Researched & written by Bobbie Boland & Elaine Wychreschuk

“KEEPING AN OPEN MIND”

• ADR: How exactly will it work for women & children?
  • The protection of women & children who have experienced violence, & those who are in relationships of unequal power & control
• Handbook for service providers & policy makers consider alternatives to court:
  • Create dialogue & mobilize people to inform policy & shape programs
  • Introduce gender inclusive analysis
  • Explain different ADR processes & RJ philosophy
  • Create common language & understanding
  • Encourage those involved in ADR training to incorporate gender analysis into the curriculum
• Explained ADR & RJ practices
• Laid out some concerns about ADR in an environment of systematic inequality:
• Challenges in identifying & screening out women who have experienced violence, or where there is unequal power & control between the parties
• Capacity of services to protect women’s rights & entitlements
• The lack of mediator accountability & accountability mechanisms
• Downloading of government responsibilities to community without adequate support & funding services
• The impact of the privatization of government responsibility
• Specific concerns about women participation in mediation

“MAKING IT SAFE”

• Builds on “Keeping An Open Mind”
• To increase awareness about the dynamics of abuse & violence, & how these realities impact on women participating in ADR programs
• Guiding Principles:
  • Recognition of systematic inequality: women in society have not yet reached equality with men
  • Any intervention dealing with abuse & violence against women & children must protect against further abuse
  • High priority must be given to the safety of the victim & the community
  • ADR programs are sometimes appropriate alternatives, & should not be used as a cheaper alternative, but because they suit the particular circumtance
  • ADR & RJ processes must be fully funded & supported
  • Alternatives not meant to replace court system

Gender inclusive analysis:

“A tool & approach that can be used to correct biases that impact on women. It recognizes that to the extent that a policy has impact on people, it will very likely have different impacts on women & men because they have different roles, expectations & life experiences. It identifies differences arising out of the gender division of labour, & out of unequal access to power & resource, & assumes that these differences can be changed.”

Adapted from Boland & Wychreschuk, 1999 and Hebert, 1998

• Explores the appropriateness & participation of women who have experienced abuse in ADR & RJ processes
  • Should ADR & RJ based programs deal with situations involving violence?
  • Community involvement
  • Screening for violence
  • Participation
  • Safety
  • Power imbalance
  • Legal representation
  • Standardization, training, continuing professional development
  • Facilitator / mediator accountability
  • Confidentiality
  • Record-keeping
  • Evaluation

WOMEN’S FORUM – THE PROJECT

• Funded by Department of Justice Canada, through National Victims of Crime Awareness Week grant
• Hired Project Coordinator
• Consulted with women’s organizations, those who work with women & victims, & those engaged in current RJ practices
• Community friendly & accessible
• Open to questions & exploration
• Focused on women, women victims & service providers
• Organized a series of 4 forums –3 in community-based centres
• 4th forum was open to public & service providers

Objectives:

• To provide information & answer questions about the restorative justice process, designed specifically for women & victims
• To increase the comfort level of victims in considering restorative justice methods as an alternative process

FORUM

• Facilitated by skilled convener
• Presentations by the RCMP, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary & those experienced locally in working with RJ & with women
• Held “world café” format discussions
• Panel discussion & Q & A

Target population:

• Women interested in restorative justice processes who might become consumers
• Women already involved in the judicial process
• Women who might not have ready access to information on restorative justice
• Service providers working with women and victims

THE PROJECT

World café discussion questions asked:

• What are the strengths of restorative justice or alternative dispute resolution processes for women victims?
• What are the challenges of restorative justice or alternative dispute resolution processes for women victims?

WHAT WE HEARD

Challenges:

• Weaknesses in / cynicism about the justice system
• Constraints on women as caregivers
• Lack historical perspectives when dealing with offenders
• Pressure on victims to participate
• Accessibility of restorative justice services, especially in remote areas
• Are victims truly informed & willing to participate?
• Proper & thorough training for facilitators
• Funding resources
• Access of smaller communities –resources & participation

Strengths:

• Can be a source of empowerment for victims
• Sense of insight & context into stories of each participant
• Breaks down barriers & stigma around victimization
• Restorative justice processes complements women’s gender roles / socializations
• Gives ownership of process to community
• Physical space (where dialogues are held) more inviting than court
• Can contribute to healing opportunities
• Seeks to rebalance something that happened between two people

QUALITATIVE REFLECTIONS

Head: What did the session make you think about?

Heart: How did the session affect the way you feel?

Feet: What personal action will you take as a result of this action?

REFLECTIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS

Head:

• Need for more RJ opportunities & government commitment
• Victims needs & rights –need more value placed on these
• Moving forward –what needs to happen?
• The complex nature of victims & domestic violence
• How I might add RJ approach & knowledge in my current work
• Alternative measures that involve both victims & perpetrators, & healing opportunities for both
• Realized my own degree of fear & how it keeps me from acting
• Integration of RJ in the larger syste,
• The court process; offender’s remorse
• How to work with offenders re issues of victimization

Heart:

• RJ is an optimistic way of getting victims, offenders & community involved in the process
• Feeling of new hope & options
• I felt compassion for the victim andoffender (after listening to audio clip of victim’s experience with healing circle)
• Need to be more open in the way I feel about RJ
• Change needs to occur
• Excited by the possibilities
• Angry, frustrated
• Empowered to take ownership of my environment
• Hopeful that we may be closer to more options & choices
• Inspired to dig deeper

Feet:

• Take what I learned & teach someone else, esp. youth
• Follow up with more training & development
• Keep growing as a frontline worker –read & question more
• Volunteer to move the process forward
• Take information back to workplace
• Advocate for funding, with elected representatives
• Connect with others I have met here
• Learn more, activate interest in my neighbourhood
• Look for ways to incorporate RJ alternatives in my practice
• Look at things in a different way
• I want to be involved in the next step of this process

OUTCOMES

• Heightened awareness of restorative justice processes
• Increase in the comfort level of using restorative justice processes
• Increase in the knowledge base of service providers
• Networking –brought together a diverse group of service providers
• Provided opportunity for open discussion & asking the hard questions
• Determination of qualified individuals to pursue training in mediation and alternative dispute resolution practices
• Discussion of the potential for restorative justice processes in the province

CONCLUSIONS

• There are many effective program models
• Listen to the voices of those who have experience
• There is willingness in the community to move ahead
• There is caution about moving ahead
• Action & programs need to be supported by:
  • Political will
  • Stable funding resources
  • Trained practitioners
  • Partnerships between community and government

NEXT STEPS

• Adult Alternative Justice Program
• Networking
• Building on community capacity
• Support for training

Coalition Against Violence – Avalon East
709.757.0137
Vyda Ng
cavae@coalitionagainstviolence.ca