Restorative Justice Week 2009

Events

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

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA)

Restorative Justice Symposium
St. John’s Newfoundland November 2009<
CSC Chaplaincy

Towne of Pomeiooc: John White. British Museum

First time Hugh and Susan have done a joint presentation - in preparing presentation, collaborated w/ colleague in the West, Andrew McWhinnie, who speaks internationally on COSA

• artist’s rendition of a village in 18oos in Virginia - good metaphor of how COSA works - participation from all community members

Communities bear a responsibility for their own safety

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA)

Fundamentally - Two “Circles” Comprise CoSA

Two Circles of CoSA

The “Outer” Circle

• Including mental health (a sexual behaviours clinic, if available) - psychiatric / psychology practitioners, police, faith community, schools, community groups, etc.
• Comprised of local, community-based professionals
• Offer support, guidance and mentoring
• Act as a “Safety Net” for CoSA
• Participate in Steering Committee, Advisory Panels, Boards of Directors, etc.<
• Offer a means of Accountability for local CoSA Project

The “Inner” Circle

Note that CM is not “in the middle”  - he is part of the discussion, decision-making process

• Comprised of local community-based volunteers<
• Often drawn from local faith community
• Includes the Core Member (the former offender)
• Numbers - four to six volunteers (each day of the week)
• Is guided by a “Covenant” (more on this in a moment)
  • Volunteers are required to complete the COSA training program which includes expert speakers from related fields to present on issues such as Sexual Deviance, Crime Cycles, Relapse Prevention, Victims Awareness.
  • All volunteers are screened (references checked, interviewed by screening cttee) and require a police check

Circles of Support and Accountability in Canada

Also of note, the CM participates in the program voluntarily - not mandated

TERMS

• Covenant
• Core Member
• High Risk, High Needs
• Community-based

COVENANT

• “Foundational” Document (without one, there is no CoSA)
• Establishes Boundaries for Relationships
• Defines Expectations
  • Of Volunteers
  • Core Member
• Governs Situations and Conflict<
• Signed by Core Member and Circle Volunteers

• Boundaries - when and where the CM can contact a volunteer, no dating, no sharing of mind-altering substances (alcohol/drugs), personal boundaries (VMs’ children, sharing of private matters) - VMs act as role models
• Expectations - honour commitments (safety of the community 1st priority - No More Victims, confidentiality, attend scheduled meetings, one year), be open & honest, CM - abide by any imposed legal conditions, must share file w/ VMs)
• Provisions to manage circle - housekeeping & emergency meetings - healthy approach to conflict
• VMs also encourage CM participation in programming, counseling, etc & support prescribed treatment)

CORE MEMBER

• Warrant Expiry Date (WED) Release
• From Federal Custody
• High Risk to Reoffend
• Sex Offender
• High Needs (no community resources)
• Likely also High Profile

HIGH RISK/NEED?  DETAINED OFFENDERS

The following criteria must be met in order to detain an individual past their statutory release date (SRD) – Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA 1990)

DETAINED OFFENDERS

Offender serving a sentence for crimes of violence or crimes against persons, and

That caused the death of orserious harm to another person and there are reasonable grounds to believe offender is likely to commit another such offence before the end of the sentence, or

The offence was a sexual offence involving a child and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit another sexual offence involving a child before the end of the sentence.

“One of the more unfortunate side-effects of detaining offenders until the last day of their sentence (WED) is that these are often the very offenders most in need of a gradual, supervised re-entry to the community.”

Wilson, McWhinnie, Picheca, Prinzo and Cortoni (2007) The Howard Journal. 46(1), p.2

• Unfortunate for the community (increased change of reoffence) and for the offender (few or no resources to access supports and services to turn his life around)

The Dilemma

Although this legislation accomplishes the short-term objective of ensuring public safety during the offender’s incarceration, he will eventually be released into the community with no accountability to CSC or the police.

COSA was developed to fill this void.

“Community Based”?

“The first thing to understand is that the public peace—the sidewalk and street peace—is not kept primarily by the police, necessary as police are. It is kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves and enforced by the people themselves. No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal causal enforcement of it has broken down”.

Jane Jacobs (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, cited in Police Quarterly Volume 10 Number 1, March 2007 41-62.

Local neighborhood communities using existing local human resources and consciously or not, following Jane Jacobs’ approach of strengthening human bonds:

“Community” - a place where we encounter one another - in neighborhoods - building on existing assets.

See also: Jane Jacobs (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, cited in Police Quarterly Volume 10 Number 1, March 2007 41-62.

Community and Community-Based

“ . . .the informal capacities of residents to regulate neighborhood order and the connections between neighborhoods to public institutions, especially the police, are both integral to inhibiting fear of crime and controlling crime itself” (Emphasis added).

Police Quarterly Volume 10 Number 1, March 2007 41-62, citing Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Hunter, 1985; Lewis & Salem, 1986.

CoSA is a PARTNERSHIP

“ . . .in recognition that the state, even at local government level, can only ever provide part of the solution to the issues that matter most to people … and that, with the right support and motivation, local people and community groups will readily play an active role in partnership with the state”

What works in community involvement in area-based initiatives? A systematic review of the literature.

P. Burton et al. British Home Office Online Report 53/04. p. 25

DOES IT WORK?

What Doesn’t Work

Simply Increasing Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

“Not a single review of the controlled outcome research in criminal justice and corrections has found large or consistent effects on recidivism through variations in the type or severity of the criminal penalty or judicial disposition” (Andrews, 1995, p. 38).

In fact, simple punishment has been found to result in a slight (3%) increase in recidivism

(Smith, Goggin & Gendreau, 2002).

National Replication

Table 1. Equivalency of Groups

	COSA (N = 44)	Control (N = 44)
M (SD) age	42.6 (9.6)	42.9 (8.4)
M (SD) STATIC-99**	4.9 (2.1)	6.1 (1.5)
M (SD) RRASOR	2.7 (1.5)	2.7 (1.3)
Modal PCL-R (recoded 1-5)	5 (high)	5 (high)
Sexual offender program	23.4%	19.1%
Any sexual offender treatment	57.4%	53.2%
Deviant phallometrics	34%	29%
M mos. (SD; range) follow-up	5.8 (22.75; 9-86)	38.6 (24.0; 8-96)
M mos (SD; range) until first failure	9.59 (5.91; 0-15)	16.72 (10.87; 1-43)

Note: COSA = Circles of Support & Accountability; RRASOR = Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual

Offense Recidivism; PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist Revised; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

**p < .01.

Wilson, Cortoni & McWhinnie, 2009.  Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment (forthcoming Dec 2009).

Table 2. Recidivism Outcomes: Total

	COSA (N = 44)	Control (N = 44)
Recidivism Sexual* (%)	2.27 (n = 1)	13.67 (n = 6)
Any violent a ** (%)	9.09 (n = 4)	34.09 (n = 15)
Any b ** (%)	11.36 (n = 5)	38.64 (n = 17)
Total no. of convictions and charges**	17	73

a. Includes sexual offences.
b. Includes sexual and violent offences.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Wilson, Cortoni & McWhinnie, 2009: Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment (forthcoming Dec 2009).

Recidivism Outcome: Group Comparisons

• Full sample. As seen in Table 2, COSA participants from the national replication sample had 83% less sexual reoffending (1 vs. 6: χ2[1] = 3.89, p < .05),
• 73% less violent reoffending (4 vs. 15: χ2[1] = 8.12, p < .01), and
• 71% less reoffending of any kind (5 vs. 17: χ2[1] = 8.73, p < .01) than the matched comparison group.
• Furthermore, in looking at the actual total number of new charges and convictions incurred by the two groups (as opposed to the number of offenders who recidivated), the COSA group (X = 0.39, SD = 1.38) incurred 74% fewer charges and convictions (17 vs. 73: F[1, 86]

= 5.02, p < .01) than the comparison group (X = 1.66, SD = 3.50).

Wilson, Cortoni & McWhinnie, 2009: Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment (forthcoming Dec 2009).

How Many?

There are about 120 – 125 WED Sex Offender releases in Canada annually

CoSA supports and holds accountable approximately 70 – 80 of these men annually

They could do more

A national infrastructure that involves each community in Canada would assist

No municipal government in Canada has, as yet, invested

Financial – for ONE Offender

Costs of conviction for one sex offender range close $500K per offender in Canada

Costs of incarceration are in a range near $70K per annum

Costs of Victimization are significant and include

• Pain and suffering
• Charges to the medical system
• Long-term recovery
• Insurance fees
• Lost productivity and wages
• Permanent damage and destroyed relationships<
• And costs to family members associated with these

Just In!

CoSA and Toronto Police Data (preliminary)

Four Groups

Criminal Justice Sanction (s. 810 CCC) Alone

CoSA Alone

CoSA and 810

Neither (Greater Toronto Area Control Group)

Collaboration WORKS!

Far more “bang for the buck” when criminal sanctions by court order (s. 810 CCC) are combined with a community engagement practice such as CoSA, even more so than simple criminal sanction alone.

Why does it work?

Covenant relationship facilitates accountability, builds trust

“Surrogate family” that celebrates milestones

Community members mentoring Core Member

Circle meetings – no secrets, being open and honest

Articulating standards – not passing judgment

Professional support, Community Investment

Social Support - WORKS

Social Support is a precondition for effective social control.

Francis Cullen (1994). Presidential Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly,          

Vol. 11 No. 4 December 1994.

Pushing People Out – Rejection

“The very same brain centres that interpret and ‘feel’ physical pain also become activated during the experience of emotional rejection: on brain scans they ‘light up’ in response to social ostracism just as they would when triggered by physically harmful stimuli . . . . (When people speak of feeling ‘hurt’ or having emotional pain, they are not being abstract or poetic but scientifically quite precise).”

Maté (2009). In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, p. 34, citing Eisenberger (2003). Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion, Science, 10, 290-292

Pushing People Out - Empathy for Victims

“Our difficulty or inability to perceive the experience of others . . . is all the more pronounced the more distant these experiences are from ours in time, space, or quality.”

Maté (2009). In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, p. 35, citing Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi The drowned and the saved, trans. Raymond Rosenthal, New York, Vintage International 1989, p 158

Pushing People Out - Hardening

Maté: on “dullness” or what I would call “numbness,” writes, “The addict’s reliance on the drug to reawaken her dulled feelings is no adolescent caprice.  The dullness is itself the consequence of an emotional malfunction not of her making: the internal shutdown of vulnerability . . . . From the Latin word vulnerare, ‘to wound,’ vulnerability is our susceptibility to be wounded.  This fragility is part of our nature and cannot be escaped. The best the brain can do is to shut down conscious awareness of it when pain becomes so vast or unbearable that it threatens to overwhelm our capacity to function. The automatic repression of painful emotions is the helpless child’s prime defence mechanism and can enable the child to endure trauma that would otherwise be catastrophic. The unfortunate consequence is a wholesale dulling of emotional awareness.

Maté (2009). In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, p. 38

Sex offenders with domestic stability (stable housing and social support) are less likely to commit new sex offenses compared to those offenders who lack such stability.

Lane Council of Governments (2003). Managing Sex Offenders in the Community: A National Overview, Eugene, Oregon.

Close supporting relationships were found to decrease the risk of relapse in child molesters and in rapists.

Grubin, D. (1997). Predictors of risk in serious sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170(Suppl.), 17-21.

- see also  Berner & Bolterauer,1995;

Violent sexual reoffence is related to the extent and quality of positive prosocial support, particularly by male associates.

Violent Sex Offenders Lack Male Social Support. Gutiérrez-Lobos , et al (2001). International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 70-82

Integrating Social Support with Best Practice

Considerable progress has been made toward integrating notions of social support within the sociology of mental illness, but not in the field of criminology.

Francis Cullen (1994) Presidential Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice “Social Support as an Organizing Concept for Criminology”

The “Tokyo Rules”

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

“public participation should be regarded as an opportunity for members of the community to contribute to the protection of their society” (Rule 17.2).

 

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

“There should, therefore, be governmental or private agencies capable of lending the released prisoner efficient aftercare directed towards lessening of prejudice against him and towards his social rehabilitation” (Rule 64).

Information and Communication

Recent events seem to indicate a break down in communications between CJ Sector Officials and the Mayor’s Office

Paul Callow (Balcony Rapist), Surrey, BC Spring/Summer 2007

Thane Moore, Dawson City, Yukon and Vancouver, Fall 2007

Peter Whitmore, Saskatchewan and BC

Profile of a Core Member

The Myth

CONTACT INFORMATION

National Advisor to Associate Director General
Chaplaincy Services and Restorative Justice
(Circles of Support and Accountability)
Correctional Service of Canada
Andrew_McWhinnie@telus.net
250-881-1151
250-889-2321