Final Reflection

In the relatively short span of time that I have been affiliated with CDR I have personally seen positive changes occur among the respondents. A seemingly-grumpy non-talkative kid opened up more while in the circle and was more comfortable with their own peers. Whenever I mentioned“Court” during my intakes more than once, the respondent would be visibly alarmed and would question me on the setup of the room; after I went over the entire process a lot of the intakes remarked how the idea of a “group of peers” sounded much more better than “adults deciding what [they] should do.” Also, during a brief conversation with one of the panelists I found out that Joe (not the real name) was himself an offender during last year, and he remarked how the process had helped him get on track, and now I myself have seen how Joe can easily reach out to similar kids who might be looking for some guidance from someone in the same shoes. Upon asking some of the teen panelists as to why they volunteered, some of their replies were as follows:

“I like to do something good. (RPC is) giving them a chance to grow and is giving them a second chance.”

“(I learn) why they (the respondents) do what they do, and it teaches me what not to do and learn from their mistakes.”

“I can see a lot of them are stupid and experimenting, and they learn from their mistake. What they do now is affecting their future.”

Similarly, a past-respondent who was part of the panelist as part of her sanction talked about her experience with the process:

“It has been beneficial for me. It has taught me a lesson to not get into trouble, and I don’t want to get in trouble anymore.”

Empathy does not come to children automatically, however if given a chance they are able to utilize it as much as an adult, or even more, and also make an impact on someone else’s lives for the better. That is just one of the lessons I learned while I worked at CDR. The entire staff at CDR, Tim, Chip, Cara, Robert, and all the volunteers and other interns are really passionate about what they do and therefore create the most out of limited resources. I wish the best to everyone involved at CDR, CDR itself, and all the juveniles currently part of the RPC process, and everyone who will be a part of it in the future. The work being done by CDR is really helping the community to grow. Similarly, the RPC process is transforming the lives of juveniles and giving them some tools to learn from their mistake and give back to the community at the same time.

Gleeful parents

This week I have primarily been dealing with conducting 2 month and 6 month follow-up phone surveys of parents whose kids had successfully gone through the program. I have received almost 100% results in parents exuding the benefits of the program. This has further solidified my belief that this process truly helps the kids, and giving them the opportunity to reflect, and atone for their mistake, all the while treating them with respect and kindness helps build their character. Some of the responses from the parents that speaks to the benefits of the program are as follows:

“It’s really good to hear other peoples stories and for the youth to understand she's not alone. It has made a big impact to hear how people’s parents have been impacted. The team atmosphere has helped the youth.”

“It was a great experience for _______. He was taught accountability and how to make better decisions, especially regarding friends. He and the family enjoyed the entire procedure. _______ has changed friends.”

“We recognized our child again. Changed to better choices, her peers had more influence on her then we did and encouraged toward better choices. Making better choices will definitely lead to empowerment. Thankful and grateful for this program. Affected the whole family for the positive. It was so good.”

“It was nice for him to be around other kids and see their situations. Turned a bad situation into a positive.”

The antepenultimate one

Another piece of work that I am involved at CDR that I have yet to mention is the Theft Impact Class (TIP). TIP is mandatory for juveniles participating in the RPC process that have been caught stealing. The aim of the class, in line with RJ principle, is to hold the offenders accountable while providing them support to help in their transformation. So far I have been involved in two sessions, and have one scheduled for this month. The class provides an opportunity for juveniles to learn why stealing is not as good or 'fun' as it seem from the offset. The message seems apparent, but it is truly surprising how quite a few juveniles do not have a full picture of the extent of their action and its effect on those who are affected by it. There is a cap of the amount that was stolen to be considered for the RPC, but the amount notwithstanding the main focus is to show the children that stealing in general, and no matter the amount, or if there are no apparent "victims" is wrong in itself. The class helps juveniles understand empathy, seeing the ripple effect their action has on individuals and their communities, and also serves as a reminder of the repercussion of stealing. Getting and maintaining the attention of middle and high-schoolers for two hours is quite a feat, but I would like to believe by the end of the lesson the juveniles gained some new insight.

Last week I also attended a mediation session, as a observer, between teachers, janitors, students and parents at Shashta Middle School, where a case was being conducted regarding some students vandalising a classroom and school property. Witnessing raw emotions where everyone put forth how they were affected by the incident and then coming together to formulate ways to make up to the community and school-members that were affected was a great experiencing seeing the efficacy of victim-offender dialogue process.

A little-more-than-half-way review of the internship

So last week I had a conversation with my supervisor at CDR, Tim, about the mid-term evaluation, which is part of a CRES departmental requirement for this internship. The good or the bad thing, an argument can be made for both, is that there wasn't  a lot of things to come out of it. I got very high evaluation on all points, and Tim reassured that I was doing a good job on all the assignments that I was tasked to do. I am sure, along with being honest, there might definitely be some criticism that, for whatever reason, I was not made privy of . However, I myself am quick to acknowledge that I could be a bit pro-active in terms of taking initiative. Even though I do ask for tasks and work when I seem to be idle or have spare time on my hands, yet I think there is a different level of pro-active work that I have yet to attain. I believe a lot of it does stem from my inexperience and a bit of trepidation in terms of taking initiative in trying to be of more use to the organization. A good foot soldier can still be part of a larger picture and help to win battles, but there is a definite limitation to what can be achieved in that scenario. I hope to move past the foot-soldier paradigm eventually, either within my time at CDR or in my next work, but it definitely is something that I not only aspire to, but am constantly trying to push myself in getting there. 

A bit (more) of theory Pt. 2

Compared to the business-as-usual model of retributive justice, restorative justice process is more personal and victim-centric where concentrated efforts are made in order for the victim to feel safe, heard, and provided with reparations as brought forward by the victim themselves. A boon and a bane in itself are the various types of RJ that can be organized depending on the case involved and the stakeholders present. four major types of RJ practices that are used the most often are: Victim-Offender Dialogues; Conferences (family group); circle processes ; and Truth Commissions. For something similar to a case involving juvenile delinquents the first three out of the four are routinely used on a case-by-case basis. In the case of RPC practiced at CDR, as mentioned in earlier post, the weekly meetings are conducted via circle processes. Similarly, victim-offender dialogue has been used when the victims themselves want to have a 'dialogue' with the offender, and conferences are also used although I have not witnessed a conference process during my time at CDR.


The case for restorative justice practices to work alongside juvenile court system or as a diversion process is something that has been ongoing for some time now. The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model, offered by the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) aims to provide attention to “enabling offenders to make amends to their victims and community; increasing offender competencies; and protecting the public through processes in which individual victims, the community, and offenders are all active participants”. Similarly, a report by The Smith Institute has provided evidence that RJ “works differently on different kinds of people", although not a major revelation in itself, the report further goes on to show that the process can substantially reduce recidivism on some participants, provides both victims and offenders more satisfaction with justice, reduces the cost of criminal justice when used as a diversion (as used in the case for Teen RPC at CDR), and reduces victim’s post traumatic stress levels.


The two resources I have linked to above have a lot of information on the use of Restorative justice not only in the US, but also in an international arena. As a relative new and developing field, along with a lot of positive reflection, there are still a few gaps in terms of research data and universal applicability. Since RJ is, to a great extent, a very personal experience there is always a need to adjust the model in terms of where it is implemented and for what purpose. This nonuniform nature of RJ both in terms of how it is defined, and how it is implemented practically is one of the main criticism of this process.  
 

A bit of theory Pt. 1

I have set into a routing at CDR now: entering new case information, updating ongoing case information, setting up and conducting intakes, preparing for Monday's RPC session, and doing ad-hoc work that comes up in an office setting. I also have had time to research more on the US juvenile-justice system and RPC. Therefore, follows is a first part of a two part series on the theory behind Restorative Justice:

Restorative justice (RJ) is a burgeoning field of practice that has seen monumental leaps in the past quarter of a century, being embraced from individuals such as Oprah to governments such as South Africa. The idea of restorative justice is considered by many to be much different than ‘retributive justice’ or commonly known as the traditional criminal justice system. In Howard Zehr’s seminal work, Changing Lenses, on restorative justice, he provides a valuable critique of the punitive criminal justice system where the victim is often disregarded, emotionally and judicially, as soon as the offender is apprehended. Zehr presents his idea of addressing the “needs” and “roles” of the often overlooked stakeholders (victims and community members), whom he believes have crucial roles in order to attain ‘justice’. Zehr makes it a point to ruminate on how the current conceptions and frameworks of justice, especially in regards to western law and the criminal justice system, seriously overlooks the victim’s actual needs or the root causes of “crime” which are often systemic (economic oppression etc), and even downplays their role in the justice process; and the subsequent impersonal state judiciary, which deems itself the main victim only helps to further alienate the original victim of the crime. Restorative justice process started in the 70s as mediation between victims and offenders, Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP). The thematic issue was broadened in 1990s to include communities and collaborative processes through “conferences” and “circles”, and post 1990 apartheid in South Africa, restorative process was used as part of a larger transitional justice schematics. 

The following table shows a simplistic view of the main differences that most proponents of RJ would point out in highlighting the differences between the two seemingly different systems (Excerpt from, Leonard, P. B. (2011). An Introduction to Restorative Justice. In P. B. Leonard, E. Beck, & K. P. Nancy (Eds.), Social Work and Restorative Justice: Skills for Dialogue, Peacemaking, and Reconciliation (pp. 31-63). New York: Oxford University Press.):

Two Different Views
Criminal Justice	Restorative Justice
·  Crime is a violation of the law and the state	·  Crime is a violation of people and relationships
·  Violations create guilt	· Violations create obligations
· Justice requires the state to determine blame (guilt) and impose pain (punishment)	·  Justice involves victims, offenders, and community members in an effort to put things right
Central Focus: Offenders get what they deserve	Central Focus: Victim needs and offender responsibility for repairing harm
Three Different Questions
Criminal Justice	Restorative Justice
What laws have been broken?	Who has been hurt?
Who did it?	What are their needs?
What do they deserve?	Whose obligations are these?

A first

This week I conducted my first intake session by myself. It was definitely nerve-racking at the onset, but I think in the end it went off without any hitch. Previously, I had most often sat with Tim, and sometimes Cara, during the intake and gotten valuable insight into how to conduct a good intake. A good intake process informs both the juvenile, and their parents/guardians on how the RPC process works, and its structure: from the moment of setting up an intake appointment to submitting a referral to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) to expunge the record of the incident, given that the juvenile successfully completed all tasks and sanctions given to them. A good intake process not only provides a clarification of how to go on expunging the records (being part of quite a few intake it does feel like a lot of participants going through this process, do this so that there is a chance of the "crimes" not being part of the permanent history of the kids, which is a good thing, but it definitely is not an integral part of the restorative justice paradigm. Given that a low income, socially marginalized kid might have their future in jeopardy just because of one stupid decision made early on in their life is something that should not be take lightly, and my criticism early on was that this process is being utilized, by those who are eligible, as away just to get out of trouble; however, after being part of this process I would not consider that a bad thing at all. Being able to get their records expunged is definitely a major incentive in participation, but there is as much an opportunity to learn and grow once agreeing to be part of it), but it also sets a good precedence to help the juveniles start reflecting upon their 'mistake', and also gives a chance for honest conversation between the parents and the children. During some of the past intakes I have witnessed, I have seen the process being useful in creating a space for the kids to talk about the problems and issues they are facing, which might have been unbeknownst to their parents. Also, the process definitely helps the juveniles see the bigger picture of who was affected by their actions; "the ripple effect" of their actions is explained, which provides them a chance to introspect and even come up with their own suggestions as to how they could right the wrong they committed. It will be more clearer in the next blog, when I go a bit deep in the theory behind Restorative Justice.


One of the major cultural difference, between US and Nepal, that became apparent to me after interacting with so many kids under 18 was the amount of respect provided to them, where they are held accountable for their actions and at the same time are given a chance to make mistakes and learn for themselves. My personal experience on how teenagers are treated back home is completely different; there is a distinct lack of respect compounded with constant scrutiny and lack of freewill not only in a family setting, but in a larger societal context as well. For e.g. there was an incident where police personnel were rounding up teenagers (mostly men) who had long hair or piercings, citing it as a way of "discouraging potential troublemakers"; there is that instant branding, and assumption that is being made, and on the other hand in terms of RJ, it is going beyond labels and giving everybody another chance to not only prove their actions, and past mistakes wrong, but also providing an avenue to accomplish that and providing support throughout the process.

Restorative Peer Court hearing comes with pizza

Last week I took part in my first RPC 'hearing'. The RPC hearing culminates after the intake process where the juvenile and their guardians agree to go through with this diversion process, which would definitely be better not only because the juveniles get their records expunged, but it also helps to hold the juveniles accountable and offers them a chance to actually learn from their mistake. In order to give a concrete picture of the entire process, let me try to break down the steps.

Intake: The intake process is conducted in order to familiarize the respondent and their guardian with the process of RPC. It is also used as an opportunity to remind the respondent that RPC is not a legal process, which I have seen tends to ease the parties in most cases. Necessary waivers and release forms are signed during this time, and the importance of confidentiality throughout the process is reiterated. Even though CDR and its staff are not mandatory reporters any information during the RPC process that leads to a probable suspicion of child or elder abuse would be duly notified to the authorities. Other than that exception, from the time the first correspondence was initiated to the time of completion all records and conversations are confidential. The intake process is also used by the RPC coordinator or anyone scheduling the intake to determine if the respondent is fit for the process or not. Questions that would be asked during the actual process are asked to the respondent so that they can feel more at ease when the actual day of hearing arrives. I feel like sometime if the juvenile is provided with questions that will be asked in the hearing, the respondent can prepare/rehearse to the extent that they fake sincerity but I suppose I am more cynical about this, for now at least. A notice to arrive in court is provided with schedule date and time.

Peer Court Hearing: During the day of the peer court before proceedings begin, a support person greets the respondent and their guardians before they are led to the circle process. The support person goes over a few more questions, checks-in with the respondent making them feel at ease, and after the hearing is done will go over the sanctions and keep track of the progress made. The peer court session takes place in the form of a circle process. Depending upon the number of volunteers present all the individuals inside the circle will be youth, except for the "Elder", whose role is to ensure that both the process and outcomes are fair and constructive. All the volunteers are provided with a circle process script to follow depending upon the roles they assume, which can be: peer panelist, lead panelist, convener/facilitator, and scribe. No matter the roles assigned everyone will participate in asking exploratory questions so as to know the respondent’s personal life, school life, what happened regarding the offense, who they think was impacted, and what repairs could be provided to those impacted.

Sanctions: After the deliberation by the peer panelists under the discreet and often times silent supervision of the elder, the youth will decide upon sanctions for the respondent after they have successfully heard their story. There is a minimum of 4 hours of community service, 2 panel participations (where the respondents come back to hear someone else’s story and deliberate) and Minor In Possession or Theft Impact class depending upon the offense. However, other than those the panelists are free to choose sanctions that they think will help the respondent constructively. Sanctions are chosen not to serve as punishment, but to help heal the harm that was done and to better direct the respondent towards constructive paths. As I alluded earlier, the support person will go over the sanctions with the respondent and their guardian, and the respondent will have 60 days to complete their sanctions.

The age range of the children working as volunteers or who are coming back to fulfill their sanctions ranges from as young as 8 to 16 years old. It truly was remarkable seeing them work with the offender and how the group arbitrates the sanctions to hand down. Next week I will start doing work as a support person. It is quite a big responsibility to not only make the respondents at ease, but following up on their progress and helping them along the way. I already mentioned there is pizza during the hearings, right? Pizza helps everyone involved to bond over food, and breaking bread is always a welcome sign in mending and working on past grievances.

What is Restorative Peer Court (RPC)?

One of the conflict resolution services provided by CDR is its successful Restorative Peer Court (RPC) program headed by Restorative Justice Programs Manager, Tim McCabe.

The goal of CDR’s Restorative Peer Court is:

“to help juvenile offenders restore their relationships with the community through alternative methods of adjudicating juvenile offenses, including programs that teach responsibility and positive decision making while restoring a sense of safety in the community.”

The Peer Court, also known as Teen Court or Youth Court, is a voluntary diversion process in which youth conduct hearings to recommend consequences, known as ‘sanctions’, for qualifying juvenile offenders. The program is authorized by the Lane County Department of Youth Services (DYS), with non-monetary support provided by the Eugene Police Department and its active volunteers. The cases that are eligible for RPC are first time offense (In some individual cases, at the discretion of the program coordinator, and the recommendation of DYS, second time offender are given the chance to go through the process again, if the offenses are not the same in nature) for non-violent misdemeanors (Referred Crimes: Theft II and III, Criminal Mischief II and III, Criminal Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Harassment, Other non-violent misdemeanors), violations (Minor in possession of Alcohol, Possession of Less than 1 Ounce of Marijuana Curfew Violation Minor in Possession of Tobacco, Other minor violations). One of the major aspects of the program is that the youth has to take responsibility for their action, which is not the same as conviction, as a gesture of goodwill and an agreement of their good faith in the process. Also, one of the ‘carrots’ of the program is the ability to expunge the offender’s arrest record six months after successful completion of the program. Parents are valued as partners in the process and are provided the same level of information and respect as the offenders themselves as they help the youth to “make the right choice” about participation, and future decisions. The ‘sanctions’ handed down by the RPC are not one size fits all, but are catered towards individuals after hearing their stories and is different in each case.

There are specific steps to this process, beginning from when a case is referred to by the Eugene Police Department and ending in the successful completion of the RPC process. Over the past week I have been training on managing the case loads in the online tracker and setting up case files. I also have been sitting in on the 'intake process' where the offending juvenile, along with their guardians, are invited into the office to discuss the offense and gauging if they would want to go through with the process or not. I have yet to conduct an 'intake' by myself, but I am hoping to sit through a few more and observe before I can conduct one by myself.

And then there was an internship...

Center for Dialogue and Resolution, formerly Community Mediation Services, is nestled at the heart of Whitaker district in Eugene. Albeit the recent rebranding, CDR has been in existence for over 30 years serving Eugene and the greater Lane county. CDR aims to reduce conflict in people’s personal life, organizations and the community through mediation, facilitation and educational programs that helps people build their communication skills. My internship with CDR officially starts tomorrow.

However, I already took a plunge into the world of Restorative Justice, for juveniles, today. Tim McCabe, program manager for Restorative Justice at CDR, offered me a chance to be an observer at a follow up session of a restorative justice case in Junction City. The case involved juveniles who had been caught vandalizing a local middle school and this was the final meeting to assess if they had completed their ‘sanctions’. Even though one of the three juvenile, along with his guardian, failed to make the meeting, the meeting was attended by the juveniles and their guardians, a representative of the school community, and a community member. Everyone talked about how the actions of the juveniles had affected everyone involved; themselves, their families, the school, and community members. Tim did a wonderful job facilitating the conversation and it seemed like the students were sorry for their actions, and had done quite a few tasks to rectify their mistake. Although, I was not involved in the process, it was helpful stepping outside of it and seeing the process more holistically. As it was my first day, technically, I still have yet to catch up on the inner workings of Restorative Justice Program at CDR, but I am more than thrilled to be part of this really wonderful program.

In this blog I will not only be giving insight into what my work at CDR entails, and my own reflections on it, but I will also be reflecting on the themes of restorative justice in the larger American societal context, and how it is very different to how things have been/are in Nepal.

Final Reflection

My time with working with Society Welfare Action Nepal (SWAN) was a truly transformative experience for me. Foremost, it introduced me to rural life that I had only fleetingly glimpsed at in the past, which helped me realize my own privilege that I carry with me due to my gender, ethnicity, education, family background, among others. I was also introduced to the divide that exists within the marginalized communities themselves, where a few well-off members conspire with the elite class to maintain a status quo to benefit themselves financially. The reality of abject poverty, and the conditions in which families go about with their own lives enduring hardships, and the toll it has on their children was something I had not fully prepared myself to face. Reading about the socio-economic divide and experiencing it first hand are two completely different concepts to get around. 

Working with SWAN was also a vivid reminder that plans and a whole lot of preparation can all seem to be ineffective when faced with ever-changing realities on the ground. However, flexibility, innovation and resilience are key in not only working with grassroots organization, but is also an allegory to the movement it hopes to champion as well. Also, as important are dedicated people who believe in change. The Social Mobilizers I met through SWAN, and the staffs at the organization were utilizing the limited resources to full capacity and even though the organization was constrained financially, and technically there was still a hope for change. 

I would have preferred to be more effective in the services I provided to SWAN in terms of capacity building, but I myself was fighting an uphill battle throughout my time there. I just hope the small program I helped initiate will be influential, even in a small amount, for the young girls and their families. However, only hoping for it does not make it come true. I would definitely like to revisit this program in two years, and see the impact of the program both for SWAN, and its benefactors. 

When the lights go out

The new project supporting girl's education seems to be off to a good start. Instead of sitting in office without any lights and hardly any work being done, I utilize my time by visiting the girls, and talking to their families and taking pictures to create a profile of all 12 girls.

The light-out time has also encouraged me to travel around town and see how other programs run by SWAN are operating. Last week, I was lucky to attend a Child Club Network Interaction program that discussed issues on children's rights, working children and child marriage.
                                                                                                                                                             

Vice President of the Child Club Network, Sadhana Kishori,
addresses the participants

The meeting focused on creating better linkages between different Child Clubs in the area, and there was vibrant discussion on using plays, rallies and posters for combating both issues of child labor and early child marriage. Some of the attending members were previously rescued child laborers themselves, and had participated in awareness raising programs in the past. I was extremely ecstatic seeing the motivation of the teenagers in organizing and trying to make a difference in their community. I would not have found out about this if the lights had not gone out in the office, so sometimes things do work out in the end given the harsh circumstances. 

A new model of help

The initial idea for the assistance I would provide to SWAN was helping them with creative use of IT to increase their scope: this idea eventually ran its course with the constant electricity load-shedding (at least 4-5 hours during office hours), and a less than reliable internet connectivity. Similarly, with the dearth of skilled manpower in the organization who had a good working knowledge of English, looking for grants and funding for the organization was very limited. Manuals were created, but unfortunately I dont see it's efficacy in the near future. After consulting with AP back in DC, we decided to shift our focus from providing support to the staff, to instituting a small project that could be expanded in scope if the two year plan went smoothly.

The plan now is to select 12 marginalized girls from surrounding area, and provide them financial support in continuing their education for two years. Social mobilizers working at SWAN already have given me names of girls whom they have selected as the most deserving and facing immense hardship. The fund provided by a private donor is not much, but could be a good pilot project that could attract further funding if we can show that a small financial help can keep the girls away from work, and in school. 

Frustrations in the field

My last blog detailed some of the problems I faced while conducting advocacy work for abolishing child bonded labor. The lack of viable income options and abject poverty of the families made them very reluctantly send their kids to work. Similarly, on a larger societal scale there were those who thought their employing of children actually helped the family and the children themselves. This cognitive dissonance seemed ever more rampant in educated households that justified their actions with the false belief of "helping the poor folks out". On the other hand, I had my own problems to deal with.

My pre-arrival problems, the ones I had assumed before arriving at SWAN, dealt mostly with the excruciating hot weather, living conditions, transportation problems, and to some extent language barriers. All of those fears certainly were not unfounded, and I did encounter all of those to a certain extent, some worse than the others. However, one thing that I had not adequately prepared myself for was the organizational frustration I would face. In the first two weeks of initial settling down the Program Manager who was the liaison between Nepal and DC abruptly resigned from his post, and without a proper communication established within the organization about my work, I was left to clarify and explain my seemingly-abrupt presence. All the while, the now headless organization was desperately trying to complete their annual review for the donors. I tried my best not to get in the way of their work, while at the same time trying to implement new initiatives that was supposed to help the organization. The only problem was that the few permanent staffs in the organization were not as excited and hopeful as I was. My midterm review, as part of the internship requirement, went rather smoothly, which can be construed both as a good thing or a bad thing. On the other hand my own assessment of the organization was not faring too well. To add on to my frustration I started getting stories, through personal interviews, of mismanagement of funds, and heavy handedness of the organizations board director, who was also the founder, in running the girl's hostel that was run by the organization. Since my mandate did not dictate looking into those allegations, I was advised not to stir the pot. I don't know if I should have tried to talk with the director about the allegations, but I did not want to jeopardize any one's safety, no matter how small the chances of that happening. Also, ironically the director was single-handedly the one keeping both the organization and the hostel afloat, so I was also a bit weary if the individuals making the accusations were doing it out of past grievances. My only way forward from this is to focus on the new program that I am planning to set up and see to its success.