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.