RJ Ecosystem Scan Report

AN ECOSYSTEM SCAN OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN METRO DETROIT

MAPPING PROGRAMS, CHALLENEGES, AND VISIONS

Prepared by: Angel McKissic Senior Program Manager | Just Cities Lab

The Detroit Justice Center’s broad mission is to reduce poverty, end over-criminalization, and mass incarceration, and build thriving communities. As an innovative team of community lawyers, advocates, and researchers, DJC uses a three-pronged approach to serve marginalized residents, build power, and make Detroit a model for a just city. We conceptualize this work as "defense, offense, and dreaming".

1. Our Legal Services Practice removes legal barriers (such as warrants, criminal records, fines, and suspended driver’s licenses) that prevent criminal justice-involved individuals from participating in the city’s economy.

2. Our Economic Equity Practice provides legal support for land trusts, housing co-ops, and economic endeavors led by returning citizens.

3. Our Just City Lab is working towards the incubation of viable systemic solutions to the punitive policies and infrastructure of the current criminal justice system.

JUST CITIES LAB

Nationally, we suffer from a lack of vision about how to reduce our reliance on prisons and criminalization and, more profoundly, how to replace institutions such as jails and prisons with alternatives. Those of us working toward a society that does not rely on punitive justice and prisons must begin framing prison abolition not just as an absence (of punitive justice, harsh sentences, prisons, and collateral consequences), but as a presence (of alternative mechanisms for addressing harm and resolving disputes, new forms of architecture and urban planning, and reinvestment in communities).

The Detroit Justice Center’s Just Cities Lab focuses on introducing and normalizing alternatives to punitive justice. We convene change-makers from Detroit and elsewhere who are experimenting with restorative justice and other alternatives to incarceration and policing, and implementing community reinvestment solutions through policy change.

The lab’s ultimate goal is to incubate and amplify Just City solutions that will ripple far beyond Detroit. To this end, the Just Cities Lab conducted over 20 field interviews with Restorative Justice practitioners working in the metro Detroit area across diverse contexts with various populations and issues.

THE PROBLEM

Detroit, like other comparable inner cities, is plagued by the social, economic, and psychological harm caused by the practices of a punitive and retaliatory criminal justice system. The impacts of incarceration are pervasive and deleterious and warrant an urgency towards its unequivocal abolition. Moreover, the criminal justice system and the people inextricably entangled within it necessitate a comprehensive overhaul of our infrastructure and our operational paradigm of how we conceptualize the nature of harm and the path toward healing and reconciliation.

ECOSYSTEM SCAN

This ecosystem scan served as the Just Cities Lab's entry point into assessing the strengths and opportunities for development and support across restorative justice programs in metro Detroit. Restorative justice practitioners were identified via an internet search and personal referrals. At the time of reporting, approximately 20 individuals and organizations that operate restorative justice or legal diversion programs were interviewed for this project. The interviews focused on the following: program components, context and populations served, program challenges, and visions for future applications of restorative justice.

JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVERSION

The majority of restorative justice programs in the metro Detroit area focus on juvenile populations, specifically through juvenile court diversion and school-based programming.

In the city of Detroit, a new initiative to divert juvenile cases through a restorative process was announced in December of 2019. The program, called "Talk it Out", will divert first-time offending juvenile cases to a victimoffender mediation process, whereby at the conclusion of the process charges against the child will be denied. Eligibility for the program mandates that there be no more than one identified victim for a low-level offense.

In the city of Lansing, the Resolution Services Center operates a juvenile diversion program called the Juvenile Accountability Restorative Project (JARP). The program receives referrals from municipal and school officers for low-level citations. Youth are offered the option of a restorative justice conference, as well as parent and child life skills training Once complete, the ticket is voided and no fee is assessed.

In Ann Arbor, Neutral Zone, a local youth organization facilitates a juvenile probation diversion program, whereby youth who have violated their probation conditions are offered the option of participating in youth-centered programming (including restorative justice) as an alternative to incarceration.

These are a few examples of the prominent model of RJbased juvenile diversion programs in the metro area However, they almost all exclusively attend to low-level offenses. The present assessment failed to locate existing juvenile diversion programs that extend their eligibility to violent offenses.

SCHOOL-BASED DIVERSION

In 2016, Governor Snyder signed a law that required Michigan school districts to consider using restorative practices as an alternative to zero-tolerance policies like suspension or expulsion.

As a result of the 2016 legislation, the past several years have seen an influx of interest in RJ from school districts, teachers, and parents. Some school districts throughout Michigan now have a mechanism for using RJ as a means of responding to conflict. In practice, Michigan schools deploy RJ programming by outsourcing the work to local organizations, such as county dispute resolution centers, or training teachers directly to be RJ facilitators. Both models are fraught with challenges, such as staff retention, funding, overburdening teachers, and the lack of school-wide strategies to transform cultures of control and discipline towards one of relationships and restoration

Challenges

In my conversations with school officials and RJ practitioners who operate programs in local districts, both models present unique challenges. One of the primary complaints with school-based RJ alternatives is the misguided and reductionistic use of the practice. Based on anecdotal reports from school staff, many districts employ RJ as an exact replacement for punitive measures. In this iteration, rather than using RJ as a preventative practice, RJ is only employed after harm has occurred.

Furthermore, many schools fail to adopt RJ principles as a guiding philosophy and instead opt to use the process in isolation from the expansive culture within which the processes and practices are derived. As a result, staff and students develop an aversive relationship with RJ due to its use as divorced from the fundamental values of relationship, community, and trust-building.

Another challenge plaguing school districts is the inadequate training and ongoing support of teachers and staff. Standard introductory RJ training typically takes place over two to three days. Once completed, participants are “qualified” RJ facilitators However, practitioners reported a lack of ongoing support for facilitators who are tasked with holding space for complicated issues. Moreover, staff and teachers who facilitate RJ work do so adjunctively, forcing them to balance their primary teaching responsibilities with those of an RJ facilitator. These precarious positions have an adverse impact on the quality and outcome of the RJ process within school systems.

The other model in operation is the outsourcing of facilitation services. This model has the benefit of alleviating staff and teachers of the work, though it is not without limitations. For example, “on-call” facilitators, who are only on-site "as-needed" are unable to transform the overarching culture of a school. A preferable model would be for school districts to employ staff whose position is exclusively dedicated to the operation and cultivation of RJ practices and values within their assigned schools

COURT-BASED DIVERSION

Less robust programming exists for adults who find themselves entrenched in the grips of the criminal legal system. In Michigan, several "specialty" courts offer a diversion from incarceration, including the mental health and drug courts in Wayne, Oakland, and Washtenaw Counties. In Washtenaw County, the Peacemaking Court is a child welfare court that approaches legal cases from a restorative lens Cases of violence between parents and children are offered the option to enter the peacemaking process through the externally positioned, Dispute Resolution Center. If cases are unable to be resolved via Peacemaking, they are referred back to the court, without penalty, to be resolved through conventional legal proceedings.

Diversion programs present several challenges to all parties involved First, many programs assess various forms of fee structures for services. If participants are unable to pay the fees, they are forced to contend with the possibility of the dissolution of the diversion option and possible incarceration. This threat is also present if participants are unable to fulfill the requirements of the program to the satisfaction of the court. Requirements often include participation in counseling and skill-building in addition to the formal RJ process. Another challenge of court-based programs is the employment of ineffective RJ models. In practice, the RJ process as prescribed by the court follows a “ one and done” model, whereby victims and harm-doer(s) enter into a one-time circle process, which concludes in an “agreement” that outlines the responsibilities of the harmdoer(s) as requested by the victim

A proficient understanding of the nature of harm necessitates a lengthier process than what is typically offered through court-based diversion programs. However, due to issues of capacity, funding, and sometimes, the willingness of the victim, such protracted processes are deemed impractical. Therefore, the court’s are limited in their capacity to act as facilitators of harm reparation. It is then necessary to conceive an alternative, non-coercive response to harm that prioritizes the expressed needs of all those most impacted by harm.

PRE-ARREST DIVERSION 0

hope Not Handcuffs

The previously mentioned diversion programs intervene at the post-arrest or pre-trial stage. Albeit, less robust, there are pre-arrest diversion programs in various stages of development in the metro Detroit area. The Hope Not Handcuffs program operates in counties throughout the state of Michigan (not presently in Detroit). The program allows any person who is struggling with drug addiction to approach participating police agencies and request treatment. If the individual has an outstanding warrant, police won't immediately arrest them if the warrant is for a non-violent offense Individuals are subsequently referred to the local office of Substance Use Services where they are matched to a treatment facility. Participants, therefore, avoid criminal charges or any engagement with law enforcement outside of the initial contact point.

Challenges

The program offers a path to recovery for those who want to consent to treatment However, the scope is limited to substance use and participants are required, essentially, to turn themselves in to benefit from the program. Conversely, those who are arrested out in the community for substance use-related offenses are denied this option and instead funneled through traditional criminal proceedings. In addition, eligibility for those with warrants for violent offenses is not guaranteed, and participants may be arrested during the intake process for the program. As a consequence, many individuals who want to seek treatment may avoid doing so for fear of being arrested.

PRE-ARREST DIVERSION

LEAD Detroit

City officials are currently developing a Detroit-based LEAD or Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program. There are currently several LEAD programs in operation and at various stages of development across the country. Essentially, LEAD programs allow police officers to exercise discretionary authority at the point of contact to divert individuals to a community-based, harm-reduction intervention for law violations involving substance use Individuals avoid punitive action via the traditional criminal legal system (i.e., booking, pre-trial detention, trial, incarceration, etc.). Instead, individuals are referred to a trauma-informed intensive case-management program where the individual receives a wide range of support services, often including transitional and permanent housing and substance use treatment.

Challenges

One of the fundamental faults of LEAD programs is the vesting of discretionary authority to law enforcement, where it is notoriously difficult to implement oversight checks. In addition, the program ’ s scope is limited to specific offenses, none of which currently include violence, which is often tied to substance use. Overall, the premise of the model, circumventing legal processes altogether, offers a promising foundation on which to build alternative, community-based models of diversion.

0

PRISON/JAIL PROGRAMS 1

Macomb correctional facility

In November of 2014, a group of men who were incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility launched the institution's first peer-led, restorative justice class. The curriculum was created through a partnership with the Inside/Out Prison Exchange Program (University of Michigan) Over the course of several weeks, the participants learn about the values, philosophy, and practice of restorative justice, and make connections to their personal experiences of causing harm, experiencing harm, and exploring processes of accountability. The class concludes with a graduation ceremony where participants discuss their experience in the class and present a final project. Due to high interest in RJ, the class has a waiting list every session. To date, the program has graduated 500 participants.

Many of the participants report using restorative justice practices to resolve conflicts within the prison. In their own words, restorative justice teaches one "to symbolically make restitution by giving back and educating the general population and public on this powerful method to resolve conflict and, in effect, to spread the RJ way of life".

Challenges

Facilitators and students of the RJ class at Macomb face both administrative and interpersonal challenges. One of the most consequential challenges is the lack of trust the prison administration has in the program itself as well as the facilitators. As a result, resources, such as physical space to hold the class were sometimes withheld under the false pretense that there was no availability. Additionally, facilitators report that participants were transferred to other correctional facilities without being allowed to complete their participation in the course.

This meant that a number of students were abruptly pulled from the class, while those who were participating in MDOCsponsored programs (of which this program is not) would be allowed to complete their class obligations prior to being transferred. Given the relational nature of RJ, these disruptions impact the class dynamics and the sustainability of relationships between participants.

Facilitators report that in general, they have few issues facilitating the class. As the course is voluntary, most participants come to the class genuinely curious about RJ. However, because the parole process incentivizes individuals for participating in life skills and continuing education classes, some individuals come to the class in order to "check a box" and increase their chances of a successful outcome at their parole hearing. However, the group has developed creative strategies for engaging participants who are initially inclined to resist the rigorous demands of the class.

Ultimately, the culture of distrust, suspicion, and power that pervades prisons infects efforts like the RJ class at Macomb in ways that have threatened its viability. However, facilitators and class participants have been able to organize their group to effectively advocate for the maintenance and sustainability of the class. What the individuals at the Macomb Correctional Facility have demonstrated is how even within the gross confines of prison, designed to dehumanize and disempower, communities can reclaim their power to facilitate meaningful accountability that is rooted in a recognition of our shared humanity.

COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS

SHARHOUSE RECOVERY

One example of a community-based RJ program is the family conferencing program at SharHouse Recovery Living in Warren, MI. The program is offered to the residents of the recovery center as a means of healing relationship fractures resulting from substance abuse. The process is facilitated by outside volunteers and requires the full consent of all parties. This process operates entirely outside of any legal proceedings. This approach to interpersonal healing offers a conducive space for establishing an infrastructure for the long-term work of familial and interpersonal restoration

CHALLENGES

Independent of the typical challenges associated with facilitating a restorative process, the model employed at Sharhouse is highly impactful for all those involved. Some of the limitations of this model are the lack of ongoing postcircle after-care for family members and friends and funding for dedicated RJ facilitators.

WHAT'S NEEDED?

When I talked to practitioners about what they needed to support their work, they identified three key areas: competent and reliable practitioners, funding, and buy-in from the community and participants.

Skilled and reliable practitioners

In the many conversations I had with program directors, nearly all of them identified adequate practitioner training and retention as a considerable barrier to maintaining a sustainable and effective RJ program. First, almost without exception, all certificate-eligible restorative justice training programs involve a one-time, in-depth exposure to the values, principles, philosophy, and practice of restorative justice. After, practitioners are left to manage their circle practices with little to no ongoing support. In some cases, where program directors have the capacity, they function as “supervisors” of the RJ work.

However, given limited funding for such programs, the level of supervision that is required for competent practice is hard to achieve. Consequently, there is a high rate of burnout and turnover of practitioners.

An optimal program design should include mechanisms for ongoing supervision and technical support for practitioners. This also includes avoiding the "add RJ and stir" approach to staffing RJ programs, where existing staff are burdened with operating RJ programs in addition to their exsisting job duties Sustainable and effective RJ programs cultivate facilitators through mentorship, ongoing training and feedback, continuous learning opportunities, and commensurate compensation

FUNDING

All of the RJ programming reviewed in this report requires financial support. Funding comes from various sources determined by the context of the program and the population it serves. For example, some court-based RJ programs operate on a blending funding model, with partial funding provided by the court‘s general operating budget and the other portion provided by a community partner Other, community-based programs are typically funded through grants and private pay fee structures. Indifferent of the source, funding is a challenge that should be approached with creativity and intention.

Legislative options, such as a county or state tax should be explored as an avenue for funding RJ programs and services. In addition, funding for community-based RJ programming should be prioritized for strategic community reinvestment initiatives. With adequate funding, schools and community groups can train and retain skilled facilitators, build RJ-specific spaces, and provide ongoing support services to participants.

COMMUNITY BUY-IN

Any successful and sustainable community-based RJ program must involve the foundational work of building trust with the community around the values, principles, and practices of RJ This critical work creates pathways for communities to invest their trust in and take ownership of RJ programs (and other alternatives) as a viable response to harm that leads to reconciliation and safety

Trust in the RJ process clears a path toward building the community’s capacity to circumvent the criminal system altogether and attend to incidents of harm. Additionally, community buy-in has implications for the victim and harm doer’s reintegration into the community.

Some practitioners identified the lack of support for RJ in communities (partly due to the lack of robust community education/programming promoting RJ) as a barrier to participation in the RJ process. At present, many Detroit residents are unfamiliar with RJ both as a process of repair and as a way of being in community. To begin addressing this issue, organizers and advocates should develop a citywide public engagement campaign that centers community safety and uplifts RJ as one way communities can build and repair together

STAKEHOLDER BUY-IN

Stakeholders are any person(s) or systems of people who, in some capacity, are necessary to engage in the development of alternative responses to harm. For those practitioners who are working in bureaucratic institutions, stakeholder buy-in has been a significant barrier to funding RJ programs adequately and to the broader work of transforming operations.

For programs that touch the legal system, stakeholders include law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. For school-based programs, stakeholders are superintendents, teachers, staff, students, and parents. Successful buy-in from these stakeholders involves philosophical and programmatic agreement, as well as logistical and budgetary support.

In all, stakeholder buy-in is an indispensable consideration for any system-engaging model of RJ and necessitates careful negotiations between community needs and benefits, stakeholder conditions, and long-term abolitionist aims

PARTICIPANT BUY-IN

RJ-based alternatives to harm are more likely to produce positive outcomes for participants if there is a non-coercive approach to participant engagement Practitioners who work in the legal and educational sectors described the problematic, punitive, and coercive practices used to engage participants in the RJ process While these practices are sometimes "successful" in getting participants to the space, the probability of a successful outcome is threatened by the presence of punitive contingencies. As a consent-based practice, any attempt to coerce participants is antithetical to the principles and values of RJ. Some practitioners complained that they are asked to facilitate with individuals who participate in the process to avoid punitive actions, such as suspension, incarceration, etc but are not necessarily ready to do the rigorous work required by RJ.

Removing threats of incarceration and other punishment, providing wrap-around support services, including meaningful before and aftercare services, and allowing individuals to learn about RJ on their terms, can reduce the risk of coercion and helps participants build trust in the process.

VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Expanding programming

Many practitioners expressed their visions for RJ in Michigan and beyond. These included robust programming in schools, sustainable and holistic alternatives to incarceration, especially for youth and substance abuse issues, and access to a network of like-minded practitioners.

Nearly every practitioner that I spoke with expressed a desire to see more RJ-based programming across sectors in Michigan. More specifically, there was a desire for holistic RJ programming which attends to all areas of an individual's life, beyond the incident of harm. Moreover, school-based practitioners were dissatisfied with the way school districts have adopted RJ in practice, and reported the need for funding to support the training of all school staff and the hiring of dedicated RJ staff. In essence, practitioners wanted to see a "restorative justice culture" within schools rather than schools using RJ exclusively to deal with conflicts and disciplinary issues.

There was also widespread support among practitioners for holistic court-based RJ programming, including expanding eligibility to adults and violent offenses.

"We're not going to stop sexual violence by just healing survivors" - Tashmica Torok, Founding Co-Executive Director, The Firecracker Foundation

Tashmica Torok, founding co-Executive Director of The Firecracker Foundation said during our interview, " we aren't going to stop sexual violence by just healing survivors". Her sentiments, mirrored by many other practitioners I interviewed, reflect an understanding of how cycles of violence might be interrupted if victims/survivors and harm doers were provided with wrap-around services to support their healing and reintegration into the community Accordingly, several practitioners felt that the current status of RJ programming within the legal system is insufficient to stem the patterns of harm in communities Instead, their visions for RJ necessarily implicate adequately funded and expertly staffed diversion programming which is accessible to as many people as possible. However, practitioners also recognized the limitations of relying on the legal system to transform communities and expressed visions of communitybased interventions which circumvent the legal system entirely and allow community members the agency to facilitate accountability between each other.

Networking and connection

The other emergent theme across interviews with practitioners was a desire for intentional community Many practitioners expressed an interest in community and network-building with other practitioners. Some practitioners were contending with workplace limitations and bureaucracy which prevented them from engaging with community-driven RJ and broader social justice work. Furthermore, practitioners discussed the need for community as a source of peer support for those doing RJ work that is particularly demanding of one ' s psychological and emotional capacities. In addition, practitioners wanted opportunities to engage in mutual learning and skill-sharing outside of conventional modes of formal training, etc. Overall, practitioners expressed a need for communal spaces outside of their respective work contexts as a way to stay connected with like-minded others and as a way to strengthen their skills as facilitators.

CONTACT

Angel mckissic amckissic@detroitjustice.org

senior program manager, just cities lab Detroit justice center

1420 WASHINGTON BLVD SUITE 301, DETROIT, MI 48226