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