|
Article Excerpt
Community-based restorative justice programs have gained recognition over the past three decades as a viable response to crime and victimization. These programs rely on members of the community as volunteers, and these volunteers often work in collaboration with criminal justice professionals. Several studies have highlighted the success of restorative justice (RJ) in promoting victim and offender satisfaction and perceptions of fairness in the justice process and outcome, achieving high restitution completion rates and reducing re-offending, as well as reducing the public's fear of crime (e.g., Latimer, Dowden, and Muise 2001; Umbreit 1995; Umbreit, Coates, and Vos 2002). However, to date, the contributions of community volunteers to the RJ process and to its outcomes have been largely overlooked. Indeed, very little is known about volunteerism in RJ. What types of people volunteer for RJ programs? Why do they choose to become involved in RJ? What skills and qualifications do they bring, and how are they trained for their roles? Finally, to what extent are volunteers satisfied with their roles in RJ?
The aim of this paper is to shed light on volunteerism in RJ by exploring these questions. We will present the method and findings of a survey of RJ volunteers. First, however, we begin with a brief overview of RJ that includes a discussion of the roles that volunteers play in RJ programs, followed by a review of the literature on volunteerism. We also present a descriptive model outlining constructs that are relevant to three sequential stages in the RJ volunteer process.
Restorative justice
Principles and potential benefits of restorative justice
RJ represents a paradigm shift in the criminal justice system in that it is a shift from a retributive to a restorative model of justice. (1) Crime is traditionally regarded as a violation of the law, and the traditional aims of deterrence and rehabilitation often involve the use of imprisonment (Griffiths and Verdun-Jones 1994). RJ conceptualizes crime as a conflict between persons and aims to restore relations among affected parties by endorsing principles such as forgiveness, reparation, and reintegration (Sharpe 1998). (2) Thus, RJ focuses on healing interpersonal relationships that have been violated by crime by creating opportunities to right a wrong through support and reconciliation (Zehr and Mika 1998). This ideology stems partly from the non-retributive philosophy of various faiths and the practices of indigenous cultures worldwide (Hadley 2001); that is, to advocate accountability without using sanctions that deprive wrongdoers and alienate them from the community.
RJ can have implications for victims, offenders, and the community. First, while victims are often marginalized in traditional justice proceedings, RJ can give them a voice with which to convey the tangible, emotional, and/or psychological harms they sustained, and can empower victims of crime by including them in decisions on how the harms can be repaired (Zehr 1995). This in turn can foster healing for victims and help reduce their fear of being re-victimized. Second, RJ is a forward-looking solution to crime in that the problem rather than the person becomes the focal point of justice (Braithwaite 2000). Through face-to-face meetings, offenders are given the opportunity to be held directly accountable to their victims and so can learn about the impact of their actions and take responsibility for making amends. The rehabilitative elements that are often incorporated into RJ (e.g., support and treatment programs) can also aid in reducing offenders' risk of reoffending (Sharpe 1998). Finally, RJ recognizes the community as an important stakeholder in justice, such that it situates crime in a social context to enable community members to provide solutions to crime control and prevention that are specific to the needs of the community.
Restorative justice practices
The principles of RJ are manifested via a wide range of practical programs (Sharpe 1998). These programs fall under three general categories (victim-offender programs, community conferencing, and circles) and are distinctive in their method of practice and in the number and type of key players involved. For instance, central to victim-offender programs is the convening of the victim and offender with the support of a trained facilitator. The victim and offender are the key decision makers in formulating a restitution plan that addresses the immediate harms caused by a crime. In comparison, conferencing models often employ a script under the guidance of a trained facilitator, and encourage participation from all persons affected by a crime: victims and offenders, their respective family members, and key support persons. The group dynamic in conferencing represents the broader social impact of crime. Finally, the defining feature of circles is their extension to the wider community to promote the use of local resources. RJ circles aim to promote consensual decision making in responding to crime, rebuild relationships between those who have been affected by crime, and strengthen community bonds (Zehr 1995). In each of these RJ models, the role of the facilitator or neutral third party is vital, as he or she is responsible for bringing the conflicting parties together, facilitating the restorative process, and monitoring the conferencing outcome.
Community volunteers in restorative justice
Despite reports of their success, RJ programs persistently face challenges in obtaining financial support to launch and sustain their operations, in creating partnerships with funding and referral agencies, and in increasing and sustaining community involvement (Dhami and Joy 2007). While each of these components is vital to a program's success, widespread community participation is crucial, particularly as volunteers form the foundation of these grassroots community justice programs.
RJ volunteers may be recruited through informal methods (e.g., word of mouth), but it is unclear whether this strategy achieves community representativeness (Dhami and Joy 2007). Thus, identifying the types of people who volunteer for RJ has implications for helping RJ programs become more far-reaching and inclusive. Of equal concern is the quality of community volunteers being recruited, as each role in an RJ program requires specific skills and training. For example, program coordinators are largely responsible for liaising with referral agencies such as police and schools, managing and delegating cases, and providing support and training to other RJ volunteers. Thus, knowledge of community resources and interpersonal skills are particularly relevant to this role. Similarly, RJ facilitators require expertise in effective communication and professional practice for conferences. Program chairs require strong planning and leadership skills, as their primary tasks are to develop program policies and objectives, and to oversee the overall operation of the program and its members.
The lack of clarity regarding the standards of practice in RJ makes it difficult to assess the quality and efficacy of the services being provided by volunteers. In turn, screening potential RJ volunteers for their skills and qualifications can help to identify relevantly experienced individuals and assess their suitability for particular roles. It can also help ensure that volunteers are assigned to positions that maximize the use of their skills and abilities, which can be particularly useful in preventing volunteer burnout.
The number of hours that RJ volunteers contribute varies considerably according to their availability and willingness to take on particular responsibilities. Although volunteers are typically required to commit to an RJ program for a minimum of one year, they are not usually bound by a formal contract and so RJ programs often face problems of absenteeism and attrition. By identifying the factors that can enhance volunteers' satisfaction with their experiences in RJ, volunteers may be inclined to sustain their involvement in RJ programs. There is little published research on this and other aspects of volunteerism in RJ.
Volunteerism
Past research on volunteers
Past research on volunteerism has examined the demographic and personal characteristics of volunteers (Chambre 1993; Choi 2003; Warburton, Terry, Rosenman, and Shapiro 2001), volunteers' motivations (Clary, Snyder, and Ridge 1998; Okun and Schultz 2003; Omoto and Snyder 1995), and volunteers' skills and training (Nassar-McMillan...
|
