{"id":24773,"date":"2015-07-07T13:15:58","date_gmt":"2015-07-07T17:15:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/news\/?p=24773"},"modified":"2025-07-11T13:58:17","modified_gmt":"2025-07-11T17:58:17","slug":"restorative-justice-experts-join-in-zehr-institutes-3-year-project-to-map-the-future-of-the-field","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/news\/2015\/restorative-justice-experts-join-in-zehr-institutes-3-year-project-to-map-the-future-of-the-field\/","title":{"rendered":"Restorative justice experts join in Zehr Institute’s 3-year project to map the future of the field"},"content":{"rendered":"
A three-year project to envision and map a positive future for restorative justice began in mid-2015 with a five-day meeting of 36 people drawn from a wide range of backgrounds by the Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice<\/a> at 91大神<\/a> (91大神).<\/p>\n \u201cWe sought to bring together a cross-section of restorative justice practitioners, theorists and innovators,\u201d said Carl Stauffer<\/a>, co-director of the Zehr Institute and the project\u2019s leader. \u201cSome of the invitees were world-recognized in the restorative justice field, but others were invited to ensure that diverse and often-unheard voices would be represented.\u201d<\/p>\n One-third of the 36 participants were from populations that are under threat socially and economically in their regions of the world. The genders were equally represented. One person was under age 21, though two other young adults had been expected to attend.<\/p>\n The idea behind the unusual mixture of invitees was to foster provocative conversation about the possibilities for restorative justice (RJ), particularly for addressing structural injustices, said Stauffer.<\/p>\n In the prospectus for the three-year project submitted to the funder, Porticus<\/a>, the organizers wrote: \u201cOn the social margins, there is growing research and experimentation with RJ as a tool for addressing structural harms and injustices. This project will explore and document these emerging practices in order to recapture the revolutionary intent of RJ.\u201d<\/p>\n The organizers called attention in their prospectus to what they viewed as the danger of RJ settling into a \u201csocial service practice\u201d centering on \u201crepair at the micro-interpersonal level.\u201d Instead, they wished to highlight the ways that RJ can \u201cprovide a coherent framework for transforming macro-social structures that cause harm.\u201d<\/p>\n Aware that many of the 36 attendees at the first consultation would not have prior relationships with each other, the organizers devoted about half of the five days to exercises and facilitated conversations designed to establish trust and a common basis for exploring future possibilities. Senior graduate students at 91大神\u2019s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding<\/a> served as facilitators for the process.<\/p>\n First, the attendees prepared a history line of RJ, then they explored identity, power and privilege in the field. On the third day, they embarked on a discussion of best practices.<\/p>\n \u201cWe accepted the challenge of bringing together a highly diverse group, especially given that many of the participants are international leaders in the field, [being] accomplished researchers, authors, practitioners and facilitators in their own right,\u201d Stauffer said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe challenge was heightened because the group grew beyond the original envisioned size of 20 to 25,\u201d he added. \u201cWe needed to go well beyond 25 to have a true cross-section of voices, but it was difficult to develop coherence among three dozen people with strong opinions, especially in only five days.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet the participants were largely positive in their final evaluations, he said, indicating that they had not regretted investing a workweek in wrestling with each other over tough questions, such as the extent to which RJ should be viewed as a social movement, as opposed to simply a set of restorative practices.<\/p>\n Stauffer did not pretend to be neutral on this last point. In his opening remarks to the group, he referred to the U.S. penal reform movement having been \u201cco-opted.\u201d In contrast, he said he hopes RJ continues to grow into a social movement in North America, with the aim of \u201ctransforming deep structural conflicts and injustices.\u201d Toward this end, North Americans have much to learn from their international brothers and sisters about \u201clarge-scale applications\u201d of RJ, he said.<\/p>\n For a social movement to be successful, Stauffer told the group, it requires political opportunity, resource mobilization, a framing message, and critical mass (or a \u201ctipping point\u201d).<\/p>\n On the last day, in a final small-group presentation, a participant observed that the 36 attendees had largely agreed during the week on RJ\u2019s core values, but not necessarily on how to practice restorative justice.<\/p>\n This first consultation will be followed next year by a public conference attended by up to 120 people. Next time, Stauffer said, his organizing team will work to create a conference format that moves participants more quickly into discussions on the future of the field, with a view of moving into a research and writing phase in the final year of the project.<\/p>\n The 36 participants were:<\/p>\n The facilitators were led by project manager Soula Pefkaros<\/a>, and included CJP graduate students Janine Aberg, South Africa; Michael McAndrew, USA; Jordan Michelson, USA; Mikhala Lantz-Simmons, USA; and Ahmed Tarik, Iraq.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Conversing about RJ’s ‘revolutionary intent’<\/h3>\n
<\/a>Tough questions<\/h3>\n
<\/a>Agreement on RJ’s core values<\/h3>\n
<\/a>Participants in the consultation<\/h3>\n
\n
<\/a>