“We sought to bring together a cross-section of restorative justice practitioners, theorists and innovators,” said , co-director of the Zehr Institute and the project’s leader. “Some 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.”

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.

Conversing about RJ’s ‘revolutionary intent’

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.

In the prospectus for the three-year project submitted to the funder, , the organizers wrote: “On 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.”

The organizers called attention in their prospectus to what they viewed as the danger of RJ settling into a “social service practice” centering on “repair at the micro-interpersonal level.” Instead, they wished to highlight the ways that RJ can “provide a coherent framework for transforming macro-social structures that cause harm.”

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¶ĚĘÓƵ’s served as facilitators for the process.

Tough questions

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.

“We 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,” Stauffer said.

“The challenge was heightened because the group grew beyond the original envisioned size of 20 to 25,” he added. “We 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.”

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.

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 “co-opted.” In contrast, he said he hopes RJ continues to grow into a social movement in North America, with the aim of “transforming deep structural conflicts and injustices.” Toward this end, North Americans have much to learn from their international brothers and sisters about “large-scale applications” of RJ, he said.

Agreement on RJ’s core values

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 “tipping point”).

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’s core values, but not necessarily on how to practice restorative justice.

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.

Participants in the consultation

The 36 participants were:

1. Aaron Lyons, Fraser Region Community, Justice Initiatives, Canada
2. Ali Gohar, Just Peace Initiatives, Pakistan
3. Barb Toews, University of Washington Tacoma / Designing Justice+Designing Spaces, USA
4. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
5. Brenda E. Morrison, Centre for Restorative Justice, Simon Fraser University, USA
6. Carl Stauffer, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
7. Carolyn Boyes-Watson, Center for Restorative Justice, Suffolk University, USA
8. Catherine Bargen, Restorative Justice Coordinator Crime Prevention and Victim Services Division, Government of British Columbia, Canada
9. Dan Van Ness, Center for Justice and Reconciliation, Prison Fellowship International, USA

10. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, 91¶ĚĘÓƵ and Atlanta (Ga.) consultant, USA
11. Fania Davis, executive director of Restorative Justice for Oakland (Calif.) Youth, USA
12. Cameron Simmons, youth worker with Restorative Justice for Oakland (Calif.) Youth, USA
13. Gerry Johnstone, University of Hull, UK
14. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
15. Jeanette Martinez, Circle of Justice LLC, New Mexico, USA
16. Jennifer Graville , Community Conferencing Program, KBF Center for Conflict Resolution (Md.), USA
17. Jodie-Ann (Jodie) Geddes, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
18. Josh Bacon, James Madison University (Va.), USA
19. , 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
20. Katia Ornelas, Independent Consultant, Mexico
21. , (STAR), 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
22. Kay Pranis, Circle Trainer, USA
23. Kim Workman, Stout Research Centre for New Zealand Studies, Victoria, University of Wellington, New Zealand
24. Linda Kligman, Vice President for Advancement, International Institute for Restorative Practices, USA
25. Lorenn Walker, Hawai’i Friends of Restorative Justice, USA
26. Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, Mennonite Central Committee, USA
27. Mark Umbreit, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, USA
28. Matthew Hartman, Clackamas County Juvenile Department, Restorative Justice Coalition of Oregon, NW Justice Forum, USA
29. Mulanda Jimmy Juma, Africa Peacebuilding Institute, St. Augustine College of South Africa
30. Najla El Mangoush, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, 91¶ĚĘÓƵ
31. Robert Yazzie, Chief Justice Emeritus of the Navajo Nation, USA
32. Seth Lennon Weiner, Porticus, New York, USA
33. sujatha baliga, Impact Justice, USA
34. Susan Sharpe, Advisor on Restorative Justice, Center for Social Concerns, University of Notre Dame, USA
35. Theo Gavrielides, The IARS International Institute and the Restorative Justice for All Institute, UK
36. , Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience (STAR), 91¶ĚĘÓƵ

The facilitators were led by project manager , and included CJP graduate students Janine Aberg, South Africa; Michael McAndrew, USA; Jordan Michelson, USA; Mikhala Lantz-Simmons, USA; and Ahmed Tarik, Iraq.

The film featured a young African American man fresh from juvenile detention, entering a last-chance high school in Oakland, California, one of the most violent cities in the United States. His re-entry began with more than a dozen adults (including his mother and stepfather) and a student-peer sitting in a circle and talking, one by one, of how much they cared about him and how they would help him in any way they could. As the participants opened up and expressed their emotions and vulnerabilities, the young man did too. Love and hope filled the space.

This inspiring story had its roots in a 2005 decision by civil rights attorney Fania E. Davis to co-found (RJOY), which she has led ever since. The SPI audience learned at the May 20 luncheon that Cameron Simmons was much like the young man in the film.

Simmons spoke of being a 4-year-old when he received his first school suspension (for taking back his own candy confiscated by the principal). By age 16, he had been suspended 150 times and had simply given up on school. He was living on the streets, running with a gang, heading to being one of the tens of thousands of African American youth in the “school to prison pipeline.”

Instead Simmons found himself at Bunche High School – the school featured in the film – where he spent part of his first day sitting in a “community-building circle” with other African American males, witnessing tears and laughter among guys freely sharing their feelings and thoughts. This circle was one of many types used by the RJOY school coordinator at Bunche, Eric Butler. In another type of circle, Butler may assemble family members, the school principal, guidance counselor, teachers, and any others likely to be regularly interacting with the student. For a conflict among the student population, students would be heavily represented in a circle.

When Simmons graduated from Bunche one year later, he was an honors student and a school leader, on the cusp of being a leader in his community. His turn-around began when the adults in the school circle “greeted me with genuine love and care ­– they made me feel differently.”

“I can be the best I can be because they are trying to be the best they can be for me,” said Simmons, adding that their honesty and vulnerability were contagious: “People gravitate toward the truth.”

In founding RJOY, Davis spoke of shifting from being “an activist filled with rage” to being someone who loves having the tools of restorative justice to “light candles” in the darkness of an unjust, racist society. In a February 2014 in Yes! magazine, Davis explained:

The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the alarming national trend of punishing and criminalizing our youth instead of educating and nurturing them. Exclusionary discipline policies such as suspensions, expulsions, and school-based arrests are increasingly being used to address even the most minor infractions: a 5-year-old girl’s temper tantrum, a child doodling on her desk with erasable ink, or adolescent students having a milk fight in the cafeteria. Use of suspensions has almost doubled since the 1970’s… [B]lack students are three times more likely to be suspended than their white counterparts for comparable offenses.

The heartening news, said Davis at the Frontier Luncheon, is that recently published research shows amazing results for schools that take a restorative justice, rather than a punitive, approach to non-compliant or under-performing students. Researchers found the following in the Oakland United School District:

• Schools that used restorative justice saw a 40% decrease in suspensions in only one year for African American students.
• Absenteeism in middle schools dropped by 24% in those with restorative justice programs, compared to an increase of 62% in schools without such programs.
• Almost 76% of students who participated in “harm-repair” circles found that they worked to remedy the situation.
• Four-year graduation rates in high schools using restorative justice increased by 60%, compared to 7% for schools without such programs.
• More than 88% of teachers said that restorative practices were very or somewhat helpful in managing difficult student behaviors in the classroom.

The prepared for the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education, noted that more than 6,000 students participated in conflict/harm circles in a single year. From one school in 2005, the number of Oakland schools embracing restorative justice grew to 24 in 2013-14.

“The restorative justice model has been so successful in the schools where RJOY has worked that, in 2010, the Oakland school board passed a resolution adopting RJ as a system-wide alternative to zero-tolerance discipline and as a way of creating stronger and healthier school communities,” wrote Davis in her Yes! article.

“Girls who have been long-time enemies become friends after sitting in a peacemaking circle. Instead of fighting, students come into the restorative justice room and ask for a talking piece and circle,” Davis said. “Youth and adults who walk into a circle feeling anger toward one another end up embracing. Youth report they are doing circles at home with their families. High school graduates are returning to their schools to ask for circles to address conflict outside the school.”

For Davis and Simmons, their lunch presentation represented a pause from a five-day conference at 91¶ĚĘÓƵ where they joined 36 other experts in restorative justice to consider the future of the field. Davis practiced law for 27 years before becoming a full-time advocate of restorative justice. She holds a PhD in indigenous studies from the California Institute of Integral Studies.