Evaluation Results from the Citizens, Victims,

1
Evaluation Results from theCitizens,
Victims, Offenders Restoring Justice A
Prison-Based Encounter Program at the Washington
State Reformatory

• J.B. Helfgott, M.L. Lovell, C.F. Lawrence
• Seattle University
• W.H. Parsonage
• Penn State University
• Presentation prepared for the Academy of Criminal
  Justice Sciences
• Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 10,
  2004

2
Background

• Impetus for Program
• Washington State HB 2010
• Nature/dynamics of prison subculture
• Restorative Justice Movement
• Frustration over polar groups not getting needs
  met, confusion, miscommunication,
  misunderstanding regarding crime and punishment
  issues

3
Retributive v. Restorative Models of Justice

• Retributive
• Crime legal violation
• Wrongs create guilt
• Debt abstract/punitive  
• Blame/retribution central
• Victims needs ignored
• Offender stigmatized
• State monopoly on response to wrongdoing 
• Battle/ adversarial model normative

• Restorative
• Crime harm
• Wrongs create obligations
• Debt concrete/reparative
• Problem solving central
• Victims needs central
• Offender reintegrated
• Victim, offender, citizen roles recognized
• Dialogue/reconciliation normative

4
Program Development

• Collaborative effort
• Developmental Committee
• Prison
• Administration and staff
• Offender Advocates (Lifers)
• Citizen Stakeholders/Agencies
• Victim Advocates
• Restorative Justice
• Ex-Offender Advocacy
• Academic/Program Evaluators
• Criminology/Criminal Justice
• Sociology
• Social Work

5
Program Overview

• 5 seminars 1997 -2000
• Recruitment
• Screening
• Orientation
• Seminar
• Tour
• Follow-up

• Program Evaluation
• Pre/post interviews
• Pre/post questionnaires
• Participant Observation
• Data Analysis
• Reports
• Publications

6
Program Goals

• To create a safe space in the prison environment
  for offenders to express empathy and remorse and
  support for taking steps toward accountability
  for past, present, and future actions
• To facilitate constructive communication between
  victims, offenders, and citizens so that justice
  can become more meaningful for all parties
• To contribute to new/creative thinking about
  justice and dealing with crime
• To foster hope for the future of criminal justice
  and corrections that goes beyond temporary
  solutions through a balancing of victim,
  offender, and community rights, interests, and
  responsibilities.

7
Key Research Questions

• Can amends be Made for Violent Crime?
• Can Issues be Resolved through Discussions with
  surrogates?
• Can the prison culture be changed when
  opportunities are provided to meaningfully
  discuss issues of accountability and reparation
  within the prison setting?

8
Seminar Format

• Introduction to Restorative Justice
• Storytelling
• Transferring new knowledge into daily life
• Prison Tour
• Follow-up Meetings

9
J. Helfgott Offender Participants
10
Victim Participants

• Number of Victim Participants 29
• Gender
• 25 (86) female
• 4 (14) male
• Age 22 78 M 39, SD 15
• Education M 14.8, SD 1.7
• Race/Ethnicity
• 20 (70) White
• 4 (14) Black
• 3 (10) Hispanic
• 1 (3) Native American
• 1 (3) Asian/Pacific Islander
• Crime
• 9 (32) rape/sexual assault
• 7 (24) family members of homicide victims
• 7 (24) domestic violence/assault
• 5 (17.5) burglary
• 1 (3) robbery
• Years since crime 6 months 43 years M 12.8,
  SD 10

11
Citizen Participants

• Number of Citizen Participants 25
• Gender
• 17 female (68)
• 8 male (32)
• Age 19 - 71, M 33, SD 15
• Education M 15.4, SD 1.5
• Race/Ethnicity
• 21 White (84)
• 2 Hispanic (8)
• 1 Asian/Pacific Islander (4)
• 1 East Indian (4)
• Background
• University students
• Interested citizens
• Social service professionals
• Criminal justice professionals

12
Offender Participants

• Number of Offender Participants 43 (all male)
• Age 22 59 M 40, SD 9.6
• Education M 12.6, SD 1.2
• Race/Ethnicity
• 28 White (65)
• 11 Black (26)
• 4 Native American (9)
• Crime
• 30 murder (70)
• 6 robbery (14)
• 3 attempted murder (7)
• 2 drugs/firearms (5)
• 1 child rape (2)
• 1 burglary (2)
• Years in prison 2 33 yrs M13.3, SD7.7
• Sentence length 4 yrs multiple life sentences
  and life without parole (calculated as 80yrs)
  M38, SD 24

13
Key Questions Discussed in Seminars

• What is justice?
• What does it mean to be responsible/accountable?
• What can be done to repair harms resulting from
  crime?
• Is it possible to make amends for harms caused by
  violent crime?
• Is it possible to resolve issues through
  surrogate victims/offenders?
• What do victims need from offenders, criminal
  justice system, and the community?
• Who is responsible to make things right?
• What stigma do both parties experience?
• What can an offender do while in prison?
• What does the public want from offenders?
• What does the community owe both sides?

14
RESULTS
15
GOAL 1 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
create a safe space offenders to express
remorse/accountability - OFFENDERS

• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  more likely to agree
• I spend a lot of time thinking about the victim
  in my case (Pre 2.74/Post 3.06, plt.02)
• I have an understanding of what victims
  experience in the aftermath of crime
  (pre3.56/post3.80, plt.01)
• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  less likely to agree
• I will be/was comfortable discussing my crime in
  the seminar meetings (Pre3.05/Post 2.65, plt.03)
• Other offenders have expressed negative views
  about my participation in the CVORJ seminar
  (Pre2.73/Post1.51, plt.00)
• The victim in my case contributed in some way to
  his/her own victimization (Pre 1.94/Post
  1.74, plt.03 )
• It is up to the offender to take the first step
  to repair the damages caused by crime (Pre
  3.10/Post 2.34, plt.00).
• I feel my prison sentence is payment enough for
  my crime (p2.02/post1.69, plt.05)

16
GOAL 1 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
create a safe space offenders to express
remorse/accountability - VICTIMS

• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were
  more likely to agree
• It is important to know that offenders feel
  remorse for the crimes they committed
  (pre3.32/post3.62, plt.03)
• It makes me feel good to hear offenders apologize
  for their crimes even though the apology is not
  coming from the actual offender in my case
  (pre2.76/post3.50, plt.00)
• Society is as much to blame for the offense
  against me/my family as the offender
  (pre2.00/post2.41, plt.02)
• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were less
  likely to agree
• Offenders are not adequately held accountable for
  their crimes (pre2.93/post2.55, plt.02)
• Most of the inmates who volunteered to
  participate in the CVORJ seminar did it to look
  good for their parole hearings (pre2.11/post1.66
  , plt.01)

17
GOAL 1 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
create a safe space for offenders to express
remorse/accountability - CITIZENS

• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  less likely to agree
• Society is as much to blame for crime as the
  individual offender (pre2.92/post2.58, plt.02)
• Offenders who participated in the CVORJ seminar
  did it to look good on their parole hearings
  (pre1.96/post1.52, plt.01)
• Most offenders do not feel sorry for what they
  have done (pre2.46/post1.82, plt.00)

18
GOAL 2 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
facilitate constructive communication between
victims, offenders, citizens to achieve
meaningful justice -- OFFENDERS

• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  more likely to agree
• I believe that most of the victims who will
  participate/participated in the CVORJ seminar did
  it to vent their anger toward offenders
  (pre2.05/post2.51, plt.02)
• Justice would mean much more to me if it involved
  ongoing discussions between unrelated victims and
  offenders (pre2.25/post3.49, plt.00)
• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  less likely to agree
• I feel animosity toward the victim in my case
  (p1.28/post1.14, plt.03)
• Victims do not seem to forgive offenders for what
  they have done (p3.46/post2.76, plt.00)

19
GOAL 2 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
facilitate constructive communication between
victims, offenders, citizens to achieve
meaningful justice -- VICTIMS

• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were more
  likely to agree
• Most offenders are regular people whove made bad
  choices (pre2.68/post3.13, plt.01)
• I feel sorry for most offenders
  (pre2.07/post2.40, plt.04)
• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were less
  likely to agree
• I have difficulty finding any commonalities
  between myself and most offenders
  (pre1.96/post1.62, Plt.05)
• I do not understand what makes a person lead a
  life of crime (p2.45/post2.09, plt.01)

20
GOAL 2 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
facilitate constructive communication between
victims, offenders, citizens to achieve
meaningful justice -- CITIZENS

• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  more likely to agree
• Most offenders have the ability to choose whether
  or not to commit a crime (p2.84/post3.42,
  plt.00)
• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  less likely to agree
• I have difficulty finding any commonalities
  between myself and most offenders
  (pre2.08/post1.72, Plt.04)
• I have difficulty finding any commonalities
  between myself and most victims
  (pre2.08/post1.70, Plt.03)
• I have doubts about whether or not it is possible
  for victims and offenders to ever be able to work
  out their differences (pre2.50/post2.16, Plt.02)

21
GOAL 3 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
contribute to new/creative thinking about justice
and dealing with crime -- OFFENDERS

• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  more likely to agree
• More services should be available to assist
  victims of crime (p3.06/post3.34, plt.05)
• Citizens need to play a more active role in the
  justice process (p2.16/post2.47, plt.01)
• The wounds and healing of victims should be
  considered as important in the justice process
  (p3.37/post3.63, plt.03)
• The wounds and healing of victims should be
  considered as important in the justice process
  (p2.94/post3.28, plt.00)
• Primary decisions in the justice process should
  be made through discussions between victims and
  offenders with government help as needed
  (p3.19/post3.63, plt.01)
• All actions within the justice system should be
  tested by whether they are reasonable,
  restorative, and respectful (p2.50/post2.93,
  plt.01)
• Government coercion and authority should be used
  as a secondary backup means to enforce justice
  (p2.82/post3.12, plt.02)

22
GOAL 3 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
contribute to new/creative thinking about justice
and dealing with crime -- VICTIMS

• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were more
  likely to agree
• Victims should be allowed to select the
  punishment for the offender who committed the
  crime against them (p1.52/post2.20, plt.00)
• Victims should be allowed to participate more in
  the justice process (p3.15/post3.72, plt.02)
• Citizens need to play a more active role in the
  justice process (p3.22/post3.76, plt.01)
• The main goal in sentencing should be to pay back
  society for the harm caused (p2.44/post2.88,
  plt.04)
• All actions within the justice system should be
  tested by whether they are reasonable,
  restorative, and respectful (p2.34/post2.79,
  plt.04)

23
GOAL 3 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
contribute to new/creative thinking about justice
and dealing with crime -- CITIZENS

• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  more likely to agree
• Victims should be allowed to select the
  punishment for the offender who committed the
  crime against them (p1.32/post2.02, plt.00)
• Victims should be allowed to participate more in
  the justice process (p3.27/post3.52, plt.04)
• Citizens should be allowed to participate more in
  the justice process (p3.15/post3.48, plt.01)
• Citizens need to take it upon themselves to play
  a more active role in the justice process
  (p3.21/post3.52, plt.03)
• The community is responsible for helping
  offenders to reintegrate once their sentence is
  served (p3.08/post3.40, plt.03)
• The community is responsible for helping the
  victim deal with the aftermath of crime
  (p3.21/post3.52, plt.03)
• The main goal of sentencing should be to pay back
  society for the harm caused (p2.32/post2.74,
  plt.03)
• Primary decisions in the justice process should
  be made through discussions between victims and
  offenders with government help as needed
  (p2.60/post3.16, plt.02)
• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  less likely to agree
• Once an offender goes to prison, he/she should be
  given as few amenities and rights as possible
  (pre1.96/post1.78, plt.05)

24
GOAL 4 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
foster hope for the future of criminal justice --
OFFENDERS

• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  more likely to agree
• The harms caused by drug offenses cannot be
  repaired (p2.33/post2.74, plt.00)
• I think our criminal justice system needs to be
  overhauled (p3.27/post3.60, plt.03)
• Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
  less likely to agree
• The harms caused by domestic violence cannot be
  repaired (p2.24/post1.94, plt.00)

25
GOAL 4 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
foster hope for the future of criminal justice --
VICTIMS

• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were more
  likely to agree
• I think our criminal justice system needs to be
  overhauled (p3.19/post3.60, plt.02)
• Upon completion of the seminar, victims were less
  likely to agree
• I am satisfied with our criminal justice system
  (p1.77/post1.31, plt.00)
• I tend to avoid certain places, things, and
  activities because Im afraid Ill be victimized
  again (pre2.57/post2.21, plt.04)
• When I think about the crime, I feel ashamed
  (pre2.32/post2.00, plt.04)

26
GOAL 4 Significant Differences (plt.05) To
foster hope for the future of criminal justice --
CITIZENS

• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  more likely to agree
• Most people dont care about justice
  (p1.56/post1.92, plt.03)
• Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were
  less likely to agree
• As a citizen, I do not understand how I can help
  victims recover from crime (p2.12/post1.60,
  plt.01)
• As a citizen, I do not understand how I can help
  offenders change so that they do not commit
  another crime (p2.12/post1.60, plt.01)
• As a citizen, I do not understand how I can help
  offenders in the reintegration process
  (p2.20/post1.60, plt.00)

27
Willingness to Accept Ex-Offenders Upon Release

• Upon completion of the seminar, VICTIMS reported
  they were
• Less likely to object to having an ex-offender
  who has committed murder as a neighbor
  (pre2.30/post1.86, plt.01)
• More likely to allow their children and family
  members to associate with an ex-offender who has
  committed murder (pre1.38/post1.79, plt.05)
• Upon completion of the seminar, CITIZENS reported
  they were
• More likely to offer an ex-offender a gesture of
  welcome to the neighborhood (pre2.21/post2.64,
  plt.01)

28
Key Findings

• Participants indicated that the seminar helped
  to
• Express feelings, needs, concerns about crime and
  justice issues
• Better understand each other
• Develop creative ideas and concrete actions to
  achieve justice and deal with crime

29
Satisfaction with Program

• Most (85) of participants reported that they
  considered the seminar a success, were satisfied
  (86), and had positive feelings about the
  experience (65)

30
Percentage of participants who considered the
seminar a success, were satisfied, and had
positive feelings about the experience
31
Can Amends be Madefor Violent Crime?

• Victims and offenders shifted beliefs about
  whether or not amends could be made for violent
  crime upon completion of the seminar
• On pretest, was a significant difference between
  offenders and victims more offenders (81) and
  fewer victims (47) said amends could be made
  prior to the seminar
• On posttest there was no significant difference
  between victims and offenders 63 Offenders and
  65 victims said amends could be made after the
  seminar
• Thus, there was a significant pre/post difference
  for victims - a shift in number of victims who
  said amends could be made before/after the
  seminar (pre45/post66)
• There was a significant pre/post difference for
  citizens a shift in the number who said amends
  could be made before/after the seminar (pre
  48/post56)
• Though not significant (p,.06), results show a
  pre/post difference for offenders
  (pre67/post56) suggesting a trend may be
  revealed with increased sample size

32
Percentage of Participants who said that amends
can be made for violent crime before and after
the seminar
33
Can Issues be Resolved through Discussions with
Surrogates?

• There was a significant pre/post difference for
  victims and offenders with respect to their
  beliefs about whether or not it is possible to
  resolve issues with surrogate offenders
• Citizens were more hopeful than offenders and
  victims that discussions with surrogates would be
  helpful in resolving issues between victims and
  the actual offenders in their cases

34
Percentage of participants who said personal
issues between victims and offenders could be
resolved through discussions with surrogates
35
Can the Prison Culture be Changed?

• 39 (79) of the offenders thought the prison
  subculture could be changed if the seminar were
  to be regularly offered
• Many offenders discussed spending more time
  thinking about and discussing their victims/cases
  with other offenders and willingness to take
  concrete action to alter everyday dialogue and
  norms of the convict culture
• Future research is needed to explore the impact
  of restorative correctional interventions on the
  informal prison subculture (of offenders and
  correctional staff)

36
New Ideas about how to Achieve Justice?
37
Concrete Ways to Participate in the Restorative
Justice Process?

• OFFENDERS
• Remember that our past was wrong and understand
  that we must change first before society will
  change for us.
• Encourage other offenders to see the victims
  perspective and harms caused.
• Use information gathered in the seminar to
  provoke debate in daily life as a means of
  promoting justice rather than violence.
• Express ideas about crime and justice through
  artwork -- to generate communication with
  community.

38
Concrete Ways to Participate in the Restorative
Justice Process?

• VICTIMS
• Work toward bringing victims rights equal with
  offenders rights.
• Continue to tell our stories so that people can
  understand the pain and suffering resulting from
  crime.
• Talk with people to diminish the stigma of
  prisoners.
• Volunteer to become a big sister/brother to
  impact a childs life.
• Promote community policing and community
  corrections to prevent problems before they
  occur.

39
Concrete Ways to Participate in the Restorative
Justice Process?

• CITIZENS
• Talk about the concept of crime as harm.
• Teach about restorative justice -- understanding
  offenders and victims, holding offenders
  accountable.
• Try to dispel misconceptions about victims and
  offenders
• Become involved in the community and with newly
  released offenders -- pay more attention to what
  happens to offenders once theyre released.
• Get to know neighbors/community.

40
An Example YMCA Murals by CVORJ Participants
in the Creative Expressions Project

• As a result of a bond forged between an offender
  and victim in one of the seminars, CVORJ
  participants worked in conjunction with the
  prisons Creative Expressions project to create
  two murals that were donated to a Seattle YMCA
  and dedicated to the victim participant whose
  daughter was murdered.
• The victim participant indicated that this
  concrete act of reparation and dedication
  ceremony held at the YMCA was an important
  contribution to her healing process.

41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Did the CVORJ ProgramAchieve its Goals?

• GOAL 1 (safe space/offender accountability)
  generally supported by results
• Offender change with respect to willingness to
  take concrete action to help victims
• GOAL 2 (constructive communication) strongly
  supported
• Greater understanding among participant groups
• GOAL 3 (creative ideas) strongly supported
• Change in ideas about justice and ways to take
  action
• GOAL 4 (hope) partially supported
• Victims less fearful and ashamed
• Victims, Offenders, Citizens more hopeful with
  respect to what they can do to achieve justice
  and deal with crime, but less hopeful with
  respect to the formal criminal justice system

44
Qualitative Findings

• The evaluation also included a qualitative/partici
  pant observation component, much of which is not
  reflected in the quantitative results.
• The qualitative findings showed that the benefits
  achieved, in particular by victims who reported a
  phenomenological/spiritual impact, may not be
  measurable through traditional methods.

45
(Incomplete) Findingsfrom the Qualitative Data .
. .

• Victim Healing some participants indicated that
  they had come farther in their healing in the
  12-14 weeks than they had in years.
• Offender Remorse Criteria for what counted as
  an acceptable show of remorse varied among
  participants. In many cases offenders were
  unsuccessful in demonstrating empathy/showing
  remorse (e.g., many offenders were not initially
  willing to say I murdered___ and were not
  comfortable using the victims names or going
  into detail in describing the victim or the
  crime). This was not acceptable for many victims
  and citizens.
• Citizen Role and Recognition of Past
  Victimization many citizens were unsure about
  their role in the seminar and in the process of
  discussions/storytelling recalled that they had
  been victims of crime though did not originally
  identify such.
• Variability across Seminars dynamics of each
  played a role. Seminars involving powerful
  stories by parents of homicide victims and
  victims of violent rapes told in initial weeks
  appeared to set a stronger tone and had more
  impact.

46
Concluding Comments

• In some respects, victims and citizens appeared
  to benefit from the program more than expected
  and offenders less than expected
• Offenders reported less positive feelings, more
  discomfort in telling their stories, and change
  in the negative direction on some of the survey
  items designed to measure accountability (e.g.,
  It is up to the offender to take the first step
  to repair the damages caused by crime)
• However, that 78 of offenders, 86 of victims
  and 100 of citizens considered the seminar a
  success suggests that offender discomfort may be
  an inherent, necessary, and constructive part of
  the reparation process.
• CVORJ Program offers a model through which
  restorative justice can be applied in the prison
  setting offering an alternative program for
  victims, offenders, and citizens.
• CVORJ has been successfully replicated at two
  womens prisons in Minnesota (MCF Shakopee and
  MCF - Lino Lakes).
• See CVORJ/Lino Lakes Executive Summary/Burns
  (2001) http//fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/mn
  02_hburns.pdf

47
Challenges

• Recruitment of crime victims
• Criteria for selection of offender participants
• Maintaining a neutral position
• Gender dynamics
• Confidentiality
• Which crimes/types of offenders and victims
  should be included?
• Prison subculture
• Security/custody issues and correctional staff

48
Future Research

• The CVORJ Project was an exploratory pilot study
  that helped to develop a model identify questions
  in need of systematic research
• What is the impact of restorative correctional
  interventions on the informal prison subculture?
• What factors and forces within the prison
  environment impact the success of such a program?
• What factors determine which victims will/should
  participate and the extent to which participation
  will be positive, neutral, or negative.
• What characteristics differentiate
  appropriate/inappropriate offender participants
  (who should be involved?)
• What can to be done to influence prison
  administration/staff to support, facilitate,
  positively impact the program?
• How should citizen participants be
  recruited/selected and what role should they be
  expected to play?
• Should another group (CJ Professionals) be
  involved as participants?

49
Contact Information

• For further information about the CVORJ
  program/evaluation contact

J.B. Helfgott, PhD, Principal Investigator/Program
Director Associate Professor/Director Criminal
Justice Program 431E Casey Bldg Seattle
University 900 Broadway Seattle, WA 08122 Phone
[phone] E-Mail jhelfgot_at_seattleu.edu