Victims of Crime Research Digest No. 13

Crime Victims’ Experiences of Restorative Justice: A Listening Project

Summarized by Lisa Ha

The Department of Justice Canada (Justice Canada) contracted with Just Outcomes Consulting to hold five Listening Sessions, which took place in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Yukon between February and April 2019. The Listening Project originated in the US in the early 2000s and was adapted to a Canadian context. The process records the experiences and concerns of victims, victim advocates, and victim service providers to better understand victims’ needs, their experiences of justice, and their impressions of restorative justice (RJ). This is a summary of the report written by Catherine Bargen, Aaron Lyons, and Matthew Hartman of Just Outcomes, who were responsible for planning and facilitating the sessions. The summary highlights some of the main themes that emerged through this work. The full report can be found at Justice website.

What is Restorative Justice?

As Bargen et al. describe in their report, over the past four decades, restorative justice has become increasingly accepted as a promising practice for improving both the process and the outcomes for and of the Canadian criminal justice system. RJ is rooted in Indigenous legal practices, faith communities, and other cultural traditions. It allows all those affected by harm and crime to participate in the justice process. RJ’s goal is to address the harm through recovery, healing, or repair. The approach also holds offenders responsible for their actions, so that both the individual and the community can grow and repair after the crime, and prevent future harm.

About the Listening Sessions

The goal of the Listening Sessions was to understand participants’ experiences with RJ. As the authors note, the project is grounded in the belief that restorative approaches to justice can help communities grow by listening to the voices and perspectives of victims/survivors and victim service providers, and by taking these perspectives seriously when designing future policies and programs.

The Listening Sessions included 36 participants; 26 were direct victims, 5 were victim surrogates, 6 were victim service workers/advocates, and 2 were corporate representatives (some participants had more than one of those identities). The types of crimes the participants had experienced include property/vehicle crimes (n=4), fraud (n=1), theft (n=3), assault (n=10), hate-motivated vandalism (n=2), impaired driving causing death of a loved one (n=3), and murder of a loved one (n=3). As Bargen et al. highlight, the severity of the crime did not necessarily correlate with the extent of trauma the victim experienced.

The sessions were led by a facilitator and used an open dialogue and “talking circle” format with a talking piece to ensure that participants were able to speak uninterrupted. The sessions focused on three main themes:

Below is a summary of the key findings drawn from the full report.

Summary of key themes

Participants’ Needs and Experiences in RJ

During the Listening Sessions, participants described what their experience with RJ was like, what motivated them to seek RJ options, and the positive and negative aspects of their experience. One of the dominant themes was the participants’ need for information. Some said that they became interested in RJ because they needed information and answers to questions, such as information about and/or from the person responsible for the crime; specific details about the crime; and information about the criminal justice process and RJ options.

Participants’ Experience of RJ

Through the Listening Sessions, many participants said they were satisfied that they had obtained this information through the RJ process. They highlighted the great value in receiving robust follow-up in the form of support from the RJ program and ongoing information about the status of the offender. However, a significant number of participants expressed disappointment at how little information RJ programs provided about the offenders’ progress in meeting their RJ commitments. Some participants also highlighted that they would have liked to have received more information at the beginning of the RJ process: estimated timelines about when the process would take place, and details about the offender, such as what to expect from the offender’s appearance and attitude.

Participants spoke positively about the personalized support and connection they received from RJ practitioners, particularly during the preparation and follow-up phases of the RJ process. Some participants said that they did not get the kind of victim services they desired, nor did they feel listened to by court officials or other representatives of the criminal justice system or school system. However, many felt that the RJ program provided attention, answers, and services that they otherwise did not have access to in the formal criminal justice system.

Why Participants Got Involved in RJ
As described in the full report, one of the most common reasons participants noted as to why they took part in RJ was their need for meaningful action, justice, or for “something to be done” in the context of the crime committed. Other participants said they were motivated to make a difference by contributing to a pro-social outcome for the offender. While some felt that RJ brought a sense of meaningful justice, several participants said they were uncertain about whether the consequences for the offender were “enough” through their RJ experience. Some participants also said they felt disappointed about an offender’s reoffending or other negative behaviours. As one RJ practitioner noted, cases in which victims entered the process primarily out of concern for offenders often led to less satisfying results because neither the victim nor the program could ultimately control the offender’s future behaviour.

Need to be involved. Participants emphasized their need to be involved, included, and given choices in the justice process concerning the crime against them, rather than having processes dictated to them by others. Here RJ programs were highlighted positively in comparison with other parts of the criminal justice system, which were often perceived as deciding on behalf of victims what they may or may not need. Similarly, participants who had previously experienced other diversionary programs contrasted their current experience with those previous, less restorative experiences.

Reparation. A number of participants were at least partly motivated to take part in RJ processes, out of a desire for some form of symbolic or financial reparation. Several participants reported they were satisfied that they had received reparation and compensation through the RJ process. Others were disappointed because the offender did not pay or was perceived to be unable to pay.

Holding offenders responsible. Some participants commented that they were involved in RJ because they needed to recognize the “relationships” (meant in the broadest sense) created by the criminal acts. Some articulated this relationship as a deep need to hear and see that the offender was remorseful. Many participants thus had a common desire to see the person(s) responsible for the crimes against them clearly show that they took responsibility for their choices. Accordingly, some participants said they needed to have a personal connection with the person who offended against them. RJ processes seemed to contribute to more positive and less threatening relationships between many victims and the people who offended against them. However, in some cases participants said they were dissatisfied with the level of responsibility or remorse shown by the offender(s) in their case.

Recover from crime. Bargen et al. identified an overarching motivation for engaging in RJ: as a hope or perception that the process could offer a means towards recovery from the effects of the crime, including elements of psychological trauma. Many Listening Project participants spoke in passionate and positive terms about how RJ had contributed towards their recovery. In many cases, the RJ experience seemed to play one meaningful part in a much longer-term (and often non-linear) process of psychological, social, and emotional recovery. Other participants felt RJ did not contribute meaningfully to their recovery. These participants cited factors such as a lack of adequate support and information from the RJ program, and a process that was focused primarily on assisting with the offender’s recovery or avoiding a criminal record. On reflection, these participants were disappointed with the RJ process, as they simply had not experienced the type of justice they had hoped for.

One area in which participants found their range of choices to be less satisfactory was with RJ process timelines and duration. Participants said they would have benefited from more time in making their decision to participate, or from being involved in the process longer. A few participants perceived pressure to make a decision to take part based on a timeline over which they lacked control.

Improving Restorative Justice

Based on the discussions and themes that emerged from the Listening Sessions, the authors outlined a variety of measures that could help improve RJ programs so they could better serve and support people in the aftermath of victimization.

Flexible schedules. Bargen et al. highlighted this as a way of enhancing victims’ involvement in RJ processes. In particular, they suggested creating a variety of options for victims, allowing for follow-up and multiple meetings as requested by victims, and allowing victims to have more control over the timelines in RJ processes.

Increasing the amount, and type of information provided to victims, and the messaging about the purpose of the RJ process. Other suggestions included increasing coordination among justice system partners so that there was a better understanding of RJ, in particular between RJ programs and victim services.

Enhancing the support provided to victims. Suggestions included:

Improving the victim surrogacy experience. A victim surrogate is used when a victim is unable or unwilling to participate in an RJ process. Suggestions included:

More access to victim-sensitive training for RJ facilitators. Victims expressed how meaningful it was for them to have a facilitator who instilled confidence, and with whom they were able to connect. They highlighted some valuable specific skills/areas of expertise:

Most Listening Session participants did not think that RJ processes should be limited to specific offences; they did feel it was important, however, for program facilitators to be trained to deal with a range of offences and the safety and other issues that could be associated with different types of crime.

Reflections on the Listening Session

The authors highlighted that many victims found participating in the Listening Session itself to be valuable. Some felt it helped them feel more connected, and a few even felt the Listening Session had a bigger impact than the RJ process on their well-being. In this vein, it was suggested that it would be helpful to have a mechanism by which victims could connect and meet as a way of helping them through their trauma, with people at varying stages in their RJ journey, as well as “alumnae/ii” of an RJ process.

Conclusion

Bargen et al. concluded that the Listening Sessions offered a unique opportunity to hear about the immense potential of RJ processes to meet the needs of victims in a meaningful way. Improvements to RJ could focus on making processes more adaptable, optimizing choices and information for victims, prioritizing flexible supports and follow-up, and (for the broader system) considering how to create sustainable funding structures to support programs making these improvements.