The Reparative Probation Program - Coursework Example

Reparative Probation Introduction Vermont’s Reparative Probation Program is a foremost example of an administration agency using a ground-breaking approach to address crime and violence. The drastic increase in prison and jail populations in the 1980s and 1990s caused the Vermont Department of Corrections to re-evaluate its programs and services, and redesign the state’s probation initiatives. In 1995, Vermont launched the “Reparative Probation Program.” The Reparative Probation Program involves the community in the criminal justice system. It is called “reparative probation” because it provides offenders the opportunity to repair the damage caused by their crimes. The program consists of community boards that make decisions about first-time and nonviolent criminal offenders from their community who have been adjudicated and sentenced to the Reparative Board by a judge. Community board members meet with offenders and victims and resolve disputes by providing offenders the opportunity to acknowledge their offense, apologize to their victim, and make amends to their community. (McCold, 13-36) The Reparative Probation Program gives communities the authority and ability to address issues that affect the safety and wellbeing of their city. Eighty-five percent of offenders who have completed the Reparative Probation Program have not committed another offense. The community boards have now seen over 3,000 offenders and are operational in every county in the state. The Reparative Probation Program recently received the prestigious “Innovations in American Government Award,” from the Ford Foundation and Harvard University (Braithwaite, 124-128) The first step in the redesign of the corrections system was finding out what the customers citizens of Vermont and victims wanted. The Department of Corrections surveyed a statistically representative sample of more than 400 Vermonters, including the victims of crime. The Department found that communities in Vermont were extremely concerned about violence, and wanted offenders to give back what they stole, fix what they broke, and make amends for their crimes. Citizens also wanted to participate in the process and be a part of the ultimate outcome. Importantly, 93% of Vermont citizens said they wanted alternatives to prison. (McCold, 13-36) The findings from the research were then used to redesign how the criminal justice system in Vermont treats different type of offenders. John Goreczyk, Director of the Vermont Department of Corrections, explains that Reparative Probation came out of the efforts to “design a process that linked the outcomes that seemed most important to the citizens of Vermont.” A review of Reparative Probation Program The Reparative Probation Program changes the focus of the justice system from punishment to restoration. Offenders are asked to acknowledge the harm done by their criminal acts and to repair the damage. Reparative boards give citizens the authority and opportunity to do something about the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The boards involve citizens directly in decision-making on individual cases. The offender is held accountable, the victim is restored, and the community is repaired. Reparative Probation provides courts with a mechanism for holding offenders accountable to the community and their victims without sending first-time and nonviolent offenders to prison. The restructured sentencing options provide judges with more choices and have led to a reduction in the number of jail and prison sentences by 60 percent. The use of alternatives to incarceration has increased from 55 percent to 84 percent since the programs inception in 1995. “People want greater involvement in the justice system. They want the offender to take responsibility and pay back the community,” said John Gorezyk, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections. (Braithwaite, 124-128) “This process provides that and is also more responsive to the real needs of the offender. It makes sense that a justice system pays attention to the legitimate needs of both parties.” (Umbreit, 85-90) Goals of Reparative Probation 1. Assist victims. 2. Restore the community. 3. Learn about the impact of crime. 4. Prevent recidivism by improving the competency of offender. Victims who participate in the process have reported extreme satisfaction with Reparative Probation. Process The Reparative Probation Program is an alternative to jail and traditional probation. Having pleaded guilty to a non-violent crime, the offenders are sentenced by the court to participate in Reparative Probation. The target population for reparative probation is nonviolent and first-time offenders, who constitute the majority of the caseload for corrections, prosecutors, courts, and police. State guidelines discourage using reparative boards for violent felonies or career criminals. Only 27 percent of eligible offenders participate in the process, in part because many offenders fear facing their neighbors more than serving traditional sentences. Communities with reparative boards exist in rural areas to urban cities. The only requirement to establish a reparative board is an adequate number of volunteers. The reparative boards consist of appointed volunteers who are nominated by their neighbors. Once members of the boards are selected they undergo a rigorous training process organized by the Department of Corrections. The purpose of the training is to teach volunteers the restorative method of justice and help them develop skills to participate in the process. Several colleges and community organizations have partnered with the Department of Corrections to provide training to the reparative boards. Vermont’s reparative boards may be classified as one variation of restorative justice programming and are often contrasted with victim offender mediation, conferencing, and circle programs (Umbreit, 56-62; Roche, 23-28). Board programs have been variously titled Community Reparative Boards in Vermont, Neighborhood Accountability Boards in California, Youth Aid Panels in Pennsylvania, Community Justice Councils in Michigan, Community Councils in Toronto, Youth Offender Panels in England and Wales, and Community Panels in New Zealand. Roche (2003) notes that board models vary significantly: Some are youth only, some serve as a pretrial diversion, some have no authority to enforce agreements, and so on. (25) How Reparative Probation Works The victim is made the center of the reparative process. The victim plays a central role in the reparative boards. Victims are able to tell their stories to the board and the offender and have a voice in the resolution of the case. The offenders acknowledge their crime and attempt to justly compensate the community and the victim. The offender makes repairs to the victim and the community. The offender helps the board determine how to make repairs to the victim and the community. Offenders must take responsibility for their crime and are given the opportunity to make amends. Reparative boards also help the offender understand the affects of their crime on the community. For example a woman who was convicted of welfare fraud and sentenced to the Bennington County reparative boards explained her experience: “You have to face the people and, for heaven’s sake, with welfare fraud you took their money,” she said. “I knew I hurt the community and I felt better facing up to what I did.” (Bazemore, 199-226) Public apologies are frequent conditions of reparative boards. When the entire community is the victim of a crime, the letters are printed in the local newspaper. The offender is reintegrated into the community. The repaired community offers the offender assistance with reintegration into the community. Offenders are encouraged to understand and address the causes of their criminal conduct. Reparative boards connect offenders with social services and community organizations that can assist the offender. Findings The number of cases brought before reparative boards increases every year. To date, over 3,000 cases have been addressed by the Reparative Probation Program. Currently, 46 boards in 27 individual communities operate with over 300 volunteers. As spending on state prisons rises to over $25 billion a year, states feel increased pressure to control costs. (Kurki, 235-303) Models have been replicated in the states of Maine, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Washington and in Canada. The Department of Corrections began evaluating the program from the start. The Reparative Probation Program has reduced recidivism rates by 28% statewide. While recidivism is the only measure of effectiveness for traditional probation programs, the Reparative Probation Program measures the added value to the community, the benefits of restitution, victim satisfaction, and improved attitudes of the justice system. The program is being evaluated continuously. (Bazemore, 199-226) Though the Reparative Probation Program has received a fair amount of criticism for being a “soft” approach to corrections, victims of minor crimes say it provides greater accountability for the crime than a conventional sentence. Supporters of the restorative method of justice emphasize the benefits of the approach to communities and victims. Vermont’s Reparative Probation Program received the President’s Award from the American Probation and Parole Association for being “an exemplary community corrections program.” Many are considering community-based approaches like Vermont’s Reparative Probation Program. Conclusion The Reparative Probation Program has prompted the creation of Community Justice Centers, which give the board’s greater capacity to address crime and violence issues within their community. The purpose of the centers is to focus on healing the victim and community while making offenders take responsibility for their actions. There are currently three Community Justice Centers in Vermont that take the model of reparative boards to the next level. Paid staff and a formalized infrastructure support the restorative efforts of the centers. The Community Justice Centers take referrals from the police department and enable the community to deal with crime and violence issues without involving the criminal justice system. The first Community Justice Center was established in Burlington, VT. The Center’s programs include community-based policing, court diversion and reparative boards. In the traditional legal system, laws and rules determine the harm. In the restorative justice model, the victims determine the harm. The centers create a community forum for justice issues and empower the community to address crime directly. Works Cited McCold, Paul, Paradigm Muddle: The Threat to Restorative Justice Posed By the Merger with Community Justice. Contemporary Justice Review 7, 2004:13–36. Umbreit, Mark S. Facing Violence: The Path of Restorative Justice and Dialogue. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 2003: 85-90 Bazemore, G. Young People, Trouble, and Crime: Restorative Justice as a Normative Theory of Informal Social Control and Social Support. Youth & Society, 33, 2001: 199-226. Kurki, L. Restorative and Community Justice in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research. Chicago: University of Chicago, Vol. 27, 2000: 235-303 Braithwaite, John. Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002: 124-128 Umbreit, M. S. The Handbook For Victim Offender Mediation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001: 56-62 Roche, Declan. Accountability in Restorative Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003: 23-28 Read More