ChapterPDF Available

Restorative justice reentry planning for the imprisoned: An evidence- based approach to recidivism reduction

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This chapter is based on a study that reviewed recidivism outcomes for adult men and women imprisoned in two Hawai'i state prisons who participated in restorative justice reentry circles prior to release. These men and women were tracked for at least three years after their release. Self-selection bias by choosing to have a circle was reduced by comparing recidivism outcomes of individuals who applied for and had a reentry circle with those who applied for a circle, but did not have one. The chapter aims to contribute to the Volume's key objectives by presenting original research showing promising results with significantly lower recidivism for the 58 individuals in the experimental group that had circles compared to the 60 individuals in the control group who applied for a circle, but did not have one.
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
!
1!
Restorative justice reentry planning for the imprisoned: An evidence-
based approach to recidivism reduction
Walker, L. & Davidson, J., 2018. In Gavrielides, T., (Ed.) The Routledge International Handbook
of Restorative Justice, New York, NY: Routledge.
Lorenn Walker, JD, MPH, Hawai‘i Friends of Restorative Justice & University of Hawai’i
Public Health Educator, Trainer, Facilitator & Restorative Lawyer Email: lorenn@hawaii.edu
Janet Davidson, Ph.D, Associate Provost, Academic Affairs & Professor, Criminology &
Criminal Justice, Chaminade University of Honolulu Email: jdavidso@chaminade.edu
Abstract
This chapter is based on a study that reviewed recidivism outcomes for adult men and women
imprisoned in two Hawai‘i state prisons who participated in restorative justice reentry circles
prior to release. These men and women were tracked for at least three years after their release.
Self-selection bias by choosing to have a circle was reduced by comparing recidivism outcomes
of individuals who applied for and had a reentry circle with those who applied for a circle, but
did not have one. The chapter aims to contribute to the Volume’s key objectives by presenting
original research showing promising results with significantly lower recidivism for the 58
individuals in the experimental group that had circles compared to the 60 individuals in the
control group who applied for a circle, but did not have one.
Introduction
This chapter furthers our knowledge and understanding of how a restorative justice
approach to reentry planning can be accomplished with an imprisoned population, as well as how
such an approach is beneficial in reducing crime once the imprisoned are released. As will be
demonstrated in this chapter, this approach creates an avenue for positive community health,
lowered victimization, and reports of satisfaction by loved ones.
Specifically, this chapter discusses the background of this restorative justice effort with
male and female imprisoned people in Hawai`i, and the manner in which the program is
delivered. The process studied provides imprisoned individuals the opportunity to meet with
their loved ones to address reconciliation and to make self-directed reentry plans for law-abiding
!
!
2!
lives. A public health, solution-focused and restorative justice approach guided the development
of the reentry planning practice outlined in this chapter.
The chapter moves on to report on the study participants and overall methodology. In
short, all adult inmates who took part in a restorative justice reentry planning circle from 2005 to
2015 were included, so long as they had at least three years of post-release time in the
community at the time of study. This chapter then details the findings for the group of released
inmates, who were tracked for three years. These findings were compared to two groups,
imprisoned people who wanted but were unable to take the course, and all imprisoned people
released in Hawai‘i. This quasi-experimental study was conducted in 2016. The chapter ends
with a summary of the findings, and a discussion of implications and future directions.
This chapter contributes to the Volume’s key objective by reporting on new research
findings of an innovative restorative practice, specifically restorative justice reentry circles for
imprisoned individuals. The information contained in this chapter should be useful to both
practitioners looking to incorporate similar programs, and to researchers and policy makers
seeking to build an evidence base for such programs.
Hawai‘i Friends of Restorative Justice Background
In 1980, Hawai’i Friends of Restorative Justice (Hawai’i Friends) incorporated as a non-
profit in Honolulu to provide an intervention to divert juveniles in the justice system from court
to an educational programme. Currently, Hawai‘i Friends develops, provides, and studies pilot
projects to assist both juvenile and adults in rehabilitating and healing from harm caused by
crime and social injustice.
Hawai’i Friends works to generate evidence-based knowledge. The organization uses a
public health approach in developing restorative and solution-focused responses to injustice and
!
!
3!
wrongdoing (Walker and Greening, 2010). It has worked with a wide variety of populations,
including public housing communities (Walker, 2000); people harmed by crime, including those
who did not know who harmed them and cases where no one was arrested (Walker, 2004);
incarcerated people who did not commit the crimes that they were convicted and imprisoned for
(Walker, 2015); homeless and foster youth (Walker, 2008); children of incarcerated parents
(Walker, Tarutani and McKibben, 2015); and people who complete parole and those who helped
them including their families, parole officers and judges (Walker and Kobayashi, 2015).
The organization also provides solution-focused mediation and restorative facilitation
training and a family law clinic for women incarcerated at the Hawai‘i women’s prison. It plans
to publish an online legal resource and guidebook modeled after Root & Rebound’s California
reentry programme for individuals returning to the community after incarceration (Root &
Rebound, 2017).
Support for the Reentry Circle Approach
In 2005, Hawai‘i Friends developed and began studying a reentry planning process for
adult incarcerated people (Walker and Greening, 2013). Effective reentry for incarcerated people
returning to the community is necessary to prevent repeat crime (Petersilia, 2004). The idea for
Hawai’i’s reentry planning process came from John Braithwaite’s (2004) Emancipation and
Hope article about transition planning for youth emancipation. Called Huikahi Reentry Circles in
Hawai‘i, the process provides an incarcerated individual the opportunity to apply for a meeting
with their loved ones and a representative of the institution incarcerating them. The voluntary
process gives an incarcerated individual autonomy and agency, recognized as necessary for
successful reentry planning (Taxman, 2004). Reentry planning is an essential tool for “aiding
!
!
4!
reentry” (Raphael, 2011, p. 192), and needed by all incarcerated people returning to the
community (Lattimore and Visher, 2016).
In the United States and Hawai’i, an extraordinary number of people are incarcerated and
released daily. “More than seven hundred thousand inmates are released each year from the
nation’s state and federal prisons” (Raphael, 2011, p. 211), which is almost two thousand people
a day. According to Robert Merce, 89 people convicted of felonies were released monthly from
Hawai’i state prisons for the fiscal year 2017 (personal communication, October 26, 2017),
which is almost three people a day for a small island state. Additionally, 1,033 people were
released from Hawai’i jails during this same period. Merce has studied incarceration in depth in
Hawai‘i and is the primary author of the Interim Report To The Legislature for the Regular
Session, 2017, prepared for the Hawai‘i Legislative Task Force On Effective Incarceration
Policies and Improving Hawai‘i’s Correctional System.
The reentry circle process is approximately three hours long. Individuals apply to have a
circle to meet with their loved ones, supporters, and an institutional representative. The circle is
an interactive group process that focuses on an individual’s unique goals and outlines steps for
how they may attain them. The individual’s basic needs for transitioning and reentering the
community are also addressed. Needs include reconciliation and how the individual might make
amends and repair damaged relationships with their loved ones and community. A main
objective of the reentry circle is to address the healing needs of loved ones harmed by the
individual. Other general necessities for an individual’s law abiding life including housing,
transportation, identification, physical and emotional health, education, leisure time use, and any
other unique needs, e.g., divorce, immigration, etc., are also planned for during the circle
process.
!
!
5!
From 2005 through October 2017, Hawai’i Friends provided 150 reentry circles that 650
people participated in. The 650 participants completed surveys at the conclusion of each circle,
which have been reviewed by Hawai`i friends. Surveys are distributed and collected after each
circle by facilitators. Staff with Hawai’i Friends maintain these data in house, and routinely
analyze and review the results, but no publications have resulted from these data analyses. To
date, one hundred percent of the 650 surveyed participants have indicated that they believe the
reentry planning circles they participated in were positive.
While the process was originally provided for men imprisoned by the state of Hawai‘i,
women, juveniles, individuals discharged from parole, those on state probation, and in federal
custody and on federal probation in Honolulu, have also used the process. A small federal pilot
programme began in 2015 for individuals in custody to have a reentry planning circle prior to
their sentencing hearing in the Honolulu federal court. In 2017, the federal programme was
expanded to individuals on probation under the Honolulu court’s supervision and after
sentencing. Other states replicating the programme have also used it for probationers and
formerly incarcerated people. The circle process has been replicated or introduced in other states
and countries including California, New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
Vermont, Japan, Spain, Finland, and Brazil.
Joan Petersilia, widely recognized as an expert in corrections and reentry, has said:
“Recidivism is an important, perhaps the most important, measure of correctional impact, but it
is insufficient as a sole measure of the effectiveness of reentry programmes” (2004, p 12). While
the study reported here examined recidivism, other ways that the reentry circles have helped
people harmed by crime and imprisonment have also been studied.
!
!
6!
Children whose imprisoned parents have participated in the Huikahi reentry circles have
been studied. The circles have assisted the children and youth in healing from the emotional
trauma associated with losing a parent to prison and has shown promise for helping them
decrease their rumination and increase their optimism (Walker, Tarutani and McKibben, 2015).
Women who have been abused have also experienced emotional recovery from participating in
the reentry circle process (Walker and Tarutani, 2017; Walker, 2017).
Reentry Circles as a Public Health Approach
The reentry circle process is based on public health learning principles. Many advocate
for a public health approach to deal with a variety of problems that the criminal justice system
ineffectively addresses, including: violence (Zimbardo, 2007), mass incarceration (Frost, Clear
and Monteiro, 2017), substance abuse (United States Department of Health and Human Services,
2016), gambling (Korn and Shaffer, 1999), violence against women (Coker, 2016) and for the
reentry of imprisoned people (Travis, 2005)
Public health approaches have been researched and found successful in reducing
substance abuse (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2016), gun violence
(Webster, et al., 2012), interpersonal abuse and violence, and child maltreatment (World Health
Organization, 2010), which often underlie many crimes that cause incarceration.
Public health works to prevent disease and promote healthy populations (Centers for
Disease Control, 2014). There are three levels of public health prevention: primary, secondary
and tertiary. Ernest Drucker (2014, p.388) explains how the criminal justice system could be
improved at the three public health prevention levels:
A new approach to criminal justice is needed, one based on public health and
prevention: primary prevention, to shrink the system by changing drug laws and stopping
mass arrests; secondary prevention, to reduce the harms of imprisonment by building
education, job training, and humane treatment into our prisons; and tertiary prevention,
!
!
7!
restoring life and justice to those needlessly serving long sentences, who pose no threat to
public safety and cost us billions annually.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2016) explains that in applying the three levels
of prevention to violence, primary prevention seeks to stop violence from ever occurring,
secondary prevention provides immediate responses to violence including medical care, and
tertiary prevention helps people deal with the aftermath of violence including victim trauma and
offender rehabilitation (CDC, 2016).
The reentry circles can be considered a tertiary prevention intervention. They assist
imprisoned individuals make amends with loves ones and to make plans to meet their needs to
desist from crime. The process addresses trauma (Walker, Tarutani and McKibben, 2015) and
can increase rehabilitation and criminal desistance.
In 1954 the World Health Organization (WHO) published criteria for developing public
health practices. The WHO’s Expert Committee on Health Education of the Public, considered
and established practices for assisting people in learning healthy behaviors. The WHO
committee recognized that autonomy and personal agency are vital for learning: “The aim of
health education is to help people achieve health by their own actions and efforts” (1954, p. 4).
The WHO understood that learning is “an active process” (1954, p. 4) in accord with Albert
Bandura’s research that enactive learning is the most effective learning approach (1997). The
WHO also recognized that people learn when there is a focus on their specific goals, personal
motivations, and a group oriented approach is used.
The reentry planning circle process applies the WHO’s recommended learning criteria.
The circles are driven by an individual’s positive motivation to repair harm they have caused and
their willingness to take responsibility for their future. The circles are conducted in a group
!
!
8!
process, they are self-directed, goal oriented, and they provide an active learning experiences for
participants. Finally, an important aspect of public health is that its practices should utilize and
generate evidence-based knowledge (Jacobs, et al., 2012).
Reentry Circles as a Solution-Focused Approach
The reentry circle process also applies a solution-focused approach. Solution-focused
group processes have been studied and shown to decrease substance abuse (United States
Department of Health and Human Services, 2012) and domestic violence (Lee, Uken and Sebold,
2004). Solution-focused group processes are considered to be evidence-based treatment for
addressing substance abuse by the United States Department of Health and Human Services,
2012. Insoo Kim Berg, co-founder of solution-focused brief therapy, helped develop the reentry
circle process. She also helped develop a similar transition planning process, but without the
reconciliation phase, for foster youth aging out of state custody (Walker, 2005).
Facilitating the circles with a solution-focused approach creates a positive experience for
participants. Research indicates that “human cooperation . . . is best supported by positive
interactions with others” (Rand, et al., p. 1272). Group processes that are conducted by allowing
participants agency (the processes are democratically driven), which the solution-focused
approach provides, also generate more cooperation between participants than autocratic
processes (Lewin, 1997). Autonomy is also key to the solution-focused approach, which is
grounded in the belief that individuals are the best experts of their own lives (De Jong and Berg,
2012).
Reentry Circles and the Application of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice initiatives have shown promise for reducing crimes for junevile and
adult offenders (Sherman and Strang, 2007), for reducing student misbehavior (Fronius, et al,
!
!
9!
2016), and for reducing the negative effects of trauma that victims often suffer (New Zealand
Government, 2016; Walker, Tarutani and McKibben, 2016).
The reentry circles apply Howard Zehr’s restorative philosophy for restorative practices
(Walker and Greening, 2013). Zehr (2002, p.58) believes that at its foundation restorative justice
values respect, responsibility and relationship:
Ultimately, restorative justice boils down to a set of questions, which we need to ask
when a wrong occurs. These guiding questions are, in fact, the essence of restorative
justice.
Guiding Questions of Restorative Justice
1. Who has been hurt?
2. What are their needs?
3. Whose obligations are these?
4. Who has a stake in this situation?
5. What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to make things
right?
The reconciliation stage of the Huikahi circle process asks the following three questions
based on Zehr’s work: Who was affected? (by the behavior and/or imprisonment of the
incarcerated individual) How were they affected? (referring to those identified as affected by first
question) and What could be done to repair the harm? Participants in a circle reflect on and
openly discuss these questions. The discussion helps everyone understand each other’s
perceptions and experiences, which can help create empathy. Many circle participants have said
that they appreciated this discussion, which was the first their family had concerning
reconciliation. For an incarcerated individual to engage in the discussion too can show her or his
loved ones, supporters, and community, she or he is responsible and accountable.
!
!
10!
Hawai‘i Huikahi Reentry Planning Circle Process - Description of Programme Under
Study
There are four stages of the reentry circle process: 1) an individual applies for a circle and
is interviewed; 2) a circle is convened and a facilitator contacts and schedules the circle with
participants; 3) a circle is held; and 4) a written plan resulting from the circle is prepared and
delivered to the circle participants.
The reentry circle process begins with an individual applying via a single page
application provided by the prison or institution supervising them. A facilitator interviews the
applicant and discusses the process with them. People studied in this evaluation were interviewed
in prison.
The purpose of the interview is to ensure the applicant understands the nature of the
circle, which is to make amends with loved ones, and to make a plan for reentry back into
the community. Another goal of the interview is to increase the incarcerated person’s
confidence and their understanding that their efforts make a difference, and their behavior
affects their futures (Walker and Greening, 2013, p.29)
!
Circle applicants provide contact information for the people that they would like to
address reconciliation and make amends with, who they also hope will want to attend the
meeting. The facilitator discusses the potential invitees with the imprisoned individual, and after
the interviewer contacts them. Only a few people identified by incarcerated individuals as
potential circle participants have not been interested in attending.
While applicants are told that they need someone to attend their circle in order to have
one, exceptions are made. A circle was provided for an imprisoned woman with only written
information gathered from her sister (who could not attend the circle). Often loved ones and
supporters cannot attend a circle for a number of reasons including work, travel, and illness. In
these situations, the facilitator telephones the person who cannot attend and asks the same
questions that they would have been asked at the circle. Their responses are written down,
!
!
11!
printed out, and at the circle, placed on an empty chair when they are read. The imprisoned
woman, who had no loved one to personally attend her circle, instead had her sister’s responses
on an empty chair. A prison representative who knew her well participated in her circle and read
her sister’s responses during the circle. This process had an emotional impact on the imprisoned
woman (she cried and expressed remorse).
During the interview, applicants are also informed that the circles are not provided to
everyone who applies for them. Because resources are limited, a priority to provide the circles is
made for those leaving the institution soonest or who have deadlines for parole or pardon
requests. Circle applicants are also told that the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” and that
individuals who continue to contact the facilitator are more likely to get a circle than those who
do not. This could influence self-selection bias (Keeble, et al., 2015). The individuals more
motivated to make amends with loved ones and a plan for their futures may be more likely to
contact the facilitators. Also the fact that an individual needs to have a family member agree to
come to a circle, distinguished from an individual who cannot get a family member to come,
could indicate less support for the latter, which could influence recidivism (Wallace, et al.,
2016).
After interviewing the circle applicant, and ensuring the individual understands the
programme and circle process, the facilitator convenes the circle by contacting the potential
invitees listed by the imprisoned individual. This can take significant time going back and forth
with people and the prison on potential dates and times to hold the circle.
The third phase of the circle programme is conducting the circle, which follows the following
agenda:
!
!
12!
Welcome & Opening: The individual who applied for the circle opens it in a manner of
her or his choosing, e.g., makes a statement, prayer, chant, etc., and all in attendance
introduce themselves and their relationship to the individual;
Purpose & Guidelines: The facilitator says the purpose of the circle is for reconciliation,
healing, and to help the individual make a plan for success after leaving the institution;
participants are also asked to speak one at a time to respect confidentiality;
!
Accomplishments: The incarcerated individual shares what they are most proud of
having accomplished since their imprisonment, probation, parole, etc.;
Strengths: Participants each share what they like about the incarcerated person, what
they think her or his strengths are, and the individual adds any additional strengths they
have that were not mentioned;
Reconciliation: Group discusses who was affected by the individual’s behavior and or
their incarceration, how they were affected, and what might be done to repair the harm;
~ Short Break ~
Future (Goals): The incarcerated person shares how they would like their life to be
different from the past, which describes their goals;
Identifying Resources for Basic and Unique Needs: The group brainstorms options for
housing, finances, continued learning, employment, transportation, documents, emotional
& physical health, leisure time, identifying the individual’s supporters, other needs for
successful living, and any unique needs; timelines for when tasks will be accomplished
and also anyone who volunteers to assist in achieving any tasks is also described
Determining the Next Circle Date: Schedule date for a follow up circle if one is
desired;
Circle Closing: Group participants compliment the individual who chose to have the
circle and she or he shares how the circle process was for her or him. Everyone completes
a circle survey recording his or her experience with the process. Any allowable food and
drink is provided at the conclusion of the circle or during the earlier short break.
!
The final stage of the circle programme is preparation and delivery of the plan generated
at the circle to the participants. The facilitator prepares a written reentry and transition plan based
on the information gathered at the circle including the individual’s accomplishments, strengths,
what she or he plans to do to repair any harm caused by past behavior and or incarceration, and
their plans to meet their goals and needs for a law-abiding life. The written plan, usually about
six pages long, is delivered to the individual, the households of the circle participants, and to the
!
!
13!
institutional representative. The reentry circle model is grounded in public health and applies
solution-focused brief therapy and restorative justice (Walker and Greening, 2013).
The Reentry Circle Connection to Desistance
The circle process promotes what desistance research shows is necessary for continued
law abiding including the ability to support oneself with meaningful activity, and having
relationships with law abiding supporters. These two factors are primary for staying crime and
drug free (Maruna, 2006).
The reentry circle also provides an individual with a platform for developing a new “self-
narrative.” Maruna reminds us that “a person’s self-narrative identity can and does change
throughout life” and “self-narratives should be understood as factors that help to sustain
desistance” (2006, p.42).
The development of a self-story favourable to desisting from crime could be seen as
‘hardening’ the individual’s resolve to stay out of trouble. This hardening of change, and
not the moment of change, is the process that we are trying to understand when we study
desistance” (Maruna, 2006, p.42).
The circles set the stage developing a “self-story favourable to desisting from crime.” The
circles begin with the incarcerated person describing their “accomplishments” that they are most
proud of since they have been imprisoned, released on probation, parole, etc. The circle
participants then each share what they “like best” about the imprisoned person and what they
believe her or his “strengths” are (Walker and Greening, 2013, pp.38-41). After the individual’s
strengths have been identified, the individual discusses who was affected by their past
misbehaviour and imprisonment. Loved ones affected, participating in the circle, also discuss
this and add what the individual could do to help make things right and repair any harm. How
!
!
14!
“unrelated people and the community at large” were all also affected and what can be done to
repair things for them is also discussed. All of this discussion contributes to a new positive “self-
story” for the individual having the circle.
Much of the three-hour reentry circle provides “a focus on individual-level
transformation” and “individual-level change” that MacKenzie discusses as necessary for
successful reentry (2006, p.124). The individual makes plans and timelines for maintaining
sobriety, employment, health, relationships with loved ones, etc. The circles set the stage for the
person to tell a new story. The importance of telling stories is recognized as vital in planning:
“Stories are the ineluctable context and stimuli to thinking and acting, for changing and for
maintaining boundaries” (Michael, 1997, p.16). Storytelling is a cognitive function that can help
lead to change, and improved behaviour.
The process also utilizes reality checks. For example, when the individual agrees to do
whatever is discussed to repair harm, the facilitator uses “scaling questions” (Walker and
Greening, 2013, p.40). Scaling questions engage the individual in realistically accessing how
confident they are that they will fulfill whatever they may agree to plan for during the circle.
When an individual who has addiction problems promises to be clean and sober, the facilitator
asks “What gives you hope you will do that?”
Methodology of Current Study
This study evaluates the post-prison behaviour of 58 incarcerated individuals who
participated in a Huikahi reentry circle, and 60 incarcerated individuals who wanted to take part
in a Huikahi reentry circle, but were unable to do so. The experimental group in this study is
comprised of those who received the Huikahi treatment, and the control group is those who were
unable to participate in a circle.
!
!
15!
The initial population under study was a list of all the incarcerated people who applied to
participate in a reentry circle between 2005 and 2015. In collaboration with the State Department
of Public Safety, state identification numbers (SIDs) and prison release dates, were located for
each individual.
There were two primary exclusion criteria for the final sample included in this study.
First, incarcerated juveniles were excluded from this study; only adult results were studied.
Access to the juvenile justice system and related statistics is heavily restricted, and the state only
reports recidivism outcomes for the adult population.
Secondly, individuals who had not yet been released from prison and who had not been
out of prison for three years were excluded from this study. The three-year window for follow-up
was important for this study as recidivism was measured by any new arrest within 36 months
post-prison release. The conceptualization and operationalization of recidivism routinely used by
the state of Hawai’i to assess recidivism rates for individuals released from prison was used in
this study (any new arrest within 36 months post-prison release). Adopting the state measure of
recidivism also allowed for a comparison of individuals receiving the reentry circle treatment to
those paroled statewide. The resulting study sample included adult individuals who participated
in circles and had been released for at least three years before the time of the study.
Arrest data were obtained from the State of Hawai‘i’s Attorney General’s criminal justice
information system (CJIS). The date of prison release was obtained from the Hawai‘i
Department of Public Safety. Demographic data including gender, ethnicity, and age were
obtained from both the CJIS and Department of Public Safety databases. Finally, a standardized
survey was used in the reentry circles. These surveys included measures of healing and overall
satisfaction for the incarcerated participants, for their loved ones, supporters, and the prison
!
!
16!
representative who participated in the circles. The surveys were administered at each circle.
Responses to those surveys are also included in this analysis for the experimental group only
because the control group did not receive circles.
Study Findings: Demographics & Outcomes
Demographic differences between the Huikahi and control group are presented in Table
1. As shown in Table 1, the control group had a significantly greater percentage of female
participants (χ²=3.190, p < .08). This is important because females typically exhibit lower
recidivism rates than their male counterparts. There were not any significant differences in
ethnicity or in age between the two groups. The average age of the Huikahi participants was 37.3
compared to 35.4 for the control group and the differences were not significantly different. No
significant differences emerged in race of the Huikahi participants compared to the control
group, as demonstrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Huikahi Circle Participants
Huikahi Participants
(n=58)
Gender
Male
72.4
Female
27.6
(χ²=3.190, p < .08)
Race
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian
51.7
White
27.6
!
!
17!
Filipino
12.1
Other
8.6
(χ²=2.407, p > .05)
Average Age
37.3
t=1.083, p > .05
Table 2 displays a comparison of overall criminal histories for the Huikahi and control
groups. While there are no significant differences between the two groups, the control group
does demonstrate fewer average felony arrests and convictions, slightly more misdemeanor
arrests and convictions, and a higher average for arrests and convictions for all severities.
Table 2: Criminal History Summary for Huikahi and Control Group Participants
Huikahi Circle
Participants
Control
Group
Average
Total Felony Arrests
6.08
5.40
Total Felony Convictions
2.38
2.10
Total Felony Non-Convictions
3.50
2.73
Total Misdemeanor Arrests
3.45
4.83
Total Misdemeanor Convictions
0.60
0.98
Total Misdemeanor Non-Convictions
2.73
3.52
Total Petty Misdemeanor Arrests
1.78
2.70
!
!
18!
Total Petty Misdemeanor Convictions
0.83
1.37
Total Petty Misdemeanor Non-Convictions
0.83
1.30
Total Arrests: All Severities
13.13
14.48
Total Arrests: Convictions
4.65
5.32
Total Arrests: Non-Convictions
7.55
7.75
Outcome analyses reveal that the circle participants performed significantly better than
the control group in terms of post-prison adjustment (Figure 1). The Huikahi circle participants
demonstrated a significantly lower recidivism rate of 43.1%, compared to 58.3% for the control
group (t=-1.660, p < .05). Although unable to determine significant differences between the
Huikahi group and state parole releases (raw data are needed for these calculations), the Huikahi
group also exhibits substantially lower recidivism rates than the state group. Again, the Huikahi
group demonstrated a recidivism rate of 43.1% compared to 56.4% for the state parole release
group (Wong, 2011), using the same state definition for recidivism (Figure 2).
!
!
19!
Figure 1: Recidivism Rates for Huikahi Participants & Control Group
Note: t=-1.660, p < .05
Figure 2: Recidivism Rates for Huikahi Participants compared to State Parole Releases
Table 3 exhibits the type of post-prison rearrests for the Huikahi participants compared to
the control group. The difference between the two groups is not statistically significant
(χ²=1.641, p > 05), but there are some interesting patterns nonetheless. The Huikahi participants
!
!
20!
had fewer felony, misdemeanor, or petty misdemeanor criminal arrests and were more likely to
have a parole revocation or criminal contempt of court, as compared to the control group.
Table 3: Type of Re-arrest (Recidivating Event) for Huikahi Participants
and Control Group Recidivists Only
Huikahi Circle
Participants
Control
Group
Arrest Type
Percent
Felony Criminal Arrest
24.0
25.7
Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor
Criminal Arrest
16.0
28.6
Parole Revocation
40.0
28.6
Criminal Contempt of Court
20.0
17.1
Table 4 also looks at post-prison rearrests, but uses the categories outlined in the state
report on recidivism. Statistical significance cannot be calculated for this comparison as these are
two different samples, and we only had aggregate numbers for the state release group. However,
the difference in recidivism rates is certainly substantial. Of those rearrested within three years of
release from prison, the state releases were slightly less likely to have a criminal rearrest or
criminal contempt of court, and more likely to have parole revocation compared to the Huikahi
participants.
!
!
21!
Table 4: Type of Re-arrest (Recidivating Event) for Huikahi Participants
Compared to State Releases Recidivists Only
Huikahi Circle
Participants
State Releases
Arrest Type
Percent
Criminal Re-arrest
17.2
15.2
Parole Revocation
17.2
37.6
Criminal Contempt of Court
8.6
3.6
No Recidivating Event within 3 Years
56.9
43.6
Discussion and Conclusion
The results from this study show promising results for this restorative reentry planning
intervention, as applied in prison. Data indicate a reduction in recidivism three years after
release, compared to similarly situated inmates. The study is unique in that it allowed for a quasi-
experimental evaluation of the Huikahi reentry circles on incarcerated populations as compared
to a control group of individuals who applied to participate, yet were ultimately unable to do so.
This serves to eliminate some selection bias that would otherwise be present. The study provides
evidence-based knowledge to help bridge the gap in restorative justice research that can
contribute to criminology findings, especially concerning incarcerated people, which is an
important objective of this volume.
Demographically, the participant group was significantly more male, with no differences
in ethnic background or age. Although the control group demonstrated fewer average felony
arrests and convictions, and slightly more misdemeanor arrests and convictions than the Huikahi
!
!
22!
participants, there was no significant differences in overall criminal histories between the groups
prior to participation in the intervention.
The control group demonstrated statistically significantly higher recidivism rates than the
Huikahi participants group, even though the control group had a significantly higher percentage
of female inmates. Women tend to recidivate at lower rates (Snyder, et al., 2016). The control
group also had more felony and misdemeanor arrests than the Huikahi participants. The Huikahi
group demonstrated more community supervision revocations as opposed to new crimes. The
Huikahi group also demonstrated a lower recidivism rate compared to a cohort of state parole
releases, using the same definition and measures of recidivism. Overall the results support
continued use and study of this intervention.
This reentry model and aspects of it are transferable and have been replicated in
communities outside Hawai‘i. Psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, teachers, lawyers,
academics, prison staff, mediators and facilitators, and others who work with adults and juveniles
incarcerated and on probation, have been trained on this model. Trainings have been provided in
Japan, Finland, Spain, and Brazil. The model, in whole or in part, has been replicated in
Rochester, New York (Dougherty, J., Duda, J. and Klofas, J. (2014); Washington DC
(Collaborative Solutions for Communities, 2017); Santa Cruz, California (Assegued, 2016);
Berkeley, California (personal communication with Ruth Morgan September 7, 2017),
Pennsylvania (personal communication with Barbie Fischer, September 22, 2017) and Bermuda
(personal communication with Yvette April Brown October 20, 2017).
Giving individuals the opportunity to set the course of their lives based on their strengths
and their goals helps provide the variables identified for desistance. Opportunities to promote
relationships with law-abiding others, finding employment, and the platform to narrate a new
!
!
23!
reformed life story are desistance markers (Maruna, 2006). The reentry process provides these
opportunities.
There is also value in the reentry circle process beyond its potential to reduce recidivism
of imprisoned people. Qualitative and antecdotal evidence shows that even in cases where an
imprisoned individual relapses and is re-incarcerated after a circle, their loved ones continue to
appreciate the healing value of the circle process. The spouse of an imprisoned man who had a
circle, but relapsed and went back to prison, said: “It absolutely helped me heal. I had things I
needed to say about how I was affected. The circle validated my feelings” (Walker and
Greening, 2010, p.69). Loved ones facing similar situations, often express common sentiments.
This evaluation and other material from this volume will help address the needs of people
and communities in the state of Hawai‘i, and elsewhere, affected by crime and incarceration via
the positive evaluation of reentry circles. There is a promising link between the restorative
practice evaluated in this study and reduced recidivism.
Phil Zimbardo, principal researcher of the Stanford Prison Experiment, who has studied
psychology and corrections for decades (2007), “endorse[s] the widest possible utilization” of
the reentry circle planning process (Walker and Greening, 2013, p.8). Government agencies,
policy makers and funders should endorse and support evidence-based practices in place of our
current reactive and punitive system of incarceration. Evidence-based alternatives like this
reentry circle process are needed to help reduce recidivism, increase healing, and promote public
safety.
“Given the social and budgetary costs of crime and incarceration, programmes that have
even modest effects are likely to pass cost-benefit tests” (Raphael, 2011, p.213). It is
irresponsible and a danger to society to release people from prison without ensuring they have
!
!
24!
adequate plans for meeting their needs for survival and criminal desistance. Funds should be
reprioritized from imprisonment to reentry for the safety and well being of individuals and
communities.
References
Assegued, V., 2016. A Juvenile Justice Process for the Family When Juveniles are Freed from
Incarceration. [online] Available through: Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
<http://jjie.org/2016/08/03/a-restorative-justice-process-for-the-family-when-juveniles-freed-
from-incarceration/> [Accessed September 2017].
Bandura, A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Braithwaite, J. 2004. Emancipation and Hope. [pdf] Available at:
<https://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Articles/Emancipation_Hope_2004.p
df> [Accessed April 2017].
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2014. Introduction to Public Health. In:
Public Health 101 Series. [online] Available at: <http://www.cdc.gov/publichealth101/public-
health.html/> [Accessed May 2017].
Coker, D., 2016. Crime Logic: Campus Sexual Assault, and Restorative Justice. Texas Tech Law
Review, 49, pp.147-210.
Collaborative Solutions for Communities, 2017. Our Work: What is Healing Circle? The Family
Group Conference and Healing Circle [e-journal] Available at: <http://wearecsc.org/healing-
circle/> [Accessed August 2017].
De Jong & Berg, 2012. Interviewing for Solutions. Brooks Cole: Pacific Grove, CA.
Dougherty, J., Duda, J. & Klofas, J., 2014. Evaluation of Step by Step’s Restorative Transition
Circles Program. [e-book]
Center for Public Safety Initiatives
, Rochester Institute of
Technology. Available through:
<https://books.google.com/books?id=pkKgCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=
false> [Accessed June 2017].
Drucker, E., 2014. Restoring Justice: From Punishment to Public Health, Editors’ Choice,
American Journal of Public Health
, 104, p.388.
Fronius, T, Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, S., and Petrosino, A., 2016. Restorative Justice
in U.S. Schools: A research review. [pdf] Available at <https://jprc.wested.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/RJ_Literature-Review_20160217.pdf> [Accessed 9 April 2017].
!
!
25!
Frost, N., Clear, T. and Monteiro, C., 2017. Ending Mass Incarceration: Six Bold Reforms to
Rapidly Reduce Incarceration without Compromising Public Safety. Ernest Drucker, ed. NY:
New Press.
Hawai‘i Legislative Task Force On Effective Incarceration Policies and Improving Hawaii’s
Correctional System, 2017. Interim Report To The Legislature for the Regular Session. [pdf]
Available at: <http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp
content/uploads/2016/07/HCR_85_TASK_FORCE_INTERIM_REPORT.pdf> [Accessed July
2017].
Jacobs, J., Jones, E., Gabella, B., Spring, B. and Brownson, R., 2012. Tools for Implementing an
Evidence-Based Approach in Public Health Practice. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health
Research, Practice, and Policy, [e-journal] Available at:
<https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2012/11_0324.htm> [Accessed May 2017].
Keeble, C., Law, G., Barber, S. and Baxter, P., 2015. Choosing a Method to Reduce Selection
Bias: A Tool for Researchers, Open Journal of Epidemiology. [pdf] Available at:
<https://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJEpi_2015070913284831.pdf> [Accessed May 2017].
Korn, D. and Shaffer, H., 1999. Gambling and the health of the public:
Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, pp.289–365.
Lattimore, P.K. and Visher, C.A., 2013. The impact of prison reentry services on short-term
outcomes: evidence from a multisite evaluation. U.S. National Library of Medicine National
Institutes of Health.[e-journal] Available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24425806>
[Accessed August 2017].
Lewis, T. and Osborn, C., 2004. Solution-Focused Counseling and Motivational Interviewing: A
Consideration of Confluence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, pp.38-48.
Lee, M., Uken, A. and Sebold, 2004. Accountability for Change: Solution-Focused Treatment
With Domestic Violence Offender. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services, 85(4) pp.463-476.
Lewin, K., 1997. Experiments in social space (1939): Resolving Social Conflicts & Field Theory
in Social Science. K. Lewin ed.Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., 2006. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MacKenzie, D., 2006. What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal
Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Michael, D., 1997. Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn. Alexandria, VA: Miles River.
New Zealand Government, 2016. Restorative Justice: Evidence Brief. [pdf] Available at:
<https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/evidence-brief-restorative-
justice.pdf> [Accessed September 2017].
!
!
26!
Petersilia, J., 2004. What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence,
Federal Probation Journal, 68(2), pp.7-14.
Rand, D., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. and Nowak, M., 2009. Positive Interactions
Promote Public Cooperation, Science. [pdf] Available at:
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51ed234ae4b0867e2385d879/t/51fab972e4b07d5d9e43b4
e9/1375385970593/positive-interactions-promote-public-cooperation.pdf> [Accessed July
2017].
Rapheal, S. 2011. Incarceration and Prisoner Reentry in the United States. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, [e-journal] 635, pp. 192-215. Available at:
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716210393321> [Accessed September 2017].
Root & Rebound Reentry, 2017. Guidebook to Reentry. [online] Available at
<http://www.rootandrebound.org/guides-toolkits/> [Accessed July 2017].
Sherman, L. and Strang, H., 2007. Restorative Justice: The Evidence, London: The Smith
Institute. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/RestorativeJusticeTheEvidenceFullreport.pdf> [Accessed May 2017].
Taxman, F., 2004. The Offender and Reentry: Supporting Active Participation in Reintegration,
Federal Probation Journal, 68(2), pp.49-55.
Travis, J. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry.
Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2012. Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Administration (SAMHSA), National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and
Practices, [e-journal] Available at:
<http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=281> [Accessed August 2017].
United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2016. Facing Addiction in America:
The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health. [pdf] Available at:
<https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/front-matter.pdf> [Accessed June 2017].
Visher, C.A., 2016. Unintended Consequences:Policy Implications of the NAS Report on
Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, [e-
journal] 53(3). Available at: <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022427815603770>
[Accessed September 2017].
Walker, L., 2000. Hawai’i Public Housing Implements Conferencing: A Restorative Approach to
Conflict Resolution. Journal of Housing & Community Development, [e-journal] Available at:
<http://lorennwalker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/kalihi_article.html> [Accessed May
2017].
Walker, L., 2004. Restorative Justice without Offender Participation: A Pilot Program for
Victims, International Institute for Restorative Practices, [e-journal] Available at:
<http://www.iirp.org/library/lwalker04.html> [Accessed May 2017].
!
!
27!
Walker, L., 2005. E Makua Ana Youth Circles: A Transition Planning Process for Youth
Exiting Foster Care. [pdf] Available at: <http://lorennwalker.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/E-Makua-Walker.pdf.> [Accessed June 2017].
Walker, L. and Greening, R., 2010. Huikahi Restorative Circles: A Public Health
Approach for Reentry Planning. Federal Probation, 74 (1).
Walker, L. and Greening, R., 2013. Reentry & Transition Planning Circles for Incarcerated
People. Honolulu, Hawai’i: Hawai’i Friends of Justice & Civic Education.
Walker, L and Kobayashi, L., 2015. Restorative & Therapeutic Reentry Rituals. Offender release
and supervision: The role of Courts and the use of discretion. Evans (ed.) Netherlands: Wolf
Legal Publishing.
Walker, L., 2017. Restorative Justice & Race Inequality, Hawai‘i, USA. In T. Gavrielides, 25
Restorative Justice case studies. London: RJ4ALL Publications.
Walker, L. and Tarutani, C., 2017. Restorative justice and violence against women: an effort to
decrease the victim-offender overlap and increase healing. Eds. D. Halder & K. Jaishankar,
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Overcoming Violence against Women. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Walker, L., Tarutani, C. and McKibben, D., 2015. Benefits of Restorative Reentry Circles for
Children of Incarcerated Parents in Hawai’i. Eds. Gal & Faedi Duramy: Promoting the
Participation of Children across the Globe: From Social Exclusion To Child-Inclusive Policies.
[e-journal] Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2666828> [Accessed October 2017].
Wallace, D., Fahmy, C., Cotton, L., Jimmons, C., Mckay, R., Stoffer, S. and Syed, S., 2016.
Examining the Role of Familial Support During Prison and After Release on Post-Incarceration
Mental Health. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 60 (1),
pp.3-20.
Webster, D., Whitehill, J., Vernick, J. and Oarjer, E., 2012. Evaluation of Baltimore’s Safe
Streets Program: Effects on Attitudes, Participants’ Experiences, and Gun Violence. [pdf]
Available through Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health: <http://cureviolence.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Safe-
Streets-full-evaluation.pdf> [Accessed September 2017].
World Health Organization (WHO), 2010. Violence prevention: the evidence. [pdf] Available at
<http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77936/1/9789241500845_eng.pdf?ua=1> [Accessed
August 2017].
World Health Organization (WHO), 1954. Expert Committee on Health Education of the Public,
Technical Report Series, No. 89. [pdf] Available at:
<http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/40254/1/WHO_TRS_89.pdf> [Accessed July 2017].
Zehr, H., 2002. The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Zimbardo, P., 2007. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York:
Random House.
... The incarcerated individual who applies for a reentry circle seeks to make amends with those harmed by their behavior, and to make a plan to support their desistance from crime. An independent evaluation of the HFRJ reentry planning circles was conducted in 2016 (Davidson, 2016;Walker & Davidson, 2018). It showed that those receiving a circle had a 26% lower rate of recidivism than a control group. ...
... The demographics and criminal histories of the study and control groups were very similar, with no statistically significant differences on a number of measures, except that a greater percentage of the control group were women (43% versus 28%). The study showed that circle participants had 26% less recidivism than the control group three years after release, with recidivism rates of 43.1% versus 58.3%, respectively (Davidson, 2016;Walker & Davidson, 2018). The recidivism rate for the control group was close to the statewide recidivism rate for parolees and maximum-term releases (see Figure 1). ...
Article
Hawai‘i Friends of Restorative Justice has developed and implemented a reentry planning process to support incarcerated individuals as they prepare to reenter society. With 16 years of successful practice, research has shown that the program has many benefits, including reducing recidivism by 26 percent among recipients. In this paper, we use systems analysis to explore the long-term effects of a reduction in recidivism on the prison population and evaluate the economic and social benefits of such a program. The paper describes a simulation modeling method that quantifies the predicted effect of recidivism on the prison population, shows the net benefit of the reentry program, and demonstrates the usefulness of modern simulation tools in policy analysis of the criminal justice system. We calibrate the model with data on Hawai‘i state prisons. The model indicates that a 26 percent reduction in recidivism leads to a 17 percent reduction in the prison population over 15 years by reducing the number of recidivists in prison by 40 percent. Considering the marginal and average cost of imprisonment, the estimated benefits substantially outweigh the cost of the program with even the most conservative accounting of marginal costs.
... De gedetineerde komt dan samen met zijn of haar netwerk (bestaande uit zowel geliefden als ondersteuners uit de inrichting) om in een interactief gesprek de doelen van de gedetineerde te bespreken en een stappenplan op te stellen om deze doelen te bereiken. Daarnaast is de cirkel een plek waar de herstelbehoeften van de gezinsleden of andere geliefden besproken kunnen worden (Walker & Davidson, 2018). ...
... Verder wordt een afname in recidive gevonden tot drie jaar na vrijkomen. Een eventueel selectie-effect werd hier verkleind doordat de controlegroep bestond uit gedetineerden die zich wel hadden aangemeld, maar voor wie het niet mogelijk was deel te nemen (Walker & Davidson, 2018). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This study aims to give an overview of policies on and use of restorative interventions justice (RJ) in detention for both adult and juvenile detainees. A previous account revealed a large number of available interventions. However, it is unknown to what extent these are used in practice and how they are evaluated by the professionals involved. This study was conducted to fill this knowledge gap. The use of restorative interventions is in line with the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency’s goal of victim-oriented and restorative detention. RJ in a detention context might consist of mediated contact between incarcerated suspects or offenders and their victim(s), but also includes offender-focused interventions such as courses aimed at raising awareness and taking responsibility (also known as self-restoration), and interventions aimed at restoring the relationship with the offender’s network. All these interventions are included in this study. The following three research questions are central to this study: 1 How is restorative justice organised in detention? 2 Which restorative interventions are available for adults and juveniles, and what do they entail? 3 How do the professionals involved view the use of restorative interventions?
... An independent evaluation of quantitative research results, controlled for self-selection, demonstrates that the reentry circle process also helps to reduce recidivism (Walker & Davidson, 2018). Controlling for self-selection is important when researching restorative justice (RJ) interventions. ...
... The circles are a proactive approach for successfully reentering the community and for making time served in prison more productive. The research demonstrates that circles are powerful tools to reduce recidivism (Walker & Davidson, 2018) and for providing healing opportunities for children (Walker, Tarutani, & McKibben, 2013). For the District of Hawaii, the RJ Circle Pilot Program has resulted in initial benefits that far exceed its costs. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2015 the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i Pretrial Services office collaborated with Hawai’i Friends of Restorative Justice (HFRJ), a small Honolulu non-profit, to provide and measure the outcomes of a reentry planning circle process for incarcerated individuals either facing a federal prison sentence or who had been sentenced to federal prison. In 2017 the pilot was expanded to individuals on probation under the court’s jurisdiction. The reentry planning circle model was developed in 2004 by HFRJ. The process is grounded in public health learning principles and provides both solution-focused and restorative justice approaches. HFRJ has provided over 168 circles that 749 people have participated in including 19 Hawai‘i federal court defendants along with 80 of their loved ones, pretrial services and probation office representatives. The process has been shown to increase healing for children whose incarcerated parents had circles, and an independent evaluation that controlled for self-selection, also showed the circles reduce recidivism. The process has been replicated in whole or part in other states and countries. This paper uses a case the authors worked on to examine the reentry planning process and the pilot project.
... The reentry circles are known as Huikahi Circles in Hawai'i state prisons. The circles have been researched and shown to reduce repeat crime (Walker & Davidson, 2018), and to bring healing benefits for children of incarcerated parents (Walker, Tarutani & McKibben, 2015) and for other family members of incarcerated people (Walker & De Reu, 2021). The circle provides an opportunity for incarcerated individuals to make specific goals and plans, and to choose who among their loved ones and supporters they would like to invite to participate in their reentry planning process and repair any damaged relationships with. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter describes the development and implementation of a programme providing higher and continuing education for imprisoned women in Hawai‘i. The purpose of the chapter is to show how the programme, which was based on principles of restorative justice and peace education, connects to and illustrates peace psychology. The programme consists of educational and restorative components. The education component provides women with opportunities to increase self-efficacy and personal agency. The project design motivates inner and relational peace by applying Montessori’s peace education and cooperative learning theories. The restorative re-entry planning process increases respect, empathy, and redemption. The value of respect advanced by Montessori and restorative justice is embedded in the project. Through cooperative learning and restorative re-entry planning practices, the women build supportive and peaceful relationships both internally and relationally to help decrease the structural violence that they have experienced. This chapter describes research supporting education for incarcerated women to address structural violence. The chapter includes an explanation of concepts and applications of cooperative learning and restorative re-entry planning circles and discusses their effectiveness in generating inner and relational peace. This chapter describes how education can increase incarcerated women’s personal agency, self-efficacy, and confidence, creating inner and relational peace, leading to successful re-entry and decreased domestic violence. The program addresses the connection between lack of personal agency and domestic violence, problems shared by many women, incarcerated and otherwise, throughout the world. The programme, created and conducted in Hawai‘i, could be replicated by other correctional institutions.
... Here, too, restorative justice is highly relevant. In their form of 're-entry circles' (Walker & Davidson, 2018), restorative practices were designed to allow prisoners facing release to meet with victims or their families to jointly design a safe and beneficent re-entry plan. ...
Chapter
Hawai‘i is a multicultural island state that has been experimenting with a facilitated restorative reentry planning circle process for incarcerated individuals who meet with loved ones. The circle process considers loved ones' needs for repairing harm and the incarcerated person's needs for successful reentry including reconciliation with loved ones. When loved ones cannot attend a circle, they are invited to provide information over the telephone or by email to the facilitator who shares the information during the circle. This study analyzed participants' perceptions of how helpful it was for them to provide information about their needs having an incarcerated loved one. The authors predicted participants from high-context cultures would find the process less satisfying than those from low-context cultures, but the study found no differences. Despite identifying from a high- or low-context culture, all participants except one from a low-context culture found that providing shuttled information was helpful.
Chapter
This chapter integrates findings about maternal involvement in the criminal justice system presented in the Brief’s six empirical chapters with what is previously known about incarcerated mothers and their children. We apply an intergenerational developmental ecological perspective to the results and discuss the attachment-related themes of separation, loss, and reunion that were addressed in the introduction. We also highlight important points from each chapter and attempt to integrate where there are intersections among issues related to prevention and intervention, gender-responsive programs, and themes of trauma, addiction, child welfare involvement, low-resource environments, and resilience. We briefly touch on issues related to the worldwide novel coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement as related to this volume and the study of incarcerated mothers and their children. Lastly, we present policy and practice implications of the research, including implications for prevention efforts for mothers involved in the criminal justice system and their children and families.
Chapter
Full-text available
Opposition to using restorative justice to address violence against women mainly concerns the fear that women will be re-victimized if they engage with men who endangered them. While law enforcement and criminal justice approaches are necessary to address violence against women, women's choices about when and how to use law enforcement and prosecution to address violence against them, should be respected. Exclusive criminalization of violence against women has not protected many and has further harmed marginalized and Black people. To address intimate partner violence, victims' needs for healing must be met including when the victim-offender overlap applies and an offender is also a victim. Ignoring healing perpetuates violence. Applying restorative justice and its foundational questions, during direct meetings between victims and offenders, or when they meet separately, can address the victim-offender overlap, reduce reliance on punishment, and increase healing.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Selection bias is well known to affect surveys and epidemiological studies. There have been numerous methods proposed to reduce its effects, so many that researchers may be unclear which method is most suitable for their study; the wide choice may even deter some researchers, for fear of choosing a sub-optimal approach. We propose a straightforward tool to inform researchers of the most promising methods available to reduce selection bias and to assist the search for an appropriate method given their study design and details. We demonstrate the tool using three examples where selection bias may occur; the tool quickly eliminates inappropriate methods and guides the researcher towards those to consider implementing. If more studies consider selection bias and adopt methods to reduce it, valuable time and resources will be saved, and should lead to more focused research towards disease prevention or cure.
Article
In this article, the authors discuss and evaluate a solution-focused treatment program for domestic violence offenders. Building on a strengths perspective, a solution-focused approach holds a person accountable for solutions instead of focusing on problems. The outcome study was a 1-group pre-and posttest design with a 6-month follow-up to evaluate the effectiveness of a solution-focused group treatment program for 90 domestic violence offenders who were ordered by the court to receive treatment. Findings of the outcome study indicated a recidivism rate of 16.7% of program participants as based on official records over a 6-year period. There was a significant improvement in participants’ relational skills in intimate relationships as evaluated by their spouses or partners and a significant increase in their self-esteem based on self-reports. Implications for treatment and research with domestic violence offenders are discussed.
Book
What Works in Corrections, first published in 2006, examines the impact of correctional interventions, management policies, treatment and rehabilitation programs on the recidivism of offenders and delinquents. The book reviews different strategies for reducing recidivism and describes how the evidence for effectiveness is assessed. Thousands of studies were examined in order to identify those of sufficient scientific rigor to enable conclusions to be drawn about the impact of various interventions, policies and programs on recidivism. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed to further examine these results. This book assesses the relative effectiveness of rehabilitation programs (e.g., education, life skills, employment, cognitive behavioral), treatment for different types of offenders (e.g. sex offenders, batterers, juveniles), management and treatment of drug-involved offenders (e.g., drug courts, therapeutic communities, outpatient drug treatment) and punishment, control and surveillance interventions (boot camps, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring). Through her extensive research, MacKenzie illustrates which of these programs are most effective and why. © Doris Layton MacKenzie 2006 and Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Article
A significant number of prisoners experience mental health problems, and adequate social support is one way that facilitates better mental health. Yet, by being incarcerated, social support, particularly family support, is likely to be strained or even negative. In this study, we examine whether familial support-either positive or negative-in-prison and after release affects mental health outcomes post-release. Using the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) dataset, we regress post-release mental health on in-prison familial support, post-incarceration familial support, and changes in familial support. We find that while in-prison family support does not affect mental health, post-release familial support does. Also, experiencing an increase in negative familial support is associated with lower post-incarceration mental health. We conclude with a discussion of policies which may facilitate better familial support environments.