Restoring Justice at the

Washington State Reformatory:

A Prison-Based Encounter Program

J.B. Helfgott, M.L. Lovell, C.F. Lawrence

Seattle University
W.H. Parsonage
Penn State University

Presentation prepared for the 4th International Conference on Conferencing, Circles, and
other Restorative Practices, Veldhoven, Netherlands, August 28-30, 2003
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
Retributive v. Restorative
Models of Justice
 Retributive  Restorative
 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
 Crime = harm
 Wrongs create obligations
 Debt concrete/reparative
 Problem solving central
 Victims needs central
 Offender reintegrated
 Victim, offender, citizen roles
recognized
 Dialogue/reconciliation
normative
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
Program Overview

 5 seminars  Program
1997 -2000 Evaluation
 Recruitment  Pre/post interviews
 Screening  Pre/post
questionnaires
 Orientation
 Participant
 Seminar
Observation
 Tour  Data Analysis
 Follow-up  Reports
 Publications
 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.
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?
Seminar Format
 Introduction to Restorative Justice
 Storytelling
 Transferring new knowledge into
daily life
 Prison Tour
 Follow-up Meetings
J. Helfgott & Offender Participants
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
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
 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; M=13.3,
SD=7.7
 Sentence length: 4 yrs – multiple life
sentences and life without parole
(calculated as 80yrs); M=38, SD =24
 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?
RESULTS
 GOAL #1 Significant Differences (p<.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, p<.02)
 I have an understanding of what victims experience in the
aftermath of crime (pre=3.56/post=3.80, p<.01)

 Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were less likely to

agree:
 I will be/was comfortable discussing my crime in the seminar
meetings (Pre=3.05/Post 2.65, p<.03)
 Other offenders have expressed negative views about my
participation in the CVORJ seminar (Pre=2.73/Post=1.51,
p<.00)
 The victim in my case contributed in some way to his/her own
victimization (Pre = 1.94/Post = 1.74, p<.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, p<.00).
 I feel my prison sentence is payment enough for my crime
(p=2.02/post=1.69, p<.05)
 GOAL #1 Significant Differences (p<.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 (pre=3.32/post=3.62, p<.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 (pre=2.76/post=3.50,
p<.00)
 Society is as much to blame for the offense against
me/my family as the offender (pre=2.00/post=2.41,
p<.02)

 Upon completion of the seminar, victims were less likely to

agree:
 Offenders are not adequately held accountable for their
crimes (pre=2.93/post=2.55, p<.02)
 Most of the inmates who volunteered to participate in the
CVORJ seminar did it to look good for their parole
hearings (pre=2.11/post=1.66, p<.01)
 GOAL #1 Significant Differences (p<.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 (pre=2.92/post=2.58, p<.02)
 Offenders who participated in the CVORJ seminar did it
to look good on their parole hearings
(pre=1.96/post=1.52, p<.01)
 Most offenders do not feel sorry for what they have done
(pre=2.46/post=1.82, p<.00)
GOAL #2 Significant Differences (p<.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
(pre=2.05/post=2.51, p<.02)
 Justice would mean much more to me if it involved
ongoing discussions between unrelated victims and
offenders (pre=2.25/post=3.49, p<.00)

 Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were less

likely to agree:
 I feel animosity toward the victim in my case
(p=1.28/post=1.14, p<.03)
 Victims do not seem to forgive offenders for what they
have done (p=3.46/post=2.76, p<.00)
GOAL #2 Significant Differences (p<.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 who’ve made bad
choices (pre=2.68/post=3.13, p<.01)
 I feel sorry for most offenders (pre=2.07/post=2.40,
p<.04)

 Upon completion of the seminar, victims were less

likely to agree:
 I have difficulty finding any commonalities between
myself and most offenders (pre=1.96/post=1.62,
P<.05)
 I do not understand what makes a person lead a life
of crime (p=2.45/post=2.09, p<.01)
GOAL #2 Significant Differences (p<.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 (p=2.84/post=3.42, p<.00)

 Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were less

likely to agree:
 I have difficulty finding any commonalities between
myself and most offenders (pre=2.08/post=1.72,
P<.04)
 I have difficulty finding any commonalities between
myself and most victims (pre=2.08/post=1.70, P<.03)
 I have doubts about whether or not it is possible for
victims and offenders to ever be able to work out their
differences (pre=2.50/post=2.16, P<.02)
 GOAL #3 Significant Differences (p<.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
(p=3.06/post=3.34, p<.05)
 Citizens need to play a more active role in the justice process
(p=2.16/post=2.47, p<.01)
 The wounds and healing of victims should be considered as
important in the justice process (p=3.37/post=3.63, p<.03)
 The wounds and healing of victims should be considered as
important in the justice process (p=2.94/post=3.28, p<.00)
 Primary decisions in the justice process should be made
through discussions between victims and offenders with
government help as needed (p=3.19/post=3.63, p<.01)
 All actions within the justice system should be tested by
whether they are reasonable, restorative, and respectful
(p=2.50/post=2.93, p<.01)
 Government coercion and authority should be used as a
secondary backup means to enforce justice
(p=2.82/post=3.12, p<.02)
GOAL #3 Significant Differences (p<.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
(p=1.52/post=2.20, p<.00)
 Victims should be allowed to participate more in the justice
process (p=3.15/post=3.72, p<.02)
 Citizens need to play a more active role in the justice process
(p=3.22/post=3.76, p<.01)
 The main goal in sentencing should be to pay back society for
the harm caused (p=2.44/post=2.88, p<.04)
 All actions within the justice system should be tested by
whether they are reasonable, restorative, and respectful
(p=2.34/post=2.79, p<.04)
 GOAL #3 Significant Differences (p<.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 (p=1.32/post=2.02, p<.00)
 Victims should be allowed to participate more in the justice process
(p=3.27/post=3.52, p<.04)
 Citizens should be allowed to participate more in the justice process
(p=3.15/post=3.48, p<.01)
 Citizens need to take it upon themselves to play a more active role in
the justice process (p=3.21/post=3.52, p<.03)
 The community is responsible for helping offenders to reintegrate once
their sentence is served (p=3.08/post=3.40, p<.03)
 The community is responsible for helping the victim deal with the
aftermath of crime (p=3.21/post=3.52, p<.03)
 The main goal of sentencing should be to pay back society for the
harm caused (p=2.32/post=2.74, p<.03)
 Primary decisions in the justice process should be made through
discussions between victims and offenders with government help as
needed (p=2.60/post=3.16, p<.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 (pre=1.96/post=1.78, p<.05)
GOAL #4 Significant Differences (p<.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
(p=2.33/post=2.74, p<.00)
 I think our criminal justice system needs to be
overhauled (p=3.27/post=3.60, p<.03)
 Upon completion of the seminar, offenders were
less likely to agree:
 The harms caused by domestic violence cannot be
repaired (p=2.24/post=1.94, p<.00)
GOAL #4 Significant Differences (p<.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
(p=3.19/post=3.60, p<.02)
 Upon completion of the seminar, victims were less likely to agree:
 I am satisfied with our criminal justice system (p=1.77/post=1.31,
p<.00)
 I tend to avoid certain places, things, and activities because I’m
afraid I’ll be victimized again (pre=2.57/post=2.21, p<.04)
 When I think about the crime, I feel ashamed
(pre=2.32/post=2.00, p<.04)
GOAL #4 Significant Differences (p<.05)
To foster hope for the future of criminal justice -- CITIZENS

 Upon completion of the seminar, citizens were more likely to agree:

 Most people don’t care about justice (p=1.56/post=1.92, p<.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 (p=2.12/post=1.60, p<.01)
 As a citizen, I do not understand how I can help offenders change
so that they do not commit another crime (p=2.12/post=1.60,
p<.01)
 As a citizen, I do not understand how I can help offenders in the
reintegration process (p=2.20/post=1.60, p<.00)
 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
(pre=2.30/post=1.86, p<.01)
 More likely to allow their children and family
members to associate with an ex-offender who has
committed murder (pre=1.38/post=1.79, p<.05)

 Upon completion of the seminar, CITIZENS

reported they were:
 More likely to offer an ex-offender a gesture of
welcome to the neighborhood
(pre=2.21/post=2.64, p<.01)
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
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%)
Percentage of participants who considered
the seminar a success, were satisfied, and
had positive feelings about the experience

100 100
95
90 86 84 84
80 78 79
73
70
60
50 Offenders
44
40 Victims
30 Citizens
20
10
0
Success Satisfied Positive
Feelings
 Can Amends be Made
for 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 (pre=45%/post=66%)
 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%/post=56%)
 Though not significant (p,.06), results show a pre/post
difference for offenders (pre=67%/post=56%) suggesting a
trend may be revealed with increased sample size
Percentage of Participants who said that
amends can be made for violent crime
before and after the seminar

90
81 78
80
73
70 63
60 57 57
50 Offenders
40 Victims
30 Citizens
20
10
0
Pretest Posttest
 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
Percentage of participants who said personal
issues between victims and offenders could be
resolved through discussions with surrogates

100 100
91
90
80 74 72
70
60
Offenders
50
Victims
40 35 36
Citizens
30
20
10
0
Pretest Posttest
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)
New Ideas about
how to Achieve Justice?

96
100 90

80
61
60
Offenders
40 Victims
Citizens
20

0
New Ideas about how to achieve
justice?
 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
victim’s 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.
 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 child’s life.
 Promote community policing and community
corrections to prevent problems before they
occur.
 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
they’re released.
 Get to know neighbors/community.
 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
prison’s 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.
Did the CVORJ Program
Achieve 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
Qualitative Findings
 The evaluation also included a
qualitative/participant 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.
 (Incomplete) Findings
from 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 victim’s 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.
 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 women’s
prisons in Minnesota (MCF – Shakopee and MCF - Lino Lakes).
 See: CVORJ/Lino Lakes Executive Summary/Burns (2001)
http://fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/mn02_hburns.pdf
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
 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?
 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: (206) 296-5477
E-Mail: jhelfgot@seattleu.edu