Capstone Best Practices Guide-Final - Skidmore College · Formats and Best Practices ... have...
Transcript of Capstone Best Practices Guide-Final - Skidmore College · Formats and Best Practices ... have...
2011
University Of San Diego Justine Darling
[RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPILATION OF FORMATS AND BEST PRACTICES] Restorative Justice is possible in any Institution of Higher Education and this document highlights clear steps and resources for institutions to become more restorative. The findings are based on best practices used by colleges and universities already implementing restorative processes and was created to give leaders in Higher Education the tools they need to take first steps in successfully implementing Restorative Justice.
P a g e | 1
Table of Contents
Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Justice: Retributive and Restorative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Restorative Justice in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Universities Actively Employing Restorative Justice Principles and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6‐8
Formats and Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9‐18
Restorative Structure and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . (9‐12)
Creating Restorative Justice Support . . . . . . . . . . . . (13‐15)
Sustaining Restorative Justice Principles . . . . . . . . . (15‐18)
Vision and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18‐19)
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21‐43
P a g e | 2
Welcome and Thank You!
Are you interested in creating a culture of community and connection on your campus? What tools can
be used to live out the mission and values of your university actively every day? How can you engage students in
addressing decisions they make as opportunities to learn? What is Restorative Justice (RJ) and how can you
bring the principles and tools of RJ to your campus? This manual was developed to help answer these questions
and provide a framework to bring restorative justice to your Institution of Higher Education. This framework is
based on the impressive Restorative Justice work that is being led by Administrators and RJ Practitioners utilizing
RJ principles and tools at 9 prestigious colleges and universities across the United States. Through a series of
phone interviews (see appendix A for questionnaire) with these RJ leaders and experts, this manual of best
practices and innovative ideas has been created to help bring Restorative Justice to campuses across the U.S.
The goal is to provide you with direction and a framework for restorative growth, while keeping the concepts
broad to allow the space for you to begin thinking of your own innovative way of working with restorative
concepts on your campus.
I am invested in creating this manual because I believe in the power of restorative justice and have
experienced it first hand as a participant and facilitator in RJ Conferences, Peace Circles, and Restorative
Dialogues. I first learned about RJ principles in the fall of 2010 as a graduate student in Peace Studies at the
University of San Diego (USD). I connected with the Director of Conduct at USD, who is also passionate about
Restorative Justice, and together we advocated for a campus based program. I began my position as the
Restorative Justice Coordinator in the Fall of 2011 by implementing a 1 year RJ pilot program. In the first
semester, we completed 9 Conferences and 3 Peace Circles, including 17 Student Offenders and 35 Impacted
Parties. The focus of USD’s RJ Pilot is to complete at least 30 Restorative conduct cases within a year by using
Restorative Justice Conferences and Circles, creating infrastructure for RJ by developing resources and training
curriculums to support a sustainable process for the future, and spreading awareness of RJ on campus to create
support and buy‐in from students, faculty, and staff, so that the whole university community uses a restorative
lens in their interactions.
I have been blessed with a solid network of Restorative Justice Experts working in Higher Education that
have helped guide my work. Developing this manual is a way of spreading that knowledge to others who may
be in the same position USD found itself in, having a desire to adopt restorative principles and tools but not
knowing exactly how to get started. This study focuses on exploratory research to discover overarching themes
that exist within a university political system in order to successfully develop a Restorative Justice process in the
conduct system and campus culture. In this guide you will find the wisdom, lessons learned, and successes of a
group of universities that have different characteristics, from size, religious affiliation, location, and more. They
have at least one thing in common, which is the ability to bring Restorative Justice to their campuses and live out
the principles of addressing harms and obligations to the community, taking responsibility for actions, learning
how to respectfully voice opinions through constructive dialogue, and engaging the whole community in
building relationships.
Thank you,
Justine Darling
Restorative Justice Coordinator
University of San Diego
P a g e | 3
Justice: Retributive and Restorative
The Traditional Retributive Justice System used in the United States was inherited from the Criminal Code
and Common Law practices of Monarchies in England. In a monarchical system, the king or queen owns all land
and people and every crime committed is against the monarchy instead of against the community or victim that
was harmed by the offense. In the U.S. the Government takes the role of the monarchy, which takes away all
obligations offenders have to victims and removes them from the original consequences of their actions, to
answer to the State (Potter, 1958). Although this system allows for a consistent administration of justice across
the country and holds people accountable to the state, a new restorative form of justice is emerging, which
holds people accountable to those they have harmed and focuses on building relationships in order to
strengthen society.
Restorative Justice (RJ) concepts and practices have been used to resolve conflict in indigenous cultures,
including the Maori people of New Zealand, Native American tribes in the U.S., and the Mayan people of
Guatemala, for thousands of years (Pranis, 2005). Modern Western communities are beginning to call on these
ancient practices as a new process to resolve conflict through face to face interactions. Restorative Justice is an
alternative form of justice where victims and offenders are brought together and a contract is created by all
parties to the offense to repair harm caused and reintegrate individuals back into the community. This process
holds offenders responsible for their actions, asking them to make a commitment to not reoffend in the future
and focuses on repairing harm experienced by victims and community members through a commitment to fulfill
all obligations (Zehr, 2002). Restorative Justice looks at offenses not as single events, but contextual
consequences to deeper systemic issues that must be addressed in order to decrease the likelihood of re‐
offenses.
The Student Discipline system of universities in many ways reflects the larger criminal justice system in the
U.S. and is based on retributive justice. The general focus is on policy violations, sanctions and punishment for
students. In 1822, Thomas Jefferson said “The article of discipline is the most difficult in American education.
Premature ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents, beget a spirit of insubordination, which is the
greatest obstacle to science with us, and as a principal cause of its decay since the revolution. I look to it with
dismay in our institution, as a breaker ahead, which I am far from being confident we shall be able to weather”
(Holmes, 2002). From the beginning of higher education in the U.S. discipline was thought of as a barrier to
successful learning, but Restorative Justice sees violations of school policy as an opportunity to learn and gain
knowledge about one self, others, and how to function within a community.
Like the larger society in which universities function, restorative justice is slowly infiltrating university
conduct systems around the country. There are over 2,000 public and not‐for‐profit colleges and universities in
the United States and more than 30 have already implemented some form of Restorative Justice process and
the number is constantly increasing (ed.gov). In fact, a recent Campus Climate Initiative for the University of
California public school system is using restorative justice to address bias motivated incidents on all UC
campuses (universityofcalifornia.edu). The principles of restorative justice are spreading rapidly because they
embody Student Development Goals held by all institutions of higher education, including leadership and ethical
development, interpersonal competence, cognitive complexity (critical and reflective thinking, creativity), and
effective communication skills (cas.edu). Therefore, Restorative Justice is a helpful tool in addressing the
purpose of going to an institution of higher education: deep learning, gaining knowledge and wisdom, and
developing critical life skills.
P a g e | 4
Restorative Justice in Higher Education
There are many restorative tools and processes that can be used in the university setting. This guide is specific to
Judicial and Residential Life processes within Institutions of Higher Education. Addressed below are the five most
common methods of implementation that are used at the 9 colleges and universities in this study. The goal of all
5 Restorative Processes is for the respondent to acknowledge responsibility, identify harm and obligations, and
develop a restorative plan agreed upon by the person responsible and impacted parties.1 Language used in
Restorative Judicial Processes is different than the language used in Traditional Judicial Processes so that
stigmatization is less likely to occur.2
Process Who What Uses Timeframe Differences Examples
Restorative Hearing
Respondent, Conduct Officer
Meeting to discuss incident
For Traditional Conduct meetings
30min.‐1hr No victim participation
Any traditional hearing case‐ Shift from violations and sanctions to harms and obligations
Restorative Board (Also named Community Accountability Board, Integrity Board)
Respondent, Volunteer community members or standing board members (trained students, faculty, and staff)
Community Impact but no specific victims
For Quality of Life violations that impact the whole community
1‐2 hrs Committee facilitation. Educate on what it means to live in community.
Noise violations, MIP, Vandalism, Stealing University Property
Restorative Justice Conference (Also named Victim‐Offender Conference, Conferencing Circle)
Respondent, Impacted Parties, Support People, Family Members, Community Members, Facilitator
Facilitator meets with participants before the conference and focus is on the harm
Identifiable impacted parties
1‐2 hrs(On average: 2‐8 hours of preparation to meet and prepare all participants individually)
Third party facilitation. Focus is on specific victims and offenders.
Abusive Language, Theft, Acts of Dishonesty, Alcohol Poisoning, Hospitalization
Peace Circle (Also named Circle Process, Circle of Understanding, Accountability Circle, Circle Sentencing)
Respondent, Impacted Parties, Community Members, Facilitator
Each person has an opportunity to participate equally
For a large number of participants, Specific questions are posed to all participants
1‐2 hrs Use of a “Talking Piece” for structured dialogue, sit in a circle with no table in the center
Cases with multiple offenders/ victims, topics that affect the whole university community‐racism, sexism, alcohol abuse
Restorative Dialogue (Also named Mutual Responsibility Conference)
Respondent/ Impacted Party, Support People, Community Members, Facilitator
Focus is open discussion and apology
Line between impacted parties and respondent is blurred. Both were harmed and both are responsible for harm
30min.‐1hr(On average: 1‐4 hours of preparation)
Least structured process. Generally does not include a restorative plan
Brawling violations, alcohol violations from social gatherings
1 The plans are creative and developed on a case by case basis and include apology letters, community service, reparations, involvement in clubs and Orgs, research papers, public presentations, and others. 2 Offender = Respondent or Person Responsible Victim = Impacted Party, Affected Party, or Harmed Party Offense: Incident, situation, issue, event, circumstance
P a g e | 5
Benefits
Restorative Justice has been used in justice systems around the world for decades and there is a vast
amount of literature on the numerous benefits.3 One study in the United Kingdom developed in 2008 compared
recidivism rates of Restorative Justice with the Traditional Justice System. The results of the study showed that
when Restorative Justice Techniques were employed the cost of convictions and committed offenses decreased
significantly, as well as a decrease in reconvictions (Shapland, 2008). The first Institution of Higher Education to
implement Restorative Justice was founded in 1998, only 13 years ago, at the University of Colorado‐Boulder.
The research in this field is new and the data is limited. Studies are in progress that specifically focus on RJ in
Higher Education, which suggest that Restorative Justice is having a significant impact.
David Karp, Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Director of Campus Life at Skidmore College, has
conducted a study from 2009 continuing to 2013, called the STARR project, and will be presenting initial findings
in February, 2012 (Karp, 2011). His team created survey tools, which can be found on the Skidmore website4, to
measure student offenders participating in restorative justice processes and traditional judicial processes at a
number of colleges and universities across the U.S. The survey is focused on measuring six levels of student
development including self‐authorship, active accountability, interpersonal competence, social ties to the
Institution, procedural fairness, and closure. So far, Dr. Karp’s preliminary findings indicate that RJ practices have
statistically significant increases in all six of the student development areas measured.
At the University of Michigan, Pete Meagher developed a 20 question survey tool which is used to collect
data regarding levels of satisfaction, motivation for participation, and benefits of Restorative Justice for
students. The survey found that the main reasons students chose to participate in Restorative Justice was to
take direct responsibility for what they did, offer an apology, and for the opportunity to get their cases diverted
from the Traditional Judicial System. Over 90% of participants felt the agreement reached through the
conference was fair, while over 90% said they would participate in a conference again, and 80% of participants
said the conference strengthened their sense of community. The University of Michigan is currently in the
process of analyzing and publishing their findings. For more information on this study, use the Index of
Universities in this guide to contact the University of Michigan Associate Director of the Office of Student
Conflict Resolution, Stacy Vander Velde.
Lastly, in the University of San Diego’s first semester of implementing Restorative Justice Conferencing and
Circles, they have collected data based on a 24 question survey developed to measure the impact of RJ. All
Students Responsible strongly agreed that the Restorative Justice Conferencing process offered them an
opportunity to apologize to those impacted by their actions and all students strongly agreed that meeting
Impacted Parties was helpful in understanding the impact of their actions. All Students Responsible either
agreed or strongly agreed that the conference invited a discussion of personal values and ethical responsibilities,
they were able to meaningfully contribute their ideas to the outcome of the case, and said they were less likely
to repeat the same action again because of what they learned through the restorative process. Students also
provided USD with written reflections of their experience. A student involved in drinking underage and vomiting
at a university function said that the Restorative Justice Conference “was an amazing experience and
opportunity for me to reflect on my actions. I am really grateful that I was given the chance to apologize and
speak with the affected parties!”
3 For more information on benefits of Restorative Justice Systems, go to www.restorativejustice.org (Search Restorative Justice
Consortium) or research the countries of Northern Ireland, New Zealand, England (the City of Hull‐becoming the first Restorative City in the world). 4 http://cms.skidmore.edu/campusrj/
P a g e | 6
Fresno Pacific University (Population: 3,000), Private/Christian University
Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies, Restorative Justice Project
In 2004 a Restorative Discipline Model was adopted, where by every conduct case was offered
a Restorative Justice Conference (called mediation). The goal is to encourage members of the
University community to resolve their differences at the lowest possible level of authority.
Jill Schellenberg, Director of Criminology and Restorative Justice Studies, [email protected]
Website: http://peace.fresno.edu/rjp/
Universities Actively Employing Restorative Justice Principles and Practices
The impact of Restorative Justice on students in Higher Education is evident by the success of programs at a
variety of colleges and universities with different population size, religious affiliation, and both public and
private institutions. Restorative Principles are universal and applicable in any institution where there are
interactions with students, and the model used may vary based on the culture of the institution, conduct
processes already in place, and leadership styles of those implementing restorative justice. Although there are
many universities practicing Restorative Justice, the 9 universities below have participated in this study and
were chosen because of their active Restorative Justice Processes.
Liberty University (Population: 12,500), Private/Christian University
Office of Student Conduct, under Student Affairs
In the fall of 2010, all 8 conduct officers were trained to administer both Restorative Hearings
and full Restorative Conferences. They decide which process will be appropriate for each
conduct case, are in charge of administering conferences, and following up with Restorative
Agreements reached. All conduct processes are restorative in nature and Mark Hyde, Senior
Conduct Officer and Restorative Justice Coordinator helps collect the restorative data.
Contact: Keith Anderson, Dean of Students, [email protected]
Website: http://www.liberty.edu/studentaffairs/officeofstudentconduct/index.cfm?PID=22944
Skidmore College (Population: 2,500), Private University
Student Conduct, under Residential Life
Skidmore’s conduct process involves the use of Restorative Boards (called Integrity Boards‐IB), a
body of hearing officers comprised of students, faculty, and staff. In 2000, the IB adopted
Restorative Justice Principles and Practices by having students who have violated Skidmore’s
Honor Code take responsibility for their actions, make amends, and return to good standing at
the College.
David Karp, Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Director of Campus Life, [email protected]
Website: http://cms.skidmore.edu/campusrj/
P a g e | 7
James Madison University (Population: 19,000), Public University
Office of Judicial Affairs, Restorative Practices, under Student Affairs
The model most used is the Peace Circle, which includes co‐facilitators and a talking piece to guide
participants. The Office of Judicial Affairs has about 1,500 conduct cases per year and recently hired
a fulltime Restorative Justice Coordinator who facilitates around 10 full Restorative Processes per
semester. All conduct officers are trained in RJ and every hearing is restorative in nature by talking
about harms, needs, and obligations with students responsible.
Josh Bacon, Director of Judicial Affairs, [email protected]
Website: http://www.jmu.edu/judicial/restorative/
University of Oregon (Population: 24,500), Public University
Conflict Resolution Services, under Office of the Dean of Students
Through a collaborative effort in 2003 between Conflict Resolution Services and The Office of
Student Conduct and Community Standards, the UO created the Campus Restorative Justice
Program (CRJP). The conduct office refers cases Conflict Resolution Services, which implements
Restorative Conferencing (called a "community circle").
Caitlan Hendrickson, Director of Conflict Resolution Services, [email protected]
Website: http://crs.uoregon.edu
Colorado State University (Population: 30,000), Public University
Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services, under Student Affairs
In 2004, Colorado State developed two parallel processes for conduct, providing Conflict
Resolution Services and Traditional Conduct Hearings. When the involved parties consent,
Restorative Justice Conferences or mediation may be used if deemed appropriate by conduct
officers and the Director of Conflict Resolution. If the Student responsible does not abide by the
agreement, the case may be referred back through the conduct process for disciplinary action. The
conduct office adjudicated over 2,500 cases last year and had approximately 20 Restorative
Conferences per semester. All conduct hearings are restorative by asking about the impact and
how a student can make the harm right again.
Melissa Emerson, Assistant Director, Conflict Resolution & Student Conduct Services,
Website: http://www.conflictresolution.colostate.edu/restorative‐justice
P a g e | 8
University of Colorado‐Boulder (Population: 30,000), Public University
Alternative Dispute Resolution‐Office of Student Conduct, under Student Affairs
UC‐Boulder started the first campus Restorative Justice Program in 1999. A Restorative Justice
Coordinator and a part time assistant offer Restorative Conferencing for campus conduct issues as
well as Restorative Boards (community accountability boards) for off‐campus violations as a
partnership with the Boulder municipal court. There are approximately 6,000 conduct hearings per
year and around 400 restorative justice cases completed per year (approximately 100 are on campus
referrals and approximately 300 are referrals through the court).
Jamal Ward, Director of the Office of Student Conduct, [email protected]
Website: http://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/studentconduct/adr/rjp.html
University of Michigan (Population: 42,000/10,000 Residential), Public University
Office of Student Conflict Resolution, under Student Affairs
The OSCR administers the Code of Conduct Statement (rights and responsibilities) for the University and
began using Restorative Justice in 2007 as one alternative to resolving student disputes. In addition to
more traditional ways of dispute resolution, the OSCR provides a number of services in Adaptable
Conflict Resolution including Conflict Coaching, Mediation, and Restorative Justice Conferencing. In the
Spring of 2011 they conducted 150 restorative cases. UM also has a robust community circle program
through Residential Life. All residential conduct issues are dealt with through Restorative Hearings in
residence halls.
Stacy Vander Velde, Associate Director, Office of Student Conflict Resolution, [email protected]
Website: http://www.oscr.umich.edu/
Michigan State University (Population: 47,000/17,000 Residential), Public University
Restorative Justice Partnership between Residence Life and Student Life, under Student Affairs
Since fall of 2008, restorative principles have imbued the work of Judicial Affairs and Residential Life.
By using restorative justice philosophy and tools to help students and staff resolve conflict, build
community and gain valuable life skills, MSU is working to create a more holistic approach campus‐
wide. Restorative Hearings are used for all 500‐700 formal conduct cases. The 700+ Residence Life
Staff‐members—from the resident mentors (RAs) to the director— Intercultural Aides, some
departmental human resources professionals and union leaders are trained to take a restorative
approach to conflict and misconduct—facilitating circles, asking restorative questions, healing harm.
Rick Shafer, Associate Director, Student Life, [email protected] and Nancy Schertzing, Restorative
Justice Coordinator, [email protected].
Website: http://www.reslife.msu.edu/rj/
P a g e | 9
Formats and Best Practices
The Formats and Best Practices are loosely categorized into 4 themes including Restorative Structure and
Techniques, Creating RJ Support, Sustaining RJ Principles, and Vision and Goals. Within each of the 4 categories
there are subcategories that were found applicable to the colleges and universities who participated in this
study and Main Findings follow each subcategory. All information found in this guide comes directly from the
experiences of Institutions of Higher Education that have successfully implemented restorative processes at
their colleges and universities.
Restorative Structure and Techniques
Deciding which RJ tool to use at your University
Main Finding: Look at your current processes and procedures and see how a restorative lens can complement your work.
Universities employing Restorative tools and techniques, namely conferencing, hearings, circles, dialogues, and boards,
chose the type of RJ that most closely resembled their traditional conduct process. Models used were also based on the
comfort level of administrators who would be implementing the program, research and resources available, and influence
of other Restorative Processes in Higher Education. Rick Shafer, Associate Director of Student Life at Michigan State
University said “Start small! Think simple! How can I infuse restorative principles into what is already happening? Every
campus is unique so an expert in one situation may not work in others.”
Case Studies: RJ Tools Used
* Colorado State University: Developed Neighborhood Impact Panels for noise violations once or twice every semester,
which include community members from surrounding neighborhoods and offending students.
*Michigan State University: All formal Disciplinary Cases are Restorative by infusing RJ into the system that already exists.
For each hearing, Conduct Officers “actively encourage students to make amends” (Rick Shafer).
*Skidmore: Developed Restorative Boards (Integrity Boards), which have standing board members and are chaired by 1
student, and also include 1 faculty member and 1 staff member. The board is traditional in structure but asks
restorative questions and invites impacted parties to the Integrity Board Hearing.
Integrity Board Process:
Part 1: Objective weighing of evidence. All parties are present and able to communicate directly. Deliberation of
guilt is private between the board members but remember that “When people are asked to leave, you lose trust”
so try an avoid private caucuses (David Karp).
Part 2: All parties present focus on answering questions: What is the harm? What can be done to make it right?
“Restorative Boards are a historical accident at Skidmore. As a new professor I did research on the Vermont
Restorative Justice Boards. We had boards at Skidmore so there was an ease of implementation. I like the board
structure because you can use it for everything and bring in elements of restorative conferencing” (David Karp).
*University of Michigan: Developed a Peer to Peer Motivational Interviewing process for first time alcohol offenses‐ the
goal is to educate students, have students acknowledge responsibility, and may also require a BASICS or Alcohol
101 class OR a full RJ Conference. U. Mich also has a Community Circle Program (conferencing) based on the “Real
Justice Model.”
“We saw the Real Justice Model and thought it could work at Michigan. We didn’t have a board model so
conferencing seemed to mesh well with our current practices and we thought it would work well with our students”
‐Stacy Vander Velde
P a g e | 10
Relationship of RJ to the Traditional Conduct System
Main Finding: Restorative Justice is either a central process that all conduct cases go through or an optional process on a
spectrum of options for students who have offended. When Restorative Processes are central, there is more consistency
and is a sustainable model, but Restorative Justice is no longer voluntary and some students are not developmentally
prepared to take responsibility. When Restorative Processes are an option for students, there are more quality cases
because students are actively choosing Restorative Justice and are empowered to take responsibility, but Restorative
Justice is operating in a silo and impacting less of the university community. Out of 9 universities, 7 use Restorative Justice
as a central process and also have concentrated Restorative Justice Processes, such as Conferencing and Circles.
Case Studies: RJ as an Option
When there are two offices operating simultaneously, there are generally not as many referrals or restorative cases
handled, unless there is a clear incentivized process for staff referring cases and students going through Restorative Justice.
* Colorado State University: There are2 separate Centers operating in Conflict
Resolution and Student Conduct Services, both under the umbrella
of Student Affairs. The Conflict Resolution Center offers Restorative
Justice as an alternative to traditional conduct processes. (See Appendix I
For the “Restorative Justice Incentive Program” for Hearing Officers)
*University of Oregon: The Office of Conflict Resolution Services is referred cases from the Office of Student Conduct.
Currently there are no incentives for referrals and the RJ case load is minimal.
Case Studies: RJ as a Central Process
“RJ is not a program but a philosophy and a way of being! The focus is on repairing harm instead of punishing actions” (Rick Shafer)
*Fresno Pacific University: All 4 steps of the Judicial Process are restorative in nature (See Appendix B under
“Restorative Discipline Procedure”)
*James Madison University: Every intake is restorative and the conduct officer’s talk about harms, needs, and obligations.
There is an option to have an RJ Circle with the Restorative Justice Coordinator (~10 circles per semester).
*University of Michigan: All conduct hearings are restorative. Restorative
Conferencing is also offered through the Office of Student Conflict
Resolution.
RJ Referral Process
Main Finding: Restorative Justice can be implemented by either Hearing Officers within the Conduct
process or by a person or entity outside of the Conduct Office. In either case, the most important aspect
of successful referrals and implementation is Buy‐in from those designated to refer to Restorative
Processes. When Restorative Processes have the authority to make final decisions on a case, no moves
are made by the Conduct Office and it is referred to the restorative process as the primary way justice is
being administered. The other option is to administer a Traditional Conduct Hearing with sanctions, and
later sanction a Restorative Justice process as an outcome of the case. Note that this process inhibits the
student’s voluntary choice to participate and limits student participation and creativity because all
decisions and sanctions have already been made.
Incentive: Restorative Justice is a diversion
program for students. Approximately 400
RJ cases are referred and completed per
year.
Incentive: Restorative Justice is a diversion
program and students do not have conduct
records if they choose this process.
7 out of 9
universities refer
to a Restorative
Justice Process
that has the
authority to make
final decisions on
the case.
P a g e | 11
Case Studies: In house RJ Implementation
*James Madison University: One Case Manager does all conduct intakes and consults with the RJ Coordinator, who is
employed by Judicial Affairs, about applicable cases. Either the student goes through a Restorative Circle and does
not go through the Judicial Process or a recommendation of the hearing is to have a voluntary Restorative Circle.
*Liberty University: All 8 Conduct Hearing Officers are trained in Restorative Hearings and Conferencing. They each decide
what cases should go through a Conference, facilitate the Conference and oversee implementation of Restorative
Agreements that result from Conferences.
*Michigan State University: Residence Life Staff are trained in RJ philosophy and circles and conferencing facilitation.
As they input case information for conduct cases throughout the year, Res Life staff‐members receive a computer prompt
asking, “Is this a good case for RJ?” This helps keep Restorative Justice at the forefront of their minds.
Case Studies: Third Party RJ Implementation
*Colorado State University: In most cases, the Conduct Officer offers an RJ process to the student if there is mutual
consent for all parties to the offense and on a basis acceptable to the Hearing Officer. A written summary of the
Restorative Agreement is provided to all participants, the agreement is binding and not subject to appeal, and will
be returned to the traditional disciplinary process if there is a failure to abide by the agreement.
Otherwise, the Conduct Officer holds a traditional hearing and issues sanctions, recommending RJ to the student
as a sanction. In this case the Restorative Process would be the main sanction because a Restorative Agreement
with obligations would result.
In either of the above cases, the student is given a date to complete the Restorative Process by and agrees to
complete all components of the Restorative Agreement, otherwise the case will be sent back to the Conduct
Office.
*University of Colorado‐Boulder: Based on students readiness and willingness to accept responsibility, on campus student
offenders either go through an RJ Conference (and the case is diverted) or an RJ Conference and the conduct
system (they will have a conduct record based on the severity of the issue). Court referrals only go through an RJ
Conference and are diverted from a criminal record.
*University of Michigan:
Residential Life Process: The Hall Director (HD) meets with a student for a Restorative Hearing and the HD gives
the student two options:
1. Continue meeting and render a restorative decision focused on reparation to self and to community.
2. Choose to participate in a peer lead Restorative Circle Process. In this case the student is referred to
the RJ Coordinator in the Housing and Student Conduct Office.
Conduct Office Process: Students get a notice in the mail that they have a pending case and are asked to come in
for an initial intake. During the initial intake all options (both formal and Adaptable Conflict Resolution) are
explored with the student. Based on their needs and developmental capacity, Restorative Justice may be the
option chosen by the student and intake officer.
P a g e | 12
Facilitation Models
Main Finding: A co‐facilitation model is helpful for training new facilitators and developing a strong pool of facilitators.
Case Studies: Co‐Facilitation Model
*Colorado State University: Both facilitators meet together with each party and during the conference the more
experienced facilitator plays an active role and the practicum student takes notes on harms and helps lead a
discussion on the harms caused to Impacted Parties and Community Members. The goal is to have the co‐
facilitator become competent enough to facilitate a conference as the lead facilitator.
*University of Michigan: Two undergraduate students facilitate the Restorative Circle and the RJ Coordinator attends every
circle as a community member. After the RJ circle, the RJ Coordinator gives student facilitators feedback on their
facilitation skills. (See Appendix C for the “Facilitator Competency Checklist”)
*University of Oregon‐ Undergraduate and graduate students are paired with a facilitator that is more experienced so they
can learn facilitation skills.
Assessment of student offenders participating in Restorative Justice
Main Finding: It is important to have general guidelines for professionals who are determining if a case should be referred
to restorative justice. If guidelines are not set, referral numbers are lower.
Across all universities, the three main components to determine if a student offender is ready for RJ are:
1. Student takes responsibility for their actions
2. Student is sorry for what they did
3. Student has a desire to meet impacted parties and repair
the harm
Policy and Code Changes
Main Finding: Writing restorative processes and language into policy and conduct codes is an important piece of making
Restorative Justice a sustainable part of the university fabric. Because leadership shifts with time, if a Restorative Justice
program begins with leadership that leaves the university, it is imperative to have Restorative Processes infused into
structure. Language is important when implementing restorative justice in the university setting.
Case Studies: Shifts in Policy Language
*Fresno Pacific University: Changed conduct process and policy to be completely restorative. (See Appendix B for an
example of a Restorative Student Handbook Code).
*University of Oregon: Alternative Dispute Resolution is written into the Student Code and Policies as a diversion process
for students. (See Appendix D for Diversion Language).
*Fourth Component: “Are impacted parties willing to
participate?”
(Named by MSU and U Mich)
*Fifth Component: “There is clearly identifiable
community impact resulting from the violation.”
*Michigan State University: Notes that the specific victim to the offense may not want to participate BUT other victims of
similar crimes may want to “stand in.”
P a g e | 13
Creating RJ Support: “We felt we had to look at the whole University System” (Jill Schellenberg)
Creating and Maintaining Campus Buy‐in
The beginning steps in gaining support is like “throwing pebbles in a big pond and watching what ripple effects are made.” (Rick Shafer)
Main Finding: Identify all main stakeholders on your campus who may be interested in
Restorative Justice and Conflict Resolution, and can benefit from using a restorative lens in
their work. A good place to start is with all individuals and departments that come in contact
with students on campus. Maximize output by involving individuals that hold permanent
positions on campus (faculty and staff) and will be around for an extended period of time.
To build momentum for Restorative Justice and make it a sustainable part of your campus
culture, you must build a coalition of professionals that support the restorative values and
can use it in their day to day work.
Case Studies: Stakeholders
*James Madison University: Developed relationships with RJ experts outside of the University setting.
*Directors in Student Affairs Departments: Implemented a Restorative Circle with all of Student
Affairs Directors to brainstorm uses of Restorative Justice in their respective departments.
*Presidential Leadership Academy: Group of Team Captains and Student Leaders who are given a
1 day Restorative Justice Training every summer to implement the practices in their Clubs and
Organizations throughout the academic year.
*University of Colorado‐Boulder: Hall Directors and Live‐in Residential Life Staff are aware of Alternative
Dispute Resolution opportunities on campus and refer cases.
*Partner with local Courts: Use University RJ as diversion from criminal record (Built relationship with judges)
*RJ campus leaders: Developed ties and continued relationships with RJ allies and partners to keep them invested!
*Incentives for Volunteer Stakeholders:
1. Intrinsic Value: Resonates with volunteer’s personal values.
2. Professional Development: Gained by building skills in conflict resolution facilitation.
*University of Michigan: Developed a “Commitment to Collaboration” between the Office of Student Conflict Resolution
and Residential Life. (See Appendix E for the full “Commitment to Collaboration”)
*Building Relationships with Graduate Programs: This was the largest factor in getting their program started
because student time and effort laid the foundation for the Restorative Justice Program.
*Start doing Restorative Cases! RJ gained momentum from students who went through the Restorative Process.
“To employ a part time RJ Coordinator, I let go of my part time support staff and once leaders saw the impact of the
restorative work we were doing, we wrote a proposal with projections, numbers, and 3 proposed options to
account for growth” (Stacy Vander Velde).
Common Stakeholders Across Campuses:
*Key Individuals: Dean of Students, Director of Conduct, Residential Life Leaders.
*Key Departments: Division of Student Affairs, Conduct Office, Campus Police, Residential Life, Counseling Center, Greek Life,
Student Organizations, Community Service Learning Center, Human Resources, Athletics, Facilities Management, Faculty, Student
Leaders, Graduate Schools‐ Law School, Criminology, Conflict Resolution, Communications, Sociology, Psychology.
Restorative Justice Committee:
Comprised of Stakeholders who
can meet consistently! The
focus of the Restorative Justice
Committee generally is to build
resources and support, work on
the vision and goals of RJ at
your institution, create a
branding and marketing
strategy, and develop trainings.
Howard Zehr‐
Grandfather of
Restorative
Justice and
professor at
Eastern
Mennonite
University
P a g e | 14
Partner with the nearest Institution of Higher Education practicing RJ
Main Finding: RJ is contagious! Find another college or university close to you to gain support!
Case Studies: Partnerships
*Colorado State University and the University of Colorado‐ Boulder both have RJ programs.
*Fresno Pacific University partners with Fresno State University to get interns interested in
Conflict Resolution.
*James Madison University partners with Eastern Mennonite University who has a Master’s program
in Restorative Justice.
*Michigan State University and the University of Michigan both have RJ programs.
*University of Oregon’s model inspired the University of Michigan to get started with their Community Circle Program.
Marketing Restorative Justice to your University
Main Finding: Give people Restorative Justice Materials to keep and digest. Connect the Mission Statement and values of
your Institution to Restorative Principles. Josh Bacon from James Madison University said that “restorative justice creates
enlightened global citizens who have the wisdom to look at harms, needs, and obligations. JMU is creating students who
aren’t looking at what they are entitled to BUT instead are actively engaged with the needs of the world and their
obligations to make it a better place.”
*Read a Restorative book with your Stakeholders:
Shorter Books used by the 9 Universities to help gain support for RJ:
The “Little Book of Restorative Justice” by Howard Zehr
The “Little Book of Circle Processes” by Kay Pranis
Longer Books that have been helpful in getting main stakeholders invested in RJ concepts:
“Re‐framing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through a Social Justice Lens”
by Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Nancy Geist Giacomini
“Restorative Justice on the College Campus: Promoting Student Growth and Responsibility, and Reawakening the
Spirit of Campus Community” By David Karp and Allena Thom.
Fresno Pacific University named their Center, the “Center for Conflict Studies and
Peacemaking” but stakeholders began calling it the “Center for Conflict.” They changed the name
to the “Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies” and now stakeholders refer to it as the
“Center for Peace.”
Don’t use the
word “Conflict”
at the beginning
of Titles!
These books are short easy reads and have been
useful as a marketing tool by over half of the
universities in this study.
*Create a Restorative Justice Brochure to hand out on your Campus
(See Appendix G for examples of brochures from Michigan State and University of Michigan)
*Host an RJ Summit/Symposium/Conference:
Fresno Pacific University has an “Annual Restorative Justice Conference” at the beginning of every spring!
Students at
neighboring
Universities
make great
volunteers!
P a g e | 15
Case Studies: Innovative Marketing
*Colorado State University: Got their name out around campus by playing interactive games in the common areas such as
a “Celebrity Conflict Resolution” activity in front of the University Center where there is a concentrated student
population. The Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services invest in advertisements in the school and local
newspaper.
*Fresno Pacific University: Implemented One hour RJ presentations for all departments on campus. The presentations
included information about the RJ work going on at Fresno, a breakdown of the restorative structure set in place,
and the role individuals and departments could play. Over 900 people went through these small group
presentations in a one year period. The presentations were implemented by a small group of dedicated faculty and
staff who believe in the power of Restorative Justice at FPU.
*Michigan State University: Looked for paths of least resistance!
”See where the river is flowing and follow it down stream.” – Rick Shafer
*University of Michigan: To market RJ trainings and facilitation opportunities, develop a catchy name that is applicable to
your campus culture. Do not market training or facilitation skills as “Restorative Justice” because the general
student/volunteer population does not know what that is. Frame RJ facilitation as a skill set.
*Facilitator Recruitment: Volunteers fill out an online application! Once there were more resources the RJ team
was able to perform group interviews and individual interviews to retain more quality facilitators.
Sustaining RJ Principles
Funding
Main Finding: Although some universities absorb all Restorative Practices into professional positions that already exist, for
those that have expanded Restorative Justice to the point of needing special resources for those services, the general
departments that support funding are Student Affairs (through Conduct or a general fund unit for Conflict Resolution),
Residential Life, or from grants and resources outside the campus community.
Case Studies: On‐Campus Innovative Funding Sources
*Colorado State University: A Tuition Fee of $4.12 per student per semester funds all Restorative Justice costs including the
office, programing, staffing, administrative support, marketing ($2,000 a year), adds online, the website, and public
service announcements.
*James Madison University: Uses funding from a grant through a JMU initiative called the Quality Enhancement Plan:
Restorative Justice won the grant and will be the focus at JMU for the next 5 years. The grant was $2.5 million for
Civic Engagement and supporting work of professors to get tenure surround Restorative Justice.
*University of Colorado‐Boulder: The Division of Student Affairs has 2 million in
resources and earmarks $70,000 for Restorative Justice.
Data Collection!
Develop an evaluation tool to assess the program! And prove the effectiveness of Restorative Justice.
(See Appendix F for an example of the type of data that could be collected)
http://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/studentconduct/downloads/AcademicYearReport2007‐2008.pdf
Connected Restorative Principles with
Student Development Theory.
*Student Offenders pay a fee of $135.00 to
go through Restorative Justice on campus.
P a g e | 16
Case Studies: Off Campus Funding Sources
*Fresno Pacific University: Has different sources of funding for each conflict resolution initiative at the Center for Peace
Building and Conflict Resolution. The Center is run by 10‐15 graduate students who work 20‐30 hours per week
and make between $10‐$15 an hour. The Graduate Assistants (GAs) are supervised by faculty members who bring
experience and expertise to the programs. There is no compensation for faculty unless they are supervising GAs
with academic internships. The main incentive for faculty involvement is that faculty care and believe in the work
being done. The Center is made up of a group of small not‐for‐profit organizations and for‐profit businesses. Jill
Schellenberg comments that, “the work atmosphere is dynamic and we are doing cutting edge work!”
Staffing/Support
“A healthy community is about trust and adjudication does not support that, but face to face dialogue can promote a safe
space for people to honestly express their emotions and not be isolated.” (Rick Shafer)
Main Finding: There are a wide range of staffing and volunteer opportunities for Restorative Justice,
including undergraduate and graduate volunteers, community volunteers, Interns, Graduate
Assistants, and full time paid staff members. The type of staffing and support are determined by
the funding available and the case load of the restorative process being employed. As Restorative
Justice Caseloads increase, more time is expended on coordinating, collecting data, training, and
keeping the RJ movement alive, which requires more staffing support.
Case Studies: Staffing
*Colorado State University: 3 Conduct Officers, 1 Director of Conflict Resolution, 3 Administration, 1 Graduate
Student that works 25 hours a week and splits his/her time between Conduct and Conflict Resolution, 2 practicum
students per semester that help with Restorative Justice facilitations, and many work study students. There are
also 5 or 6 university professionals who are trained as RJ facilitators and volunteer.
*James Madison University: Case load has gone up by 40% in the last 2 years, so recently a new full time RJ Coordinator
position has been created through Judicial Affairs. Also all Conduct Officers facilitate Restorative Hearings.
*Michigan State University: Partnership between Student Life (Rick Shafer, Associate Director of Student Life) and
Residence Life (Nancy Schertzing, Restorative Justice Coordinator). The person most responsible for developing
Restorative Justice at MSU, Schertzing started as a half‐time graduate student and has been hired on a part‐time
basis. Because of the RJ program expansion, MSU hopes to make the RJ Coordinator position full time..
*University of Colorado‐Boulder: Under the supervision of the Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution, the RJ
Coordinator and Assistant RJ Coordinator work 20 hours per week and both graduate students and undergraduates
are eligible to fill the positions. They coordinate a group of 50‐60 volunteers who rotate on a calendar 3 nights a
week as impacted parties (Tuesday through Thursday).
*Student Life: Gives the Center office space on campus, $15,000 in funding, case referrals from residence
halls, and an RA is at every RJ conference because they are a good representative of the student body
as a community member
*Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP)‐Raises money through local churches and a grant from United
Way. One full time salary of $35,000 per year goes to running the program.
*Mediation Associates: Created a business and charges up to $400 an hour for private mediations and the
income goes to the Center.
*Keynote Speeches: The faculty member presenting is paid a percentage of the keynote speech charge and the
rest goes to the Center.
RJ Point Person:
Every college and
university in this
study had a clear
Restorative Justice
Point Person who is
able to bring the RJ
movement forward!
P a g e | 17
*University of Michigan: Has two Restorative programs working simultaneously in Residential Life and in the Office of
Student Conflict Resolution.
*Residential Life: The first year of RJ implementation, interns developed and ran the program under the
supervision of Stacy Vander Velde. The second year, the RJ program had its first RJ Coordinator who was a
graduate student working 15 hours a week. Today the part time GA RJ Coordinator has an Assistant RJ Coordinator
who is an undergraduate student and works 10 hours a week.
*Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR): There is a reporting structure with an Associate Director of the
OSCR, who oversees the 3 Program Managers (PMs). PMs operate the 3 main programs within conduct including
Formal Conflict Resolution (offenses that create a background for student offenders), Adaptable Conflict
Resolution (RJ processes are one option and are a diversion, not resulting in a background), Adaptable Conflict
Resolution for alcohol cases (diversions and peer to peer motivational interviewing).
*University of Oregon: There is a full time salaried Director and one part time student worker who
helps implement Restorative Conferences as a part of Conflict Resolution Services, which is referred cases from the
Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.
Restorative Justice Training
Main Finding: Consistent and constant training for facilitators and stakeholders is the best way of sustaining a strong
Restorative Justice presence on your campus. Josh Bacon, Director of Conduct at JMU emphasized that you must “keep
educating and reeducating people and have a constant dedication to training!”
Case Studies: Training
*Fresno Pacific University: FPU was strategic in deciding who to train first and chose to start with Residence Life because of
their professional interests and constant contact with students. Resident Assistants go through a 12 hour training
during their summer RA training and Resident Directors (RD) take a 1 credit Masters level course in Conflict
Management and Mediation. RDs began to do RJ conferences themselves after they sat in on conferences as
impacted parties and felt comfortable facilitating.
*University of Colorado‐Boulder: In order to be a Restorative Justice Facilitator at UC‐Boulder, volunteers must go through
a 2‐3 day training that is offered twice a year, one in the fall and one in the spring. The training includes an
orientation to university policy, procedures and types of cases that are most prevalent, discussing the goals of the
RJ program, outcomes, introduction to Law Enforcement and other key stakeholders, and learning the Restorative
structure and process. Four hour follow up trainings are provided throughout the semester with a focus on mock
conferencing (Ex: trespassing‐1hr, vandalism‐1hr, theft‐1hr, followed by debriefs of each). UC‐Boulder uses a one
person facilitation model and facilitators in training “shadow” skilled facilitators by participating in conferences as
community members. More experienced RJ facilitators sit in on new facilitator conferences to provide feedback.
Jamal Ward recommends that trainings “focus on people who are strong facilitators and will be on campus for a
while.”
*Liberty University and Skidmore College: No overhead because Restorative Justice is completely infused into the job descriptions of
conduct officers and board members.
*Required Freshman Foundation Class: Through the Religious Studies Department that all incoming
freshman are required to take. Faculty members representing the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict
Studies presented one class period on Restorative Practices and Conflict Resolution by using lessons from
the Bible and connecting it to their work on campus. After professors teaching the course had heard the RJ
presentation in their class multiple times, they started to teach the module. This became a sustainable
model for educating students about the work and all freshmen had exposure to RJ through a required class.
P a g e | 18
*University of Oregon: All mediators in the state of Oregon are required to go through a basic 30 hour mediation training,
which is offered 2 times a year at the UO. Student facilitators take an extra 16 hour Restorative Justice Facilitator
training. A co‐facilitation model is used and new facilitators are paired with more experienced facilitators.
David Karp (Skidmore College):
*Start the year off with a 2 day training and follow it up by meeting every couple weeks throughout the
semester for 2 hour role play sessions. Provide the space and time to debrief board hearings and give your
facilitators feedback for improvement. A one on one mentoring program could also prove helpful to
support and guide facilitators, if you have the mentoring resources. To incentivize facilitators to
volunteer, offer a 1 credit course for board member trainings. Karp notes that “preparation of facilitators
creates an open trusting space,” so investing time and resources into your pool of board facilitators will
create powerful restorative boards.
Vision and Goals
Goals for Restorative Justice in Higher Education
Main Finding: It is important to have clear goals and an implementation plan before moving forward, and goals before and
after implementation will look different. As goals are completed, you must continue setting new goals to keep the
momentum of the Restorative Justice Movement.
Case Studies: Beginning and Future Goals
*Fresno Pacific University
*Beginning Goal: Higher student satisfaction with conduct process.
*Future Goal: All conflicts and conduct issues on campus are handled at the lowest possible level. As the
Restorative Justice Lens has been infused into university structure and systems over the last 8 years, there have
been less conduct cases each year. “We used to have many repeat offenders and since implementing the
Restorative Discipline System in 2004, we have virtually no repeat offenders.”
*James Madison University
*Beginning Goal: All 1,500 students that come through the conduct office understand the principles of restorative
justice and are asked restorative questions.
*Future Goal: Josh Bacon says that the “potential is that Restorative Justice is what JMU is about!”
*Liberty University:
*Beginning Goal: Living by their Christian identity through Restorative Justice, practicing Restorative Justice every
chance they get, and collecting data to prove effectiveness.
*Future Goals: Create a holistic process and culture of restoration at Liberty. This includes developing an in house
Restorative Justice training and writing Restorative Justice into procedures.
*Michigan State University:
*Beginning Goal: Infusing RJ into already existing university practices and working with Residential Life to bring RJ
tools to residence halls.
*Future Goal: Mainstreaming Restorative Justice so it is a part of the MSU culture and who we are as an
institution. This goal of institutionalizing RJ includes teaching RJ principles to employees, staff, and students to help
create demand. Rick Shafer said that he wants “everyone to know what Restorative Justice means so that we can
*Liberty University and James Madison University: Use an off campus training at Eastern Mennonite University to train their
Conduct Officers. Josh Bacon from JMU emphasized that it is “important to have a team of outside experts in the field of RJ there to
help and give RJ a strong name!”
Recommendatio
n for training
Restorative
Boards
P a g e | 19
use RJ as one of our tools university wide. We want our university to be a place where people learn how to
peacefully resolve conflict!”
*University of Colorado‐Boulder:
*Beginning Goal: Learning! UC‐Boulder saw RJ processes as a supplement education for students because the
educational outcomes are vast. RJ was used as an option for learning on a spectrum of judicial tools and
techniques.
*Future Goal: RJ is working only within conduct right now, but UC‐Boulder would like to create a dialogue network
so that Restorative Justice can be used as a dialoguing process for other issues on campus besides conduct. Jamal
Ward says “we would like Restorative Justice to be the face of dialogue at the University of Colorado‐Boulder!”
Restorative Justice Beyond Conduct‐Human Resources
Main Finding: Generally Restorative Justice is a service colleges and universities provide for their students, but what about
all of the internal conflicts and harms that occur in the professional world of Higher Education? Universities are beginning
to expand the Restorative vision beyond conduct. We have to ask ourselves: What areas of our campus could benefit from
using a restorative lens? Fresno Pacific University and Michigan State University are two Institutions of Higher Education in
this study that have trained administrators and Human Resources personnel to use Restorative Justice in their interactions
(See Appendix H for an example of restorative language in Fresno Pacific’s Faculty Handbook). Many other universities in
this study have hopes of using Restorative Principles with colleagues in the future as Restorative Justice grows.
P a g e | 20
Reference Page
Claussen, R., and Abebe, Z. Restorative Discipline. ACR Magazine. Spring 2007.
Holmes, J. (2002). Jefferson: a chronology of his thoughts. By Thomas Jefferson. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers Inc.
Karp, D., and Allena, T. (eds.). (2004). Restorative Justice on the College Campus: Promoting Student Growth and
Responsibility, and Reawakening the Spirit of Campus Community. Springfield, Il: Charles C Thomas.
Potter, H. (4th ed. 1958). An Historical Introduction to English Law and Its Institutions. London : Sweet & Maxwell, 1932.
Pranis, K. (2005). The Little Book of Circle Processes: A New/Old Approach to Peacemaking. Intercourse, Pennsylvania.: Good
Books.
San Diego County Probation Report, (2010).
http://www.co.san‐diego.ca.us/probation/docs/Annual_Report_09‐10_Final_2‐27‐11.pdf
Shapland, J et al. (2008). “Restorative Justice: Does Restorative Justice affect Reconviction?” United Kingdom Ministry of
Justice Research Series, 10/08. London Ministry of Justice, www.justice.gov.uk/publications/restorative‐justice.htm
Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Interviews Anderson, K. (2011, November 3). Telephone interview. Liberty University.
Bacon, J. (2011, October 18). Telephone interview. James Madison University.
Emerson, M. (2011, October 27). Telephone interview. Colorado State University.
Hendrickson, C. (2011, November 10). Telephone interview. University of Oregon.
Karp, D. (2011, October 18). Telephone interview. Skidemore College.
Schellenberg, J. (2011, October 22). Telepone interview. Fresno Pacific University.
Shafer, R. (2011, November 4). Telephone interview. Michigan State University.
Vander Velde, S. (2011, November 4). Telephone interview. University of Michigan.
Ward, J. (2011, November 10). Telephone interview. University of Colorado‐Boulder.
Additional Resources
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Liebmann, Marian. (2007). Restorative Justice: how it Works. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Schrage, J. M., and Giacomini, N.G. (eds.). (2009). Reframing Campus Conflict: Student
Conduct Process through a Social Justice Lens. Herndon, VA: Stylus.
Websites
Restorative Justice Online: http://www.restorativejustice.org
International Institute for Restorative Practices: http://iirp.org
University of Minnesota Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking: http://cehd.umn.edu/ssw/rjp
The Center for Justice and Peace building at Eastern Mennonite University: http://www.emu.edu/cjp
P a g e | 21
Appendix A:
University Questionnaire for Study
University Statistics:
1. Number of restorative justice (RJ) cases accepted per semester?
2. Types of RJ cases most prevalent? What types of conduct cases are not handled through RJ?
3. When are cases referred to the RJ process? After or before sanctioning?
4. When did you begin your RJ program and how long did it take to get off the ground?
Finances:
1. Where does funding come from? Are these funding sources sustainable?
2. What department on campus is the RJ program working under?
3. Do you have an Restorative Justice Coordinator?
4. What is the average budget for RJ per year at your university?
5. What is the structure of your program? Job descriptions? Is there a go to person or department?
General RJ Questions:
1. Is RJ and mediation a central process or an option within conduct?
2. What were the main early challenges of your RJ program?
3. What kind of restorative practices do you use (conferencing, peace circles, boards, others)?
4. Why is this type of Restorative justice used on your campus?
5. Are Human Resources issues at your University handled restoratively?
6. How do you market RJ on your campus?
7. Is RJ outside the realm of conduct? Are HR issues handled through restorative justice?
8. What types of cases do you use RJ for?
9. Do you have incentives for staff to refer cases and students to go through RJ?
10. What guidelines help you decide what cases to refer to restorative justice?
11. Do you use a co‐facilitation model for RJ cases?
Support:
1. Who are your main stakeholders?
2. What are the perceptions about RJ on campus?
3. Who carries out the restorative justice practices? (paid staff, graduate assistants, interns, volunteers,
others)
4. How do you get referrals from different areas of campus to service students?
5. Do you provide RJ services (training or mediation) to the community around your university?
6. How do you measure the success of your RJ program?
7. Have you compared RJ cases to cases that move through the traditional conduct system?
Goals for the future:
1. What are your goals for RJ at your university in the future?
2. What steps still need to be taken for your goals to be accomplished? Do any barriers exist?
1
Appendix B
RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE PROCEDURE
Fresno Pacific University
FPU believes that restorative discipline enhances the academic purpose and atmosphere of the campus both
educationally and developmentally. The process will enhance maturity and at the same time provide students
with the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. It will also provide the opportunity for reconciliation of those
who have been injured or estranged. It will encourage students to take responsibility by holding them
accountable for their actions including making restitution for damages. And finally, it will enable the restoration
of an individual to his or her place in the community. The restorative discipline process at FPU encourages
members of the University community to resolve their differences at the lowest possible level of authority
(Matthew 18:15). At times it becomes necessary for the university to intervene. In the event that an individual
or group of community members chooses to violate university policies, values or behavioral expectations they
can expect to participate in a restorative discipline process. This process will include one of the following
possibilities:
1. Individual/group meeting with a Student Life representative
2. Referral to the Center for Peacemaking for mediation also known as a Community Justice
Conference (CJC)
3. Hearing with the Student Judicial Board (SJB)
4. Administrative review of violations involving serious safety concerns.
5. Administrative review of violations occurring in the last two weeks of the semester where standard
procedures do not afford enough time to process the case before students leave for Christmas or
summer break.
All options strive to be restorative in nature and will take into consideration the willingness of an individual to
accept responsibility for their actions
INDIVIDUAL/GROUP MEETING WITH A STUDENT LIFE REPRESENTATIVE
In minor behavior violation situations, not to exceed a Level II violation, a Student Life staff member may meet
with the individual(s) involved and attempt to resolve the situation and to make things right at the lowest level
possible. This may result in an agreement, a mediation (CJC) or mediation type process between the student life
staff member and the individual(s), incorporating restorative discipline values and principles.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE CONFERENCE (CJC)
When a formal report of a violation reaches the Judicial Officer, he or she will attempt to contact the alleged
offender(s) (AO) within 72 hours to inform them—verbally and in writing—of the allegation that has been made.
The written "Notice of Allegation” which the JO will give and/or send to the AO will include the specific
allegation(s), make reference to the standards that have been violated and outline the Restorative Discipline
process. The JO will assign a case number and if appropriate will initiate a CJC Review to determine the next
step(s) of the Restorative Discipline process. The CJC Review will occur within 3 days of when the JO receives the
Violation Report or after identifying all of the involved parties whenever possible. The CJC Review will determine
the next step in the Restorative Discipline process. If a CJC is recommended and the AO agrees the CJC
Facilitator will have ten (10) working days (excluding student holidays) to arrange and conduct the CJC.
2
The Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies (CPACS) provides the facilitators for the CJC process. The CJC
facilitators may be graduate students, graduates, or CPACS staff members depending on the nature of the
offense and parties involved. The CJC is a cooperative process, patterned after Matthew 18, but formally
approached. A CJC includes those who were impacted by the violation, the alleged offender(s) and his or her
support person(s), a representative from Student Life, others deemed helpful, and a facilitator. The participants
of a CJC are assembled to listen to the experiences of those who were harmed and those who violated the
standards of the community. The purpose is to:
1. Recognize injustices.
2. Seek ways to repair the harm as much as possible.
3. Address the causes or conditions that contributed to the current violation.
4. Create an agreed upon plan for the future that would prevent repeated violation.
5. Establish a follow‐up plan.
All participants must be provided an orientation to the CJC process and given an opportunity to decide if they
want to participate voluntarily. All agreements require the approval of all of the parties present. If these
agreements are kept, the group celebrates and the offense is noted as having been resolved and the Restorative
Discipline process is completed.
STUDENT JUDICIAL BOARD (SJB)
When an agreement cannot be made in a CJC, the case will be referred back to the JO who will then convene the
Student Judicial Board (SJB) within 10 working days. The SJB will conduct a hearing of the case and render a
decision.
The SJB is an official judicial body within the Restorative Discipline process. It is composed of students, staff and
faculty. The SJB will attempt to resolve the situation through a deliberative judicial process which culminates in
the determination of whether or not an alleged offender should be held accountable for any violation(s) and the
subsequent development of a Restorative Plan with when required.
The Judicial Officer will provide the SJB with copies of all the information regarding the case–the Notice of
Allegation(s), Incident Reports, Violation Report, and any other information, document or evidence available.
When conducting a hearing, the SJB will review all information provided. They may choose to interview those
harmed and others who have relevant information about the alleged violation. The alleged offender will have
the opportunity to present his or her own explanation of the evidence and/or his or her involvement in the
incident including additional information and witnesses. When the hearing is concluded, the SJB will then
carefully consider all of the information it has gathered and render a decision.
In some instances, the SJB may not be able to conduct a hearing and complete its deliberations for a case during
a single weekly session. In such instances the SJB may withhold its determination for one additional week in
order to insure adequate time for deliberation and decision. Results will be communicated to the alleged
offender in writing within 3 working days of the SJB’s decision. If the SJB determines that the alleged offender is
not responsible for any violation, the process will end. If the determination is that the alleged offender is to be
held responsible for the violation the SJB may do one of the following:
3
1. Refer the case back to a CJC if the AO has accepted responsibility for their actions and chooses to
participate in a CJC. (The preference is that the offender would choose to work out an agreement to
make things right using the CJC process.) Exceptions may involve cases in which a serious violation
was brought directly to the SJB and no opportunity was given for the CJC process originally.
2. Develop a restorative plan specifically designed for each unique situation. The plan will take into
consideration past or repeated offences. It will be respectful, restorative, reasonable, and as much
as possible, intended to reintegrate the offender(s) and those who were harmed by the violation. It
will attempt to come as close as possible to recognizing the injustice, restoring equity, and
addressing the future to prevent reoccurrence of the initial offense. This plan might include such
things as restitution, educational experiences, training classes, community service, fines, probation,
etc.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Fresno Pacific University reserves the right to process student conduct violations administratively. Generally
administrative review is reserved situations where the immediate health and safety of students may be of added
concern. Fresno Pacific University, may also, at its discretion, allow students to request an administrative
hearing rather than one of the other options available within the disciplinary process. Administrative hearings
are generally conducted by the Dean of Student Life and/or their designee.
Should the behavior of a student be deemed counter to the education process, and/or harmful or dangerous to
other students/faculty/staff, Fresno Pacific University reserves the right to remove that student from particular
settings related to Fresno Pacific University (i.e. the institution, a class, a team, or a residence) pending the
outcome of the disciplinary process.
Additionally, an administrative review may be held in lieu of standard procedures for violations occurring in the
last two weeks of the semester in order to resolve a case prior to students leaving for Christmas or summer
break.
APPEAL TO THE DEAN OF STUDENTS
Students who have been found to be in violation of University standards have the opportunity to appeal the
finding under the following circumstances:
1. New unexamined evidence or considerations are presented.
2. The student believes that there was undue bias present in their earlier hearing/review.
3. The student believes that the outcome of the hearing/review was too severe in relationship to the
violation.
Appeals to hearings/reviews must be submitted to the Dean of Student Life within 72 of the hearing/review.
Appeals are to be in writing and are to note which of the circumstances listed above the student wishes to have
considered. Appeals will be addressed by the Dean of Student Life and/or their designee. The Dean of Student
Life may call an Appeal Board to review the appeal. Said board would be comprised of faculty, staff, and when
appropriate, students. The Dean of Student Life or the Appeal Board can refer the case back to the SJB for
reconsideration with comment or they may make a final decision and no other appeal exists.
4
In the event the case is referred back to the SJB, they will review the case, the comments from the Dean and any
additional information presented during the appeal. In light of any new information the SJB may overturn or
revise the restorative plan. The determination of the SJB from the review becomes the final decision regarding
the case. There are no further appeals.
LEVELS OF MISCONDUCT
FPU has determined there to be four levels of misconduct. Violations of values and behavioral expectations are
reviewed by a university official who assigns the situation to the appropriate level and forwards the case to a
university official, a CJC or SJB. The four levels are as follows:
Level I:
Conduct generally deemed “Level I” includes but is not necessarily limited to the following: quiet hours,
visitation, pets, pranks, candles, issues of modesty in relation to speech, attire and interpersonal relationships,
disrespect to individuals and/or property, possession or viewing of inappropriate materials, violations to the
acceptable use of technology policy, minor safety and health issues, smoking on campus, and minor alcohol
violations characterized by negligent possession without the intent to consume.
Minimum Consequence: Warning, restitution (if applicable) and potentially one or more of the following:
educational consequences, behavioral contract, community service, fee or loss of privileges.
Level II:
Conduct of a more serious or difficult nature generally begins at Level II. Conduct generally deemed “Level II”
includes but is not necessarily limited to the accumulation or repeat offences of Level I violations and/or the
following: inappropriate dating/relationship behavior, vandalism, theft, possession or consumption of illegal
substances/drugs, alcohol violations related to underage possession or consumption, and alcohol violations
characterized by consumption and/or possession of alcohol with willful intent to consume on campus or at
university related functions off‐campus, etc.
Minimum Consequence: Restitution (if applicable) and at least two or more of the following: educational
consequences, behavioral contract, community service, fine, loss of privileges, disciplinary probation, and
deferred suspension. Students should expect that alcohol violations at level II will result in a minimum fee of $50
to be used to fund alcohol education programs at FPU.
Level III:
Issues of this type are among the most serious violations to the University’s standards. Violations at this level
include but are not necessarily limited to following and the accumulation or repeat of Level II violations:
harassment, hazing, assault, theft, situations related to serious personal safety and the wellbeing others,
repeated offences related to possession or consumption of illegal substances/drugs, alcohol violations related to
underage possession or consumption, and alcohol violations characterized by consumption and/or possession of
alcohol with willful intent to consume on campus or at university related functions off‐campus, etc.
Minimum Consequence: If applicable restitution and at least three or more of the following: educational
consequences, behavioral contract, community service, fine, loss of privileges, disciplinary probation, and
5
deferred suspension. Students should expect that alcohol violations at level III will result in a minimum fee of
$100 to be used to fund alcohol education programs at FPU.
Level IV:
In instances of extreme conduct, the university reserves the right to review student behavior and respond to
student behavior administratively. Such instances of extreme behavior include but are not limited to substantial
disruptions to the institutional mission, substantial disruption to the educational process, undue risk to persons
and property, threats against persons or property, etc.
Minimum Consequence: Immediate suspension or loss of privileges from campus pending the outcome of
hearings and/or appeals.
***Depending on the severity of the issue, the harm or damage caused to individuals or property, violations
listed in level I, II and III may be processed, at the discretion of the university, at a higher level than originally
stated here.
RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE GOALS
God has called us into community, a network of mutually caring and uplifting relationships patterned after the
example given to us by Jesus Christ. Recognizing that we who are involved in community are imperfect people
influenced by an imperfect world, student discipline at FPU is intended to be a process that:
1. Is fair and just.
2. Will enhance the academic purpose and atmosphere of the campus.
3. Is educational and developmental for the students involved, encouraging student maturity by
providing students with the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
4. Provides opportunity for reconciliation of those who have been harmed or estranged, enabling the
restoration of an individual to his or her place in the community.
5. Encourages student responsibility by holding them accountable for their own actions including
making restitution for damages.
6. Enhances the atmosphere of safety and well‐being on campus.
In an effort to minimize the number of cases which enter the Restorative Discipline process, FPU encourages
students to resolve issues and conflicts between themselves whenever possible through voluntary cooperative
means. Several resources are available to students to assist in this effort including Resident Assistants and
Residence Directors, the Campus Pastor, Mentors, and the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies. When a
student has violated a standard, rule, or policy, or created conflict or offense with another student, all parties
are encouraged to seek out those who have been impacted by the actions to acknowledge the violation, to
create agreements to restore equity, and to develop a plan and follow‐up meetings to support the agreements
and prevent reoccurrence.
REPORTING A VIOLATION
Initial reports of behavioral standards violations can be made by anyone in the campus community‐students,
staff, or faculty. Reports should be made to a Residence Assistant, Resident Director, Campus Safety, or the
6
Judicial Officer (JO) as soon as possible after the violation has occurred. The reporting party will fill out a
violation report form and forward it to the Judicial Officer as soon as possible (Student Life).
RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE PLANS
Consequences in the Restorative Discipline process will be guided by whether they are respectful, restorative,
reasonable, and as much as possible, intended to reintegrate those who were harmed by the violation. The
following listing of possible consequences outlines the range of official University action that may be taken as a
result of any disciplinary situation. After consideration of the specific details surrounding the incident or
situation through the process outlined above, the Restorative Plan developed may involve any combination of
these following options.
Warning: Official notification that certain conduct or actions are in violation of university standards and that
continuation of such conduct or actions may result in additional disciplinary action.
Educational Consequences: Preparation and presentation of a program, preparation of a bulletin board, assigned
reading and response or reflective papers, attending an Alcohol Education Program, counseling, and/or other
educational activities.
Behavioral Contracts: A written document between the university and AO that specifies expected behaviors and
positive/negative consequences.
Accountability Meetings: Required meetings with a pre‐determined and pre‐approved individual that
encourages open dialogue, relationship building and accountability.
Community Service: Contribution of service to the University or a designated community agency consistent with
the offense committed.
Restitution: Reimbursement by transfer of property or services to those harmed— including the University
itself—in an amount not to exceed the value of the damages or loss caused.
Fees: Financial assessment associated with required educational consequences.
Fines: Financial assessment not to exceed $350.
Disciplinary Probation: A specified period of observation and review of behavior, including terms appropriate to
the offense committed, during which the student must demonstrate compliance with University regulations and
the terms of the probationary period and is ineligible to serve in leadership positions in University co‐curricular
activities.
Loss of Privileges: Limitation on University‐related activities for a specified period of time, consistent with the
offense committed, including but not limited to:
7
1. Ineligibility to serve as an officer or member of any University organization, to participate in
intercollegiate competition, or to receive any award from the University.
2. Residence hall contract probation, residence hall relocation, or residence hall contract cancellation.
Residence hall contract cancellation will result in being placed on disciplinary probation by the Office of
Student Life.
3. Restriction from using specific University facilities (including the campus itself) and services.
Deferred Suspension: A specified period of observation and review of behavior, including terms appropriate to
the violation committed, during which time the student is ineligible to participate in University extracurricular
activities. Further violation of University regulations would result in suspension.
Suspension: Exclusion from the University for a specific period of time after which, application may be required
for readmission. When formal withdrawal from the University is necessary, instructions and/or conditions
required for consideration of readmission will be outlined (readmission will not be guaranteed). Suspension will
result in the forfeiture of all tuition, room, and board charges paid during the semester subject to the
withdrawal scale stated in the catalog, student handbook, and housing contracts.
Interim Suspension: In exceptional circumstances, the Judicial Officer, in consultation with the Dean of Student
Life, may suspend a student or take other disciplinary action pending a hearing, especially in matters of safety or
well‐being of the community.
Expulsion: Permanent exclusion from the University.
Violations of national, state, or local laws may make a student subject not only to university disciplinary action
but also to action by the appropriate court of law.
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES
1. AO’s will be informed in writing of the allegations, procedural steps of the Restorative Discipline process,
and their responsibilities in the process.
2. A person alleged to have violated campus standards will be presumed innocent until sufficient
information is presented to determine responsibility. Responsibility for an allegation will be determined
on a standard of preponderance of information/evidence (more likely than not).
3. In most instances, the disciplinary status of a person will not be altered, including the ability to be
present on the campus and to attend classes, pending the outcome of the Restorative Discipline
process. However, exception may be made for reasons relating to the physical or emotional safety and
well‐being of other students, faculty and staff of the University.
4. Alleged offenders appearing in a CJC or a SJB hearing have the ability to be accompanied by members of
the university community for support.
5. The decision of the AO’s responsibility for the alleged violation by the SJB will be based solely upon
information introduced during the hearing. The restorative plan may be guided by information from
current and/or past disciplinary cases of the AO.
6. Falsifying or misrepresenting information or facts to university officials will not be tolerated.
7. SJB hearings may proceed in the absence of the alleged offender or witness(es). Anyone unable to
participate in an SJB hearing at the time and date set due to emergency or other serious circumstance
must inform the Judicial Officer prior to the hearing and as soon as is reasonable.
8. Students may appeal the decision of the SJB.
8
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRINCIPLES
1. Restorative justice is a way of thinking and responding to conflicts, disputes, or offenses. Restorative
justice is concerned with making things as right as possible for all people.
2. Restorative justice recognizes that response to conflicts, disputes or offenses is important. Restorative
justice responds in ways that build safe and healthy communities.
3. Restorative justice is not permissive. Restorative justice prefers to deal cooperatively and constructively
with conflicts, disputes and offenses at the earliest possible time and before they escalate.
4. Restorative justice recognizes that violations of rules and laws are also indicators of transgressions and
offenses against persons, relationships, and community.
5. Restorative justice addresses the harms and needs created by, and related to, conflicts, disputes and
offenses.
6. Restorative justice holds disputants and offenders accountable to recognize harm, repair damages as
much as possible, and create a civil future.
7. Restorative justice empowers offended, disputants, offenders and their communities to assume central
roles in recognizing harm, repairing damages, and creating a safe and civil future.
8. Restorative justice repairs the breach and reintegrates the victim, offender and their community as
much as possible.
9. Restorative justice prefers maximum use of voluntary and cooperative response options and minimum
use of force and coercion.
10. Restorative justice authorities provide oversight, assistance, and coercive backup when individuals are
not cooperative.
11. Restorative justice is measured by its outcomes, not just its intentions. Do offended emerge from the
restorative justice response feeling respected and safe? Are participants motivated and empowered to
live constructive and civil lives? Are they living in the community in a way that demonstrates an
acceptable balance of freedom and responsibility? Are responses by authorities, community, and
individuals respectful, reasonable, and restorative for everyone?
12. Restorative justice recognizes and encourages the role of community organizations, including the
education and faith communities, in teaching and establishing the moral and ethical standards that build
up the community.
NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY
It is the policy of Fresno Pacific University not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, nationality or sex in its
admission policy, educational programs or employment policies, in compliance with all applicable federal
regulations. This school is authorized under federal law to enroll non‐immigrant alien students.1
1 FRESNO PACIFIC UNIVERISTY STUDENT HANDBOOK (pages 9‐17) http://studentlife.fresno.edu/living‐campus/student‐handbook
Appendix C Facilitator Competency Checklist
University of Michigan Facilitator Name: Community Circle Location: Date:
Facilitator Competencies Successful Implementation Areas for Further Development
Process
(following the script, proceeding through the steps)
Presence
(body language, method of communication, attentiveness)
Balance
(support of all parties, use of silence, allowing the conversation to flow
without over‐direction)
Objectivity
(types of questions asked, professionalism, unbiased
interpretations)
Other Comments:
1
Appendix D
Code of Conduct
University of Oregon
OAR571‐021‐0100
Mission
1. The primary mission of the Student Conduct Code is to set forth the community standards and
procedures necessary to maintain and protect an environment conducive to learning and in keeping
with the educational objectives of the University of Oregon. Founded upon the principle of freedom of
thought and expression, an environment conducive to learning is one that preserves the freedom to
learn ‐‐ where academic standards are strictly upheld and where the rights, safety, dignity and worth of
every individual are respected.
2. Learning is a process defined by the exchange of ideas and the advancement of knowledge. As such,
learning entails a community of scholars united by their participation in, and commitment to,
intellectual exchange. The University is, first and foremost such a community. Learning also involves
reflecting on decisions and improving decision‐making in the future. By establishing the standards of
this community, the Student Conduct Code serves not just as a disciplinary system, but also as a part of
the educational system. Hence, a corollary mission of the Student Conduct Code is to teach students to
live and act responsibly in a community setting, with respect for the rights of other students and
members of that community, and for the property, common resources, code of conduct, and laws
associated with that community, and to encourage the development of good decision‐making and
personal integrity.
3. Students are simultaneously members of the University community and the broader community (e.g.
city, state, nation, and world). The Student Conduct Code, and the processes of its administration and
enforcement, is directed specifically toward maintaining the standards of the University community.
Within its jurisdiction the University may impose disciplinary sanctions against students or student
organizations when their conduct materially interferes with the educational objectives of the University
or university community member.
OAR571‐021‐0220
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Consistent with the primary mission of the Code to establish community standards and procedures that
promote an environment conducive to learning by upholding academic standards and by respecting community
members, alternative dispute resolution provides an opportunity for individuals affected by violations or alleged
violations of this Code to resolve disciplinary matters among themselves, with or without findings of
responsibility. Students who participate in a method of alternative dispute resolution and successfully fulfill
their obligations may, upon completion of their obligations, have their student conduct record regarding the
matter expunged.
(1) Mediation. Mediation is encouraged as an alternative means to resolve allegations of Student Conduct
Code violations. The Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards will inform Complainants
and Accused Students about the availability of mediation resources. The Director, in the exercise of the
Director’s sole discretion, may, except in cases of alleged Academic Misconduct, decline to process a
complaint until the parties make a reasonable attempt to achieve a mediated resolution.
(a) To be binding under this Code, any mediated resolution must be approved by the Director of
Student Conduct and Community Standards. Any agreement will be enforced by the Office of
Student Conduct and Community Standards.
2
(b) Procedures for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Students wishing to pursue mediation shall notify
the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards within fourteen calendar days of
receiving written notice of the violation pursuant to OAR571‐021‐0200.
(c) The Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards may determine if an Accused Student
must acknowledge responsibility as a condition of the Director’s approval of a mediation option.
If the Director requires an Accused Student to acknowledge responsibility as a condition to
approving the mediation, the Director will not proceed until the Accused Student has provided the
Director with that acknowledgement.
(d) The Director of Student Conduct will determine whether others affected by the alleged violation
are willing to participate in mediation. Parties agreeing to mediation must sign a waiver allowing
the Director to receive information from the mediator regarding the progress of the mediation.
(e) Once the necessary parties agree, the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards will
approve a mediator and set a date for a report from the mediator regarding progress. If the
Director, in the Director’s sole discretion, determines that mediation is unlikely to be successful,
the Director may inform the necessary parties and initiate other procedures.
(2) Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice serves primarily as a diversion program for Accused Students
who have acknowledged responsibility for a Code violation and who wish to remedy the effects of the
violation.
(a) The Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards will consider approving Restorative
Justice in the following circumstances:
(A) The Accused Student acknowledges responsibility for a the Code violation;
(B) There are clearly identifiable negative impacts on either individuals or the community resulting
from the violation; and
(C) The Accused Student and those impacted by the incident agree to participate in Restorative
Justice.
(b) A Restorative Justice outcome shall not be binding unless approved by the Director of Student
Conduct and Community Standards. An agreement reached through Restorative Justice will be
enforced by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.
(3) The Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards may initiate procedures to make a
determination of responsibility or, in the Director’s discretion, to proceed pursuant to OAR571‐021‐
0240 if an Accused Student who participates in alternative dispute resolution fails to fulfill an obligation
or otherwise fails to comply with the approved resolution.
(4) Upon timely completion of a student’s obligation arising from alternative dispute resolution, a student
may provide to the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards documentation of
completion. If the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards concludes the student
fulfilled the student’s obligation in a timely fashion, Director of Student Conduct and Community
Standards will remove information regarding the violation from the student’s record.1
1 http://uodos.uoregon.edu/StudentConductandCommunityStandards/StudentConductCode/tabid/69/Default.aspx#Alternative_Dispute_Resolution
1
Appendix E A COMMITMENT TO COLLABORATION
University of Michigan
Implications for the OSCR/ResEd Relationship And the Management of Conduct Incidents
The University Housing’s Community Living at Michigan Handbook will soon be revised to reflect procedures for a more agile and local response to certain residence hall community-specific behavior. These pending changes will be implemented by Residence Education leadership and are in response to advice from General Counsel. It is our expectation that this revised policy will reflect in writing more clearly what already exists in practice: an overlap in handling conduct violations between the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities and Housing’s Community Living at Michigan Handbook. This overlap in conduct policy is not unique. In fact, the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities specifically acknowledges that it is intended to incorporate many other conduct policies on campus, including the University Housing’s Community Living at Michigan Handbook. The Statement reads: “Within the University, entities (such as schools and colleges, campus, professional, and student organizations) have developed policies that outline standards of conduct governing their constituents and that sometimes provide procedures for sanctioning violations of those standards. This Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities does not replace those standards; nor does it constrain the procedures or sanctions provided by those policies. This Statement describes possible behaviors which are inconsistent with the values of the University community; it outlines procedures to respond to such behaviors; and it suggests possible sanctions which are intended to educate and to safeguard members of the University community.” Accordingly, the Statement goes on to clarify that it will be used to address violations of these policies “…only if the violation warrants a process or a sanction beyond what is available in these policies. In such cases, policy adjudicators may take intermediate action regarding a complaint as defined by their individual policy; however, final resolution will occur under the procedures outlined in the Statement.” These provisions give voice to the intended role of the Statement within the University of Michigan Community:
The Statement is the umbrella conduct policy for the campus community. The Statement serves as the central reference point for determining this Community’s perspective on:
the University’s core values, behavior that conflicts with these values, procedures for response and suggested educational sanctions.
The Statement must be invoked where the nature of a given conflict or incident warrants a level of due process or sanction not available in a local policy.
Out of respect for these provisions in the Statement and to ensure a principle-centered approach to determining appropriate venue, policy application, and process for resolution of conflict in the residence hall community, OSCR and Residence Education will move forward with the following criteria in evaluating circumstances surrounding an incident to determine appropriate adjudication for a given case. An affirmative answer to one or all of the criteria will support the likelihood that the matter calls for a level of process or sanction that warrants referral to OSCR for the case to be heard under the Statement’s Resolution Process.
2 Criteria:
1. Does the alleged behavior present a potential threat of danger to persons or property? 2. Does the alleged behavior present potential imminent danger to persons or property? 3. Is the alleged behavior of a repetitive nature and is the accused student not responding to local process
and/or sanctions? 4. Does the alleged behavior involve harassment (racial, sexual or other) and therefore indicate a potential
impact on campus climate? 5. Does the alleged behavior indicate that the responding student may need to be put on notice that
repetition could result in suspension or expulsion? 6. Did the alleged behavior occur outside of the residence halls or is the responding student not a resident
of the residence hall community? Implications of this shared approach to managing conduct incidents are: Students will not face duplicative process when filing or responding to a complaint alleging behavior that conflicts with the community’s values. Matters will be reviewed based on the criteria and referred accordingly, to be heard either locally under the CLS process by Residence Education staff OR centrally under the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities process and therefore referred to OSCR. Residence Education and the Office of Student Conflict Resolution will maintain appropriate boundaries in case handling. This means that cases will be reviewed based on the criteria once information is received to determine whether the situation may be managed by ResEd or if it merits application of Statement process or sanctions. Roles will therefore be clearly defined prior to the assigned resolution process being triggered. This means that ResEd will be designated as either facilitator of the process outlined in the Community Living at Michigan Handbook or as a complainant under the Statement Resolution Process when a case requires referral to OSCR. As a Complainant, Residence Education will be entitled to all rights and obligated to all responsibilities assigned under the Statement. The Statement gives equal voice to complainants and respondents. Accordingly, it also provides for an active role for both in the Resolution Process. Residence Education will therefore be appropriately consulted and informed when serving as a complainant and take an active role in the Resolution Process. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution is charged with the responsibility for administration of the Statement. Accordingly, interpretation of the Statement’s process and determining applicability of the listed violations are the responsibility of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution. Referral to the Statement’s Resolution Process does not inhibit implementation of appropriate local and temporary measures. Filing a complaint under the Statement (resulting in referral of a case to OSCR) will not inhibit Residence Education staff from implementing interim and related measures to appropriately manage the local community climate in the Residence Halls. These measures, however, will respect the value of ensuring that no student faces duplicative process for determining 1) findings of responsibility and 2) sanctions for behavior based on such findings. Resolutions issued as part of the Statement’s process respect a student’s independent rights and obligations to other contractual relationships. Students are subject to certain rights and obligations as parties to a lease contract with Residence Education. A decision issued by arbiters or an informal resolution agreement under the Statement’s Resolution Process does not substantively impact such obligations. This means that Residence Education will refer appropriate cases to be heard through the Statement’s process for a determination of “Responsibility” (thus pending its own contract review process). The Statement’s Resolution
3 Process outcome and related sanctions may then be considered by Residence Education in determining whether to terminate a contract or enforce given terms of that contract (e.g. restitution). The Office of Student Conflict Resolution and Residence Education remain committed to a collaborative approach to resolving conflict in the residence hall community. It is our belief that dialogue and collaboration will ensure a student-centered process and effective administration of conduct policy that will provide education while safeguarding the community. It is our understanding that this summary will undergo review by Divisional leadership and General Counsel to determine alignment with Divisional goals and University policy and therefore is subject to appropriate adjustments.
Office of Student Conflict Resolution and Residence Education SHARED VALUES We share a commitment to exercising our responsibilities through a social justice lens. We make conscious efforts to be aware of how others’ identities may surface during our respective processes. We see our work as directly advancing a social justice agenda. We administer processes that must be fundamentally fair. We value consistency in following our respective processes, not in enforcing a consistency in outcomes. We require that the decisions made by practitioners be consistently aligned with departmental and divisional values. We are committed to the philosophy of restorative justice and to using these principles when partnering with respondents (accused students) to help them understand both the harm their actions caused and the opportunity to repair the damage done. We acknowledge a role for individual community members who were adversely impacted. We aspire to be clear, transparent, direct and authentic when communicating intra- and inter-departmentally. While this expectation sets a high bar for practitioners, both departments place great value in the positive outcomes such communication can potentially deliver. We agree that each has a role to play in educating, safeguarding and promoting collective ownership within the Michigan community. Our approaches focus on:
Considering the whole student; Building relationships with all community members and specifically with
students; We acknowledge our accountability to this community. Our staff commit to making all decisions with integrity. Everything we do and believe is based on a set of core values which we have indicated in this document. We both voice a preference for the use of informal / alternative dispute resolution processes to be used to resolve conflicts peacefully wherever possible. We both acknowledge the desirability and the need for a more formal process should the circumstances or the parties require it.
Campus Living Services and Residence LifeG55 Wilson HallMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI [email protected]
OR
Department of Student Life101 Student Services BuildingMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI [email protected]
www.reslife.msu.edu/rj
restorativeJustice
at michigan state UniversityRestorative Justice is a key part of MSU’s approach to
conduct, discipline and community development on
campus. Campus Living Services and Residence Life and
Student Life staff members are trained in the Restorative
Justice process. This method is available to the entire
MSU student body and staff whenever they need it.
11205001RestorativeJusticeBroch.indd 1 12/1/11 1:18 PM
Restorative Justice:Restorative Justice supplements and expands options in MSU’s student
disciplinary and community-building processes, empowering those
affected to resolve, connect and move forward from conflict and
misconduct to wholeness.
•Provides learning and personal growth opportunities for all
•Builds community, empathy and accountability
•offers a safe, facilitated environment for all parties to discuss the conflict’s impact on their lives and community
•gives voice to those harmed so their needs can be appropriately addressed
•holds accountable persons who cause harm and empowers them to make things right so they can reintegrate with their community
•affords a sense of closure rarely achieved in traditional justice processes
Restorative Justice can help if you’re experiencing:
•interpersonalconflicts
•roommatedisputes
•staffdisagreements
•biasincidents
•vandalism
•assaults
•theft
•orotherissues
What is Restorative Justice? Restorative Justice is a peaceful conflict resolution process that focuses on
repairing harm and making things right. It brings together all parties affected
by a conflict or misconduct and engages them in discussion to answer three
basic questions:
what happened?
who has been affected and how?
how do we make things right?
How it Works:Once the group has explored these questions, it creates a written agreement
outlining participants’ responsibilities for addressing the harm and
moving forward.Restorative Justice can help resolve conflict or address
misconduct, if:
•Parties who caused harm take responsibility for their actions and want to take steps to make things right.
•Parties who have been harmed are willing to engage those who have hurt them.
Restorative Justice can help!for additional information, visit www.reslife.msu.edu/rj or email [email protected].
11205001RestorativeJusticeBroch.indd 2 12/1/11 1:18 PM
Rebuilding Relationships...
Strengthening Community.
Housing Student Conflict Resolution
1500 Student Activities Building
515 East Jefferson Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Phone: (734) 647-4718
Fax: (734) 763-2313
E-mail: [email protected]
Community Circle Program
Housing Student Conflict Resolution Residence Education, University Housing
What are Community Circles?
Community Circles are a method of conflict resolution based on principles of restorative justice. The foundations of restorative justice focus on repairing the harm, to self and the community, caused by misconduct. The process involves a meeting – a community circle – between those who caused the harm (the respondent), those who were impacted, and any other affected parties.
The goal of this meeting is to repair the harm, rebuild trust, and understand how one’s actions affect others. Each session lasts about an hour and a half and is led by trained student facilitators.
Outcomes of the Community Circle Program
After participating in a community circle, students will:
Recognize how an individual’s actions affect others
Learn how to make things right when harm occurs
Understand the philosophy of restorative justice
Develop better conflict resolution and communication skills
Appreciate how to speak to someone after a disagreement
Benefits of Participating
▪ Repairing damaged relationships
▪ Helping impacted parties to have a say in the process
▪ Assisting those who caused the harm to feel better about themselves and those around them
▪ Removing the incident from the student’s record if the restorative agreement is successfully completed
▪ Changing community impacts from negative to positive
Community Circle Referral Process
1. Hall director/hearing officer reviews the incident and decides if the case is appropriate for a community circle.
2. The respondent student accepts responsibility and agrees to participate.
3. The community circle is scheduled with assistance from HSCR staff.
4. The circle occurs. A written agreement is created for the respondent to complete.
5. Once the responsibilities outlined in the agreement are fulfilled, the community circle process is complete and the case is closed.
Community Circle Step-by-Step
No two community circle meetings are alike, but there is a process that is followed:
Welcome – Participants are greeted; goals and ground rules are reviewed.
Telling the Story – Each participant is able to share their thoughts and feelings about the incident. Levels of harm will be discussed.
Brainstorming Options – After everyone has discussed the incident, participants will brainstorm options to repair the harm caused by the misconduct.
Restorative Agreement – With input from the entire group, a restorative agreement is finalized that includes an outline of how and when tasks/projects will be completed.
Closure – Facilitators provide formal closure to the circle, including offering information on agreement accountability and opportunities for follow-up. Each participant will also be asked to fill out an evaluation of the session.
Restorative Justice Key Concepts
Harm: Harm may include physical damage to person or property, but it often involves damage that is less visible. While the tangible effects of physical harm may fade with time, other types of harm do not fade as fast, including:
• Fear of others • Loss of self-esteem • Loss of reputation • Ongoing anxiety • Academic disruption • Damaged relationships
Repairing the Harm: Making things right is the goal of restorative justice. There are a number of ways that this can occur, including:
• An apology (written or verbal) • Repairing damaged property • Educational project for personal growth • Community service project (related to
incident)
“Restorative justice encourages outcomes that promote responsibility, reparation, and healing for all.”
‐Howard Zehr,
The Little Book of Restorative Justice
Respondent Reactions
• “It really helped us open up to what happened, and made us learn how to fix it and make better decisions.”
• “I feel that we are giving back to those affected.”
• “It’s the best learning experience. Everyone will benefit from this meeting.”
• “By hearing it directly from [the community,] it helped me realize how I affected them. It was a reconciling experience.”
• “It is a positive and reflective process with good results.”
1
Appendix H
Fresno Pacific Faculty Handbook
Approved by Board of Trustees March 8, 2008
Effective May 15, 2008
2.1 Characteristics of Governance
Governance structures and procedures at Fresno Pacific University are shaped by the institutional vision which is stated
in the Fresno Pacific University Idea. It is our intention that policies be decided and programs administered in ways that
are consistent with Fresno Pacific University values and traditions. Some of the implications of those distinctives are:
A. Consensus
The strength of shared commitment that comes with broad institutional consensus remains our ideal. There should be
shared participation in deciding institutional policies and programs. Persons and subgroups should participate in making
decisions which affect them. Members of the community should share a mutual commitment to openness and frankness
in dialogue, disagreement and confrontation. Conflict and its resolution are recognized as part of the process of working
toward consensus.
B. Recognition of Gifts
We recognize that persons within the institution have varied gifts and responsibilities. Governance structures and
procedures should assist persons in serving effectively in the areas of responsibility to which they have been called. Both
the rigidity and arbitrariness of bureaucratic authority and the ineffectiveness of undifferentiated participation in all
decision‐making should be avoided.
C. Change
Institutional values have been expressed in various forms of governance in the past and we recognize that governance
structures will change again in the future with altered circumstances and different personnel. Structures exist in the
service of persons who have been assigned specific responsibilities and they provide mechanisms for the realization of
institutional goals and objectives. (Pg. 9)
5.7 Violations of Academic Responsibilities
Failure in academic responsibilities may be reported by a student, a faculty member or administrative member of the
community to the provost. The faculty member will be asked to respond to the allegations. If requested, the faculty
member may seek the assistance of the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies (CPACS). Otherwise the process
outlined in Section 3.11 will be followed (which include Completion of Term Contract, Resignation, Retirement, and
Administrative Separation). (Pg. 55)
5.13 Disputes and Grievances
An academic community should be characterized by healthy and rigorous discussion of issues. Conflict can be
constructive if the process of addressing it serves to, clarify goals and methods, recognize violations, and restore
damaged relationships while affirming the value of persons apart from positions each may take on an issue. Conflict can
be destructive when it becomes divisive among members of the university community. When a conflict or violation
emerges, the following procedures, based on Matthew 18 and other scriptures, are to be followed.
2 A. Step One. If a member of the campus community senses confusion, has a complaint, perceives or has a difference
that is divisive with another member or knows that another member has such against him/her, the first step is to go
directly to the other person in an effort to improve understanding and effect reconciliation. (Where power imbalances
or other concerns make a private meeting feel unsafe, move on to step two.) Resources to help individuals prepare for
such a meeting are available from the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies (CPACS).
B. Step Two. If step one does not result in a mutually agreeable understanding, or if safety or other concerns make a
direct private meeting of the parties inappropriate, one of several alternatives may be used in step two. One is to seek
agreement from the other party to meet together with two or three colleagues for dialogue and resolution. Another is
to ask the CPACS to assist in identifying a mutually agreeable trained person to lead mediation between or among the
parties. Faculty and administrators should encourage and assist colleagues in conflict to exercise initiative in confronting
each other in the above manner. Except in cases of flagrant violation of Christian or professional standards, the
supervisor of the person against whom she/he has a complaint should be drawn into the conflict only after other
interpersonal and mediation efforts have failed. The supervisor will then make additional efforts to assist the parties in
creating a mutually agreeable resolution.
C. Step Three. If the above procedures do not help the parties to resolve the matter, they shall be entitled to a hearing.
The request should be addressed to the provost, who will appoint a mutually agreeable person or group to hear the
parties within ten days of the request, and will make a report with recommendations to the parties another ten days
following the hearing. Each party shall have opportunity to speak on his/her own behalf and to present supportive
persons or evidence at the hearing. If the parties accept the report and recommendations as a resolution, the process is
ended. The parties may also use the report to help them directly negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
D. Step Four. If the parties do not accept the recommendation provided in step three and the matter is still otherwise
unresolved, the report and recommendations shall be transmitted to the provost. The provost may hold an additional
hearing within ten days of receiving the report and recommendations. Within ten days of receiving the report or
following any additional hearing, whichever is later, the provost shall give the parties a written response regarding a
resolution of the complaint. This written response completes the internal administrative process for disputes and
grievances unless the parties agree within ten days to return to step one or two to again try to resolve the matter.
If the parties do not accept the provost’s response as a resolution and are unwilling to return to steps one or two, it is
recommended that the parties will each choose one university colleague or member of his or her church, and the two of
them will choose a third person. These three persons shall arbitrate the matter, following the arbitration rules of the
Christian Conciliation Service as set forth in the “Guidelines for Christian Conciliation” (Version 4.5, 2004) located at the
CPACS office. It is recommended that this arbitration be contracted as binding.
These administrative procedures shall be completed prior to initiating any process with external organizations or the
courts. In the event that the provost is a party to the dispute or grievance, all duties in steps three and following
assigned to the provost are assigned to the president of the university or the president’s designee.
(Pg. 58‐59)1
1 http://www.fresno.edu/sites/default/files/faculty‐staff‐handbooks‐hb‐final‐march‐8‐2008.pdf
1
Appendix I Colorado State University
Restorative Justice Incentive Program
Program Information:
Restorative justice (RJ) offers an alternative approach to wrongdoing. A group conference brings offenders face to face with the people that they have harmed. Together, the incident is discussed, agreements are made to repair the harm, relationships are restored and closure is brought to the incident. The Restorative Justice Program operates on a referral basis from university hearing officers throughout campus. When meeting with students for conduct issues the hearing officer determines the student’s level of remorse for his/her actions. If the student takes responsibility and is remorseful the RJ Program Coordinator at Conflict Resolution & Student Conduct Services (CRSCS) will begin the process. The program has been highly successful and CSU is on the cutting edge by having a program like this available on campus. To encourage referrals to the Restorative Justice Program, CRSCS will be implementing an incentive program for hearing officers. Hearing officers will receive points for every restorative justice referral they submit and additional points will be awarded for the referrals that result in a successful conference. At the end of each semester hearing officers with the most points will be awarded prizes donated by local businesses or campus departments. Points will be awarded on an individual basis and the top three hearing officers will be recognized for their efforts each semester. The incentive program is designed for all current CSU Resident Directors and Assistant Resident Directors.
The hope of this program is to encourage and recognize the great work being done by our hearing officers and allow for more opportunities for students to engage in the success of the Restorative Justice Program.
Program Logistics:
Points:
RJ Referral: 5 points
Completed RJ Conference from Referral: 10 points
Participation in RJ Conference from Referral as Community Member: 5 points
Completion of RJ Facilitator Training (offered once a year): 20 points
Program Implementation:
Fall 2008
2
Date
To Local Business Owner: The office of Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services (CRSCS) at Colorado State University would like to partner with you and the great services you provide for our students. From time to time students who violate the student conduct code are asked to participate in a program known as Restorative Justice through our office. Restorative justice offers an alternative approach to wrongdoing. A group conference brings offenders face to face with the people that they have harmed. Together, the incident is discussed, agreements are made to repair the harm, and relationships are restored, bringing closure to the incident. The Restorative Justice Program operates on a referral basis from university hearing officers throughout campus. When meeting with students for conduct issues the hearing officer determines the student’s level of remorse for his/her actions. If the student takes responsibility and is remorseful the RJ Program Coordinator at Conflict Resolution & Student Conduct Services (CRSCS) will begin the process. The program has been highly successful and CSU is on the cutting edge by having a program like this available on campus. To encourage referrals to the Restorative Justice Program, CRSCS will be implementing an incentive program for hearing officers. Hearing officers will receive points for every restorative justice referral they submit and additional points will be awarded for the referrals that result in a successful conference. The hope of this program is to encourage and recognize the great work being done by our hearing officers and allow for more opportunities for students to engage in the success of the Restorative Justice Program. In an effort to create opportunities for our students to utilize services within Fort Collins we are contacting you to see if your business would be interested in donating gift certificates or products which can be used as an incentive for this program. Of course any donation would be appreciated. If your business would like to place a donation, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or 970-491-0487. The office of Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services would like to thank you for your consideration, and we hope to hear from you in the future. Sincerely, Jeff W. Rosenberry Restorative Justice Case Manager Conflict Resolution & Student Conduct Services