Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence

Applied Research Forum National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence James Ptacek and Loretta Frederick There is an urgent need to create new ways for abused women to find justice. Despite significant accomplishments over the past 35 years, community activists know well that justice for abused women remains elusive. The National Violence Against Women Survey indicates that only one-quarter of physical assaults in the U.S. are reported to the police. The authors of this major study suggest that many survivors “do not consider the justice system a viable or appropriate intervention” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000, p. 51). Clearly, more work is needed to make the criminal legal system responsive to victims (Goodman & Epstein, 2008). But it is also important to increase the narrow range of resources that are currently offered in the name of justice. The limitations of current responses to intimate partner violence by the law, mental health, and the community more broadly have caused many activists to call for new directions in antiviolence work, with greater attention to women suffering from multiple forms of social inequality (Creative Interventions, 2008; Dasgupta, 2003; Fullwood, 2002; Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Incite, 2006; Mitchell-Clark & Autry, 2004; Rosewater & Goodmark, 2007; Sokoloff & Pratt, 2005). A number of antiviolence activists and scholars have been examining restorative justice as a way to expand options for women and increase accountability for violent men. Conferences have been held in Australia (Strang & Braithwaite, 2002) and Canada (Coward, 2000) to bring activists and restorative justice practitioners together to discuss violence against women. Two special journal issues and a new book are devoted to feminism, restorative justice, and violence against women (Cook, Daly, & Stubbs, 2006; Ptacek, 2005, 2009). “Restorative justice” names a broad category of informal, dialogue-based practices that seek to address the harms caused by crime. Restorative justice practices, which have spread rapidly around the world since the early 1990s, are most commonly used in cases involving youth crime. But are there ideas in restorative justice that could be useful to activists working to stop intimate partner violence? This is the central question addressed in this article. Feminist antiviolence activism highlights how the needs of abused women have been and continue to be neglected (Davies, Lyon, & Monti-Catania, 1998; Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Herman, 1992; Incite, 2006; Sokoloff & Pratt, 2005). As shall be seen, the needs of victimized women are central to what is most controversial about using restorative justice in cases of intimate violence. However, there are many different and even conflicting perspectives on restorative justice among feminist activists and scholars (Cook, Daly, & Stubbs, 2006; Frederick & Lizdas, 2003; Ptacek, 2005, 2009, forthcoming). For this reason, differing views on restorative justice among feminist activists will be highlighted in this discussion. This paper starts with a preliminary discussion of restorative justice. It then discusses the role of victims within restorative justice, and the potential harms and benefits of using restorative justice in cases of intimate partner violence. Next, it reviews the research on restorative justice, including research on the application of restorative justice to cases of Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2008) Page 1 of 15 *The production and dissemination of this publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 5U1V/CE324010-05 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC, VAWnet, or the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. VAWnet Applied Research Forum intimate violence. The final section raises the implica- mediation is seen by its proponents as “dialoguedriven” (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000). The goals tions of this research for antiviolence activism. of victim-offender mediation are to empower victims, hold offenders accountable, and come to an What is “Restorative Justice”? agreement over reparation. The interactive process is seen as the most important element of victim“Restorative justice” includes a broad range of offender mediation: informal practices designed to meet the needs of This dialogue addresses emotional and informavictims, offenders, and communities in the wake of tional needs of victims that are central to both crime. In these informal processes, repairing harm is the empowerment of the victims and the develthe central goal, and victims are given an opportunity opment of victim empathy in the offenders, to address how the crime affected them. Emphasizwhich can help to prevent criminal behavior in ing collaborative dialogue, restorative justice seeks the future. Research has consistently found that to decrease the role of the state and increase the the restitution agreement is less important to involvement of families and communities in recrime victims than the opportunity to express sponses to crime. their feelings about the offense directly to the Arising from a variety of sources around the offenders (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000, p. 2). world, restorative justice has mostly been applied to While there are important differences between youth crimes. Restorative practices can be used at victim-offender mediation and older forms of various points in the criminal legal process. Restormediation, it must be mentioned that mediation ative justice can be used to avoid bringing cases to prosecution; as a part of the formal sentencing for a centers offering alternative dispute resolution also handled cases of intimate partner violence beginning criminal conviction; during time in prison; and after release from prison. Restorative justice can be used in the 1970s and 1980s, something that was criticized early on by feminists. Activists and legal in cases where no prosecution is sought, such as with minor criminal incidents in schools. Restorative scholars such as Lerman (1984), Lerman, Lerman, Kuehl, & Brygger (1989), and Rowe (1985) practices are also used to address harms that are questioned whether sending a survivor and her beyond the scope of the legal system, such as abusive partner to a mediation center to draw up an conflicts between students and school officials, agreement about the violence was either a safe or a tensions within communities, and hostility between just remedy. Similar concerns have been raised by communities in the aftermath of war. feminists about restorative justice, as shall be seen There are three practices that are most combelow. monly used in restorative justice. The first, victimThe second practice is family group offender mediation (also called victim-offender reconciliation and victim-offender dialogue), arose in conferencing (often called community conferencing or simply conferencing). In family group the 1970s in Canada and the U.S. Victim-offender mediation involves a face-to-face meeting between a conferencing, a trained facilitator engages family members, friends, justice officials, and service victim and an offender in the presence of a trained providers in a dialogue. The goals of the conferences mediator. There were other forms of mediation that are to empower victims, hold offenders accountable, existed prior to victim-offender mediation, such as and come to an agreement over amends, but comalternative dispute resolution. These forms of mediation were largely applied in civil cases, such as munity members play important roles in this process. As one restorative justice trainer emphasizes, “The landlord/tenant disputes, commercial disputes, and divorce and child custody cases. In contrast to these community is responsible for rallying around victims, facilitating responsible resolutions to harmful behavolder forms of dispute resolution, which are deior, supporting offenders in making amends, estabscribed as “settlement-driven,” victim-offender Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 2 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum lishing appropriate norms of behavior for all members and addressing underlying causes of harmful behavior” (Pranis, 2002, p. 25). The third practice is the peacemaking circle. This community-based process is drawn from indigenous cultures in Canada and the United States (Stuart, 1997). Peacemaking circles have goals that are similar to the first two practices, and as in conferencing, the role of community members in the dialogue is essential. The process, however, is more complex. A circle that involves a victim and an offender may be the outcome of separate circles previously held for the victim and for the offender. Another circle may be held to create an appropriate sentence. There are many variations on each of these interventions (McCold, 2006). Since the early 1990s, the restorative justice movement has grown rapidly. The Victim Offender Mediation Association notes that there are over 1200 restorative justice programs around the world (VOMA, 2005). A 2005 listing identified 773 such programs for youth in the U.S.; a 2000 report identified 400 restorative justice programs in Canada. And according to a leading proponent, there are more restorative justice programs in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, and India than in the U.S. (Braithwaite, 2006). Although they originate from different concerns about crime, the feminist antiviolence movement and the restorative justice movement make a number of similar criticisms of the criminal legal system. Both argue that existing remedies provided by the law fail both victims and offenders. Both argue that the justice system neglects the needs of victims, and both seek to create victim-centered justice. They both criticize the offender-orientation of the system, and stress the need for offender accountability. Both the antiviolence movement and the restorative justice movement are concerned with the impact of crime on communities (Dasgupta, 2003; Zehr, 2002). Both movements seek social justice in the broadest sense, and both are increasingly aligned with the global human rights movement. Indeed, some argue that the principles of restorative justice are entirely compatible with feminist principles (Gaarder & Presser, 2006; Pranis, 2002). Others offer a much more complex map of feminist and antiracist political engagements with restorative justice (Daly & Stubbs, 2007). Rather than seeing these as entirely separate movements, Daly and Immarigeon (1998) place the rise of restorative justice in the context of an earlier movement around informal justice, in which feminist and civil rights activism played important roles. As shall be seen, restorative justice is a controversial issue among feminist antiviolence activists and scholars. On the one hand, leading restorative practitioners have urged caution in applying restorative justice practices to intimate partner violence (Pranis, 2002; Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2005; Zehr, 2002). Restorative practices are prohibited in cases of intimate violence in most jurisdictions around the world, due in part to the concerns raised by victim advocates (Daly & Stubbs, 2006). Yet on the other hand, despite these prohibitions, VOMA conferences have regularly featured workshops on domestic violence, family group conferencing is frequently being used in cases of intimate partner violence (Nixon, Burford, Quinn, & Edelbaum, 2005), and circles are being used in cases of intimate partner violence in Canada (Goel, 2000). Victims and Restorative Justice One of the most important points of discussion is whether victims are truly at the center of restorative practices. Braithwaite (2003) says that “Restorative justice means restoring victims, a more victim-centered criminal justice system, as well as restoring offenders and restoring community” (p. 86). Zehr (2002) suggests restorative justice is a “victim-oriented approach” and states, “For restorative justice, then, justice begins with a concern for victims and their needs. It seeks to repair the harm as much as possible, both concretely and symbolically” (pp. 22-23). But is this an accurate depiction of restorative justice? Are the needs of victims central to these practices? The dominant practices within restorative justice were developed to change the treatment of offenders by the criminal legal system. What is now called Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 3 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum victim-offender mediation evolved from an alternative sentence proposed by Mark Yantzi in Kitchner, Ontario in 1974. Yantzi, a probation officer, sought to make an impact on two young offenders who had vandalized a number of homes, two churches, and a business. “Wouldn’t it be neat for these offenders to meet the victims?” Yantzi wondered when he first considered the idea. In his letter to the judge suggesting face-to-face meetings between the two youths and the victims of their vandalism, he wrote that “there could be some therapeutic value in these two young men having to personally face up to the victims of their numerous offences” (Peachey, 2003, p. 178). Family group conferencing, which is drawn from indigenous justice practices, was adopted as the standard way to address youth crime in New Zealand in 1989, following Maori opposition to the racism of the juvenile justice system and its negative impact on Maori youth and families (Love, 2000; Sharpe, 1998). Morris (2003) makes the goals of the legislation clear: “The implementation of restorative justice [in New Zealand] has resulted in significant and real changes: fewer young offenders now appear in courts, fewer young offenders are now placed in residences, and fewer young offenders are now sentenced to custody” (p. 466). In the legal opinion that established circle sentencing as a viable option in the Canadian courts, Judge Barry Stuart sought to correct the failures of the justice system to meet the needs of offenders and thereby reduce recidivism (Stuart, 1992). Restorative justice practices are clearly profound innovations. In particular, family group conferences and circles are being used to alter the negative impact of the legal system on indigenous communities. But do these practices truly place victims at the center? Zehr (2001) highlights the gap between principle and practice here, while criticizing his own early work in a victim-offender reconciliation program. “I assumed we could begin programs, later invite victims in to help support and run our programs, and when they didn’t jump at the chance, could say we tried. I realize now that I was afraid of the difficult dialogue that would be inevitable . . . I can’t date my conversion, but today I have a conviction that the involvement of victims and victim advocates must be a precondition for anything called justice” (p. 196). Most leading practitioners and trainers in restorative justice have more experience working with offenders than with victims. The training materials on restorative justice acknowledge this. The Real Justice Conferencing Handbook cautions, “Most professionals attracted to conferencing and restorative justice are offender-focused. They want to help offenders turn their lives in a positive direction. However, when deciding whether to run a conference, they may overlook victim needs” (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999, pp. 34-35). Achilles and Zehr (2001) identify two other ways in which these innovative practices remain offender-centered. First, they argue that since most restorative programs operate within the realm of the existing offender-oriented legal system, this creates a gravitational pull towards a focus on offenders. Second, they point out that while many restorative programs offer services to offenders without the participation of victims, few offer services to victims without the participation of offenders. Thus, given the origins of the most common restorative practices, the backgrounds of the practitioners, the pull of the legal system on restorative justice, and the actual services provided by these programs, it cannot be said that needs of victims are truly at the center of these practices. Some restorative practitioners have raised concerns about this neglect of victims’ needs (Achilles & Zehr, 2001; Mika, Achilles, Halbert, Amstutz, & Zehr, 2002; Mika Achilles, Halbert, Zehr, & Amstutz, 2004). For example, a U.S. study called the “Listening Project” sent teams made up of victim advocates and restorative practitioners to seven states to investigate the needs of victims, their views on justice generally, and their views on restorative justice (Mika et al., 2002; Mika et al., 2004). The authors of the study stated that “A core project objective was to collaboratively propose an action plan to create more responsive restorative justice programs and beneficial outcomes for victims” (p. 3). Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 4 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum The Potential Harms and Benefits of Restorative Justice in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence Chief among the criticisms of restorative justice is that when applied to intimate partner violence, these informal practices fail to address the dangers for survivors. Some advocates view restorative justice as being similar to older forms of mediation and couples counseling that consider battering in terms of a “problem couple,” while minimizing the harm done to women. Others fear that participating in restorative justice while intimate partner violence is ongoing will pressure abused women to take responsibility for changing their partners, thus making women’s own victimization secondary. There are also deep concerns about offender accountability. Many advocates worry that the gains of feminist activism in getting intimate partner violence recognized as serious crime will be reversed. Some advocates are also unconvinced that restorative practices could effectively denounce intimate partner violence in the broader community (Coward, 2000; Daly & Stubbs, 2006; Frederick & Lizdas, 2003). In addition, women’s groups in Canada and the U.S. have raised concerns about the race and gender politics of state-sponsored restorative justice. The President of the United Native Nations in Canada reported that the government asked for input and then ignored the concerns of indigenous women about using circles in cases of violence against women (Coward, 2000). The Aboriginal Women’s Action Network (AWAN) in Vancouver opposes the use of restorative justice in cases of violence against women, and seeks a greater voice for Aboriginal women in program development. AWAN is concerned that despite the racism of the Canadian legal system, Aboriginal women fear being pressured to participate in restorative practices, and don’t want to lose access to the protections offered by Canadian law (AWAN, 2001). In the U.S., the organization Incite! Women of Color Against Violence has criticized existing restorative justice models for failing to adequately address issues of safety and accountability (Incite, 2003). On the other hand, some antiviolence activists have made the exact opposite arguments, and see restorative justice as offering a better way to seek safety and accountability than the current legal system. Pennell and Burford argue that family group conferencing offers a way to expand a coordinated community response to stopping violence against women and their children. “Increasingly, there is recognition that the violence cannot be stopped without a concerted and cooperative effort of families, communities, and state institutions” (Pennell & Burford, 1994, p. 2). In their view, restorative justice practices can ‘widen the circle’ and reestablish support for victims and control for offenders who have been isolated by violence, secrecy, and economic hardship. Koss (2000) claims that since restorative models are designed to run alongside the existing criminal legal system, they will not reverse feminist gains or safety measures. Koss further argues that because restorative processes are shaped by the participation of both victims’ and offenders’ cultural groups, and because incarceration is not the focus, restorative justice has the potential to mitigate the racism of the criminal legal system. Koss has co-written an article for VAWnet entitled “Restorative Justice Responses to Sexual Assault” (Koss & Achilles, 2008). Perhaps most significantly, hybrid projects that combine feminist and restorative practices have been developed for child abuse and domestic violence (Pennell & Burford, 1994, 2000; Pennell & Francis, 2005), sexual assault (Koss, Bachar, & Hopkins, 2003; Koss , Bachar, Hopkins, & Carlson, 2004), and adult survivors of child sexual abuse (Jülich, 2006). Following a review of the research on restorative justice, Pennell’s hybrid models for addressing intimate partner violence will be discussed in detail. Research on Restorative Justice Despite the doubts raised about the focus on victims in restorative justice processes, the research on it finds high levels of victim satisfaction with restorative practices. While the vast majority of this research is based on youth crimes, the strengths and Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 5 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum weaknesses revealed in these studies nonetheless have implications for intimate violence. A recent review of the available studies found that victims’ willingness to participate in victimoffender mediation ranged from 40% to 60% (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2006). The reasons provided by victims for wanting to engage in these processes include “a desire to receive restitution, to hold the offender accountable, to learn more about the why of the crime and to share their pain with the offender, to avoid court processing, to help the offender change behavior, or to see the offender adequately punished” (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2006, pp. 2-3). The reasons provided by offenders for participating in victim-offender mediation include wanting to compensate victims, wanting to get past the criminal event, wanting to make a good impression on the court, and wanting to apologize to the victim. Studies of victim-offender mediation generally find that between 80% and 90% of both victims and offenders express satisfaction with the process and its outcomes, and about 90% of participants said that they would recommend the process to others (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2006, pp. 3-4). In family group conferencing, it appears that many conferences take place without the participation of victims. Research on family group conferencing with youth in New Zealand in the 1990s found that victims attended only half of the conferences. In this study, Morris and Maxwell (2003) reported that in terms of the process, 60% of the victims found the conferences “helpful, positive, and rewarding,” while about a quarter of the victims felt worse after attending the conference. One of the main reasons for victims’ dissatisfaction was because the victims felt that the offenders were not truly sorry for the crimes. In terms of the outcomes of the conferences, only half the victims interviewed said they were satisfied and a third reported dissatisfaction with the outcomes (pp. 205207). More recent research on conferencing has found higher levels of victim satisfaction. A 2006 review found four studies of youth crime conferencing with rates of victim satisfaction ranging from 73% to over 90% (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2006). Three of these studies reported that over 90% of both victims and offenders would recommend group conferencing to others (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2006). Stubbs (2004), however, cautions that much of this research on victim satisfaction suffers from poor research design, and is often unclear on just what kind of satisfaction is being measured. Stubbs notes that most of this research focuses only on short-term as opposed to long-term effects on victims. Further, little attention is paid in these studies to “what obligations or burdens restorative justice might place on victims” (Stubbs, 2004, pp. 5-6). The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments in Canberra, Australia, offer perhaps the most carefully designed research thus far (Strang, 2002). These experiments compared the experiences of victims who attended family group conferencing with those of victims whose cases went to the courts. Cases of property and violent crime were randomly assigned to either conferencing or courts by police officers (crimes of sexual and domestic violence were ineligible for inclusion in this study). Victims whose cases were assigned to conferencing reported more satisfaction than victims whose cases went to court (60% versus 46%). Victims who participated in conferences reported a marked decrease in feelings of fear and anxiety. They also reported that the conferences had a positive impact on their feelings of dignity, self-respect, and self-confidence. Offenders whose cases went to conferences also found these practices more beneficial than offenders whose cases went to court. Strang refers to this as a “win/win” situation. This contrasts with culturally dominant beliefs that assume issues of justice represent a “zero-sum” competition, where “any right or benefit given to offenders will be at the expense of the rights or interests of victims” (Strang, 2002, pp. 155-156). While studies of victim satisfaction in cases of youth crime are largely positive, studies of restorative justice and offender recidivism offer mixed findings. A 2007 research review found that while some studies show no effect of restorative justice on Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 6 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum recidivism, and a few show increases in crime following restorative practices, much of the research indicates that there is a potential in restorative justice for reducing crime (Hayes, 2007). A second review, which also focuses largely on youth property crime, found that restorative interventions on average have small but significant effects on recidivism, and that the effect is more pronounced in the most recent studies (Bonta, Rugge, Cormier, & Jesseman, 2006). While the research reviewed in this section does not address intimate partner violence directly, there are nevertheless important findings here about victims in general. First, the lack of victim participation revealed in some of these studies and the dissatisfaction of many who do participate raises concerns about how central victims’ needs are to the design and implementation of restorative practices. At the same time, much of the research shows high levels of victim satisfaction, and remarkably, this generally corresponds with high levels of offender satisfaction with these processes. Research on Restorative Justice Approaches to Intimate Partner Violence There is very little research on restorative programs that address intimate partner violence. This is in part because many jurisdictions disallow the use of restorative justice in cases of violence against women (Daly & Stubbs, 2007). But there also appears to be a reluctance to evaluate the outcomes of restorative interventions (Achilles & Zehr, 2001). For instance, a Canadian program in Edmonton, Alberta, has been using victim-offender mediation in cases of intimate partner violence since 1998 (Edwards & Haslett, 2003). A 2005 survey of programs in 17 countries identified 72 respondents who said they were using family group conferences in cases of domestic or family violence (Nixon et al. 2005). And Goel (2000) reports that circles are being used in cases of intimate partner violence in Canada. Based on such reports, one might reasonably ask, where are the evaluations of these practices? A 2004 review of research on the use of victim-offender mediation, conferencing, and circles in cases of intimate partner violence yielded eight studies (Edwards & Sharpe, 2004). Some of the studies that have been conducted on restorative justice and intimate partner violence are based on small samples and are therefore inconclusive (Edwards & Sharpe, 2004; Stubbs 2009, forthcoming). A study in Austria of 30 cases involving victim-offender mediation showed mixed results. While some victims found the mediation to be empowering, it had limited impact on abusive men. The study concludes that such mediation efforts will be futile if adequate resources for both victims and offenders are lacking (Pelikan, 2000). In a study of intimate partner violence cases in South Africa, 21 women who completed victim-offender mediation reported high levels of satisfaction with the process (Dissel & Ngubeni, 2003). Coker’s (1999) study of Navaho Peacemaking and intimate partner violence is an important investigation of a truly indigenous practice. Coker found that while this traditional form of justice offers many benefits to abused women, there are also important drawbacks. Peacemaking is a traditional form of justice that the Navaho Supreme Court is seeking to integrate into contemporary judicial practices. Coker notes that Anglo justice is seen as “hierarchical and ‘win/lose’” in comparison to older practices that emphasize problem-solving (p. 33). Based on her examination of case files and interviews with peacemakers, judges, and advocates, Coker found that Peacemaking supports women’s autonomy and helps to improve the material conditions of abused women’s lives. However, Coker also found that some abused women feel coerced into participation. Further, the agreements created through Peacemaking were difficult to enforce, and some peacemakers discouraged women from separating from their abusers. Coker (1999) notes that “None of the battered women’s advocates in the Navajo Nation whom I interviewed endorsed Peacemaking as it is currently practiced as an intervention in domestic violence cases” (p. 8). In all of the studies discussed so far in this section, the restorative practices used were not Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 7 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum explicitly designed for cases involving intimate partner violence. The work of Joan Pennell, on the other hand, demonstrates what feminist-designed restorative approaches could look like. Pennell was a founder of the first shelter for abused women and their children in Newfoundland and Labrador. Pennell and Gale Burford, both social workers and community activists, developed a restorative approach to child abuse and domestic violence in Canada. They see their work as influenced by the feminist, Aboriginal, and restorative justice movements (Pennell & Burford, 2002). In developing their model, Pennell and Burford brought together feminist anti-violence organizations, advocates for children and youths, offender programs, police and court personnel, and researchers. This extensive community organizing and involvement of state and social service agencies has much in common with the feminist coordinated community response pioneered by the Domestic Violence Intervention Project in Duluth (Shepard & Pence, 1999). In fact, Pennell sees her model as extending the elements of a coordinated community response: Restorative practices do not require disengagement from state intervention. Instead, “widening the circle” of those committed to stopping family violence is a way to create a coordinated response of informal and formal resources (Pennell, 2006, p. 290). For the design of their approach, Pennell and Burford drew from the New Zealand model of conferencing and from practices common in First Nations communities in Canada. They emphasize that the family group conference is a planning forum—not mediation, and not therapy: The Family Group Conference (FGC) model is not a strategy for mediating conflicts between perpetrators and persons whom they have abused, nor does it aim to divert the perpetrator away from being punished. It is not the intent of the Family Group Conference to keep nuclear families together at all costs. The model does aim to include all family members in making important decisions that affect their lives while at the same time offering supports and protection in carrying out these decisions (Pennell & Burford, 1994, p. 2). In the family group conference, the agreements that are developed must be approved by the participating state authorities. Representatives from battered women’s programs are also present in the conferences. According to Pennell (1999), the virtues of addressing battering and child abuse in this fashion are many. The family group conference breaks the conspiracy of silence around the abuse and widens the circle of people who can protect survivors and hold offenders accountable. While maintaining legal protections, it builds communities of concern to carry out the plan that is developed by the conference. Further, it provides more “eyes” to monitor reoffending. The family group conferences were held in three culturally distinct regions in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1993 and 1994 (Pennell & Burford, 1995). The first location was an Inuit community; a second was a rural community of people with British, French, and Micmac ancestry; and a third was an urban area with residents of largely Irish and British origins. Pennell and Burford conducted follow-up research with the 32 families who participated in these conferences. About 66% of family members interviewed reported the family was “better off” as a result of the conference; 19% said the family was the “same”; and 6% said the family was “worse off” (Pennell & Burford, 2000). No violence took place at the conferences, and there were no reports of violence caused by the conferences (Pennell, 2005). The families who participated in conferences were compared with a group of families known to child protection workers. Since the families were not randomly assigned to receive or not receive conferences, this study offers an imperfect comparison between families. However, Pennell and Burford point out that they asked that families with the most difficult situations be referred to family group confer- Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 8 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum ences, thus indicating success in problematic cases. Reports of abuse and neglect declined by half in the families who went to conferences, while reports of abuse of adults and children increased in the control group (Pennell & Burford, 2000). Pennell’s more recent work has been in North Carolina. Instead of replicating her model from Canada, Pennell is designing a new coordinated community project from the ground up in collaboration with the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “From the start,” Pennell (2005, p. 176) states, “the domestic violence community should be involved in planning an FGC program, particularly in establishing measures to keep participants safe.” The North Carolina model is being developed with the participation of a community-wide advisory board, focus groups with abused women staying in a shelter, focus groups with shelter staff, and input from domestic violence counselors. To emphasize the importance of safety planning to this project, this new model has been called “safety conferencing” (Pennell & Francis, 2005). Enhanced safety measures that have been identified include consulting with survivors about whether to hold a conference, and whether the abuser should even be invited to participate; using legal safeguards, such as protective orders, alongside the process; notifying the police to stand by during and after conferences; inviting support people, domestic violence advocates, and therapists to attend; and keeping the safety plans for survivors confidential (Pennell, 2007). These feminist-restorative justice hybrid projects address many of the concerns raised by antiviolence activists. By developing the design of these projects with input from women’s groups, advocates, and survivors, these models of intervention place victims at the center of the process, and prioritize the safety of women and children. The partnerships for both projects included abused women’s and children’s advocates and batterers’ service providers along with legal officials. Pennell has created protocols for cases involving family violence, with extensive recommendations for safety measures (Pennell, 2005). She has also developed methods for evaluating family group conferencing (Pennell & Anderson, 2005). A number of scholars and antiviolence activists who are otherwise skeptical of restorative justice have found Pennell’s work compelling (Busch, 2002; Herman, 2005; Stubbs, 2004). Future Directions for Antiviolence Activism Given the evidence that most victims of intimate partner violence in the U.S. do not call the police (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), there is a pressing need to develop new ways for abused women to find justice. There are powerful ideas within restorative justice about mobilizing informal support for victims and sanctions for offenders. Advocates and researchers should examine how these might be reworked and combined with other communitybased strategies to stop intimate partner violence. These innovative practices offer new visions of justice for survivors and offenders and new insights into community organizing in response to these crimes. Like the feminist antiviolence movement, the restorative justice movement is critical of how the current legal system is focused on offenders rather than victims. Nonetheless, the restorative justice movement has itself focused on offenders in the design of its practices and in the services it offers through its programs. If the needs of victims are truly to become more central to restorative justice, feminist antiviolence organizations will have an important role to play in the ongoing development of these informal approaches. The feminist antiviolence movement and the restorative justice movement have much to contribute to one another, and much to learn from one another. It would be beneficial to have more dialogue between activists from these two social justice movements. Given the limitations of restorative justice in addressing the needs of victims, those seeking new justice practices would do well to examine the Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 9 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum feminist-restorative hybrids developed by Joan Pennell (2005, 2006; Pennell & Anderson, 2005; Pennell & Burford, 1994, 2000; Pennell & Francis, 2005). These projects demonstrate how the involvement of battered women’s advocates can insure that the needs of survivors are prioritized. Other feminist-restorative hybrid projects designed for sexual assault (Koss & Achilles, 2008; Koss, Bachar, & Hopkins, 2003; Koss et al., 2004) and adult survivors of child sexual abuse (Jülich, 2006) also offer new ideas for alternative justice processes that are survivor-centered. To assess the effectiveness of these projects in stopping violence and empowering women and children, it is important that evaluation research be made a part of these new projects. Such research should address the full range of consequences for victims and offenders, both short-term and longterm. Pennell has made evaluation central to her work, and the impact of these practices on communities of color has been an important part of her research. Unfortunately, there has been much application of restorative justice to violence against women that has not been evaluated. This creates problems for communities that want to know whether such programs are safe or effective. This also creates deep mistrust between antiviolence activists and restorative practitioners. Witnessing the spread of restorative programs in Canada despite cautions raised by feminists and other critics, Cameron (2005) called for a moratorium on new practices until more research on existing programs has been completed. A recurring theme in feminist accounts of restorative justice, especially in Canada, is that it is not the principles of restorative justice that are most at issue, but rather the lack of collaborative involvement of women’s antiviolence organizations in the design and implementation of the projects (Coward, 2000; Rubin, 2003; Stubbs, 2009, forthcoming). There is also a need for another kind of research. Beyond the immediate needs of victims and offenders, both the restorative justice and the feminist antiviolence movements are concerned with relationships between communities and the state. It would be beneficial to activists in many communities around the world to have case studies of the negotiations between women’s antiviolence organizations and both local and national governments around the application of restorative practices to cases of violence against women (Justice Options for Women, 2006; McGillivray & Comaskey, 1999; Rubin, 2003). Authors of this document James Ptacek, Ph.D. Department of Sociology Suffolk University 8 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Loretta Frederick, J.D. Senior Legal and Policy Advisor Battered Women's Justice Project 1801 Nicollet Ave. So. Suite 102 Minneapolis, MN 55403-3745 Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 10 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum Distribution Rights: This Applied Research paper and In Brief may be reprinted in its entirety or excerpted with proper acknowledgement to the author(s) and VAWnet (www.vawnet.org), but may not be altered or sold for profit. Suggested Citation: Ptacek, J. & Frederick, L. (2009, January). Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved month/day/year, from: http://www.vawnet.org References Aboriginal Women’s Action Network (AWAN). (2001). Aboriginal women’s action network (AWAN Policy): The implications of restorative justice in cases of violence against aboriginal women and children. Retreived June 18, 2007 from http:// www.casac.ca/english/awan.htm. Achilles, M., & Zehr, H. (2001). Restorative justice for crime victims: The promise and the challenge. In G. Bazemore & M. Schiff (Eds.), Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and transforming communities (pp. 87-99). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Bonta, J., Rugge, T. A., Cormier, R. B., & Jesseman, R. (2006). Restorative justice and recidivism: Promises made, promises kept? In D. Sullivan & L. Tifft (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective (pp. 108-118). London: Routledge. Braithwaite, J. (2003). Restorative justice and a better future. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A restorative justice reader: Texts, sources, context (pp. 83-97). Portland, OR: Willan. Braithwaite, J. (2006). Narrative and “compulsory compassion.” Law & Social Inquiry,31(2), 425-446. and family violence (pp. 223-248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, A. (2006). Stopping the violence: Canadian feminist debates on restorative justice and intimate violence. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 49-66. Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing autonomy for battered women: Lessons from Navajo Peacemaking. UCLA Law Review, 47, 1-111. Cook, K., Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (Eds.) (2006). Special issue, “Gender, race, and restorative justice.” Theoretical Criminology, 10 (1), 1-138. Coward, S. (2000). Restorative justice in cases of domestic and sexual violence: Healing justice? Retrieved June 14, 2007 from www.abusehelplines.org/resources/ rs_conf_april2000.htm. Creative Interventions. (2008). What is Creative Interventions? Retrieved July 10, 2008 from http:// www.creative-interventions.org. Daly, K., & Immarigeon, R. (1998). The past, present, and future of restorative justice: Some critical reflections. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 21- 45. Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology 10, 9-28. Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2007). Feminist theory, feminist and anti-racist politics, and restorative justice. In G. Johnstone & D. W. Van Ness (Eds)., Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 149-170). Portland, OR: Willan. Dasgupta, S. D. (2003). Safety and justice for all: Examining the relationship between the women’s anti-violence movement and the criminal legal system. New York: Ms. Foundation. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from http://www.ms.foundation.org/userassets/PDF/Program/ safety_ justice.pdf. Busch, R. (2002). Domestic violence and restorative justice initiatives: Who pays if we get it wrong? In H. Strang & J. Braitwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 11 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum Davies, J., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania, D. (1998). Safety planning with battered women: Complex lives/difficult choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dissel, A., & Ngubeni, K. (2003). Giving women their voice: Domestic violence and restorative justice in South Africa. Paper presented at the XIth International Symposium on Victimology, Stellenbosch, July. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from http://www.csvr.org.za/ papers/papad&k3.htm. Edwards, A. & Haslett, J. (2003). Domestic violence and restorative justice: Advancing the dialogue. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Restorative Justice, June 1-4, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.sfu.ca/cfrj/fulltext/haslett.pdf. Edwards, A., & Sharpe, S. (2004). Restorative justice in the context of domestic violence: A literature review. Edmonton, Alberta: Mediation and Restorative Justice Centre. Frederick, L. & Lizdas. K. C. 2003. The role of restorative justice in the battered women’s movement. Minneapolis, MN: Battered Women’s Justice Project. Fullwood, P. C. (2002). Preventing family violence: Community engagement makes the difference. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Gaarder, E., & Presser, L. (2006). A feminist vision of justice? The problems and possibilities of restorative justice for girls and women. In D. Sullivan & L. Tifft (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective (pp. 483-494). London: Routledge. Goel, R. (2000). No women at the center: The use of the Canadian sentencing circle in domestic violence cases. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 15, 293334. Goodman, L. A. & Epstein, D. (2008). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hayes, H. (2007). Reoffending and restorative justice. In G. Johnstone & D. W. Van Ness (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 426-444). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books. Herman, J. L. (2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 11, 571-602. Incite! Women of Color Against Violence (2003). Community accountability strategies for addressing violence against women. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://inciteboston.blogspot.com/ 2006_08_01_archive. Incite! Women of Color Against Violence (Ed.) (2006). The color of violence:The Incite! anthology. Boston: South End Press. Jülich, S. (2006). Views of Justice among survivors of historical child sexual abuse: Implications for restorative justice in New Zealand. Theoretical Criminology 10:125-138. Justice Options for Women (Who are Victims of Violence) (2006). Justice options for women: Phase 4. Designing a PEI domestic violence treatment option court process. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from http:// www.isn.net/~tha/ justiceoptions/. Koss, M. P. (2000). Blame, shame and community: Justice responses to violence against women. American Psychologist, 55, 1332-1343. Koss, M. & Achilles, M. (2008). Restorative justice responses to sexual assault. VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. Retrieved July 10, 2008 from http:// new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/ AR_RestorativeJustice.pdf. Koss, M. P., Bachar, K. J., & Hopkins, C. Q. (2003). Restorative justice for sexual violence: Repairing victims, building community, and holding offenders accountable. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 364-477. Koss, M. P., Bachar, K. J., Hopkins, C. Q., & Carlson, C. (2004). Expanding a community’s justice response to sex crimes through advocacy, Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 12 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum prosecutorial, and public health collaboration: Introducing the RESTORE program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1435-1463. Lerman, L. G. (1984). Mediation of wife abuse cases: The adverse impact of informal dispute resolution on women. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 7, 57-113. Lerman, L. G., Kuehl, S. J., & Brygger, M. P. (1989). Domestic abuse and mediation: Guidelines for mediators and policy makers. Report to the U.S. Department of Justice. Love, C. (2000). Family group conferencing: Cultural origins, sharing, and appropriation—A Maori reflection. In G. Burford & J. Hudson, Family group conferencing: New directions in communitycentered child and family practice (pp. 13-30). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. McCold, P. (2006). The recent history of restorative justice: Mediation, circles, and conferencing. In D. Sullivan and L. Tifft (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective (pp. 2351). London: Routledge. McGillivray, A., & Comaskey, B. (1999). Black eyes all of the time: Intimate violence, Aboriginal women and the justice system. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Mika, H., Achilles, M., Halbert, E., Amstutz, L. S., & Zehr, H. (2002). Taking victims and their advocates seriously: A listening project. Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee. Mika, H., Achilles, M., Halbert, E., Zehr, H., & Amstutz, L. S. (2004). Listening to victims—A critique of restorative justice policy and practice in the United States. Federal Probation 68:32-38. Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2003). Restorative justice in New Zealand: Family group conferences as a case study. In G. Johnstone, A restorative justice reader: Texts, sources, context (pp. 201-211). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Nixon, P., Burford, G., Quinn, A. & Edelbaum, J. (2005). A survey of international practices, policy & research on family group conferencing and related practices. Englewood, Colorado: National Center on Family Group Decision Making, American Humane Association. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.americanhumane.org/protectingchildren/programs/family-group-decision-making/ free-resources/research. O’Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, T. (1999). Conferencing handbook: The new Real Justice training manual. Pipersville, PA: Piper’s Press. Peachey, D. E. (2003). The Kitchener experiment. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A restorative justice reader: Texts, sources, context (pp. 178-186). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Pelikan, C. (2000). Victim offender mediation in domestic violence cases—A research report. United Nations Crime Congress: Ancillary Meeting, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from http:// www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/UNBasicPrinciples/. Pennell, J. (1999). “Using restorative justice practices in situations of family violence.” Presentation at Building Strong Partnerships for Restorative Practices Conference, Department of Social Work, University of Vermont; State of Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Department of Corrections; and Real Justice; Burlington, VT. Mitchell-Clark, K. & Autry, A. (2004). Preventing family violence: Lessons from the community engagement initiative. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Pennell, J. (2005). Safety for mothers and their children. In J. Pennell and G. Anderson (Eds.), Widening the circle: The practice and evaluation of family group conferencing with children, youths, and their families (pp. 163-181). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Morris, A. (2003). Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. In G. Johnstone, A restorative justice reader: Texts, sources, context (pp. 461-476). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Pennell, J. (2006). Stopping domestic violence or protecting children? Contributions from restorative justice. In D. Sullivan & L. Tifft (Eds.), Handbook Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 13 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum of restorative justice: A global perspective (pp. 296-298). London: Routledge. Pennell, J. (2007). (With A. Coppedge, J. King, and C. Spehar). North Carolina family-centered meetings project: Annual report to the North Carolina Division of Social Services, fiscal year 2006 – 2007. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Social Work, North Carolina Family-Centered Meetings Project. Pennell, J. & Anderson, G. (2005). Widening the circle: The practice and evaluation of family group conferencing with children, youths, and their families. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (1994). Widening the circle: The family group decision making project. Journal of Child & Youth Care, 9, 1-12. Ptacek, J. (Ed.) (2009, forthcoming). Restorative justice and violence against women. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosewater, A., & Goodmark, L. (2007). Steps toward safety: Improving systemic and community responses for families experiencing domestic violence. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Rowe, K. (1985). The limits of the neighborhood justice center: Why domestic violence cases should not be mediated. Emory Law Journal, 34, 855-910. Rubin, P. (2003). Restorative justice in Nova Scotia: Women’s experience and recommendations for positive policy development and implementation, report and recommendations. Retreived June 18, 2007 from http://www.nawl.ca/ns/en/documents/ Pub_Brief_NSRestorative Justice03_en.doc. Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (1995). Family group decision making: New roles for ‘old’ partners in resolving family violence: Implementation report (Vols. I-II). St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland, School of Social Work. Retrieved November 17, 2008 from http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/jpennell/fgdm/index.htm. Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79, 131-158. Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2002). Feminist praxis: Making family group conferencing work. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 108-127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pennell, J., & Francis, S. (2005). Safety conferencing: Toward a coordinated and inclusive response to safeguard women and children. Violence Against Women, 11, 666 - 692. Pranis, K. (2002). Restorative values and confronting family violence. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 2341). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ptacek, J. (Ed.) (2005). Special issue, “Feminism, restorative justice, and violence against women.” Violence Against Women, 11, 563-730. Sharpe, S. (1998). Restorative justice: A vision for healing and change. Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Victim Offender Society. Shepard, M. F., & Pence, E. (Eds.) (1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sokoloff, N. J., & Pratt, C. (Eds). (2005). Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (Eds.) (2002). Restorative justice and family violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stuart, B. (1992). Reasons for sentencing, Regina versus Philip Moses. Yukon Territory: Territorial Court, CanLII 2814. Stuart, B. (1997). Building community justice partnerships: Community peacemaking circles. Ottowa, Ontario, Canada: Department of Justice Canada, Aboriginal Justice Section. Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 14 of 15 www.vawnet.org VAWnet Applied Research Forum Stubbs, J. (2004). Restorative justice, domestic violence, and family violence. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse, Issues Paper 9, 1-23. Stubbs, J. (2009, forthcoming). Restorative justice, gendered violence, and indigenous women. Forthcoming in J. Ptacek (Ed.), Restorative justice and violence against women. New York: Oxford University Press. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey (NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., & Coates, R. B. (2005). Opportunities and pitfalls facing the restorative justice movement. Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking.Retrieved June 9, 2007 from http:// rjp.umn.edu. Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., & Coates, R. B. (2006). Restorative justice dialogue: Evidence-based practice. Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking. Retrieved June 9, 2007 from http://rjp.umn.edu. Victim Offender Mediation Association (VOMA). 2005. Learn about VOMA. Victim Offender Mediation Web Site. Last modified April 6; retrieved December 14, 2007 from http://www.voma.org/ abtvoma.shtml. Zehr, H. (2001). Transcending: Reflections of crime victims. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence (January 2009) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women Page 15 of 15 www.vawnet.org Applied Research Forum National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women In Brief: Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence Research indicates that only one-forth of intimate partner assaults are reported to the police (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Seeking to expand opportunities for survivors and increase accountability for offenders, some activists and scholars have been investigating restorative justice. “Restorative justice” is the name for a range of informal methods for addressing crime based on dialogue involving victims, offenders, and their communities. Repairing harm, rather than punishment, is the central goal of these practices. Restorative justice can be used at many points in the criminal legal process. It can be used to prevent cases from being prosecuted; as a part of formal sentencing for a conviction; during time in prison or jail; or after release from incarceration. Restorative justice is increasingly used to address crime in schools. These informal methods are also used to address conflicts between communities in the aftermath of war. Like many feminist activists, restorative justice practitioners criticize the existing legal system for failing to meet the needs of victims, and for failing to hold offenders accountable. Like feminist antiviolence activists, restorative justice practitioners are working to address the impact of crime on communities, something the legal system is not designed to do. Most commonly used in cases of youth crime, restorative justice has become popular since the 1990s in many countries around the world. Do these methods offer ideas that are appropriate to intimate partner violence? Among feminist antiviolence activists and scholars, there are many different perspectives on this issue. There is skepticism about whether the informal methods of restorative justice are truly victim-centered, as many of its proponents claim. Some argue that since restorative practices were not developed specifically for intimate partner violence, they will pose dangers to survivors. Some are concerned that informal dialogue between victims, offenders, and their communities will not be enough to hold offenders accountable. On the other hand, there are antiviolence activists and scholars who believe restorative justice offers better ways to meet victims’ needs and achieve safety and accountability than the existing legal system. There is very little research on restorative programs that address intimate partner violence. The most promising work in this area has been done by Joan Pennell (2005, 2006). Pennell designed a model in Canada for addressing child abuse and intimate partner violence that combines restorative practices with a feminist coordinated community response. Evaluation research on this model showed that it significantly reduced both intimate partner violence and child abuse (Pennell & Burford, 1994, 2000). Pennell has also developed a new project in North Carolina, with input from the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence as well as women’s shelters, batterers’ counselors, child welfare workers, the courts, and the police. These feminist-restorative hybrid projects meet many of the criticisms that have been raised concerning safety issues and offender accountability. By designing new interventions with the involvement of battered women’s advocates and child protection workers, the needs of survivors are placed at the center of these practices, and safety is prioritized. Those in search of new ways for survivors to find justice would do well to examine Pennell’s work. There are also feminist-restorative approaches that have been developed for sexual assault (Koss & Achilles, 2008) and for adult survivors of child sexual abuse (Jülich, 2006). In Brief: Restorative Justice and Initimate Partner Violence (January 2009) www.vawnet.org *The production and dissemination of this publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 5U1V/CE324010-05 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC, VAWnet, or the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.