MODELS FOR PLANNING, CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND
BUILDING COMMUNITY
By Charlene Avalos (Native Child and Family Services: NCFS), Cyndy Baskin (Ryerson), Pat Durish (David Kelley LGBTQ and HIV/AIDS Services), Gregg Fenten (Conflict Mediation Services-Downsview: CMS-D), Jeanette Schmid (Toronto Family Group Conferencing Project: TFGCP)
INTRODUCTION
Models for creating plans in response to family crises, conflict resolution and building community frequently are identified by a range of titles. This can be confusing for anyone attempting to understand the differences between the models in order to understand which model to apply to a particular situation. This document attempts to briefly describe what we understand to be the most prominent approaches from our perspective and does not include all approaches. Each locality tends to adapt the model or approach to best suit its own needs. It can be important to examine the philosophy of each and their respective techniques. There are challenges with identifying the origins of some of these approaches.
The focus of all the approaches below is to facilitate participation by people in processes that affect them, whether these are planning, conflict resolution, and/or community building processes. An important dynamic in all these processes is power and people, and how power is used, not used, perceived and not perceived by those involved. However, participation in any of the approaches by itself does not guarantee shifts in the power relationships between parties. Thus, it becomes necessary in each situation to continually assess the power dynamic and whether the process provides for those whose voices which have been typically marginalized to be heard in the process. As an example of how to consider power, parole boards in some parts of the US include community members. This is identified as a restorative practice. This is a misnomer as the inclusion of community members may not result in a shift in the power dynamic. Similarly, community service in and of itself is not a restorative practice, although it may indeed be the outcome of a restorative practice.
In adopting a critical perspective, it is also necessary to define ‘community’. Community is fluid and needs to be defined by those involved in the process itself. Definitions of community also need to be inclusive, taking into account cultures, languages, ethnicities, gender, sexual orientation, religions, spiritualities etc, and thus recognizing diversity.
It should be noted that many of the approaches listed below reflect or resonate with mechanisms for conflict resolution, planning, community building that are utilized by communities throughout the world. Many communities continue to use inclusive, collective forms of decision-making, typically led by Elders, to resolve conflicts and provide care for their members. The approaches noted below are highlighted as they are mechanisms that have been adopted by dominant/mainstream systems, or work alongside those mainstream systems. By focusing on these approaches, there is no suggestion that the non-mainstream systems used by thousands of communities over centuries are in any way less important or less effective.
ABORIGINAL CULTURE-BASED JUSTICE:
There is a fundamental difference in the understanding of justice from dominant society’s view and Aboriginal worldviews. In the dominant criminal justice system, the emphasis is on punishment of the “deviant” as a means of making that person conform, as a way of protecting other members of society and as a way of deterring others from committing similar offences.
In the traditional ways of Aboriginal cultures, wrongdoing is a collective responsibility and the process involves all parties acknowledging the wrong, allowing for atonement and installing a system of reparation or compensation in order to restore harmony to everyone involved. This could involve an expression of regret for the harm done by the wrongdoer, the presentation of gifts or payment of some kind, physical labour that can be done for the person who has been harmed, publicly acknowledging responsibility for the harm done and how it has impacted on the person harmed, etc. There is a central cultural imperative to prevent acts of revenge or retribution.
In this way, responsibility is placed on the wrongdoer to compensate the wronged persons. This makes the wrongdoer responsible for the maintenance of harmony within the community. To Aboriginal peoples, sentencing the wrongdoer to incarceration or placing him or her on probation is tantamount to relieving the wrongdoer completely of any responsibility for a just restitution of the wrong. It is viewed as a total vindication of the wrongdoer and an abdication of the duty of justice.
This emphasis on the harmed person, family and community, rather than only on the wrongdoer, is reflective of an important Aboriginal value which stresses the interconnectedness of all life and upon which the foundation of traditional Aboriginal societies are based. Thus, culture-based justice is holistic in nature and focuses on concepts of healing for everyone involved.
Purpose: The purpose of justice in Aboriginal worldviews is to restore the peace and balance within the community and to reconcile the accused with his or her conscience and with the individual, family and community that has been wronged.
- Circles
Purpose: A generic term that is used to include a variety of interventions including talking, sharing, and healing circles.
History: In Aboriginal cultures the circle was used in all aspects of the community’s well-being. The circle represents the four aspects of an individual’s well being including the physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual. It promotes the interconnectedness of all beings, including the individual, family and community.
Process: Creating an egalitarian mutually accountable, reciprocal community. Circles serve many purposes yet they share 3 important features;
- everyone in the circle is equal and has equal opportunity to speak
- decisions are made by consensus
- everyone agrees to abide by safety guidelines established by the group to work toward a common goal
2.Sentencing circles/Community Councils
Purpose: The intent is to restore balance for those involved in the harm caused.
History: Circles are used in many First Nations communities across North America e.g. Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto’s Community Council
Process: The process focuses on the individual charged. The first step in the process is for the person who caused the harm to take responsibility for their action. At some point in the process this person will be encouraged to give back, apologize, acknowledge the impact of his/her actions and make amends for the wrong. Often this will take the form of community service which might include helping out at community feasts, ceremonies and gatherings.
- Hollowater’s circles- an Ojibway community in Manitoba
Purpose: The intent is to deal with child sexual abuse through integrating justice and child welfare aspects. The goal is to facilitate responsibility, accountability and healing of the individual, family and community.
Process: First, the offender is prepared to participate in community circle. Then, the victim is prepared to participate in community circle. (Preparation may include counseling, having a healing circle with supportive family and community members and other intensive processes.) Only when parties are ready does a community circle deal with the wrongdoing that had taken place. The process is led by a team of local professionals and elders.
- Applications
Kay Pranis and Judge Barry Stuart also utilize a circles approach as a Peacekeepers circle. It is not clear if they have permission from Native peoples to use this process, though it is known that Judge Stuart has worked closely with Native peoples in B.C.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE (RJ)
Restorative Justice comprises a set of approaches to resolving conflict.
Purpose: Restorative justice recognizes that the retributive, adversarial, and punitive aspects of the criminal justice system do not meet the needs of victims, offenders, their families and communities. The intention of the RJ process is to come to a resolution which restores relationships between those involved in the harm caused rather than creating alienation amongst them. RJ may work outside of the criminal justice system or as an adjunct to the criminal justice system.
History: The approaches discussed below arise out of a Christian (particularly Mennonite) understanding of reconciliation, although many of the principles echo the values of Aboriginal Justice.
Description: Approaches are described below.
- Family Group Conferencing . Called Community Conferencing by Tranformative Justice Australia (TJA).
Purpose:To involve family groups in determining appropriate outcomes for both victims, offenders and others affected by the crime.
History:The origins of this approach are found in the Maori struggle for systems to match their culture. The approach was legislated in New Zealandin 1989, and has been adopted in such countries as USA, UK, South Africa, Canada. In Canada, First Nations have in some cases resented the imposition of FGC, despite its Maori roots, as the justice system has overlooked local indigenous processes (Tauri, 1999).
Description: FGC is used where harm has occurred, and is often used alongside the formal criminal justice system. The conference brings together the victim, offender, their respective networks, as well as persons such as teachers or police officers who bring additional perspectives and potential resources to provide for positive outcomes. Preparation is key but not always as intense as it is for FGC (child welfare). The person who has caused harm is expected to take responsibility and must be willing to express that if the process is to continue. The victim attends the process voluntarily. The entire conference is facilitated. In the CMSD model, there are two facilitators and a host. In some models, the facilitator follows a specific script of questions that are asked through the face-to-face process. The parties consider how everyone has been affected by the wrong doing and what needs arise out of this. The group then develop plans to respond to the needs identified.
- Victim-Offender Mediation
Purpose: To address “harm” and restore relationship in justice context.
History: VOM was initiated by Mennonite community in Canada and USA and is used in such countries as Canada, USA, South Africa, UK, and Holland.
Process: The mediator first meets with offender in a private/confidential meeting to assess the situation in terms of the offender taking responsibility for the actions that have victimized the other party(s) and appropriateness in bringing the parties together. If the mediator considers it appropriate, a face-to-face meeting involving the victim and the offender is held to seek ways to address harm. The meeting is facilitated by the mediator. In many approaches, co-mediation is utilized.
- Family Mediation
Purpose: Family mediation is used where there are disputes among family members. The philosophy informing the mediators approach may not necessarily be a restorative justice one.
History:
- In the Toronto child welfare context, family mediation is focused on resolving conflict between family members or between family members and child welfare workers where the conflict is impeding the development of plans for child’s safety and well being. Family mediation is used where there are disputes among family members.
- In many of the Toronto courts, mediation is offered for parents to resolve custody and co-parenting issues.
Process: Mediator may first meet with each party alone to identify issues. Then, the mediator brings the parties directly affected together in a face-to-face process in order to resolve the issues.
- Community Mediation
Purpose: Individuals and groups from the community are brought together to deal with issues that have affected their relationships in the community. This might include family, neighbourhood, school and workplace issues. Mediators work in a co-mediation/facilitation model to open up the lines of communication , build trust and understanding and provide for skill development for people to better deal with conflict themselves. Community mediation may also be practiced in non-restorative context.
History: Not clear to us.
Process:First step is mediators/facilitators meeting privately with each party to discuss their feelings and story/ perspective, how they have been affected, and discussing interest in making change. Second step is a facilitated process that could include mediation, conferencing or group facilitation to have individuals share information that will provide for mutual understanding and to resolve the issues. Can include the people directly affected in the conflict and can include others indirectly affected, but providing for a deeper and more comprehensive resolution
- Restorative practices (International Institute for Restorative Practices: IIRP)
Purpose: The intent it to promote restorative approaches particularly in the school context.
History: Initiated by Ted Wachtel, who heads IIRP, in 1990s in schools for children with behavioural challenges.
Process: A culture of restorative practices is created within a school by holding both student and the teaching body accountable. Use is made of talking circles, VOM and FGC. (It is not clear if Ted Wachtel received permission to utilize Aborginal approaches such as the talking circle).
TRANSFORMATIVE PROCESSES
Transformative mediation (as practiced by Ontario Coalition of Conflict…..)
Purpose: This is a process that aims to provide information for individuals involved in the conflict to gain mutual understanding of the issues that have affected their relationship and to gain skills and knowledge in order to transform themselves to better deal with conflicts in the future. Transformative philosophy works on a number of levels. The first level is for the individuals directly involved in the conflict to be transformed. Secondly, the community around those individuals needs to be transformed. Thirdly, the larger community (which the smaller community is a member of) is transformed. And ultimately the systems (legal, social and economic) in which those communities exist are to be transformed.
History: Ruth Morris (a Quaker community activist) was one of the first to talk about ‘transformative’ rather than ‘restorative’ practices. She believed that an intervention should not restore previous relationships which often were characterized by marginalization and a sense of disempowerment. Rather, the intervention should create new possibilities for relationship between the wrongdoer, victim and the circles around them.
Process: Follows similar steps to community mediation models.
Conflict resolution approaches used in LGBTQ community in Toronto
The LGBTQ communities occupy a unique position in relation to the social and legal services dedicated to addressing domestic violence and child protection. Unlike many marginalized communities, the LGBTQ community has had, and continues to have, little or no access to these services. Similar to other marginalized communities, the LGBTQ communities’ involvement with domestic violence and child protection services has, for the most part, not been positive. Homophobia, particularly when it interacts with other system of oppression such as racism, classism or ableism, continues to be the primary cause of this state of affairs. Homophobia is behind the chronic under funding of LGBTQ services. Homophobia is behind the refusal of dominant society to acknowledge and value our relationships, which has the effect of rendering abuse in LGBTQ relationship invisible. Internalized homophobia is behind the reluctance of the LGBTQ community to recognize that intimate partner violence is an issue within our communities. The situation is complicated by the fact that the community is also very heterogeneous. What we have in common is a shared status of marginalization due to our gender or sexual orientation but we are divided by other factors such as race, class, First Nation status, religion, etc.. The result is a paucity of services and practices available to LGBTQ individuals who experience violence at the hand of their intimate partner.
There are few, if any, dedicated services. Mainstream services were derived to serve the need of heterosexual clients and are therefore not appropriate nor necessarily LGBTQ positive. There have been attempts by the LGBTQ community to develop community based, informal services and practices to address the issue but these are few and, due to a lack of funds and the nature of volunteer led initiatives, relatively short lived. The resulting cycle of abandonment and reinvention tends to ensure their perpetual under development. Probably the most successful of these initiatives have been the volunteer led community–based counselling and advocacy services. Community groups such as GPAP(Gay Partner Abuse Project) have organized a loose network of private homes that are willing to house gay men fleeing abusive partners for short periods of time. However, when acknowledged, intimate partner violence in LGBTQ relationships is most often dealt with through informal networks of concerned friends and family. The biggest exception is the professional practice of feminist counselling and mediation services, which are fee based but, true to the spirit of second wave feminism, often offer a small percentage of lower income clients geared to income services.