1. RESTORE1 RESTORE: Restorative Justice for Sexual Violence Sisco, M., Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., & Carlson, C. (2004, March 4)

2. RESTORE2 Project Affiliates Collaborators: Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault, the Pima County Attorney’s Office, the University of Arizona College of Public Health, and Washington and Lee School of Law Funding Agent: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49CCR921 709-01)

3. RESTORE3 Project Goals Allowing victim-focused intervention Creating offender accountability Correcting problems in the traditional response to sex offenses Preventing further violence

4. RESTORE4 Restorative Justice Restorative Justice Interventions focus on repairing the harm caused by crime. This harm impacts the victim and the community. -Existing applications: Community Courts, Sentencing Councils, Restitution Programs, Victim Impact Classes, Community Service. Fairness: 97% conferenced / 79% traditional (McCold & Wachtel,1998) Satisfaction: 90% conferenced/ 68% traditional (McGarrel, 2000)

5. RESTORE5 THE RESTORE PROCESS AIM OF RESTORE

6. RESTORE6 RESTORE Eligibility Both persons must: –Be fully competent –Consent to participate Responsible person MUST ACKNOWLEDGE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. Responsible person must not have: –been convicted of a felony within statute of limitations mandated by the state (AZ Statute 13-107) –committed interpersonal violence; past or present –used weapons or severe violence in current case –drugged the victim

7. RESTORE7 RESTORE: Overview Referral Preparation Conferencing Supervision Community Accountability Outcome

8. RESTORE8 Time Line Consent & Preparation Conference Supervision 1-3 months1 day12 months

9. RESTORE9 Traditional justice problems 1. Low rates of reporting: A recent study found only 2.1% of rapes reported to the police (Fisher et. al, 2003) 2. Low conviction rate for rape: 9.6% in 2000 in Pima County (Pima Co. Interagency council, 2001) 3. High rates of recidivism: 39% of rapists reoffended in 25 year period (Prentky et al., 1997) 4. Adversarial process perceived negatively by the victims with low moral satisfaction (Koss et al., in press)

10. RESTORE10 RESTORE vs. Traditional Crime violates people and relationships  Crime violates laws and the state The victim is central to defining harm  The victim is peripheral to the process Repairing social injury is the focus  One social injury (jail) replaces another (crime) Focus on responsibility and repair  Focus on blame and adversarial resolution Community is active  Community is abstractly represented by state Punishment encourages remorse, repairing victim, and improving offender’s law- abiding resources.  Punishment causes discomfort and separates from society

11. RESTORE11 Research Aims Aim 1- Theory-driven program evaluation of RESTORE and develop a logic model Aim 2- RESTORE’s impact on system case processing and recidivisim rate Aim 3- Outcome evaluation on sexual violence perpetration

12. RESTORE12 FOR MORE INFO... Call (520) 626-9511 or view http://restoreprogram.publichealth.arizona.edu/ http://restoreprogram.publichealth.arizona.edu/ Responsibility and Equity for Sexual Transgressions Offering a Restorative Experience

13. RESTORE13 Related Documents Bazemore, G. Principles of Restorative Justice. Presentation: July 25, 2001. Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 30 (1), 6-38. Frazier, P.A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628. Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., & Hopkins, C.Q. (2003). Restorative justice for sexual violence: Repairing victims, building community, and holding offenders accountable. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 384-306.

14. RESTORE14 Related Documents (continued) Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., Hopkins, C.Q., Carlson, C. (2004) Expanding a Community’s Justice Response to Sex Crimes through Advocacy, Prosecutorial, and Public Health Collaboration: Introducing the RESTORE program. (in press). Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., Hopkins, C.Q., Carlson, C. (2004) Justice responses to sexual assault: Lessons learned and new directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (in press). McCahill, T.W., Meyer, L.C., & Fischman, A.M. (1979). The aftermath of rape. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health. McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation. McGarrell, E.F. (2001). Restorative justice conference as an early response to young offenders (NCJ 187769). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S., Department of Justice.

15. RESTORE15 Related Documents (continued) McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2002). Restorative justice theory validation. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H. J. Kerner (Eds.) Restorative justice: theoretical foundations (pp. 110-142). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Pima County Interagency Council. (2001). Report Compiled by Pima County Attorney’s Office for PCIC. Tucson, AZ. Prentky, R.A., Lee, A.F., Knight, R.A., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: a methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior,21, 635- 659.

16. RESTORE16 Related Documents (continued) Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Research in Brief, Report Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Kalanj, B. (1994). Victim meets offender: The impact of restorative justice and mediation. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, Inc.