0 Comments
What a journey it has been this summer and early fall! RCI presented its summary of our work done in the local Allentown community—restorative practices (RP) training including basic RP skills and holding a variety of circles. The work was well received. We learned many things in the first "experiment" of taking RP to the streets. We learned location and timing are very important to people who may not travel by personal cars. We learned that celebrating and "breaking bread" together builds community and allows people to share what they have to offer. We learned helium balloons attract attention and that planning ahead for 6 weeks is hard when you live on the margins of the city. We summarized our top three learnings as: - Community means building relationships- working towards a trusted and safe space that looks for positive, proactive ideas and actions from diverse voices and parts of the community. -RP offered in the local community (neighborhood), as well as in schools/legal system and faith based groups, offers the foundation for problem solving skills, life giving - justice engaging ideas, and empowered actions. - We have found that, to have an influential and committed voice, facilitators need to be a part of the community (ecological validity/incarnational), not just the outside expert. (The Life World vs. The System World) Here are a few of the responses we received from the conference participants . . . “I loved the emphasis on the strengths that people with mental health issues bring.” “Something that I found helpful was seeing the ‘lessons learned’ being seriously considered for course correction.” “Something that I found helpful was that everyone who works with your group lives in the city.” “I wondered whether or not you will do this again—build on, refine, go forward.” “Something I found helpful was the honest appraisal and sharing from the presenters, their genuine concern for community members, and that they are living in this community.” Where do we go from here? We have recently obtained space for a centrally located RCI center at St Paul's parish house basement. The space will allow RCI to start a Materials Resource Center (MRC) in Allentown. It will also permit RCI to have a dedicated space to hold trainings, circles and conferences. We are hoping to begin the MRC in the next month as we work out set up and delivery issues. After the MRC has begun we plan to continue offering a place for relationship building and community outreach by offering RP circles and training in the Allentown community. We also need to continue to build the legal and internal structure of RCI. INFORMATION on the MRC The Material Resources Center in Ephrata, Pa., is a central collection point for items donated by people in the United States who are responding to requests for materials from MCC partners. Volunteering is central to the efforts of the Material Resources Center. The work of checking and packing kits, making comforters, hand-quilting heirloom quilts, and recycling and shipping is done through volunteer efforts. Ripple Community Inc. (RCI) is not the first or last grass roots urban organization to examine the value and attempt to integrate restorative practices in places of stress, struggle and disconnection. There have been numerous studies, both qualitative and quantitative research, that have applied these principles with varied success. This week I will look at a few articles and a short book and assess if there could be any application or direction for RCI to proceed, as we evaluate our summer 6-week restorative practice (RP) and chart our course for the future.
Walker (2009) uses the restorative circle as a means of reintegrating incarcerated men into the community in an attempt to promote desistance from crime. A key point in the intervention of this study involves rescripting of the subject’s story, not a focus on blame but that they “hold themselves responsible for the solution to the problems” (p.423). The reader is reminded that for successful reintegration people need a functional role in the community. I believe that this is one of the keys to RCI’s commitment to restorative practice (RP) –people need a function and purpose in community. The restorative circles had a powerful impact on those involved as people examined their strengths and had these qualities affirmed by those around them. The study was not focused on why the participants stayed crime free, but rather how. The study does not claim an experimental reduction in desistance but it indicates a clear increase in feelings of hope and optimism for the participants in the process. Swanson, Culliver and Summers (2007) examined the use of creating a faith-based community within a community in a maximum-security prison. The structure involved using circles for self-governance and provided rehabilitation based on increasing trust, accountability, and values based structure between inmates and officers. Again, no clear data indicated the model’s success in desistance but rather an overall improved climate of purpose and belonging for inmates and higher “functioning” rating by prison officials. Smith and Ross (2007) conducted a study that applied “mediation principles.” Training for parents was done on the principles of fair practice, discussing “what happened,” sharing feelings, and brainstorming possible alternative outcomes as parents intervened with their families of siblings ages 5-10. This study was designed to instruct the parents on mediation skills, and was focused on reducing sibling disputes. Extensive qualitative data collection and analyses indicated a significant increase in desirable resolutions and positive behavioral outcomes relating to sibling conflicts when mediation was applied. This study indicates not only the effectiveness of the application of mediation practices similar to RP, but that the methods and instruction does not have to be carried out by “professionals,” but can be effectively trained and managed by participants in the natural settings. Expanding the idea that RP is applicable not just among the professionals or those with more education is examined in Rader’s (2008) qualitative report that encourages an increase in “public space where oppressed and privileged people come together in conscious ways, to rebalance power relations and work together for social justice”(p.131). It is Rader’s belief that faith based organizations can build democracy, solidarity and understanding, rather than be a source of derision. The report details the Center for New Creation as it attempts to bring alternate possibilities and help people of differing races, incomes, educational backgrounds and genders to “struggle more authentically with the complexities” of community. New Creation found ways to work at honesty, and being in tension with each other rather than denying the differences. Some of the principles that were built on included seeing life through new lenses, respecting all people’s capabilities, taking time for self-reflection, and building on a collaborative approach. The outcome was one of a process of recognizing that all people are different and interconnected. The Center for New Creation finds that the biggest challenge and opportunity in their work is in the act of listening. In the Dialogue for Difficult Subjects (Schirch & Campt, 2007) a similar finding is in the focus on listening that moves to a meaningful dialogue – that results in improved by communication patterns, collective analysis and, finally, options for collaborative action. I have found inspiration, affirmation and challenges as I read through the research. I believe that the overwhelming amount of research supports the direction that RCI is moving in, engaging with a diverse group of people to instruct, explore and experience RP in an urban context. The research points to not only increased hope and satisfaction among people who apply and participate in these principles, but the changes in pro-social actions and decrease in social tension. The work is not easy and more research is needed, especially in replicable and sustainable RP training and implementation. The small successes that RCI experienced this summer came as we attempted to create two-way communication- listening and speaking, telling our stories, and listening to others’ stories. This vulnerability created human connections and brought balance into social, economic and political power, as we shared fellowship and accountability. I believe that the community that existed was a place that brought new possibilities towards reconnection and mutuality. How do we move forward from here? Rader (2008) reminds us that it is much more than good intentions. It takes “developing a culture of relationship, a caring about differences and a sense of collective empowerment and responsibility.” I would be interested in your thoughts, ideas and suggestions. Thanks for sticking with me through this journey. Tom Rader, V. (2008). Restoring right relations among privileged and poor people: a case study of the center for new creation. Contemporary Justice Review. 11, 31 153. Schirch, L. & Campt D. (2007). Dialogue for difficult subjects, a practical, hands-on guide. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Swanson, C., Culliver, G. & Summers, C. (2007). Creating a faith-based restorative justice community in a maximum security prison. Corrections Today. 69, 667. Smith, J. & Ross, H. (2007). Training parents to mediate sibling disputes affects children’s negotiation and conflict understanding. Child Development. 78, 790-805. Walker, L. (2009). Modified restorative circles: a reintegration group planning process that promotes desistance. Contemporary Justice Review. 12, 419-431. If we assume that all citizens have a part and responsibility in making our communities places of belonging then, “What is the role of our chosen or appointed leaders?” Peter Block (2008) sees their role as one of maintaining infrastructure, gift development, and empowerment. The leader is not the one we look to for “the answer,” but we look to our community and to our part in that for the new reality. There must be a shift, Block states, from the belief “ that something or someone is the problem and that the someone else needs to do something different before anything can get profoundly better,” to the more powerful question of, “What can I do to be a part in creating this better future?” This leads Block to refining the model of service for those in need to be redefined from “those people” or one of doing to or for but to serving people by welcoming them into our midst. Wachtel (2013), in his writing, Defining Restorative reviews the Social Discipline window as a tool of awareness to guide us from doing “to, for or not doing,” to being a proponent of high support and high expectations, or being “with” people. This is much more than a "why can’t we all get along” attitude. As Block describes, “We become related in a new way with those we are intending to help. This means we stop labeling others for their deficiencies and focus on their gifts”(Block, p. 60).
Block spends time in his book suggesting ways to bring about this shift. These methods include gathering and asking powerful questions. These questions engage, confront and invite people to co-create new possibilities. The importance of radical hospitality and the gift of invitation is highlighted as opening up a space for something new. And, finally, Block concludes with the simple, yet profound, need for defining space and the importance of removing power symbols and barriers to community and inviting a level playing field. Block intersperses his book with many short story examples of pockets of practice that follow his principles. These include from human service agencies that avoid a deficiency model of support to a health care professional who treats patients as valued and capable partners in health planning for life. It is unclear if these principles have been tested, studied, or researched in a quantitative or qualitative way. It is also not shown what the applications are beyond smaller groups of citizens practicing these ideas or what a larger scale model would look like. The restorative model has been explored in a wider application as outlined in Green, Johnson and Lambert’s (2013) work from Hull England reporting Hull’s attempt to incorporate Restorative Practice across a wide swath of the community and the intersections of education, law and government. Block leaves the reader to imagine creating “space for something new”(p. 116). Organizations, schools and faith-based groups seem to fear relational space and the unknown possibilities as they remove barriers, systems, and architectures of power. But the possibilities are evident as Block describes small groups of citizens applying these principles in their context. Block affirms that there is a place for the dissenter, as we ask the hard questions, and a place for doubts and reservations, but there is also a place for the promise of another way, one that values the gifts of all and helps us unlock each other’s unexpressed potential and commitments and that together may bring about a new and hope filled future. What do you think it would take to move towards a Restorative Community like the Hull UK model in our city? What do you think it would take as a starting point to form community based on gifts rather than deficiencies? Can service provider agencies even operate on this model? What would this look like? Block, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Bennet- Koehler Publications. Green, Simon; Johnstone, Gerry; Lambert, Craig. City of hull restorative questions Contemporary Justice Review. Dec2013, Vol. 16 Issue 4, p445-460. 16p. Wachtel, T. (2013) Defining Restorative. Paper presented at The 15th World Conference of the International Institute for Restorative Practices: Building a Worldwide Restorative Practices Learning Network, Bethlehem PA, USA. If I could choose a reference or guidebook for Ripple Community Inc.’s (RCI) leaders to discuss and use as an action model for RCI work, I would choose Peter Block’s Community, The Structure of Belonging, (2008). This book builds on the premise that our communities have become disengaged, that isolation and individualism have replaced the value of communities working together to address the issues we face, as humans gather to live and prosper. If you want to see dysfunction as people gather (I know it is for the shock factor to make good TV), watch Fox TV’s new show, Utopia. 15 people, who seem predisposed (or scripted) to hurt, divide and make life as miserable as it can be, are gathered under the promise of building a “utopian society.” I had been reading Block’s Community prior to curiously tuning into this dysfunctional reality show. I was faced with the thought, what an interesting comparison, in that both the book and the show are claiming to want to create a future distinct from the past. Utopia seems to reveal that humans revert to the lowest forms of behavior, flight or fight, while Block sets out a guide that asks us to imagine hope and creative problem solving as a way of giving voice to an alternative future. Block’s future is one in which there is a unity rather than fragmentation, divisiveness, and division between schools, businesses, health care providers, faith groups, and government.
Block’s book begins with the premise that we are defined by the story we tell. What we think and say is what we become. Block asks us to explore our narrative in a proactive stance, not by what is wrong with ours or others’ stories, but by what is possible. He questions how we can manifest our positive (sometimes hidden) qualities or gifts. This exploration or transformation from scarcity to abundance, Block claims, is most effectively done in the context of community. It seems that much of American culture values transformation as an individual quest and outcome. Block challenges us from his opening thought that our “. . . essential challenge is to transform the isolation and self –interest within our communities into connectedness and caring for the whole.” (Block, p 1). To do this we begin by 1) shifting our attention form the problem to the possibility. 2) Admitting we need more wisdom than we individually process – we need the wisdom of the group and 3) realizing and building the value of social capital. Block believes that communities come together and experience restoration when we ask, “what can we create together” (p. 47). He reminds us that this takes courage and engagement. Lupton (2011), in his book, Toxic Charity, makes a similar case, that, in some forms of service providing, without having those we help as part of the dialogue and present at the table, we are actually perpetuating our models of oppression and hindering people’s potential and opportunities. Block defines community as a group gathered around “a declaration of the future that we choose to live in”(p. 48). Block, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Bennet- Koehler Publications. Lupton, R. (2011). Toxic charity: how churches and charities hurt those they help New York, NY: HarperCollins. Thank you very much for joining the conversation. I am glad you are visiting the site. Your comments, observations and questions help direct our RCI work and there is wisdom in the group!
What is the opposite of love? It is not hate- it must be closer to apathy or fear- hate requires caring, or a passion; love requires investment and concern. I am concerned that our urban community has a growing sense of apathy and fear. When our neighborhood had a gang shooting, a neighbor was shot and his survival was uncertain. Our neighbors locked their doors, pulled the shades and considered finding a new place to live. Restorative Practices (RP) teach us through the Social Discipline window that when things are done “with” people, we can expect better (prosocial) or more creative outcomes than when we don’t care or when we do “for” or “to” people. Why is that? What do you think? What would happen if people had come out of their houses after harm had been done, sat on their porches, gathered in the local park or church to grieve, pray, wonder, share and provide strength to each other? Fear is a strong, paralyzing emotion. Many of you are aware of the conflict in the Ukraine and the death of all those on the Malaysian jetliner. An article in the paper said …“There are no easy answers …this crash is an example of what people do to others when driven by fear, extremism and hate.” Are there any answers, any possible ways to move other than fear and destruction? RP is one idea, technique and philosophy; it is a way that I hope will be a part of the solution. Maybe we cannot solve the international crisis in Ukraine/Russia, in the Middle East or Africa, but what about in our neighborhood, with our neighbor, or within our own family? Could we start there? This starting point is why Ripple Community Inc. (RCI) exists, to be a force for peace, caring and action in our time and our place. That is why we are teaching this RCI class - in hope to keep looking for ways to stop, interrupt or change the violence and discord in our city. I believe that we who are participating in RP are part of a larger vision, a movement, and an experiment, an action that could change this city. We have the potential for change – not because we have Neighborhood Improvement Zone (NIZ) dollars or power from the government, none of those ways succeed if there is not connection to people who care to see the larger picture. We need to be able to listen to the pain, brokenness and needs in peoples lives and talk about ways to make things right when wrong has been done. We need each other. No one is a part of RCI who is not an important part of our community, neighborhood and city. Together we can do great things, amazing things. We can listen, we can let our story out and share that power of listening and let creative problem solving happen. Too often we think about all we do not have, what I am not good at, but RP says you have something that you know, something that others can benefit from, are you willing to be a part by sharing your gift? I would like to ask and listen to each of you share your knowledge, skills, care for children, knowledge of history, the way you survive on a few dollars a day, and how to be a friend. If we don’t find a new path, more innocent people will be hurt by hate and will lose their lives, wherever they may live. Of course there are no easy answers, but that doesn’t mean we should stop looking. I am hoping you will engage this topic… how can we keep this RCI idea alive? How can we bring people back into community, so that those who have been hurt and those who have hurt are all part of us and every person has something to bring to the table? That man who was shot out in front of our house lived. One Sunday he showed up at RIPPLE, his posture bent and pain in his eyes, but determined to walk using a walker. He said, “I heard you all were praying for me. I wanted to see you and tell you I was one of those who hurt people, too. But now I want to be a person who tells others how to live right and stop this killing.” That is what RCI is about--caring enough to act in small ways that can make a big difference. - I am wondering what commitments you hold that bring you to this site and what it is about you and the gifts you hold that may be valuable to this community. -What would it take, when harm has been done in our neighborhoods, for people to come out of their houses, sit on their porches, gather in the local park (perhaps around the Ripple Peace Pole in Franklin Park) or church to grieve, pray, wonder, share and provide strength and hope to each other? -How can we bring people back into community, those who have been hurt and marginalized and those who have hurt others? Will the community benefit if “they” are all part of “us”? Do you believe this can happen and is it worth the effort? Next week I will be blogging about a book that explores some of these questions …Community, the Structure of Belonging, by Peter Block. The final week of Ripple Community Inc. (RCI) Restorative Practices classes, and what an experience it has been! We all have learned, shared, listened, made mistakes, enjoyed good food, experienced fellowship and formed community. This gathering has been a group effort with many people giving of their time and sharing their gifts. We have had our ups and downs and have come to this week of review, reflection and celebration with gratitude.We are thankful for the many people who have come to learn how RP can bring positive outcomes into their lives and in our urban neighborhoods. We dedicate this first graduating class celebration to our RCI leader John Bender who has been experiencing some serious health issues and was not able to attend. Here was our plan for the day…. RIPPLE COMMUNITY INC. RP GRADUATION 12:00-12:30 Welcome- Introduction-check in -Ben Gathering, , review of what we have covered- Angela, Sherri 12:30-12:45 Thoughts and Encouragements From Not to With - Tom A Word from IIRP Founder and President -Ted Wachtel Presenting the Graduates-- RCI board member Samantha- Jan B., Sheri D., Angeliky S. Presenting Certificates – Grads’ responses …What were you thinking? What are you thinking now? Carolyn 12:45-1PM All- Check out question- What is one idea or encouragement you have for RCI as we move forward? - Ben 1:00- 2:00 Lunch/fellowship – Prayer- directions – Carolyn/Fannie Our group was our largest yet with a mission team from Eastern Mennonite Missions attending, people arriving as the meeting progressed, and the circle enlarging as time progressed. Many people, who had attended occasionally, were present, and we had invited graduates and others to bring a friend, which they did! I think that this returning of occasional attenders and the presence of friends speaks to the value and connections that people have made by attending these sessions. As I listened to the wisdom of the group in the check out questions, I heard people saying that there was a value that they had experienced in gathering. More than one person expressed the value of the skill of listening and shared a situation that that they had handled in a more restorative way because of what they had learned about RP in the group. Others in the group shared the hope that the future could hold a different way of engaging conflict. More than one person told us that the six weeks of classes were too drawn out and that, perhaps, a weekend session or two might be better. Some people helped us see that the time and location conflicted with other places people needed to be for lunch (soup kitchen) or other commitments. Overall, there was a palpable sense of “withness.” All of us around this circle are in this together and for the good of our community and ourselves. There were three women who completed the commitment of attending 5/6 of the sessions. I was concerned there may have been negative feelings, since some people missed “graduation” by a week or two. There were no ill feelings expressed, and a few of the group asked if they could “make up a week” and graduate later. The group celebrated their accomplishments, and Ted Wachtel encouraged RCI to try RP in diverse and varied settings. He shared that he had connections to Allentown and that people are watching what we are doing. -What other forms could RCI take to help people experience RP in an engaging, neighborhood context? Does it have to be in sessions? Can we offer the ability to come along side of people when they are in need? -What ways can you think of to offer both RP in experience and in process? -Please share your thoughts/feelings about the graduation experience? NOTE: I will continue to post here for the next month... next week I will include some of my thoughts to the graduates and our RCI group then I will share some input from others readings and research that I am reviewing. Thank you for being on apart of this online group. I really appreciate your visiting, reading and responding. Tom I usually post on a Tuesday but with school beginning this week I wanted to post on the weekend. I hope this post finds you all well. Thanks for visiting the site your input is valued! Tom Week five at the Ripple Community Inc. (RCI), Restorative Practices (RP) Community Training - New participants continue to join the group. There is a core group of 4-5, as well as participants whom we see occasionally (maybe they have come to 2-3 gatherings). Last week we introduced the formal restorative circle, and the group watched the “Burning Bridges” video. Today we stayed together as a large group of about 20 people in the circle and reviewed the restorative questions for both the victim and the offender. A group role-play was held, everyone in the group was an assigned a role in the chosen scenario of harm. This formal RP circle was well received. Participants quickly entered into the interaction, creatively approached their roles and interacted with the restorative questions. This exercise resulted in comments such as, “This could change the way people get along in my house,” “The court system does not work like this and allow for the victims to have their say,” and, “I wish I had been able to have a circle after my son’s murder.” It was clear that people had taken the circle seriously and, even after “disrobing” from our roles, some people kept wanting to go deeper into the process of reconnecting with the possible “ways to make things right.” It seems difficult for people to talk about the RP process in theory. The group discussion focus is more on the particular topic and their experience with harm than on the ways to address harm in a restorative way. The leaders continue to discuss the possibilities for more opportunities to experience RP rather than just learn about RP. Some of the discussion around last week’s blog post centered on this topic: “Is there a more effective way to train people who do not have extensive academic background?” Is a more engaging method of introducing RP simply to offer as many opportunities to engage in compassionate witnessing, fair process, informal/formal circles and active listening opportunities? The fellowship time continues to be a place where leadership skills are shown, grace and dignity abound, and relationships are built. Our food spread this week was varied and abundant, as the snack leader shared her experience of putting the snack together. Coupons, food banks, kitchen cabinets and local stores were searched for a variety of items to make a bountiful spread. Even the walking journey to get the food to our meeting hall was not easy without a personal car. A few condiments were forgotten at home ,but all was appreciated and enjoyed by the group. A sense of being able to provide for others and coordinate in the planning brings a restorative aspect or space. So often in the city, the scenario is replayed where people are done “for” or “to,” rather than the opportunity to share and be “with” as a co-member, valued citizen or even leader in the community. How did you experience the snack and fellowship time? Was this time meaningful and should we continue with having that as part of RP functions? One of the concerns expressed by some of the leaders is the time requirements needed to hold, gather and prepare the number of participants to hold a formal restorative circle. How would RCI gain or gather the resources to be able to facilitate formal conferences? What training or practice do you feel you still need in order to hold a restorative conference? As we approach the final week, are there any topics that stand out to you or that you wish we could discuss in this forum?
Week 3 – We are at the midpoint in Ripple Community Inc.’s (RCI) community training in restorative practices- 6 participants attended. 2 dropped off the snacks that they had prepared (ring bologna and cheese), then left to help a friend. One arrived halfway through, was not feeling well, and was unable to participate. After check in and a review of the group norms, we reviewed the Social Discipline Window, Compass of Shame and Affect Ladder. Today is our final day focusing on listening skills- we have spent a great deal of time on compassionate listening. Our leadership team of seven, made up of volunteers from RCI, Ripple church and those on the RCI board of advisers, led by John Bender, had been meeting for over three months planning this training for the community. The team was in agreement that listening is a foundational, if not a prerequisite skill, for RP. If you cannot listen with empathy and compassion, it is probable you will not be able facilitate or even be an active participant in the circles of restoration. Our compassionate listening was done in one larger circle of about 10 people. One participant, usually quiet and not a typical volunteer, quickly asked if she could share her story – a story of a difficult situation, isolation and trauma. The story quickly shifted from the surface story to a deeper context of pain, shame and exclusion. There was a sense of togetherness and even healing, as she shared the story and exhibited a much greater openness in her body language (smiles, eye contact and sitting up) and positive verbal responses filled with hope and laughter. The possibilities for healing by being able to share our stories and be heard continue to amaze me. The shift often seems to be from isolation and shame to community and hope. Do you agree that listening is a prerequisite skill to facilitating restorative practices? Why or why not? Our numbers where small again today, we strongly encouraged the couple who brought the snacks to stay, but they felt their priorities were in other places. How might we better understand the priority setting of the participants? Is there a way to bring these issues out from under the table to above the table? The leaders intentionally encouraged participants to help provide snacks for our fellowship time after the sessions. It was thought that this action encourages being “with” each other, even if only a small snack or a portion of it was provided. It seems like this provided the ability to serve, share and provide dignity to the participants. Do you think this is a practice that we should continue or modify? Any thoughts on the shift that occurred in the woman’s story today? Why do you think she left with a heavy weight lifted off her shoulders? |
Archives
October 2016
Categories
Cool Links
|
Restorative Practices-Ripple in Allentown
Building community around the idea and actions of Restorative Practices (RP)- RP is a way to build relationships and relate to others by doing things with people rather to or for them. At Ripple Community Inc. we are in a process of living the philosophy and action that restores human connections in an increasingly disconnected world.