Here is the audio of David Whetstone and me talking this morning on WPFW’s “Community Watch & Comment” show in Washington, DC. The topic was my book, We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For. The segment begins about 9:40 on this clip, after the morning news.
The post talking about We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For on WFPW appeared first on Peter Levine.
Today we’d like to feature a great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, Strategic Planning for Sustainability in Dauphin Island. This mini case study was submitted by Dr. R. Warren Flint of Five E’s Unlimited via NCDD’s Dialogue Storytelling Tool (add YOUR dialogue story today!).
Title of Project:
Strategic Planning for Sustainability in Dauphin Island
Description
I was contracted to design and facilitate a long-term strategy and implementation plan (more here) to create a more resilient community able to balance economic development with environmental protection and conservation. I facilitated planning meetings that included the public, the Town Planning Comm., the U.S. EPA’s Mobile Bay NEP, the NOAA Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Program, and state/county agencies toward designing a strategic planning process to achieve sustainable community goals, adhering to NEPA guidelines and the protection of threatened species. I assisted the community in identifying how strategic planning process could better inform the Island’s Comprehensive Plan and enhance future community resiliency.
The results of this strategic planning process emphasized major issues such as water conservation, community behavior changes related to climate change strategies, including energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, eco-tourism programs, rising sea level, protection of pristine coastal environments, diverse land-use strategies, and the general assessment of best uses for existing community assets (capital) to achieve long-term community resiliency.
The project planning activities developed both short- and long-term strategies for these issues and more. This project was recognized as a finalist in the International Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) 2009 Project of the Year Award. The international recognition by IAP2 on pages 8 and 67 in the above linked report acknowledged the diversity of environmental, social, and economic issues addressed, as well as the project’s promotion of the IAP2 Core Values in public participation.
Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?
Open Space / Unconference, Study Circles, World Cafe, Appreciative Inquiry, Public Conversations Project dialogue, Technology of Participation approaches, Future Search, Charrettes and Deliberative Polling
What was your role in the project?
Project director; Primary facilitator; Process design specialist
What issues did the project primarily address?
Lessons Learned
Where to learn more about the project: www.eeeee.net
Last Wednesday, NCDD hosted its April 2014 Confab Call with featured guests Matt Leighninger and Mike Smith talking about the innovative project known as Text Talk Act. If you missed the confab and are interested in learning more, you can now listen to the entire conversation — or look over the collaborative document participants created during the Confab Call — at the links below.
As part of our role in the National Dialogue on Mental Health project Creating Community Solutions, NCDD and our partners have been experimenting with how the fun and convenience of text messaging can be leveraged to scale up face-to-face dialogue — especially among young people.
The first round of Text Talk Act took place on December 5, and round two is coming up on April 24 (and we hope you’re planning to participate!). Here’s what you can do to learn more…
You can also learn more about NCDD’s Confab Calls and other events (including our upcoming National Conference in Reston, VA) in our Event Section.
Creating Community Solutions is pleased to announce that we’ve teamed up with Active Minds, Lady Gaga’s Born This Way Foundation, and our other partners (NCDD is one of them) to identify some fantastic young people across the U.S. who will be helping organize Text Talk Act events in their communities.
We asked them to send us selfies, and you can check out their brief bios here.
Hopefully you already know all about Text Talk Act from our previous postings and recent confab call on the project, but in case you don’t, Text Talk Act is an innovative event taking place on April 24th (next Thursday). Thousands of people across the country will participate by (1) getting together in small groups of 4 or 5 people and (2) texting into 89800 to get polling questions and discussion questions sent to them by text.
In other words, this is texting-enabled face-to-face dialogue. We’re experimenting with how the fun and convenience of text messaging can be leveraged to scale up face-to-face dialogue — especially among young people. And we hope all of you are planning to take part!
Learn more about Text Talk Act here, and sign up today.
NCDD is part of the collaboration running the Creating Community Solutions national dialogue effort aimed at tackling mental health issues in our communities, along with these other NCDDers: National Institute for Civil Discourse, Everyday Democracy, National Issues Forums Institute, AmericaSpeaks and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium. Check out all of our previous posts on Creating Community Solutions here.
Cynicism is generally thought to be a bad thing. It’s not even generally qualified as good in certain contexts. Healthy skepticism maybe be acceptable, but healthy cynicism seems an aberration, a contradiction in terms.
A skeptic thinks carefully and critically, gathering information before passing judgement.
A cynic may have been a skeptic at one point, but a cynic has reached his conclusion. Whether through astute observation, detailed analysis of data, or simply a gut feeling based on no evidence whatsoever – a cynic has embraced a lack of hope, a lack of faith in humanity, and has come to the conclusion that nothing is to be done.
A skeptic worries that humanity’s worst nature will surface.
A cynic accepts that it will.
You can see, perhaps, why cynicism is so frowned upon. Skepticism leaves room for hope – it accepts that the world is not perfect and there is much to be done. Cynicism crushes that hope with a stark assurance that life will always be hard, broken, and imperfect.
But is cynicism so bad, really?
What if life really will always be hard, broken, and imperfect? Is it better to accept that fact or to cling with grim hope to dreams of a better tomorrow?
A cynic would accept it gladly, Better to embrace the hard truth than a comforting lie.
A skeptic and others more optimistic might dismiss the question outright. The question is a false one, they would argue – it doesn’t matter what is best in an immovable world, because the fact is that things do change. Sometimes they change for the better and sometimes they change for the worse.
And as long as you accept the inevitability of change, you hold on to a glimmer of hope. No matter how broken or unjust you think the world is, no matter how much damage you’ve seen man inflict on man, if you have hope, then the worst you can be is skeptical.
A cynic, they would claim, knows better.
This post comes from Beyond the Polls, a joint blogging initiative from Public Agenda, the National Issues Forums Institute, and the Kettering Foundation – all of which are NCDD organizational partners. We hope you’ll take moment to read about the latest insights they’ve gained from recent polls on opinions about government, which you can read below or find here.
What does it mean when fewer than 1 in 5 Americans say they are satisfied with the federal government? Over the last few years, survey researchers have fielded dozens of questions that seem to show the public’s contempt for the federal government.
In a Pew poll last year, just 12 percent of Americans said they were “basically content” with the federal government, while 30 percent were angry about it, and 55 percent were frustrated. Just 19 percent of the public says it trusts the government in Washington to do what is right most of the time. It’s a stunning number. When Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were in office, that number was above 70 percent.
But if so many Americans are so dismissive of government, then why were so many of us appalled by the government shutdown last fall? Is this just further proof that Americans will happily indulge in anti-government rhetoric, but that they really like government and what it does for them? Or are there more complex and consequential questions lying beneath the surface—questions that deserve much more careful analysis and discussion?
Here is a quick tour of some of what lies beneath.
The fact is that public attitudes about government are mixed, multi-faceted, and to some degree unresolved. What’s more, Americans’ lack of resolution about what government can and cannot do — and what it should and should not do — lies at the very heart of debates on the economy, the budget, health care, education, and other key issues.
“Americans’ lack of resolution about what government can and cannot do — and what it should and should not do — lies at the very heart of debates on the economy, the budget, health care, education, and other key issues.”
This comes through clearly in the recent Public Agenda/Kettering Foundation work on curbing health care costs. Some people in our focus groups opposed and feared government action to contain costs, while others saw government as an institution that could help protect patients from insurers or providers who got greedy.
When surveys show Americans voicing disdain for government, it’s easy to jump to dramatic, but misleading conclusions—that large swaths of Americans want to roll back long-standing federal programs or that people always prefer local or private sector solutions for the problems we face.
In some very important respects, public dissatisfaction is real, and that’s worrisome. But there’s also ample evidence that most Americans want government to play an effective role in solving the country’s problems, even though many haven’t fully sorted out their expectations or priorities.
Our view is that opinion research should lead to more than sloganeering and hand wringing. It should point us to topics and themes that we as a people need to talk about and think through together. In this case, polls suggest that the U.S. is in dire need of a more detailed and far less categorical discussion about what we expect from the government and what costs and trade-offs we’re willing to accept to make it work.
Beyond the Polls is a joint endeavor of Public Agenda, the National Issues Forums, and the Kettering Foundation. Sign up to receive an email update when we have a new Beyond the Polls post.
Conversations on Participatory Democracy
Innovative democratic professionals are encouraging greater participation in some of our most fundamental institutions, yet what they are doing is rarely the focus of political theory, social science research, or what politicians talk about when they are talking about renewing American democracy. The conversations in this series aim to shed light on new democratic practices taking shape and to find out more about the dynamic people involved.
Lauren Abramson is the founder of the Community Conferencing Center in Baltimore, which helps people handle problems on their own instead of turning them over to the formal criminal justice system. We talked recently about the motivations that drive her work, the barriers she has faced, and the pathways that can lead to culture change in the U.S.
Albert Dzur: Let’s start at the beginning: how did you get involved in community conferencing in criminal justice?
Lauren Abramson: My doctorate is in neuroscience and animal behavior and I was for a long time studying how emotions affect health and illness. I have also always been interested in working in communities. I grew up in Detroit and became very imprinted on rust belt cities and close neighborhoods like the one I grew up in. So when I moved to Baltimore in 1990 I started working through my faculty appointment at Johns Hopkins in a community mental health program that was working to build on-site mental health services at Head Start agencies. So I had these two parallel tracks and interests: doing community based mental health work and doing more basic research in biology about how emotions affect our health and illness.
In 1994, I was at a conference in Philadelphia of the Silvan Tomkins institute. Silvan Tomkins was a mentor of mine. He was just brilliant in understanding that what motivates human beings is our emotions. So at this conference there was an Australian talking about community conferencing work they were doing where they bring together victims and the young offenders and their family members. They all sit in a circle and they get a chance to say how they were affected by what happened and they figure out how to make it right. I thought, “Wow, this is a way for people to be healthy emotionally with each other, and not necessarily in an office with a professional. I could take this back to Baltimore and bring it back to the neighborhoods. I could merge my two interests.” A light bulb went off. So the next year, in 1995, the folks from Australia came and did their first training in community conferencing in Pennsylvania and from then on I was just hooked by the power of this process.
I have worked in behavioral medicine clinics where people have all sorts of physical ailments stemming from ways they have not been able to really be emotional and really express how they feel. If you back up your anger or if you are afraid all the time then you get heart problems or jaw problems or gut problems. I really believe that we need to be emotional with each other in ways that are helpful—not in the Jerry Springer kind of way.
Lauren Abramson: Better Justice from PopTech on Vimeo.
AD: So your academic interest in emotional well-being ties into the community work.
LA: Definitely. I think that it has also very much informed how we do this work. We have kept it grounded in how important the emotional piece of it is. In this country especially we tend to put a damper on people’s emotions. Because we understand that being able to express emotion is fundamental to effective conflict transformation, we do a fair amount of training with our facilitators to allow for emotional expression–so long as participants keep it focused on their own experience. We want to maximize the facilitators’ comfort level with people expressing strong emotions, so they don’t also become part of the “emotion damper brigade” that is so much a part of American culture.
AD: What are some of the barriers you face when you are trying to develop this alternative structure? You have made a distinction between black robe justice and community justice. Is this a barrier—that we have become dependent upon black robe justice?
LA: I think we have been imprinted with this sense that black robe justice is the only real way to do justice. So we have created all sorts of institutions around having other people—experts—resolve our conflicts for us. It comes back to Nils Christie’s point about conflicts as property. This whole structure—police, courts, lawyers, social services, etc.—has taken ownership of our conflicts and they do not want to give it up. This is true on both ends. They do not want to give it up and they have created this sense in people that they are the only true purveyors of this product. We get people who say, “No, this kid’s got to go to court. He’s got to go to jail.” And we will say, “Have you ever been to court?” (because many people have); and then we ask, “How did that work out for you?” Then when they think about how it worked out for them it was often a terrible experience. But sometimes they still want to go back. So we say, “Well, look, if you try community conferencing and it doesn’t work you can still always go to court.”
AD: Tell me more about how your conversation goes with someone who is a good candidate for community conferencing but is initially reluctant.
LA: Let’s say somebody’s car was stolen and they are so upset. You say, “It sounds like you’ve been really affected by this. Would you like a chance to tell the people who stole your car how this has affected you? Keep in mind that if you go to court you’re not going to get that chance. And this meeting would also give you a chance to be able to decide what can be done to make this right. Is that something you’d like to try?”
AD: You’re not saying it is either/or. People can always take the formal black robe route if they want.
LA: Absolutely. They have that flexibility.
To get back to the question of the current status quo, from the institutional end there sometimes this inertia that a bureaucracy’s main function becomes to sustain itself. They do not want to give up too many cases or it would look like they are not needed anymore.
AD: They will give up some cases to community conferencing but not others.
LA: Well they tend to initially want to give up the cases that bug them—that they do not want to deal with—which a lot of the times are either very minor cases, or cases with which they tend to have little success but which tend to be complicated at their root—such as neighbors taking out peace orders on each other.
We will take shoplifting for community conferencing, but we do not take the one where the kid was arrested for “unlawfully propelling his bicycle down the sidewalk.” That becomes a net-widening issue. We do not want most of those young people in the system to begin with. So we do not want to create a space for even more people to be engulfed by the system. We do not believe those cases should be in the system anyhow so we are not going to take them.
You know the system we have is fairly costly. Interestingly, it is extremely hard to get any numbers from them about what it really costs them to handle a case.
AD: Different people have different pieces of the budget.
LA: Everyone’s got different pieces. Then there are these buildings that you are sustaining and the lawyers and the bailiffs and the all the ancillary people to handle the paperwork and it is very hard to get the real costs of all this. Conservatively, we think that what we do costs about one tenth of going to court. In Maryland, our department of juvenile services has a $270 million budget. They give us not a penny.
AD: $270 million just for juveniles?
LA: Yes. And they use most of that budget, a significant majority of that budget, for kids in what they call the deep end of the system, which is detention.
But the whole reason why we have a separate juvenile system is there is a belief that we should be doing something different with young people than we do with adults. What are we doing, though, is we are just creating a huge younger system of jail.
AD: Your point about budgets speaks to the question of how to improve general awareness of alternative structures like community conferencing. Can you get traction with an economic argument?
LA: Well the Maryland judiciary has been incredibly responsive to that argument, even though the juvenile justice system is not. For 15 years the Maryland judiciary has been one of our most consistent and best funders. They recognize that the adversarial system is not the be all and end all. Our courts are getting clogged up with many cases for which the adversarial system is probably not the best approach. So the Maryland judiciary has been incredibly progressive in funding what they call ADR: “Appropriate Dispute Resolution.” Some people call it, “Alternative Dispute Resolution.” The judiciary actually has a branch under it called a MACRO which is the Maryland Mediation And Conflict Resolution Office and they have funds to support alternative ways of delivering justice. This is a fantastic model for the rest of the country.
AD: So you have some support from the judiciary that you are not finding with the juvenile justice people administering and maintaining detention centers.
LA: That’s correct.
AD: It sounds like a real barrier to alternative structures if people are trying to preserve their bureaucratic niche.
LA: Yes. I do not know if it is a lack of vision. It is not a lack of money. But they cannot figure out a way to not spend all that money on 5 percent of young people who are causing some serious issues. Those young people really do need attention, but the juvenile justice folks are using 90 percent of their budget on that 5 percent of young people. Other states have found their way out of that, but in Maryland we still haven’t figured out a way to do that, despite countless legislative hearings and department “gap analyses” over the past 20 years focusing on these very issues.
AD: We have been talking about public awareness of a different track for approaching criminal justice. I have been troubled and puzzled by how the U.S. can be the world champion incarcerator—to use Nils Christie’s terms—and wonder if one possibility is that we do not really want to look too closely at our prisons and juvenile detention centers. We sense there is some kind of problem over there, but it is not really our problem to deal with.
LA: I would suggest we do that with a lot of things. Look at how we turned our backs on what the banking industry was doing during the savings and loan scandal. We turn our backs on so many things.
AD: That is true, but what I am getting at is whether public reluctance to get involved with a morally difficult problem makes it difficult for people who are working in these alternative ways. How do you break through that?
LA: Yes, that is a big question. I think it is useful to look at what has happened in other countries. Even in Australia, where there is a fair amount of restorative justice—and where they really lead the way in many respects. But there was not a huge breakthrough until a few very well-publicized cases went horribly wrong through the retributive system and people realized there could be another way that could have prevented that. I think sometimes as human beings we need something that does go horribly wrong to wake people up.
And still, another huge factor is the profit to be gained from the increasing privatization of prisons. Look, in Florida there is a university that has one of its football stadiums named after a corporation—you know how corporations can name the stadiums? Well at this Florida university it is named after a private prison company! Their name is on the football stadium! What is it going to take for people to wake up and see that there is also a huge profit motive behind mass incarceration? Of course there is also the racializationof mass incarceration—as illustrated by books like The New Jim Crow and others. But there is also the profit aspect. The law in Arizona allowing police to stop people to find out if they had identification, and arrest them if they did not, was written by a lobbying group hired by the private prison industry. That law was written so that more people would be put in prison.
AD: Profit is a pretty significant barrier to alternative structures isn’t it?
LA: I think it is. And so at this point the bigger question is when are we going to wake up to the fact that the one percent of the people in our country is determining a great deal about how our society is run so that they can benefit from it.
AD: Let’s finish this conversation with a question on how to grow the program. You have talked about restorative justice in schools last time. Where does this work well?
LA: Education is starting to embrace this in a big way, which is so encouraging. The use of what is now termed “restorative practices” in school may surpass the criminal justice system in using it. There is a whole movement of restorative practices in schools that has come into more prominence in the wake of the failure of post-Columbine zero tolerance policies. We went through this phase in education of these zero tolerance policies, meaning: we will not tolerate any of this, and this, and this, and if you do any of it you get kicked out.
We were not allowing young people to make mistakes. Because if they did make a mistake they were kicked out of the kingdom. And so that created more problems because when kids are suspended they are way more likely to get arrested.
So schools around the county are using restorative practices in schools. It is hearteningly prevalent here and across the world.
AD: Some schools seem to really “get” restorative justice while others do not. Can you say more about what makes the difference in the schools you work with?
LA: It depends on what you value and creating an approach based on those values. There are still educators who feel that students should be seen and not heard. They should listen and we should deposit information into their heads and we should test them and extract that information out to see how much they got. That pedagogy was created at the turn of the last century, and it was designed to create a pool of good factory workers. We live in a very different world now, though. Our current world economy is going to require people to get along and to think for themselves. That will require us to value the importance of connection and relationships as it relates to learning.
Students learn best from people they like and respect and when they feel supported and understood and heard. Then they feel better about themselves and they are better able to learn. And if they make mistakes then we understand that to be part of being human. We have a fair way to engage the people involved in harmful behavior: to let everybody have a voice, and provide them with a way to figure out how to repair the harm, and to learn how to do it differently so it doesn’t happen in the future. That is very different than “Shut up and if you act out we will punish you and expel you.”
AD: A school where students are being treated with respect in their classrooms, where their voice is being heard already, that school is a good host for the kind of restorative justice conference you see as valuable.
LA: well, the proof is in the pudding; and there is a huge body of research and anecdotal evidence that restorative practices in schools not only results in lower absenteeism and suspensions, but also in significant increases in instructional time, academic performance, and job satisfaction for teachers!
AD: Restorative justice that really works in a school is a widespread set of practice and attitudes, not an isolated program.
LA: Yes, but it can be implemented in pieces, or it can be embraced to establish an entire restorative school culture. There are some schools that can just adopt a few things that are restorative, like maybe they agree that every week in every class there is going to be a circle where students can talk about things that are important to them. That is not the whole school, but they are beginning to implement something where students have a voice and where there can be this sense of respect and responsibility.
AD: You and your colleagues meet from time to time with principals and teachers about restorative justice. There must be some meetings where you come out and you are in the parking lot and you shake your head and say, “This just isn’t going to work here.”
LA: Let’s not forget that we are asking people to do things differently from how they’ve been done for years and decades. It is not easy to change direction overnight. When there are people in leadership positions in the school who want to do it and they are willing to engage the rest of the adults in doing this in a respectful way then our job is easier. Changing a culture, however, is a bit like trying to turn around a freighter with a rowboat. It takes a fair amount of patience along with equal parts of tenacity.
AD: I am trying to figure out what you hear from people that makes you think it can work at a particular school or makes you think it will be difficult there.
LA: We’ve seen it work; and that’s incredibly inspiring. Still, if you come to a school that is run by a principal who is former military and he clearly believes that we need a lot of structure but that the support piece is not that important and he thinks we just have to have kids acting right and not speaking out, not believing that young people should have a voice, then that will be a tough place place to start this kind of work.
AD: And, on the other side, the times you were in the parking lot and you think, “Wow that was a really good meeting,” what are you hearing from your conversations with those principal and teachers?
LA: That there is leadership in that school who is saying, “Oh this is exactly what we need to make this a high quality learning environment. We really believe that we need the adults in this school to feel more connected with our students in order for them to learn better. We believe that they need structure but we also believe they need support—because these kids are going through a lot and they need to have a voice—and this approach can give us the tools to actually work day to day, moment to moment, making those connections so that kids can learn better.”
AD: You drew the picture of the disciplinarian who sees the restorative justice program as targeted only to disciplinary issues.
LA: They wouldn’t even probably be interested in the restorative approach
AD: Right, but they are saying, “I’ve got these problem kids acting out, I’ve got graffiti, so I need a program. I’m going to call up Lauren Abramson and she’s going to give us a way to fix our problem.” That’s one attitude. The other perspective you illustrated is one that views it as a part of the learning process: “This is going to help us learn better.” These people see restorative justice as integrated into the learning environment.
LA: For sure. Restorative practices includes ways to be proactive about building a culture of connection and engagement, and ways to be responsive to harmful behavior in ways that are fair, inclusive, and give voice to everyone involved. It’s doing with, not for, or to. Consider a foursquare grid with two axes. On the X axis there’s support and on the Y axis—the vertical axis—there’s structure. If you have high structure but low support that is the punitive approach: you are doing to the kids. If you have low structure and high support that is permissive: you are doing it for them. If you have low support and low structure you are basically neglecting them,: you are not doing anything. But if you have high structure and high support that’s the restorative approach: you are doing it with them.
AD: Can you say more about what you mean by structure?
LA: Simple classroom circles have a structure: Students sit in a circle, they can discuss things that are important to them, everyone has a chance to speak and everyone has a chance to listen, and the group can collectively decide how to address any issues that come up. That’s a structure. A community conference is a structure to have a conversation. Part of that structure would be that we have these three main questions: What happened? How were you affected by what happened? What can you do to repair the harm and make sure it doesn’t happen again? We sit in a circle. The structure is everybody’s going to get a chance to speak and everyone will get a chance to listen. That is a huge piece. The structure is we are going to include everybody who is involved and affected by this. The structure is when you get caught with the box cutter it is not just you, but we talk to you and find out what is going on here. The question is what has happened and you tell us before the conference that you have been getting beat up by the same four kids for the last three months. So we get those kids into the circle because they are part of what is going on here.
AD: You would classify the conference as high structure.
LA: Yes. And high support. You know, it is also high structure to punish, to say “Look, you brought this box cutter. That is unacceptable and is suspendable under the code of conduct and you’re going to be out of school for twenty five days.” This is a different kind of high structure, but there is no support behind it.
AD: What part of the conferencing is supportive?
LA: You get to bring people in your life you care about and who care about you. Everybody, even the bully, brings someone they would like to have sitting with them.
And the other supportive piece, ultimately, is for this group to collectively figure out, not how to punish the harmdoer, but how to move forward so this does not happen again and how to repair the harm that has been done. There were some girls who bullied these two other girls and they broke one of the girl’s eye socket. The parents agreed to pay the medical bills and the girls who bullied her said, “We want to create a presentation about what happened to us. Let’s go to different schools and tell them about the story of what happened here. It’s over now, we’re done.”
This kind of thing happens all the time. People who have not encountered this sometimes have a hard time realizing it, but when people make decisions for themselves for how to make this better, that this often becomes a source of incredible support.
AD: Telling those stories could have a cumulative effect on public awareness about how useful alternative structures are.
Community Conferencing in Inner-City Baltimore: Juvenile Justice, Schools & Neighborhoods from Community Conferencing Center on Vimeo.
LA: Well that is the other thing I thought about when you asked what is going to change this—is the fact that we have always done this work believing that stories are what shape our culture. And we want people out there telling the good stories about how they have resolved their own conflicts and crimes.
For this reason, we do not have blanket confidentiality agreements forbidding people to talk about their experience. Instead, before they leave the circle they decide for themselves how they want to treat what was discussed at the conference. Sometimes they agree to keep it all in the circle. Sometimes they agree to tell anyone who asks that “it’s over, we resolved it really well, and I’m not going to talk about it with you.” Other times people want to go out and share their experience with others, like the bullies and those who were bullied deciding to do presentations at other schools about what happened and how they resolved it. We do not want to prevent them from telling good stories. That is how our culture changes.
AD: Sometimes people probably say “Well I’d rather you not say what I told you about so and so…”
LA: Yes, and sometimes they say “You know what, this was great. Let’s tell people about this.”
Work on this project was done in partnership with the Kettering Foundation.
Images provided by Lauren Abramson.
More of this interview can be found at the Boston Review.
Conversations on Participatory Democracy
Innovative democratic professionals are encouraging greater participation in some of our most fundamental institutions, yet what they are doing is rarely the focus of political theory, social science research, or what politicians talk about when they are talking about renewing American democracy. The conversations in this series aim to shed light on new democratic practices taking shape and to find out more about the dynamic people involved.
Lauren Abramson is the founder of the Community Conferencing Center in Baltimore, which helps people handle problems on their own instead of turning them over to the formal criminal justice system. We talked recently about the motivations that drive her work, the barriers she has faced, and the pathways that can lead to culture change in the U.S.
Albert Dzur: Let’s start at the beginning: how did you get involved in community conferencing in criminal justice?
Lauren Abramson: My doctorate is in neuroscience and animal behavior and I was for a long time studying how emotions affect health and illness. I have also always been interested in working in communities. I grew up in Detroit and became very imprinted on rust belt cities and close neighborhoods like the one I grew up in. So when I moved to Baltimore in 1990 I started working through my faculty appointment at Johns Hopkins in a community mental health program that was working to build on-site mental health services at Head Start agencies. So I had these two parallel tracks and interests: doing community based mental health work and doing more basic research in biology about how emotions affect our health and illness.
In 1994, I was at a conference in Philadelphia of the Silvan Tomkins institute. Silvan Tomkins was a mentor of mine. He was just brilliant in understanding that what motivates human beings is our emotions. So at this conference there was an Australian talking about community conferencing work they were doing where they bring together victims and the young offenders and their family members. They all sit in a circle and they get a chance to say how they were affected by what happened and they figure out how to make it right. I thought, “Wow, this is a way for people to be healthy emotionally with each other, and not necessarily in an office with a professional. I could take this back to Baltimore and bring it back to the neighborhoods. I could merge my two interests.” A light bulb went off. So the next year, in 1995, the folks from Australia came and did their first training in community conferencing in Pennsylvania and from then on I was just hooked by the power of this process.
I have worked in behavioral medicine clinics where people have all sorts of physical ailments stemming from ways they have not been able to really be emotional and really express how they feel. If you back up your anger or if you are afraid all the time then you get heart problems or jaw problems or gut problems. I really believe that we need to be emotional with each other in ways that are helpful—not in the Jerry Springer kind of way.
Lauren Abramson: Better Justice from PopTech on Vimeo.
AD: So your academic interest in emotional well-being ties into the community work.
LA: Definitely. I think that it has also very much informed how we do this work. We have kept it grounded in how important the emotional piece of it is. In this country especially we tend to put a damper on people’s emotions. Because we understand that being able to express emotion is fundamental to effective conflict transformation, we do a fair amount of training with our facilitators to allow for emotional expression–so long as participants keep it focused on their own experience. We want to maximize the facilitators’ comfort level with people expressing strong emotions, so they don’t also become part of the “emotion damper brigade” that is so much a part of American culture.
AD: What are some of the barriers you face when you are trying to develop this alternative structure? You have made a distinction between black robe justice and community justice. Is this a barrier—that we have become dependent upon black robe justice?
LA: I think we have been imprinted with this sense that black robe justice is the only real way to do justice. So we have created all sorts of institutions around having other people—experts—resolve our conflicts for us. It comes back to Nils Christie’s point about conflicts as property. This whole structure—police, courts, lawyers, social services, etc.—has taken ownership of our conflicts and they do not want to give it up. This is true on both ends. They do not want to give it up and they have created this sense in people that they are the only true purveyors of this product. We get people who say, “No, this kid’s got to go to court. He’s got to go to jail.” And we will say, “Have you ever been to court?” (because many people have); and then we ask, “How did that work out for you?” Then when they think about how it worked out for them it was often a terrible experience. But sometimes they still want to go back. So we say, “Well, look, if you try community conferencing and it doesn’t work you can still always go to court.”
AD: Tell me more about how your conversation goes with someone who is a good candidate for community conferencing but is initially reluctant.
LA: Let’s say somebody’s car was stolen and they are so upset. You say, “It sounds like you’ve been really affected by this. Would you like a chance to tell the people who stole your car how this has affected you? Keep in mind that if you go to court you’re not going to get that chance. And this meeting would also give you a chance to be able to decide what can be done to make this right. Is that something you’d like to try?”
AD: You’re not saying it is either/or. People can always take the formal black robe route if they want.
LA: Absolutely. They have that flexibility.
To get back to the question of the current status quo, from the institutional end there sometimes this inertia that a bureaucracy’s main function becomes to sustain itself. They do not want to give up too many cases or it would look like they are not needed anymore.
AD: They will give up some cases to community conferencing but not others.
LA: Well they tend to initially want to give up the cases that bug them—that they do not want to deal with—which a lot of the times are either very minor cases, or cases with which they tend to have little success but which tend to be complicated at their root—such as neighbors taking out peace orders on each other.
We will take shoplifting for community conferencing, but we do not take the one where the kid was arrested for “unlawfully propelling his bicycle down the sidewalk.” That becomes a net-widening issue. We do not want most of those young people in the system to begin with. So we do not want to create a space for even more people to be engulfed by the system. We do not believe those cases should be in the system anyhow so we are not going to take them.
You know the system we have is fairly costly. Interestingly, it is extremely hard to get any numbers from them about what it really costs them to handle a case.
AD: Different people have different pieces of the budget.
LA: Everyone’s got different pieces. Then there are these buildings that you are sustaining and the lawyers and the bailiffs and the all the ancillary people to handle the paperwork and it is very hard to get the real costs of all this. Conservatively, we think that what we do costs about one tenth of going to court. In Maryland, our department of juvenile services has a $270 million budget. They give us not a penny.
AD: $270 million just for juveniles?
LA: Yes. And they use most of that budget, a significant majority of that budget, for kids in what they call the deep end of the system, which is detention.
But the whole reason why we have a separate juvenile system is there is a belief that we should be doing something different with young people than we do with adults. What are we doing, though, is we are just creating a huge younger system of jail.
AD: Your point about budgets speaks to the question of how to improve general awareness of alternative structures like community conferencing. Can you get traction with an economic argument?
LA: Well the Maryland judiciary has been incredibly responsive to that argument, even though the juvenile justice system is not. For 15 years the Maryland judiciary has been one of our most consistent and best funders. They recognize that the adversarial system is not the be all and end all. Our courts are getting clogged up with many cases for which the adversarial system is probably not the best approach. So the Maryland judiciary has been incredibly progressive in funding what they call ADR: “Appropriate Dispute Resolution.” Some people call it, “Alternative Dispute Resolution.” The judiciary actually has a branch under it called a MACRO which is the Maryland Mediation And Conflict Resolution Office and they have funds to support alternative ways of delivering justice. This is a fantastic model for the rest of the country.
AD: So you have some support from the judiciary that you are not finding with the juvenile justice people administering and maintaining detention centers.
LA: That’s correct.
AD: It sounds like a real barrier to alternative structures if people are trying to preserve their bureaucratic niche.
LA: Yes. I do not know if it is a lack of vision. It is not a lack of money. But they cannot figure out a way to not spend all that money on 5 percent of young people who are causing some serious issues. Those young people really do need attention, but the juvenile justice folks are using 90 percent of their budget on that 5 percent of young people. Other states have found their way out of that, but in Maryland we still haven’t figured out a way to do that, despite countless legislative hearings and department “gap analyses” over the past 20 years focusing on these very issues.
AD: We have been talking about public awareness of a different track for approaching criminal justice. I have been troubled and puzzled by how the U.S. can be the world champion incarcerator—to use Nils Christie’s terms—and wonder if one possibility is that we do not really want to look too closely at our prisons and juvenile detention centers. We sense there is some kind of problem over there, but it is not really our problem to deal with.
LA: I would suggest we do that with a lot of things. Look at how we turned our backs on what the banking industry was doing during the savings and loan scandal. We turn our backs on so many things.
AD: That is true, but what I am getting at is whether public reluctance to get involved with a morally difficult problem makes it difficult for people who are working in these alternative ways. How do you break through that?
LA: Yes, that is a big question. I think it is useful to look at what has happened in other countries. Even in Australia, where there is a fair amount of restorative justice—and where they really lead the way in many respects. But there was not a huge breakthrough until a few very well-publicized cases went horribly wrong through the retributive system and people realized there could be another way that could have prevented that. I think sometimes as human beings we need something that does go horribly wrong to wake people up.
And still, another huge factor is the profit to be gained from the increasing privatization of prisons. Look, in Florida there is a university that has one of its football stadiums named after a corporation—you know how corporations can name the stadiums? Well at this Florida university it is named after a private prison company! Their name is on the football stadium! What is it going to take for people to wake up and see that there is also a huge profit motive behind mass incarceration? Of course there is also the racializationof mass incarceration—as illustrated by books like The New Jim Crow and others. But there is also the profit aspect. The law in Arizona allowing police to stop people to find out if they had identification, and arrest them if they did not, was written by a lobbying group hired by the private prison industry. That law was written so that more people would be put in prison.
AD: Profit is a pretty significant barrier to alternative structures isn’t it?
LA: I think it is. And so at this point the bigger question is when are we going to wake up to the fact that the one percent of the people in our country is determining a great deal about how our society is run so that they can benefit from it.
AD: Let’s finish this conversation with a question on how to grow the program. You have talked about restorative justice in schools last time. Where does this work well?
LA: Education is starting to embrace this in a big way, which is so encouraging. The use of what is now termed “restorative practices” in school may surpass the criminal justice system in using it. There is a whole movement of restorative practices in schools that has come into more prominence in the wake of the failure of post-Columbine zero tolerance policies. We went through this phase in education of these zero tolerance policies, meaning: we will not tolerate any of this, and this, and this, and if you do any of it you get kicked out.
We were not allowing young people to make mistakes. Because if they did make a mistake they were kicked out of the kingdom. And so that created more problems because when kids are suspended they are way more likely to get arrested.
So schools around the county are using restorative practices in schools. It is hearteningly prevalent here and across the world.
AD: Some schools seem to really “get” restorative justice while others do not. Can you say more about what makes the difference in the schools you work with?
LA: It depends on what you value and creating an approach based on those values. There are still educators who feel that students should be seen and not heard. They should listen and we should deposit information into their heads and we should test them and extract that information out to see how much they got. That pedagogy was created at the turn of the last century, and it was designed to create a pool of good factory workers. We live in a very different world now, though. Our current world economy is going to require people to get along and to think for themselves. That will require us to value the importance of connection and relationships as it relates to learning.
Students learn best from people they like and respect and when they feel supported and understood and heard. Then they feel better about themselves and they are better able to learn. And if they make mistakes then we understand that to be part of being human. We have a fair way to engage the people involved in harmful behavior: to let everybody have a voice, and provide them with a way to figure out how to repair the harm, and to learn how to do it differently so it doesn’t happen in the future. That is very different than “Shut up and if you act out we will punish you and expel you.”
AD: A school where students are being treated with respect in their classrooms, where their voice is being heard already, that school is a good host for the kind of restorative justice conference you see as valuable.
LA: well, the proof is in the pudding; and there is a huge body of research and anecdotal evidence that restorative practices in schools not only results in lower absenteeism and suspensions, but also in significant increases in instructional time, academic performance, and job satisfaction for teachers!
AD: Restorative justice that really works in a school is a widespread set of practice and attitudes, not an isolated program.
LA: Yes, but it can be implemented in pieces, or it can be embraced to establish an entire restorative school culture. There are some schools that can just adopt a few things that are restorative, like maybe they agree that every week in every class there is going to be a circle where students can talk about things that are important to them. That is not the whole school, but they are beginning to implement something where students have a voice and where there can be this sense of respect and responsibility.
AD: You and your colleagues meet from time to time with principals and teachers about restorative justice. There must be some meetings where you come out and you are in the parking lot and you shake your head and say, “This just isn’t going to work here.”
LA: Let’s not forget that we are asking people to do things differently from how they’ve been done for years and decades. It is not easy to change direction overnight. When there are people in leadership positions in the school who want to do it and they are willing to engage the rest of the adults in doing this in a respectful way then our job is easier. Changing a culture, however, is a bit like trying to turn around a freighter with a rowboat. It takes a fair amount of patience along with equal parts of tenacity.
AD: I am trying to figure out what you hear from people that makes you think it can work at a particular school or makes you think it will be difficult there.
LA: We’ve seen it work; and that’s incredibly inspiring. Still, if you come to a school that is run by a principal who is former military and he clearly believes that we need a lot of structure but that the support piece is not that important and he thinks we just have to have kids acting right and not speaking out, not believing that young people should have a voice, then that will be a tough place place to start this kind of work.
AD: And, on the other side, the times you were in the parking lot and you think, “Wow that was a really good meeting,” what are you hearing from your conversations with those principal and teachers?
LA: That there is leadership in that school who is saying, “Oh this is exactly what we need to make this a high quality learning environment. We really believe that we need the adults in this school to feel more connected with our students in order for them to learn better. We believe that they need structure but we also believe they need support—because these kids are going through a lot and they need to have a voice—and this approach can give us the tools to actually work day to day, moment to moment, making those connections so that kids can learn better.”
AD: You drew the picture of the disciplinarian who sees the restorative justice program as targeted only to disciplinary issues.
LA: They wouldn’t even probably be interested in the restorative approach
AD: Right, but they are saying, “I’ve got these problem kids acting out, I’ve got graffiti, so I need a program. I’m going to call up Lauren Abramson and she’s going to give us a way to fix our problem.” That’s one attitude. The other perspective you illustrated is one that views it as a part of the learning process: “This is going to help us learn better.” These people see restorative justice as integrated into the learning environment.
LA: For sure. Restorative practices includes ways to be proactive about building a culture of connection and engagement, and ways to be responsive to harmful behavior in ways that are fair, inclusive, and give voice to everyone involved. It’s doing with, not for, or to. Consider a foursquare grid with two axes. On the X axis there’s support and on the Y axis—the vertical axis—there’s structure. If you have high structure but low support that is the punitive approach: you are doing to the kids. If you have low structure and high support that is permissive: you are doing it for them. If you have low support and low structure you are basically neglecting them,: you are not doing anything. But if you have high structure and high support that’s the restorative approach: you are doing it with them.
AD: Can you say more about what you mean by structure?
LA: Simple classroom circles have a structure: Students sit in a circle, they can discuss things that are important to them, everyone has a chance to speak and everyone has a chance to listen, and the group can collectively decide how to address any issues that come up. That’s a structure. A community conference is a structure to have a conversation. Part of that structure would be that we have these three main questions: What happened? How were you affected by what happened? What can you do to repair the harm and make sure it doesn’t happen again? We sit in a circle. The structure is everybody’s going to get a chance to speak and everyone will get a chance to listen. That is a huge piece. The structure is we are going to include everybody who is involved and affected by this. The structure is when you get caught with the box cutter it is not just you, but we talk to you and find out what is going on here. The question is what has happened and you tell us before the conference that you have been getting beat up by the same four kids for the last three months. So we get those kids into the circle because they are part of what is going on here.
AD: You would classify the conference as high structure.
LA: Yes. And high support. You know, it is also high structure to punish, to say “Look, you brought this box cutter. That is unacceptable and is suspendable under the code of conduct and you’re going to be out of school for twenty five days.” This is a different kind of high structure, but there is no support behind it.
AD: What part of the conferencing is supportive?
LA: You get to bring people in your life you care about and who care about you. Everybody, even the bully, brings someone they would like to have sitting with them.
And the other supportive piece, ultimately, is for this group to collectively figure out, not how to punish the harmdoer, but how to move forward so this does not happen again and how to repair the harm that has been done. There were some girls who bullied these two other girls and they broke one of the girl’s eye socket. The parents agreed to pay the medical bills and the girls who bullied her said, “We want to create a presentation about what happened to us. Let’s go to different schools and tell them about the story of what happened here. It’s over now, we’re done.”
This kind of thing happens all the time. People who have not encountered this sometimes have a hard time realizing it, but when people make decisions for themselves for how to make this better, that this often becomes a source of incredible support.
AD: Telling those stories could have a cumulative effect on public awareness about how useful alternative structures are.
Community Conferencing in Inner-City Baltimore: Juvenile Justice, Schools & Neighborhoods from Community Conferencing Center on Vimeo.
LA: Well that is the other thing I thought about when you asked what is going to change this—is the fact that we have always done this work believing that stories are what shape our culture. And we want people out there telling the good stories about how they have resolved their own conflicts and crimes.
For this reason, we do not have blanket confidentiality agreements forbidding people to talk about their experience. Instead, before they leave the circle they decide for themselves how they want to treat what was discussed at the conference. Sometimes they agree to keep it all in the circle. Sometimes they agree to tell anyone who asks that “it’s over, we resolved it really well, and I’m not going to talk about it with you.” Other times people want to go out and share their experience with others, like the bullies and those who were bullied deciding to do presentations at other schools about what happened and how they resolved it. We do not want to prevent them from telling good stories. That is how our culture changes.
AD: Sometimes people probably say “Well I’d rather you not say what I told you about so and so…”
LA: Yes, and sometimes they say “You know what, this was great. Let’s tell people about this.”
Work on this project was done in partnership with the Kettering Foundation.
Images provided by Lauren Abramson.
More of this interview can be found at the Boston Review.
On Friday, I had the opportunity to observe about 50 Boston young people at work on the city’s youth Participatory Budgeting initiative. I will write the whole story for GOOD Magazine, so this is just a teaser. In essence, volunteer young people (ages 12-25) have brainstormed more than 400 projects that the city could support out of its capital budget. I watched committees of youth come together to study, refine, and screen these proposals. In June, as many youth as possible will be recruited to vote for their favorite proposals at meetings across the city. The city will then allocate $1 million of its capital budget to fund the top-scoring projects.
This is an example of Participatory Budgeting, a process that began in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989 and has since spread to 1,500 locations in many countries, according to the Participatory Budgeting Project. It bears some resemblance to other processes, including the New England town meetings that began in the 1600s and still survive in some towns in our region, not to mention the 265,000 village councils of India and other participatory government mechanisms around the world. It is nevertheless an innovation. The three-step process (brainstorming, project-development, voting); the application to big cities; and the allocation of capital budgets are all distinctive features of Participatory Budgeting. Boston’s process is not the first to restrict the franchise to young residents (regardless of US citizenship status, by the way), but that remains unusual.
I will have more to say about the details as the process unfolds. See also: “the rise of urban citizenship“; “participatory budgeting in Recife, Brazil wins the Reinhard Mohn Prize“; “participatory budgeting in the US“; and my chapter entitled “’Social Accountability’ as Public Work.”
The post youth Participatory Budgeting in Boston appeared first on Peter Levine.
This Manual from the Policy Consensus Institute contains the essential information for training leaders from agencies and organizations interested in learning more about how to use collaborative processes to address public issues. 
These materials are practical and problem-centered, designed to capitalize on people’s experience and to help them integrate new ideas with their existing knowledge.
They are presented in eight modules, each module covering an aspect of the “best practices” for sponsoring, organizing, and conducting a collaborative governance process. Each module includes descriptions of key points to cover and activities to address the key points.
The Manual also provides audio visual materials in the form of a CD with PDF handouts and slides and a video DVD of various leaders describing their roles in collaborative processes. These materials are designed to be used in conjunction with the PCI Practical Guide to Collaborative Governance. The first step for workshop sponsors and trainers is to decide on your objectives, target audience, and the format and length of the workshop. Then you will be able to decide which modules will best serve your objectives.
At minimum, if all modules are used, the workshop will take six to seven hours. With the use of speakers, panels, and time for group interaction, the workshop will take eight hours or more. However, effectively covering all of the material in one day can be a challenge, even for experienced trainers. An alternative is to hold a series of workshops, so that each module can be covered in a more in-depth fashion. This could take the form of a two – or three-part workshop, or even a “Module a Month.” The more time spent with each module, the stronger the chances are that the material will be used effectively.
Resource Link: www.policyconsensus.org/publications/practicalguide/collaborative_governance.html ($75)