RJ City’s response to crime and other offences emerges from a number of diverse and dynamic programmes, systems, processes, boards, committees, movements, efforts, organizations, agencies, funds, neighbourhoods, families, individuals, and so forth.

These contributing parts must have sufficient structure, form, and coordination to be predictable, protect the public interest, and be responsive to stakeholder needs. However, there must also be sufficient flexibility for innovation, community leadership and involvement, and adaptation to the preferences of stakeholders. 

Some of these contributing parts are permanent, but the whole is, in many ways, changeable and even unpredictable as individual parts and members change, grow, and interact. While those responsible for coordination have a large influence on the parts and members of the whole, the individual parts and members have a large and dynamic influence on those who coordinate. There is coherence, intricacy, and life within the Network.

Spheres

The Network can be roughly divided into three general constellations or spheres of contributing parts, each addressing a different response to crime. These spheres are led, connected, and monitored by the Hub.

1. The Resolution Sphere consists of the contributing parts involved in the claims and repairing the many kinds of harm (to direct and indirect victims, to directly and indirectly involved offenders, to their communities of care, and to the community at large) that result from crime. It uses an inquisitorial approach to investigation of crime. It then guides parties into one of two processes for addressing the issues related to the crime. The cooperative process is used when the parties agree to work together to address the needs, claims and responsibilities arising out of the offence. This is considered the typical response to individual cases of crime. The adjudicative process is used as a safeguard when the parties choose to have an outside authority make decisions about resolving the crime, when the offender or the victim is uncooperative, the offender denies responsibility, or the parties are unable to arrive at an agreement. 
2. The Community Building Sphere is made up of the contributing parts that are available to assist victims in their recovery and offenders in their reintegration. It focuses on building respectful interaction within communities and teaching appropriate means of resolving conflicts and participating in difficult dialogues. This sphere also responds to systemic contributors to crime by calling attention to those and urging City action.
3. The Order Sphere consists of the contributing parts that keep the community functioning smoothly and safely, by providing crisis response and by enforcing its laws.

The Community Building and Order Spheres work together with the Resolution Sphere to provide safety, address needs and responsibilities related to crime, and to prevent crime. Although the Community Building and Order Spheres include programmes not always considered in discussions of restorative justice, they are important to the ability of the Network to accomplish its purposes. They must also conduct their work guided by restorative justice principles, values and goals.

The Hub

The Hub is the Network’s coordination centre and guardian of restorative justice principles values and goals. It provides leadership within the Network in several ways. First, it offers strategic oversight of the Network as a whole. Second, it is responsible for operational direction. Third, it refers individual cases and people to the appropriate parts of the Network. Fourth, it ensures that community and government programmes and elements receive training and assistance to perform their work well. Fifth, it monitors the Network to assess and increase, as needed, the restorativeness of the Network as a whole and of its individual components. Finally, it provides administrative coordination within the Hub and the Network.

Community and government representatives make up the bodies that carry out the oversight and operational responsibilities. This assures that both have integral roles in Network leadership and design. Referral mechanisms guide and follow cases from the moment they are reported by citizens, police, or others as they proceed through the appropriate parts of the Network. Training and assistance increases understanding of and participation in the Network. Education efforts raise awareness of restorative justice values and give visibility to the work of the Network with the goal of recruiting new programmes and individuals to take part in the Network. Finally, quality assurance -- based on restorative values, community and programme experience, and legal and human rights standards – helps maintain the high level of performance of programmes, and gives priority to ongoing improvement in practices.

Programmes, etc.

The building blocks of the Network include programmes, systems, processes, boards, committees, movements, efforts, organizations, agencies, funds, individuals, and so forth. The restorativeness of the Network is determined not only by the restorativeness of each individual element, but also on the entire constellation of programmes and elements as they interact with each other. [1] There is significant diversity among these components. They vary across the following four dimensions. 

1.      Relationship to the Network. 

We might think in terms of three categories of programmes based on the degree of permanence that a programme has with the Network. “Independent” programmes are completely independent of the Network. They contribute to the restorativeness of society, but are typically uninvolved in the Network because they: (1) are too informal, (2) don’t adhere to all restorative standards set by the Network, (3) don’t want to be part of the Network, or (4) don’t routinely deal with criminal problems or disputes. An example of an independent programme is a community self-help coalition addressing problems related to vacant properties in a neighbourhood, which becomes involved for a time in resolving a series of arsons.

“Temporary” programmes are temporarily present in the Network. They may be permanent and well established as programmes or organizations in their own right, but they have only a temporary presence within the Network. An example of a temporary programme is a church that provides reintegration services for an offender who is a member of their community.

“Fixed” programmes have an ongoing presence in the Network. They are established programmes themselves, but also have established an ongoing relationship with the Network. An example of a fixed programme is an NGO that provides halfway house beds for prisoners returning to the community.

Fixed programmes further subdivide into (a) those whose role is specific to criminal justice and thus operate only within the Network (like the halfway house example) and (b) those that routinely operate both inside and outside the Network (such as a drug treatment programme).

2.      Degree of formality. 

Here, “informality” and “formality” refer to the degree of form or structure within a programme. Informal programmes may be completely spontaneous, lacking any chain of command, fixed order, or tradition. Most informal programmes are community-based, although there are exceptions. For example, the government acts informally when police respond to a minor altercation by breaking it up and asking the participants to talk through their difficulties on the spot. Informal programmes may occur in courts when judges work for completely new solutions to unusual situations. Informal programmes may become connected to the Network when they show stability in spite of their informality.

Formal programmes are those with structured accountability, fixed order, and tradition. A programme sufficiently established to have an address in the phone book, an official name, or any kind of advertising is considered more formal than an ad hoc committee of neighbourhood residents, but less formal than the police force.

3.      Relationship to community and government.

The terms “community-based” and “government-based” refer to the location of the persons who are primarily responsible for running the programme. Most programmes include participation by both government and community members. Resolution, community building, and safety programmes all include a combination of community- and government-based programmes.

Community-based programmes may receive government support, but depend heavily on the community for organization, funding, and staffing.[2] Most cooperative programmes are community-based. Most free (see below) and informal programmes are community-based. While community-based programmes are relatively free from government control, they may be affiliated with government programmes, or supported by the government. Some community-based programmes may originate as government-based and slowly be turned over to the community. The opposite process can also take place.

Government-based programmes depend on the government for organization, funding, and staffing. Most adjudicative programmes are government-based. Government-based programmes should make a concerted effort to be informed by the community. They may also draw heavily upon community support.

4.      Use of coercion. 

The terms “voluntary” and “coercive” refer to the degree to which the parties must be willing to be involved in a programme, and should be understood as describing ends of a continuum. Resolution, community building, and safety programmes are more or less voluntary or coercive depending on the degree of willingness expected.

Voluntary programmes depend on the willingness of the parties to participate. All cooperative processes are voluntary, and programmes involved in adjudication, crisis response, or enforcement are made as voluntary as possible.

Coercive programmes are those in which participation by one or more party is compelled. Most adjudicative and enforcement processes are coercive, although cooperative elements are introduced when appropriate.

It should be noted that “voluntariness” is an inexact term, and that persons may choose to participate in a cooperative process not because that is their principle desire, but because it is the best of the available alternatives.

A Graphical Illustration

Here are some illustrations of the Network. The programmes, systems, practices and so forth that make up its component parts are spread around the City. 

These component parts pursue one or more of the three goals of resolution, community building, and safety. We might think of spheres of component parts, each consisting of those parts that contribute to particular goals.

The spheres and, through them, all the component parts of the Network are coordinated and monitored by a Hub. The purpose of the Hub is to provide a framework for the dynamic interaction of the Network's component parts.