RJ City lies in an area where new legislation was adopted ten years ago permitting the creation of “Justice Jurisdictions” whose borders are contiguous with the boundaries of cities with a population of at least 1,000,000 people. The impetus for this change was a crisis of prison overcrowding due to the number and length of prison sentences in the state. Costs had risen to the point that educational and medical budgets were reduced, with further and more dramatic reductions forecast in succeeding years. These cuts were not popular among the voters, and it was hoped that the new legislation would halt the escalating criminal justice costs associated with crime within large cities. 

The legislation creating local Justice Jurisdictions accomplished several things:

1. Placed strategic and operational control of the city and county criminal justice agencies under control of the City Council for activities within the city.
2. Dedicated budgets of both jurisdictions currently being spent within the city to use as the City Council sees fit.
3. Placed city and county courts under the authority of the City Council, “subject to constitutional provisions related to the independence of the judiciary”.
4. Allocated a specified number of prison beds to each Justice Jurisdiction based on a formula that includes size of the jurisdiction and past sentencing practices.  Because of the overcrowding problem, the state had planned to build new facilities and is willing to construct a new prison if requested by the City Council that would house up to the specified number of prison beds.  While the City Council is not given control over capital expenditures, it is allowed it does have authority over the operations budget, which means that if it does not use the prison beds allocated to it (for example) it will receive that amount from the State.  If it uses more prison beds, it will need to pay an additional amount to the State government.

This meant that all State and County resources dedicated to responding to crime in that city would be placed at the disposal of the City Council. This meant that the proportionate share of resources expended by State and County law enforcement, jails, prisons, probation, parole, prosecution, courts, criminal defence, victim assistance, and so forth would be given to the City. In return, the City agreed to respond to all crime within the City without further State or County assistance. If any such assistance (such as forensic or investigatory experts, prison or jail space, and so forth) were required at any point in the criminal justice process, the City would be required to pay for it on a cost basis.

Because funds had been allocated already for prison construction, capital funds sufficient to build jails, prisons or other places of confinement were also available to Justice Jurisdictions. The funds provided were sufficient to house the percentage of state and county prisoners from that Justice Jurisdiction on the effective date of the legislation. The funds could be used for any capital project required to respond to crime within the Justice Jurisdiction’s boundaries. However, the Justice Jurisdiction then became responsible for all costs related to running those institutions.

Justice Jurisdictions are bound by the State’s criminal law, but the City Council is authorised to establish levels of seriousness for each of those laws and to determine how the Justice Jurisdictions would respond to each level. It was possible for the City Council to decline to enforce the least serious crimes, which would effectively decriminalize those offences. Further, the City Council could determine ranges of permissible sentences for each range without being bound by any existing mandatory or presumptive sentencing laws in the State.

RJ City’s City Council, following the recommendation of the Mayor, applied for Justice Jurisdiction status. RJ City qualified for such a designation, having a population of just over 1 million people. After community hearings, public debates, consultations, and widespread media coverage, the City Council decided to adopt restorative justice as its philosophy of criminal justice. This was ratified in a public referendum. Over a period of years, it reorganized its criminal justice system until it was hardly recognizable. Whole departments were closed down and others created. Some staff were retrained for new positions, others decided to retire, and those who remained received substantial and, by all accounts, highly effective training on the definition, values and implications of restorative justice. Some funds that had been previously used in the criminal justice system were used instead to contract with local or citywide non-profit organisations.

A few words should be added to explain why restorative justice generated this level of support. Several years prior to the referendum, one elementary school began using restorative interventions in dealing with student discipline. This approach not only reduced the number of students reported to the principal for disciplinary action, it also created a learning environment in which students were able to learn better. After one year’s pilot, teachers and staff in all public schools were trained to use restorative processes, and restorative justice became the official approach to student discipline.

On occasion restorative practices were used in dealing with staff-administration conflict as well, and the approach was so successful that it was incorporated into the next teacher’s contract. This brought restorative practices to the attention of City officials, who decided after a few years to adopt these approaches in dealing with all disciplinary infractions involving city employees. This brought restorative practices to the attention of the business community, and several of the largest companies in the city decided to use restorative practices in their disciplinary procedures.

Meanwhile a coalition of non-profit organisations began to promote restorative justice as a better way to deal with offending. Their initial work focused on juvenile offenders and they found considerable support from police and social workers who had seen the benefits of this approach in schools. But the group also launched a city-wide public education campaign to generate public support. This campaign had several key features:[1]

1. The organizers were careful to put together a diverse campaign oversight team, beginning with those groups who were typically underserved by current juvenile justice policies. They looked within these groups for dynamic and charismatic leaders who could present restorative justice in a compelling way.
2. They conducted a survey of resources currently available in RJ City for dealing with juvenile offending.
3. They created resources explaining restorative justice (videos, print materials, FAQ, etc.) and distributed these throughout the city.
4. They identified potential supporters and opponents of restorative justice approaches, and individuals on the campaign team developed personal relationships with these individuals. They found that relationships were extremely important in generating support and in keeping their efforts from being divisive.
5. They began a public education campaign that included presentations to groups, public education announcements on radio and television, stories in the newspapers, and so forth.
6. As interest in this restorative justice grew, they worked with the various players in the juvenile justice system to ensure that changes in policy were effected with comparable changes in funding priorities. This way, the new restorative justice programs had enough revenues to function well.
7. When changes began to be implemented, the campaign team monitored and evaluated the process and results of those changes. This not only allowed them to publicize positive results, but to identify reasons why the programs were not as successful in some areas as others. This allowed them to make changes in strategy or in personnel.
8. Once the restorative justice approach gained credibility in the juvenile justice system, it was expanded to the adult system as well, becoming the foundation for criminal justice in RJ City.

It should be understood that the citizens of RJ City are normal people.  While many have come, over time, to internalise the values of collaborative conflict resolution (and to become adept at resolving disputes restoratively), it should not be assumed that they are uniquely and uniformly committed to making restorative justice work.

Furthermore, the crimes that occur in RJ City are similar to those that take place elsewhere.  The offenders, victims, witnesses, even those who run restorative programs are susceptible to the same range of personalities, emotions, busyness, burnout and dilemmas as they would in any other city.

[1] This campaign was organized after consultation with Ann Warner Roberts who had been brought in as a consultant early in the coalition’s efforts. The following strategy was based on her recommendations to the coalition.