Restorative justice circles as a means of managing 'homeless camps' conflicts

A 'problem' to be solved, or a relationship to be restored?

Over the last years homeless people have intermittently aggregated together in camps in Victoria, Vancouver, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge, Surrey, and other B.C. municipalities. Conflict between campers and municipal governments regarding the lawfulness of these camps has drawn considerable media attention.

Oppenheimer Park, Vancouver - Winter 2020

These camps are commonly reported as caused by the insufficient availability of affordable housing. A review of the comments captured and reported by media indicate several reasons why homeless persons gather into camps and what other interests they have. Underlying issues conveyed include; safety and security (Chan, 2017; Sinoski, 2015; MacLeod, 2016; Burgmann, 2014), desire for community (Burgmann, 2014; Meissner, 2016; Sinoski, 2015; MacLeod, 2016), need for basic amenities (Sinoski, 2015), need for psychological, health, and social services (Sinoski, 2015; Burgmann, 2014), and lack of adequate income (MacLeod, 2016; Sinoski, 2016; Burgmann, 2014).

These camps often upset the public. At times different people have been reported as offended, including; park users over loss of recreational space (Burgmann, 2014), those connected to tourism and business operators experiencing financial losses (Petrescu, 2016), area residents and users feeling threatened and unsafe (Petrescu, 2016; Sinoski, 2015), homeowners concerned over neighborhood deterioration (Sinoski, 2015), developers experiencing delays and costs (Chan, 2017), and municipal politicians and bureaucrats perceiving disorder and regulatory disregard (Sinoski, 2015; Meissner, 2016; Burgmann, 2014). The general public sentiment appears to be that the camps should not exist, and that shelters or other solutions must be available.

Conflict positions and resolution processes to date

The campers maintain the position that they have a right to live together. Municipalities hold the position that the camps contravene municipal bylaws, pose health and safety risks, and need to be taken down.

The camps have prompted the municipalities to issue bylaw violation notices; which have been disregarded by the campers. Some municipalities have then enforced the bylaws unilaterally (Mackichan, 2016). Other municipalities have approached the courts for injunctions to enforce the bylaws and direct law enforcement personnel to act (Chan, 2017; Burgmann, 2014). For example, the Vancouver 2016 Oppenheimer Park camp injunction was granted on evidence of prevalent violence (Burgmann, 2014). In May 2017 the Vancouver camp in the 900 block Main Street was not granted an injunction as no evidence of safety issues was presented and the rights of the campers were determined to override the rights of the city’s development plans (Chan, 2017). Court outcomes have provided both continuances and terminations of the camps.

The judicial approach has placed the campers as ‘offenders’ in relation to municipal governments’ edicts. Conversely, the campers allege they are the victims of the municipal governments’ violation of overarching constitutional law. The homeless camp dispute has then been characterized as being focused on outcome positions by both sides (camp/no-camp), rights-based, before the courts for win-lose outcomes, perceptions of ‘the other’ as blameworthy, and the persons involved or impacted remaining distant from each other and the resolution process. Most underlying interests have not been topics for exploration within the court processes and remain unaddressed.

The application of restorative justice principles

I am proposing that a restorative justice process be utilized for homeless camp incidents as an approach with much greater potential for achieving resolution. Restorative approaches hold a world view that everyone is interconnected and each persons’ conduct has impact on others (Van Ness & Strong, 2015, p. 54). There are evident points of interconnectedness between the campers and a multitude of community members. The campers rely on public services and public tolerance. Their conduct impacts a wide assortment of the public. Community members rely on campers for their sense of order and lawful use of property. Successful resolution of the conflict requires the engagement of this web of interconnected people. Consedine (2003) summarizes this principle as,

“Restorative justice brings a dimension of community responsibility into being. It recognizes that we all form part of the one human family and that we have responsibilities towards one another”

From the restorative justice perspective, the alleged violations by the campers are not breaches of state rules but rather behaviour harming the interconnected relationships between the campers and those impacted (Tomporowski, Buck, Bargen, & Binder, 2011, p. 2). Braithwaite describes restorative justice as a “relational form of justice” (2016, p. 1). The most appropriate response to a wrongful act is then to repair the harm done to the relationship (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2001, p. 1). The paradigm shift to collective engagement and harm remediation, requires a measure of respect for one another (Zehr, 2005, p. 302). Oshidary (2013) states,

“At core RJ is… grounded in ‘respect for all’, which stems from an acknowledgement of interconnectedness but also diversity, this is done by focusing on harms and needs, addressing obligations, involving all stakeholders, and by using collaborative, inclusive processes.”

Restorative justice is a process that in concrete terms involves what are referred to as the ‘primary stakeholders’, who are; victims, offenders, and their communities of care (Wachtel, 2013, p. 3). In respect to the homeless camp conflicts, within these stakeholder groups are included campers, property owners, neighbours, business operators, emergency response personnel, and municipal officials. Key elements of restorative justice processes include; voluntariness of all participants, taking responsibility for actions, truth-telling, and personal and direct encounters (Latimer et al., 2001, p. 1).

The role of emotion

Emotional appreciation, unlike in court processes, is a fundamental aspect of restorative practices. Through comprehending the emotional impact of offending conduct, and not only material harms, participants can transform conflict towards collaboration. Wachtel (2013, p. 5) informs,

"It is through the mutual exchange of expressed affect that we build community, creating the emotional bonds that tie us all together. Restorative practices such as conferences and circles provide a safe environment for people to express and exchange emotion…"

The strong emotional content in the homeless camp disputes is well reported in the media. The process for the conflicts should not be dominated by a search for ‘facts’ or ‘rules’, but should actively seek to appreciate the emotional aspects for everyone involved.

Other noteworthy considerations

Important characteristics of the homeless camp conflicts that require consideration in selecting and designing a restorative justice process include the subcultural and experiential divide between the homeless and others, and the possibility of common overlapping issues, such as poverty, mental health, and addiction. Also significant in the conflicts is the power differential between well-resourced municipal governments to impoverished homeless persons. It is important to level power in the process; and to shift the use of available power to positive outcomes. As Coleman explains, “power over” others for a win-lose outcome that settles but does not resolve conflict, should shift to an emphasis on “cooperative, dependent, and independent power” towards “power with” others (2014).

The circle form of restorative justice

Circles have a variety of purposes, including; conflict resolution, healing, support, decision making, information exchange and relationship development (Wachtel, 2013, p. 8), which are all needed components to resolve the homeless camp conflicts. Wachtel (2013, p. 8) notes that,

“A circle is a versatile restorative practice that can be used proactively, to develop relationships and build community or reactively to respond to wrongdoing, conflicts and problems”

Through both their physical design and the procedures used, circles offer a structured, engaging, and direct process. Circles provide participants times to speak and to listen to one another as equals and explore perspectives and values in a setting which is safe and respectful (Living Justice Press, 2017).

A proposed model

There are many different stages which circles may be designed to progress through, depending on the issues, dynamics, and participants. For the homeless camp conflicts the structure and protocol for facilitated dialogue is recommended to contain the following features:

• Creation of a circle of chairs, with no items within the circle

• A respected and independent facilitator/circle-keeper to guide but not control the process

• Each person to have equal uninterrupted opportunities to speak

• The use and passing of a talking piece to indicate the only person who is speaking

• An emphasis on listening

• The active participation of all invited participants, and no audience

• A non-sequential speaker structure, where scripted questions alternate amongst roles

• A dialogue sequence of:

1. Who people are and why they are present

2. Values and setting guidelines for a respectful dialogue

3. What happened

4. How people were affected by the occurrences

5. What harms and harmed relationships have resulted and need reparation

6. Next steps

7. How specific agreements will be monitored

• An assessment of overall process and outcomes (McCold, 1999; Living Justice Press, 2017, Wachtel, 2013)

This circle process will require a well-trained and experienced facilitator. Due to the number of potential participants and the complexity of content that will be raised, considerable orientation with each of the multiple stakeholders is necessary.

Analyses

The circle process contains several challenges that need to be managed. This begins with persuading all involved that the process will yield better outcomes than court. There will likely be considerable media interest, presenting opportunities for parties to repeat past oppositional and positional strategies. Funding for the process is required and should also appear somewhat independent of the parties. Considerable preparation time is required to overcoming initial resistance, build trust, and for the facilitator to socialize the participants towards a restorative justice paradigm.

In respect to diversity facets, there will need to be empathy to and support provided for the likely mental fragility of some participants. Equally, there will need to be sensitivity and tolerance for varying political and life beliefs. Many campers have historically expressed their believed victimization through the actions or inactions of others. Zehr is convinced that “much offending grows of a sense of victimization” (2005, p. 298). Circle discussions may gain clarity on events and emotions, but will contain diverse perspectives on underlying explanations.

In regards to scope, each circle process is intended to remain focused on conflicts stemming from the establishment of a camp. Individual motivations may arise to push any number of associated topics to take center stage. With the process owned by the participants, it may still move away in directions that are seen as valid by the participants. This will need to be understood by funders.

For the circle process it is critical that all sides be persuaded to hold in abeyance any court or enforcement actions. Under the circumstances there are few complimentary functions between the systems, and much that is antithetical. Whenever an enforceable remedy is desired, the judicial process is always available to either party, but will undoubtedly perpetuate the same short-term outcomes.

There are collateral advantages of the circle process beyond the conflict. These lie in its propensity to generate; an equality among participants, mutual understandings, self-responsibility, direct involvement, empathy, and effective actions (Restorative Circles, 2017). Underlying circle process is also ownership for redressing wrongs through decisions made with freedom and individuality and not imposed by others (McCold, 1999). The circle process therefore has considerable efficacy in creating transformed relationships, which creates community capacity towards addressing the host of social factors associated with homeless camps.

Closing

Utilizing restorative circles for the conflicts resulting from homeless camps provides an exceptional opportunity to reframe thoughts and approaches regarding rights, power, and separateness, towards interconnectedness, respect, compassion, and obligations. As Van Ness and Strong observe, “exposure to other ways of doing things helps us recognize patterns of thinking, allows us to reflect on alternative approaches, and offers us the opportunity to make choices” (2015, p. 5). I feel that Oshidary (n.d.) states well the transformational vision of restorative justice in saying,

"Importantly, RJ does not imply a return to past experiences of a status quo which may in fact be troubled, but rather a transformation to our better selves and communities which are always available to us as a potential”

Circles can offer a homeless camp conflict more than a short-term settlement, and, rather, a long-term resolution produced and supported by a strengthened community fabric.

References

Bazemore, G., & Griffiths, C. T. (1997). Conferences, circles, boards, and mediations: The new wave of community justice decision making. Fed. Probation, 61, (p. 25).

Braithwaite, J. (2016). Restorative justice and responsive regulation: The question of evidence. In Regnet Research papers. No. 51 (revised). School of Regulation and Global Governance. Retrieved from: regnet.anu.edu.au

Burgmann, T. (2014, Oct. 8). Homeless campers dismayed by Vancouver eviction. In The Canadian Press. Retrieved from: globalnews.ca

Chan, C. (2017, May 8). City applies for injunction to remove homeless campers on Main Street. In The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from: vancouversun.com

Coleman, P. (2014). Power and conflict. In P. Coleman, M. Deutsch, & E. Marcus (eds.). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed., pp. 137-167). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Consedine, J. (2003, Dec. 2). Restorative justice - Healing the Effects of Crime. Paper to the Restorative Justice and Probation Conference, Warsaw. Retrieved from: http://catholicworker.org.nz/wp-content/themes/vendor-child-theme/_assets/pdf/restorative-justice/healing-the-effects-of-crime.pdf

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2001). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Research and Statistics Division. Retrieved from: http://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp01_1-dr01_1/rp01_1.pdf

Living Justice Press, (2017, May 20). About the circle process. Retrieved from: http:/www.livingjusticepress.org

Mackichan, S. (2016, Jul. 21). Surrey police take down Whalley homeless camp. In The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from: vancouversun.com

MacLeod, A. (2016, Jan 12). In The Tyee. Retrieved from: thetyee.ca

McCold, P. (1999, Aug.). Restorative justice practice: The state of the field 1999. Paper presented to the Building Strong Partnerships for Restorative Practices Conference, Burlington, Vermont. Retrieved from: http://www.realjustice.org/Pages/vt99papers/vt_mccold.html

Meissner, D. (2016, Jan. 11). In The Canadian Press. Retrieved from: ctvnews.ca

Oshidary, N. (n.d.). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated by Howard Zehr: Notes by Neekaan Oshidary. Retrieved from: http://neekaan.com/TheLittleBookofRestorativeJustice.pdf

Petrescu, S. (2016, Dec. 22). Victoria church builds wall to keep out drug users, homeless campers. In Times Colonist. Retrieved from: timescolonist.com

Restorative Circles. (2017, May 20). Retrieved from: http://www.restorativecircles.org/

Sinoski, K. (2015, Oct. 22). B.C. Court rules homelessness have right to camp. In The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from: vancouversun.com

Tomporowski, B., Buck, M., Bargen, C., & Binder, V. (2010-2011). Reflections on the past, present, and future of restorative justice in Canada. Alberta Law Review, 48, (pp. 815-829). Retrieved from exproxy database.

Umbreit, M.S., Coates, R.B., & Vos, B. (2007). Restorative Justice Dialogue: A Multi‐Dimensional, Evidence‐Based Practice Theory. Retrieved online from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10282580601157521

Van Ness, D.W. & Strong, K.H. (2015). Restorative justice: an introduction to restorative justice (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining restorative. International Institutes for Restoratives Practices. Consultado el, 15. Retrieved from: http://thaichristianfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defining-Restorative.pdf

Zehr, H. (2005). Chapter 15: Evaluation and restorative justice principles. In E. Elliott & R. Gordon (Eds.), New directions in restorative justice: issues, practice, evaluation (pp.296-302). New York: Routledge.