The Little Book of Youth Engagement in Restorative Justice

Partnering with Young People to Create Systems Change for More Equitable Schools

Evelín Aquino, Anita Wadhwa, Heather Bligh Manchester

• Publisher: Good Books
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781680997705
• Topic: Jura
• Subtopic: Alternative Konfliktschlichtung

The purpose of this book is to illuminate a theory of youth engagement in restorative justice that seeks to create systems change for more equitable schools. The authors define youth engagement in restorative justice as partnering with young people most impacted by structural injustice as changemakers in all aspects of restorative practices including community building, healing, and the transformation of institutions. Based on Adam Fletcher's version of the Ladder of Youth Engagement, coupled with Barbara Love's model of liberatory consciousness and an analysis of youth engagement in Restorative Justice in three different regions—Western Massachusetts, Oakland, and Houston—the authors provide a theoretical contribution: Youth Engagement in Restorative Justice grounded in liberatory consciousness. In this book readers will find:

• Comparative case studies from different parts of the countryof youth led restorative justice programs.
• An exploration of the cultural and historical context of each region to situate the work.
• Stories from the authors'own lives that provide context for theirinterest in the work given theirvaried racial identities (White, Black, Latinx, South Asian) and upbringing.
• Literature review ofthe language of youth engagement vs. youth leadership/youth organizing/youth participation, along with a new definition of youth engagement in restorative justice.
• Theoretical framing based on Adam Fletcher's Ladder of Youth Engagement, which provides a structure for the book.
• Exploration of how adults must combat adultism both individually and systematically as a prerequisite to doing this work.
• Student narratives.
• Applications of the work in the virtual context.

Chapter 1
The Field of Youth Engagement

Young people have always been at the vanguard for community and social change, and today’s young people are no different.

—Shawn Ginwright and Taj James¹

Youth engagement in restorative justice in schools creates spaces for personal and societal transformation and honors that young people are resilient social actors, participating in their communities as leaders and peacebuilders. Adults do not “give youth voice”; students have agency and demonstrate it in ways others might not understand. Young people engage all the time, whether it is convenient for adults or not.

Youth engagement in RJ transcends involving youth only as Circle keepers. This work takes time, deep reflection, continuous relationship building, and intentional strategizing with youth as partners. In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of the field of youth participation and integrate this knowledge into our definition of youth engagement in restorative justice. We close by introducing Adam Fletcher’s Ladder of Student Involvement as a tool for practitioners to push beyond tokenism as they meaningfully work alongside youth in restorative justice.

The Field of Youth Engagement

Youth participation is an international interdisciplinary field that includes subfields such as youth work, youth development, youth voice, youth organizing, youth adult partnerships, and youth engagement:

Through active participation, young people are empowered to play a vital role in their own development, as well as in that of their communities, helping them to learn vital life-skills, develop knowledge on human rights and citizenship, and to promote positive civic action.²

Youth participation, a right under Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), involves young people in the institutions and decisions that affect their lives. Youth participation³ includes young people organizing for “social and political action” around issues such as education reform, juvenile justice, and climate change. The subfields of youth-adult partnerships, youth organizing, and youth engagement are particularly salient to intergenerational work with youth in restorative justice.

Effective youth participation is grounded in meaningful youth-adult partnerships in which youth and adult perspectives are collectively valued in any decision-making process, and the goal of strengthening community and addressing social justice issues.⁴

Youth organizing in education has emerged as a participation strategy for young people to build collective power and transform institutions and policies around school-based issues such as safety, policing, school closure, finance, restorative justice, and discipline policies.⁵

Youth-adult partnerships and youth organizing are both part of youth engagement, which most clearly captures the mechanisms by which we engage with youth in school-based restorative justice. Youth engagement is the “meaningful participation and sustainable involvement of young people in shared decisions in matters which affect their lives and those of their community, including planning, decision-making, and program delivery.”⁶ This is grounded in intentional partnerships, where all contributions are valued and power is shared. Students are long-term partners and decision makers in the implementation of restorative justice in schools and other spaces that affect their communities.

Currently youth engagement in RJ can be tokenistic, where an adult asks a student to co-keep a Circle they did not craft, for example. By contrast, we define youth engagement in restorative justice as the meaningful participation of youth who are most impacted by structural injustice as changemakers and practitioners in all aspects of restorative justice—including community building, healing, and the transformation of self and institutions. In our definition, the term participation is prefaced by the word meaningful—students do not flourish as token partners in this work, but as initiators of changes in policy and school structures. We define youth as any students who are of K–12 school age. By “of age,” we acknowledge that many youth who are pushed out of schools are still engaged in restorative justice work. By structural injustice, we refer to ideologies, institutions, policies, and practices that limit opportunities for people identified as disabled, undocumented, LGBTQ+, Black, Indigenous, or of color—all populations who are disproportionately punished and/or pushed out of schools.

The Ladder of Student Involvement in Schools

Adam Fletcher’s Ladder of Student Involvement in Schools⁷ (hereafter referred to as “The Ladder”) offers a lens to imagine possibilities for transformative youth engagement in RJ. The eight-rung Ladder is divided into three levels of Youth Engagement: engaging, involving, and disengaging. The engaging levels are where work is done in partnership with youth, the involving levels where work is done for youth, and the disengaging level is where things are done to youth.

Fletcher does not suggest the Ladder represents work done in an entire school system; it a tool to examine and strengthen specific activities of youth engagement in schools, as well as build and use our reflective muscles. Below, we give examples of how youth engagement in restorative justice is enacted at each rung of the ladder, starting at the bottom and working our way up. (Note all examples depend on the intention of the adult in each scenario, and some actions can span different rungs of the ladder).

Manipulation: The lowest level of youth engagement, manipulation occurs when youth are coerced to participate, often through extrinsic motivation such as adult acceptance, extra credit, or money.

Example: When students are mandated to be in a circle for class credit, or are given extra credit points if they speak during Circle as a means to create engagement. The outcome is often for the benefit of the adult, not the student.

Decoration: Occupying the second-to-last rung is the idea of young people as decorations—they are present without any meaningful involvement. This occurs when youth appear on the cover of the brochure but not at the decision-making table, or when youth are asked to attend adult-designed activities without any training or preparation. These actions are performative.

Example: When adults invite youth to photo opportunities or meetings in an attempt to appear as though they are engaging youth regularly and support youth voice.

Tokenism: At this rung, young people are at the table; however, they are often part of an adult-dominated place where they are expected to code switch and act like adults. It is a type of youth participation for show, where young people have little to no influence over the activities. In addition, it is where one young person is expected to represent all students based solely on their personal experience, as opposed to being empowered to represent the collective voice of students.

Example: In Circle keeping, tokenism can be when a student is pulled in at the last minute to “co-keep” a Circle. They are handed the agenda and assigned a role, and did not participate in planning. They lead the check-in question and a game. The adult thanks the youth. There is no debriefing the Circle.

Youth Informed: This is when student input is solicited with the facade of youth voice. Adults decide how little or how much they will be influenced by students’ input and maintain full authority on the outcomes of an endeavor. Students do not know in advance that this is the decision-making structure.

Example: Youth are invited to participate in a meeting with the superintendent without being prepped. The administrators then say they held a RJ youth listening campaign; however, they never let the youth know whether their feedback was incorporated or credited.

Youth Consulted: At this step, adults actively ask youth for their ideas and thoughts in a meaningful way; however, adults still make the final decisions. Youth can be given responsibility for individual parts of an activity. Youth can substantially transform adults’ opinions and actions; however, they are only given the authority that adults allow. Students know that this is the decision-making structure in advance.

Example: Youth are asked to speak at a school board meeting on restorative justice budget priorities. Their presentation may influence the board; however, final decisions are made without their vote.

*Note: Youth consulted and youth informed are the most common levels of youth engagement in schools; a young person’s opinions are asked for, an engagement box is checked, and adults in power make the final decisions.

Youth/Adult Equality: Youth and adults have a 50/50 split of decision-making authority, workload, and follow through. All activities are coled and equally represented by youth and adults, who make collective decisions. While this might seem ideal, it expects identical contributions without taking into account the skills and unique talents of both youth and adults.

Example: The RJ facilitator and RJ peer leader are asked to hold a Circle in an English class that is struggling to build community. They talk to the class teacher and a few students in the class to get a better idea of the needs of the class community. Alongside the teacher they co-design, co-keep, and co-debrief the Circle.

Completely Student-Driven (Youth-Led, Youth-Driven): At this rung, actions are planned, implemented, and evaluated by youth who are fully accountable to the outcomes. Adults are not in positions of authority; rather they support students in advisory and behind-the-scenes roles.

Example: Students decide to organize a sit-in at school, followed by a series of Circles, to bring attention to police brutality. As they are planning, they approach the adult RJ coordinator for support. The RJ coordinator asks them guiding questions behind the scenes to help them consider logistics and strategies for them to meet the objective of the action.

Youth/Adult Equity: In this rung, power is shared, and both youth and adults initiate actions. Both are recognized for their work and own the outcomes. The split of power and tasks varies depending on what is needed. Young people have access to spaces and information that adults do not, and vice versa. This rung is where all are aware and respect the knowledge and experiences each brings to the work and support each other to continue to grow and learn.

Example: The RJ Team on campus, which consists of Middle School Peer RJ Leaders and the school’s adult RJ coordinator, agrees on different roles in order to implement a series of Circles in advisor...