I have written a lot about restorative and transformative justice on this blog. I know from my work that when this lens is applied to addressing issues of violence and crime, it has great potential for improving communication and paving the way for a consideration of alternatives to incarceration.

When I think and talk about restorative and transformative justice, the following example is really not what comes to mind. One of the most worrisome aspects of restorative justice in 2011 is the level to which the criminal legal system has co-opted the concept:

You see them on the side of the road, wearing bright yellow vests with “Sheriff Work Detail” on the back. You may see them picking up litter, painting over graffiti, pulling weeds and doing other projects to better the community.

And most of them are more than happy to do so – for them it is better than being in jail.

Sheriff Heath White implemented the Community Restorative Justice Program about 4½ months ago, not long after he got into office.

So it seems that the “restorative” aspect of this program involves “community service” instead of jail time. On the surface this looks to be a great deal for the person who averts jail, doesn’t it?

To qualify for the program, inmates have to be nonviolent offenders. They are sentenced to community service by a judge, who decides the length of the sentence; at this time the offenders’ sentences range from 8 hours to 364 days.

They have to be screened before being accepted into the program — screened to make sure they have a chance at succeeding in this setting, are in good health, and don’t have a history of being kicked out of such programs.

I very much support nonviolent offenders avoiding incarceration. So I am all for alternatives to incarceration. The Sheriff who started this program makes the case that his program is cost-effective for the county:

“What this program is for is … to take our nonviolent offenders out of jail, so it’s not costing us the money every day to house them,” White said. “They can keep a job if they have a job … but at the same time they are still paying for their crime, and they are giving back to the community instead of sitting in jail.”

What are the participants actually doing as part of their sentences and how does the program operate?

They are assigned their duties after White asks the mayors in Torrance County what needs to be done in the community — so far, besides cleanup projects, they have repainted handicapped parking spaces and helped the county animal shelter prepare and move into its new building last month.

When the offenders have spare time, White puts them to work washing county vehicles or sprucing up around the Torrance County administrative office building.

Although they aren’t sitting in jail and do get to live at home, White emphasizes that the offenders are not just given a “free ride.”

They are under supervision at all times and can be given random alcohol and drug tests. Sheriff’s deputies can show up at their house at any time to check up on them to make sure they aren’t drinking and whoever is in the house is acting responsible as well.

I am certain that some of you have begun to get a queasy feeling as you read that participants are “under supervision at all times.” What does this really mean? I have written before that I do not support interventions that simply serve to extend the reach of the prison industrial complex. I don’t want to replace the prison industrial complex with the surveillance industrial complex. Some might argue that we are actually already living in the era of the surveillance industrial complex through laws like the Patriot Act. Suffice it to say that the concept of keeping people “under supervision at all times” is not comforting to me. The article continues to describe the program:

The conditions aren’t ideal, but the program is voluntary.

“They are not forced into this program, the people who are assigned to us, it’s their choice – they can go sit in jail for a year or come here and work and be with their families,” he said.

And although White wants to give the offenders “every opportunity to succeed and to prosper in this program,” the offenders go straight back to jail if they don’t show up for work or make an attempt to call in with a valid excuse.

Because the program is so new, it is hard to tell if offenders are liable to go back to their law-breaking ways after their community service is done.

“The program is so new … we haven’t had enough time to see the effects of it … time will tell,” White says.

White does know that in the short time the program has been around, it has saved the county $26,855: $18,895 is what he projects it would cost to have workers do these jobs at minimum wage, and incarceration fees for these offenders would have been $7,960.

I like the idea that this program is voluntary. This it seems to me is a key aspect of any “restorative” program. However community service is not in and of itself “restorative.” It may allow someone to give RESTITUTION but this does not mean that the program is RESTORATIVE and certainly not that it is TRANSFORMATIVE. So while I don’t view this program as being exemplary of restorative justice, I am in support of trying out many alternatives to incarceration. So kudos to this sheriff for at least being willing to try something different. I say this even though I have qualms about several aspects of his program.