The Role of Restorative Justice in ESD

Exploring if, when, and how survivor‑centred restorative practices can align with Empowerment Self‑Defense (ESD) without compromising safety

By Dr Dawn Malotane-Lindsey

Executive Summary

Empowerment Self‑Defense (ESD) prioritizes safety, agency, and escape—including “get away / run” when possible—alongside verbal, boundary‑setting, and physical skills. Restorative justice (RJ) focuses on addressing harm through survivor‑led processes that centre voice, validation, accountability, and repair. Can RJ have a place within an ESD ecosystem? Evidence suggests a cautious, conditional “yes,” but only when survivor safety, voluntariness, and perpetrator accountability are secured, with rigorous safeguards and specialist facilitation. This white paper reviews the ESD evidence base, synthesizes research on RJ in sexual violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and proposes a staged integration framework that preserves ESD’s safety‑first ethos while offering an optional pathway to justice for those who want it.

1) ESD: Safety-First, Agency-Forward

ESD is a comprehensive approach that teaches awareness, boundary‑setting, verbal de‑escalation, help‑seeking, and—when needed—physical resistance and escape. Multiple studies indicate ESD reduces sexual violence risk and improves self‑efficacy; key tactics include fleeing (“run”) when possible and escalating through verbal to physical options only as necessary (Hollander, 2018/2021).

2) What Is Restorative Justice in Cases of Sexual Harm and IPV?

Restorative justice (RJ) addresses harm by bringing together those affected—survivors, responsible persons, families/communities—through guided, trauma‑informed processes to acknowledge harm, assign responsibility, and agree on concrete redress. Core features in sexual‑harm contexts include: survivor voluntariness; preparation over weeks/months; responsibility acknowledgment by the person who caused harm; structured meetings (direct or indirect) with skilled facilitators; and a monitored redress plan (EU Forum for Restorative Justice; UN guidance).

3) What the Evidence Says

• RESTORE (Arizona): The first peer‑reviewed quantitative evaluation of RJ conferencing for adult sexual assaults reported feasibility and “cautious optimism” on safety and satisfaction outcomes. RESTORE used prosecutor‑referred cases, required responsibility acknowledgment, and supervised redress plans for ~1 year (Koss, 2014).

• Project Restore (Aotearoa New Zealand): A survivor‑centred model operating nationwide under Ministry of Justice accreditation; evaluations and sector reviews indicate survivor demand for options beyond the criminal justice system and value in voice/validation when safety is protected (Jülich; Project Restore reports).

• Survivor notions of justice: ‘Kaleidoscopic Justice’ research shows survivors seek multiple forms of justice (voice, validation, prevention, accountability), not only conviction; some choose RJ when it aligns with needs and timing (McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019).

4) Risks, Critiques, and Non‑Negotiables

Scholars and advocates caution that RJ in IPV/sexual violence can be unsafe without stringent safeguards due to power imbalances, coercion, and risk of re‑traumatization. Key critiques emphasize the potential invisibility of coercive control in RJ settings, pressure to reconcile, inadequate monitoring, and community dynamics that minimize harm. Leading guidance insists that RJ must never replace survivor safety planning and must be strictly voluntary, survivor-timed, and facilitated by specialists with the authority to pause/terminate processes when risk emerges (Stubbs; Ptacek; UN/WHO/UNODC guidance).

5) A Staged, Optional Framework for ESD–RJ Integration

Stage 0 — Immediate Safety (ESD Core): Prioritize escape/avoidance, boundary‑setting, bystander/mutual aid, medical/forensic care, legal options, and safety planning. No RJ activity occurs at this stage.

Stage 1 — Stabilization & Choice: Only after safety is secured, offer information about justice options, including RJ, in clear survivor‑centred language. Participation is strictly voluntary; no deadlines; opt‑out at any time.

Stage 2 — Eligibility & Safeguards: Independent risk assessment; perpetrator must acknowledge responsibility; no active coercive control; protective orders respected; independent advocacy for the survivor; culturally safe facilitation.

Stage 3 — Preparation: Separate preparatory meetings over weeks/months; clarify goals (voice, prevention commitments, material/non‑material redress); agree safety protocols for any contact.

Stage 4 — Process (direct or indirect): Options include in‑person conference, shuttle dialogue, or written/audio exchange. Survivor controls proximity, format, and content. Facilitators can pause/terminate at any point.

Stage 5 — Redress Plan & Monitoring: Concrete, time‑bound commitments (apology that meets survivor criteria; treatment; non‑contact agreements; restitution; community education; employment/education consequences), with third‑party monitoring for 6–12 months.

Stage 6 — Follow‑up & Review: Regular check‑ins, post‑process safety planning, and evaluation of outcomes (satisfaction, sense of justice, re‑traumatization indicators, compliance).

6) Practice & Policy Recommendations for ESD Organizations

• Build partnerships with accredited RJ providers; develop referral protocols and shared safeguarding standards.

• Never position RJ as the “default” or a condition for services; it is an option for those who want it, when they want it.

• Invest in facilitator training specific to sexual harm/IPV, including coercive‑control assessment and cultural safety.

• Use common outcome measures: survivor‑reported safety and satisfaction; compliance with redress; re‑offense indicators; and qualitative accounts of voice/validation.

• Maintain data privacy and trauma‑informed communications; publicly report de‑identified, aggregate outcomes to strengthen the field.

References

·       Hollander, J. A. (2018/2021). Women’s self‑defense and sexual assault resistance: Empowerment Self‑Defense overviews.

·       EU Forum for Restorative Justice (2023). Restorative Justice following sexual harm; Restorative justice and sexual violence.

·       Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE Program of Restorative Justice for Sex Crimes: Vision, Process, and Outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

·       McGlynn, C., & Westmarland, N. (2019). Kaleidoscopic Justice: Sexual Violence and Victim‑Survivors’ Perceptions of Justice. Social & Legal Studies.

·       Project Restore (NZ). Programme materials and 2024 evaluation reports.

·       UN Women / UNODC / WHO guidance on survivor‑centred responses and cautions for RJ in IPV.