Promoting Youth Competence Through Balanced and Restorative Justice: A Community-Based PYD Approach

As responses to first-time, nonviolent juvenile offenders move towards community-based restorative justice, approaches such as the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Model are prominent. The BARJ Model engages the youth offender, offense victim(s), and community in which the offense occurred with three associated goals: accountability, community safety, and competency development. However, while the goals of accountability and community safety are often prioritized, many community-based restorative justice programs neglect the goal of competency development, which is ultimately a disservice not only to the youth offender, but to the community. To interrupt the cyclical nature of juvenile offending and support the long-term rehabilitation of the youth offender, the integration of the BARJ model and a positive youth development (PYD) approach within the context of community-based restorative justice is proposed. PYD is grounded in the belief that all youth have the potential for healthy development, viewing them as assets and resources in community settings. To enhance long-term development, PYD objectives simultaneously promote protective factors, develop internal and external assets, and mitigate risk factors. The integration of a PYD approach within the BARJ model addresses the need to enhance youth competency development through PYD indicators inherent to many community-based programs. This article explores the conceptual compatibility of integration of the BARJ model and a PYD approach with the goal of promoting competency development among youth offenders in a restorative justice context.

involving three primary participant groups: the youth offender, the offense victim(s), and the community in which the offense occurred. In general, restorative programming consists of interventions directly related to the offense, as the directives will be most impactful when directly related to the harm inflicted by the crime. Intervention delivery should be swift and on a consistent, truncated timeline compared to the extensive procedures of juvenile court, which can span years. Program delivery can adopt a number of formats, such as family group conferencing, community circles, peer juries, victim-offender mediation, or community reparative boards.

Goals and Values of BARJ
The goals and values of the balanced approach are elements common to all programs operating under the BARJ model. The model outlines three key goals and their associated values. The goal of accountability represents the need for the youth offender to be held responsible for their actions. The associated value is that the offending youth recognizes that they have an obligation to the victim(s) because of their actions, in addition to the community in which the offense was committed. Under this goal, youth should learn that there are consequences for behavior.
The goal of community safety is fulfilled when residents of a community feel secure and confident that they have the ability to control behavior and crime in their neighborhood. The associated value is that it is the duty of a justice system to ensure the community is safe for its members by protecting them from the juvenile offender. This goal is reached when community members are permitted to be directly involved in the crime control of their neighborhoods and active participants in determining appropriate restoration for the harm done by the youth.
Finally, the goal of competency development emphasizes helping youth identify personalized goals and strengths and assigning activities to build and capitalize on these. The ability for youth offenders to develop competence is arguably the most critical within the BARJ approach and rehabilitative processes, as it enhances their ability to develop into responsible and productive citizens within their community while mitigating their adherence to antisocial behaviors. The associated value is to equip youth offenders with the knowledge and skills that will enable them to be more capable when they leave the program than when they entered.
The activities directed towards this goal should take place within the youth's community, reintegrating them as a member of the neighborhood and de-stigmatizing their presence postoffense. Thus, by promoting competency development, restorative justice can not only aid in Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/ | Vol. 14 Issue 4 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2019.804 Promoting Youth Competence 18 reducing risk for future offending and help youth to grow into law-abiding members of the community, but also mitigate the cyclical nature of juvenile offending.

Outcomes of Restorative Justice
The BARJ Model-in addition to other forms of restorative justice-has been implemented to address a range of concerns spanning crime severity, repeat offense risk, race, gender, and socioeconomic status. One study which had equitable distribution of race across restorative justice and control groups found that youth in the restorative justice group had a 40% lower likelihood of rearrests at 6-month follow-up (McGarrell, 2001). Further, the same study still found lower rearrest rates in the restorative justice group though this group contained a significantly larger number of high-risk juveniles. Juvenile participants also reported high satisfaction and appreciated that the program made them feel as though they had a say in their proceedings, compared with youth in the control group who felt they had less input in the other diversion programs (McGarrell, 2001). Another study found that female juveniles and juveniles with minimal criminal history exhibited the most benefit from restorative justice processes (Rodriquez, 2007). Results are still mixed, as other studies have demonstrated that Black juveniles and juveniles with moderate to high levels of individual and community level poverty were less likely to complete restorative justice programming, and that juveniles who lived in communities with low levels of poverty were the least likely to recidivate following restorative justice programming (De Beus & Rodriquez, 2007).
Critical race theorists and proponents of restorative justice have both emphasized the transformative nature of restorative justice, and its capacity to help repair the harm inflicted by systemic biases that pervade the justice system (Gavrielides, 2013;Jenkins, 2006). Still, restorative justice faces the challenge of overcoming the punitive orientation of the justice system and those who work within it (Schiff, 2013). Restorative justice also cannot be separated from the sociopolitical contexts in which it operates, creating barriers for transformation to take place (Gavrielides & Artinopoulou, 2013;Schiff 2013, Yiallourides & Anastasiadou, 2013.

Gaps in Delivery
A considerable issue in the delivery of restorative justice programming is the allocation of priority for the three goals. While remediation is the overarching objective for restorative justice, it can only be achieved by reaching the three corresponding goals. Providing restitution Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/ | Vol. 14 Issue 4 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2019.804 Promoting Youth Competence 19 for victims and addressing the concerns of community members around safety, while serious, should not be granted more weight than competency development for the youth offender (Maloney, Romig, & Armstrong, 1998). However, BARJ has been criticized for attempting to rebrand traditional retributive justice practices under the guise of adopting a restorative paradigm (Bazemore & Schiff, 2001). When youth competency is underemphasized in deference to the goals of accountability and community safety, the primary preventative componentstransferable skill development and reduced social isolation-are sacrificed. This is dangerous because the BARJ Model is federally sanctioned and funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, despite its treatment of competency development as an augmented add-on to the favored victim and community justice components rather than an equally weighted and essential ingredient (McCold, 2004).
Insufficient guidance around the implications of youth competence for recidivism prevention and how to deliver activities supporting youth development within a justice-based program may partially explain the concern around goal discrepancy. Providing practical and concrete guidelines on how to create or partner with existing programming for youth competence may be a necessity, especially considering that interventions are typically delivered by community members as opposed to trained social work interventionists with experience in the field of juvenile justice.

A Positive Youth Development Approach
Derived from ecological and developmental systems theories (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004;Lerner, 2002), PYD asserts that interactions between social systems affect one's development. PYD is grounded in a strengths-based perspective that all youth have the potential for successful, healthy development.

PYD Program Features
While PYD-based programming and practices have been utilized in a variety of contexts (e.g., afterschool programs, summer sport camps, residential treatment facilities), researchers have begun to identify key program features inherent to effective programming. Arguably, the most limited awareness of and/or insensitivity to specific cultural issues (Castro, Barrera, & Martinez, 2004). Therefore, the capacity to develop culturally competent programming that is facilitated by trained adult leaders is an important program feature to meet the needs of youth.

PYD Outcome Indicators
Researchers have developed a standard vocabulary to discuss PYD outcome indicators, known as the 6 C's. These indicators include: competence, confidence, connection, character, caring, and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005). Competence is one's positive views of one's actions in the different areas of life including social, academic, cognitive, health, and vocational contexts.
Confidence refers to feeling overall positive self-worth and self-efficacy. Connection refers to positive bonds between people and institutions, in which both parties meaningfully contribute to Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/ | Vol. 14 Issue 4 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2019.804 Promoting Youth Competence 21 the relationship. Character holds that one respects societal and cultural norms and exhibits prosocial behaviors. Caring is used to mean that one demonstrates a sense of sympathy and empathy for others and their circumstances. Finally, when youth embody the first 5 C's, they have the potential to develop the sixth C, contribution. Contribution indicates one's contributions to self, family, community, and institutions of a civil society.

Promoting Competency Development
The combination of risk reduction and promoting protection through PYD has been recommended as a viable approach when working with youth (Catalano, Hawkins, Berglund, Pollard, & Arthur, 2002;Riestenberg, 2008). Further, several other advocates have, at least in part, proposed the utility of the combination of PYD principles and restorative justice programming and practices. For example, the National Juvenile Justice Network (2010) proposed that juvenile justice be implemented with a focus on PYD. Specifically, juvenile justice programs should adopt a PYD perspective and other strength-based strategies, rather than viewing youth from a deficit perspective and focusing on their "problems." Similarly, Butts, Bazemore, and Meroe (2010) posited, "the concepts and principles of [PYD] offer valuable guidance for the design of interventions for youthful offenders" (p. 7). Liddell, Clark, and Starkovich (2014) contested that while PYD programming does not require a specific set of curricula, the activities and experiences for youth should be planned and intentional. Ultimately, Schwartz (2017) forwarded, "Principles of adolescent development have accelerated positive changes to the juvenile justice system. These changes have been most pronounced in reducing reliance on incarceration and in approaches to sentencing of youth tried as adults" (p. 2).
A variety of programs have recognized the benefit of using restorative practices to aid in positive youth development. The conceptual alignment of PYD and restorative justice was enumerated in addressing school bullying, advocating for use of restorative practices not only to address the concerns for both bully and victim, but also to foster healthy development for involved youth (Riestenberg, 2008). Maine's Juvenile Justice Advisory Group has been advised in a report to seek to instill restorative practice at all levels of public youth-serving systems as a means of fostering healthy youth development (Burford et al., 2016). Youth courts in Massachusetts have also seen high rates of compliance and low rates of recidivism in their programs, which are embedded in the principles of restorative justice and aim to aid in the development of life skills and positive relationships (New Bedford Youth Court History and Summary, 2016). However, while other advocates have proposed the utility of PYD within a spectrum of restorative justice programming and practices, many of the previous efforts have not specified or provided explicit frameworks. This gap is particularly prevalent related to PYD and BARJ programming and practices. More specifically, Schwartz (2016) contested, "Unfortunately, most of the early state efforts to re-align their juvenile justice systems with a BARJ philosophy have fallen short. It was easiest for states to begin by focusing on public safety and accountability rather than by figuring out the meaning of competency development" (p. 266). Therefore, further work must be done to more effectively integrate PYD and restorative justice initiatives.
Thus, the authors of this article seek to present an integrated framework to fulfill the need for a more structured delivery to promote youth competency development (see Figure 1) Table   1).

Physical and Psychological Safety
Safety is a prerequisite to any community-based PYD program that aims to promote youth competence. As safety is both a physical and psychological phenomenon, programs should be conducted in environments that are both physically and psychologically safe. Physically safe programs should occur in locations free of hazardous materials and unsafe health conditions.
Psychologically safe programs must be in locations that are free of environmental stressors, such as the fear of danger. For instance, program settings should be in neighborhoods that are not associated with antisocial behaviors. Furthermore, programs should be housed in an environment where youth have the opportunity to discuss their perspectives and lived experience, free of prejudice.
In a restorative justice context, the program environment should not only be psychologically safe, but conducive to the development of confidence whereby the youth can engage in nonjudgmental exploration. Program meetings should occur in the youth offender's own community in a semi-private venue outside of the building housing juvenile court. If possible, the location should be central within the community and publicly accessible while affording enough privacy to protect all participating parties from scrutiny. Potential spaces to utilize include recreational centers, places of worship, libraries, school buildings, and other community resource centers.

Positive Social Norms
Successful community-based PYD programs develop prosocial cultural norms which are shared by all youth and adult staff. Positive social norms refer to the values, morals, and ethics that a program wishes to instill. These ideals operate as unwritten rules and comprise the overall culture of a program, grounding program design and providing a backbone for program practices.
To meet this feature's requirements, restorative justice programs should develop parameters, guidelines, and rules that promote the development of prosocial character traits. Any positive social norms should be inclusively shared by the youth offender, family of the youth, community members, court supervisor, and victim and victim supports (if appropriate), and should set a tone of honesty and respectful conduct. Additionally, programs should establish common goals amongst participants and champion an environment of active participation and collaboration.
Preventing the emergence of combative attitudes and instilling a mentality of all participants being on the same team can contribute to the adoption of positive social norms within the group dynamic.

Appropriate Structure
Community-based PYD programs should be structured to meet the developmental needs of youth. This means that they are age appropriate and designed to fit the biopsychosocial capacities of youth. Appropriate structure also means that programs operate with clear, enforced rules and expectations. Setting boundaries and supplying a consistent structure that provides guidelines for youth should be balanced with the offer of autonomy support which is imperative to youth development. Effective programs offer a sense of continuity and predictability, while limiting stressors which could lead to a chaotic and unproductive environment.
Restorative justice emphasizes developmental responsiveness to the needs of youth offenders, thereby enhancing their competence and confidence in themselves and their abilities. Program materials, rules, and assignments must be developmentally appropriate. Rules should be clear, repeated, and displayed prominently throughout the program. Further, rules surrounding conduct, respect, and communication should be reinforced by facilitators of the program. Any assignments that will take place outside of the direct restorative justice location should be explored and confirmed to have appropriate levels of structure and supervision. Program guidelines should be presented to youth as mirroring the laws and rules that govern social interaction and community participation, providing an opportunity to successfully operate with autonomy in an environment with structure, consequences, and expectations. Youth should also be granted decision making autonomy to determine which skills they would like to develop and programs that appeal to their needs, so long as clear rules, expectations, and other structural components are elucidated.

Supportive Relationships
Effective community-based PYD programs also promote the creation and maintenance of supportive interpersonal relationships. These relationships are often fostered between multiple youth, as well as between youth and adult staff. Although there is no single template for supportive relationships, they are often characterized by connectedness, responsiveness, caring, and effective communication. By cultivating supportive relationships, youth have the opportunity to develop secure attachments with prosocial peers and adult role models. Effective relational support also may help all participants in the restorative justice process-such as court representatives, victims, parents, and the juveniles themselves-to view youth in this same positive regard. The maintenance of these supportive connections can ease community reintegration for the youth and their family by neutralizing risk of stigma and isolation.

Opportunities to Belong
Similar to the importance of developing supportive relationships is the opportunity to internalize a sense of belonging amongst peers, adult staff, as well as the program. Community-based PYD programs should be designed to promote an inclusive environment, regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation, and/or ability. By building programmatic social norms that embrace social inclusion and engagement, programs strengthen a sense of acceptance between peers and adult staff, as well as attachment to the program.
Belonging is particularly important for youth offenders who have been in contact with the juvenile justice system. Restorative justice not only allows youth to remain in the community physically, but can capitalize on the opportunity to reduce the ostracism and stigma associated with criminal adjudication by helping youth actively and visibly engage in the community. Thus, meetings and assigned activities should all take place within the youth's community, allowing youth to develop meaningful connections with individuals and institutions. Additionally, joint investment and acceptance can help youth, their parents, the victim(s), and the community members all feel connected to the mission of restorative justice as a whole. The caring expressed through interpersonal exchanges can allow a symbiotic relationship between the youth and the community to develop.

Support for Efficacy and Mattering
At the heart of community-based PYD programs is providing support for efficacy and mattering of all youth. These programs are youth-centered and empower youth to make meaningful decisions, thus supporting their autonomy. By providing opportunities to make decisions that impact their own development, youth take responsibility for their behaviors and actions.
Moreover, support for efficacy and mattering focuses on individual development and competence rather than comparative assessments and performance-based evaluations.
In restorative justice, satisfying needs for efficacy and mattering are all the more poignant for youth offenders who have been labeled by a justice system and community as "bad kids," delinquents, or criminals, which can be damaging to their self-image. Facilitators should be patient with youth as they process their thoughts and emotions, encourage youth selfexpression and creativity, and be flexible to allow youth to meet program requirements in ways that acknowledge and enhance their individual strengths, building the competence of youth and confidence in their abilities. Through carrying out the sentencing plan of the restorative program, youth should come to realize that they have the ability to make an impact, either positive or negative, and that their choices and behavior matter for themselves, their family, and the community. Assignments should be focused on youth moving forward rather than dwelling on and/or rehashing the troublesome behavior that led to their program entry.

Opportunities for Skill Building
One of the main priorities for community-based PYD programs is the aim of promoting the development of transferable values, skills, and competencies. With this aim, programs must supply ample opportunities for youth to practice and apply newly learned skills within the learning context (i.e., the program). Further, effective programs provide youth opportunities to then practice the newly acquired skills outside of the program. When youth practice new skills and apply them in different contexts, they are better equipped to transfer skills they have learned.
Restorative justice programs should not only promote the development of knowledge and skills that will help youth offenders achieve their goals, but should be designed to promote competence with their newly acquired knowledge and skills. Skills to be enhanced should be self-identified by the youth (e.g., skills for academic success) as well as skills that will mitigate future contact with the juvenile justice system (e.g., problem-solving and decision-making skills). Facilitators are tasked with working in tandem with youth, their families, and victim(s) to

Integration of Efforts
To address the biopsychosocial development of youth, many community-based PYD programs offer holistic programming. Effective programs should engage external assets and key social resources such as the family, school, and community. By coordinating with other key external assets and social resources, programs can offer wraparound services to better ensure the diverse needs of youth are supported throughout the community.
Restorative programs should be carried out in collaboration with the offending youth, their family, the victim(s) and victim supports (if appropriate), members of the community, and the juvenile court. Other settings that can contribute to positive development should also be integrated when and where able (e.g., school, extracurricular activities, faith-based organizations, etc.). Individuals in each setting are stakeholders in promoting the development of prosocial character of youth. As a restorative justice program for youth becomes a prominent community presence, an ongoing list of available community supports, services, and resources should be compiled. Reciprocal relationships can be established whereby youth benefit from the community resource while becoming a source of positive contribution to the community.

Trained Adult Leaders
Youth are susceptible to environmental risk factors and stressors and can be influenced by key adult figures. Therefore, effective community-based PYD programs should be implemented by adult leaders-primarily leaders and key stakeholders from the local community-who are trained in the program's theory of change and educated in youth development. Often these community members are actively engaged in other community initiatives and efforts; and therefore, these adult leaders are suited to represent both the community, as well as the best interest of the youth whom they are working with. These trained adult leaders should promote prosocial norms, develop meaningful relationships with youth, and actively facilitate experiences within the program towards the desired values, skills, and competencies. Moreover, trained adult leaders should partner with youth to help process and debrief experiences, bringing

Cultural Competence
Youth development occurs within layers of the environment which are influenced by many socio-political factors. For instance, family history, cultural norms, and societal expectations influence the lived experiences and worldview of youth offenders. Because community-based PYD programs operate within unique neighborhoods and communities, programs must be aware of the cultural context and integrate key cultural components of its participants throughout its programming. By being respectful and responsive to ever-evolving, dynamic cultures, programs are better able to honor diversity while promoting inclusiveness throughout the program.
Restorative justice must account for not only the family, neighborhood, and socio-political contexts of youth offenders, but also dynamics of crime-supportive cultural attitudes and worldviews. Crime-supportive culture must be acknowledged, not disparaged, as a number of events, experiences, and risk factors may have contributed to youth assigning significance to a culture that rewards delinquency. Programs should integrate key cultural components by hosting programs within the youth's community, having community members facilitate the program, and taking into consideration the community's social norms. By offering culturally competent programming, youth not only develop through the restorative justice process, but proceed to provide meaningful contributions to the community's understanding of crime- behaviors. To this end, culture must be infused into programming and assignments to make skill development realistic and practical for the youth's continued membership in a culturally complex setting.

Conclusion
As society moves away from punitive sanctions and towards a socially just, rehabilitative model