RP@P Process Examples

Two Penn sophomores get drunk on a Wednesday night in their off-campus apartment and play loud music. Over the course of the evening, they become loud and belligerent. When at 2am their neighbor comes out into the hall and asks them to quiet down, they become aggressive, threatening him, and banging on his door. Their behavior continues throughout the night and doesn’t end until the police arrive at 8am.

When they are first asked about their behavior, they deflect responsibility and do not show remorse. The neighbor is furious and believes these two young men are monsters. This case comes to RP@P through a report to the Center for Community Standards and Accountability (CSA).

RP@P facilitators meet individually for several pre-conference meetings with each student, the neighbor, the student’s parents, and relevant Penn community stakeholders. Over the course of these meetings, the participants identify the harms, needs, and obligations which were created through the student’s actions. Finally, when everyone was sufficiently prepared, the parties all came together for a facilitated Community Conference. During this Conference everyone was able to share their experience of that evening and the impacts it had on them, and the students were able to acknowledge the impact of their actions and offer up steps for accountability.

By the end of the process the group developed a Restorative Agreement in which the young men apologized, made financial restitution, and committed to plans to make amends in other areas in their lives including continued participation in alcohol treatment programs. All parties took on responsibilities in the final agreement, which was meant to ensure that needs were addressed, and that the harmful behavior would not be repeated. The neighbor was highly satisfied with the process and the Penn students were able to learn from the experience and make meaningful amends without disciplinary sanctions.

CONTEXT

An off-campus fraternity held a major weekend-long party. At this registered two-day event students engaged in drinking, drug use, and other dangerous behavior. Though it was not a formal rush event, the party attracted a lot of new students who were interested in joining the frat. As is common in fraternal organizations, most of the planning responsibilities fell on the organization’s sophomores.

EVENTS

At 12:45am on Sunday morning, Penn Police were contacted through an anonymous text stating that a student was passed out at the bottom of the steps and having trouble breathing. As soon as the police and MERT pulled up to the house, conflict started, with some of the older members of the fraternity trying to stop the unconscious student from being transported. The seniors did not want the party shut down and felt that the younger members were over-reacting.

The Penn Police arrived with MERT and were told by the person who answered the door that there must have been a mistake and that no one was sick. Three students blocked the door and argued with the officers for approximately 15 minutes before they were let in and found the unconscious student. The unconscious student was taken to the hospital and was treated for alcohol poisoning and has since made a full recovery.

RESTORATIVE PROCESS

Because this was a situation in which the actions of the entire group contributed to the harm, and because the harm extended beyond the individual who was transported, RP@P decided to hold a supportive process for the group to address the harm. This group included the student who was transported, their support people, members of the organization who were present for the event, leadership of the organization who were not at the party in question, representatives from the MERT team, OFSL, the responding Penn Police officer, and an event observer who was present that night.

Before coming to a group conversation, the facilitators met individually with all the participants, working with them to explore their experiences and perspectives on the group and what happened that night. The facilitators helped them identify the harms and needs that might be associated with what happened, both on the individual and group level.

During the Circle, the facilitators oriented that participants on the purpose of the Circle, namely healing, accountability, and developing plans for safer conditions moving forward. After introductions, values and group norms were generated as a group. Then participants were invited to share how it felt to be supported by a group they were in, how they felt about what happened during that night, what their needs were, and what wellness and taking care of one another looked like for their group.

After a few rounds of sharing, facilitators guided the group in brainstorming and consensus decision making about the necessary obligations to address the harms and needs.

CONCLUSION

Facilitators wrote out the agreements and formalized them in such a way as to ensure they are “SMART” - specific, measurable, attainable, restorative and time-bounded. After confirming that the agreements were acceptable to all parties, they were printed and signed by all in attendance. RP@P conducted follow up with all participants one, three, and six months following the Circle to ensure that the plan was being followed and was successfully meeting the needs raised in the Circle.