Keynote address to 12th Annual Conference of the Mediators’ Institute of Ireland, Dublin, ‘Towards a Requisite Variety of Mediation’, 6-7 November 2010.
It is an honour to be asked to speak to your Conference, and I am glad to learn a little about the progress you are making with mediation in Ireland. I feel humble at the thought that I am taking the place of the outstanding peace activist Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish, but I hope you will be able to hear him on a future occasion1.
Naturally what I will say is very different. I want to pick up the title of the conference, ‘Towards a requisite variety of mediation’, and I have called my talk ‘Varieties of restorative experience.’ I will look at some of those varieties, most of which you will be familiar with, and suggest that they have much in common.
I will also suggest that they should not only be our preserve, as a new brand of professionals, but should be available to everyone. To take an imperfect analogy, we don’t want specialist health food shops for the enlightened élite, with jink food shops for everyone else. Everyone should have healthy food, and understand why. Of course we will often want sugar, starch, alcohol and so on, and in small qualtities we may even need them. With a healthy diet we ill go to the doctors less often – but they should not worry – they will still be needed!
What’s in a name? Numerous terms are in use, with similar, overlapping meanings: mediation, alternative (or appropriate) dispute resolution, victim-offender mediation, restorative justice, restorative practices (or approaches), community (or family group) conferencing. They all share the same ‘big tent’ as regards their values; the differences lie in the methods used by practitioners, and the structures through which they are delivered. Generally I will use ‘restorative practices’ as the overarching term, ‘mediation’ for dialogue with two parties, ‘conferencing’ or ‘circles’ for work with groups, and ‘restorative justice’ or ‘victim-offender mediation’ when the criminal justice system is involved.
We start with the word ‘restorative’, which has acquired an aura of meaning beyond the dictionary definition. Restorative processes are based on the principle that human beings are happier, more co-operative and productive, and more likely to make positive changes to their behaviour, when those in positions of authority, such as managers or teachers, do things
– with them (combining high expectations and high support) rather than
– to them (top-down imposed change, control, or even punishment, with little support) or
– for them (support with little control).
The basic value is a belief in respectful dialogue, often guided by a third person, and many would add the desirability of community involvement in the process (of which more below). Restorative practices aim to ensure a fair process, involving people in decisions that affect them. As regards respect, this applies even in victim-offender mediation, where one party has clearly harmed the other: the mediator still tries to distinguish the person, the human being, from the act (the crime, harmful act or mistake).
Even the same word may be understood differently by different people. Some politicians seem to interpret restorative justice as consisting mainly of reparation or unpaid work, while for practitioners the dialogue is the essential feature. Radical feminists have objected to the use of mediation in cases of domestic violence, apparently because their image of mediation is a one-to-one encounter in which the man might dominate the woman. This takes no account of safeguards, such as requiring the man to attend an anti-violence programme beforehand, or other methods such as shuttle mediation, in which the parties do not meet, or at least not until the facilitator is satisfied that it is safe. One academic, Carolyn Hoyle, points to the strengths of another method, ‘conferencing’, in which family members and other supporters are also present2; and even she does not refer to yet another method, used extensively in Austria, in which a male and a female mediator listen to the couple separately and then describe their respective points of view with both of them present. They are given the opportunity to correct or modify their story. This distancing makes it harder for the perpetrator to use ‘neutralization’ techniques to deny the seriousness of his conduct. It is not claimed that this method can be used in all cases, but there has been a high degree of satisfaction from women who have experienced it3.
So there is variety even within the meaning of one word.
Restorative practice is not just a matter of dispute resolution: it can also be preventive. As Karen Erwin, the president of the MII, points out in its current newsletter,
Although mediation is frequently thought of as a way of helping to resolve disputes it can be used very effectively in dispute prevention. Whether this is in Elder Mediation, succession planning, joint ventures or boardroom strategy, the same principles apply and the process helps what might be otherwise difficult discussions to take place in a safe space4.
Techniques of participative decision making may prevent the dispute from arising in the first place. For children, writers like Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish have described how to get co-operation from children by trying to imagine what it feels like to be on the receiving end of blame, put-downs, sarcasm, and so on. Instead, parents can describe the problem (leaving the child to draw her own conclusions about what she needs to do), avoid long harangues, describe their feelings, allow the child to make choices, or even write them a note5.
It is surprising how many situations can be addressed by variants of those three non-blaming, non-punitive questions: What happened? Who was affected? What is needed to make things better?
For big meetings, a basic method is to divide a large group into smaller ones, each if possible containing representatives of differing viewpoints, so that everyone can have a say; or a small group can discuss in the centre of the room with the rest listening; individuals from this outer circle can move to the centre to make a point.
In describing these methods I am running the risk of telling you things that many of you know already; please forgive me, but the point I want to make is that they are not merely specialist techniques to be applied by professional mediators in specific circumstances, but potentially part of a sea-change in the way people relate to each other. Advocates of restorative practices stress that before introducing this great new idea, it is worth looking at one’s existing practice to see how restorative it already is. In many cases RP will merely refine the structure of what people already do – but in others it revolutionizes it.
Many restorative practitioners have great faith in the power of the circle: the dynamics are different from those produced by sitting round a rectangular table, let alone confronting an authority figure who is on a daïs or behind a desk. The Roca program, for young people in a deprived part of Boston, Massachusetts, for example, uses circles for talking (sharing ideas and experience), conflict and peacemaking (including gangs), support (for a person undergoing a challenging experience), healing (after neglect or trauma), ceremonies (to celebrate an achievement) or as part of the ‘visioning’ and organization of the programme itself6. For participants, coming to an agreement about the circle’s guidelines is itself an educative process; for staff, circles (without tables or papers) encourage hard questions about the agency’s mission, whereas because a bureaucracy doesn’t encourage speaking up. it cultivates grumbling7.
Circles, too, are not new. Group psychotherapy relies on circles in which each person may be influenced not by a professional but by their peers, who have confronted the same demons themselves. It was pioneered at the Henderson Hospital in south west London, now unfortunately under threat of closure, and at Grendon prison in Buckinghamshire, long before the word ‘restorative’ acquired its present meaning.
Mediation works on a combination of the rational and the emotional. The rational is encouraging people to focus on their real interests, rather than their dug-in positions, and to hear the other person’s point of view, by such techniques as ‘re-framing in neutral language’ and even asking each person to summarize the other’s point of view. It is set out in Fisher and Ury’s well known Getting to yes8. On the international level it is described in Roger Fisher’s Beyond Machiavelli
The emotional component is to provide a space in which people can express their feelings safely, and can begin to feel empathy for each other. Mediators can’t make it happen, but they can create conditions where it can happen more easily.
Non-violent communication11 combines the two, using rational clarity to describe emotions and make respectful requests. Non-violence combines idealistic values with calculating pragmatism, because in many situations, it can be argued, it is the best policy12. If Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish had been here – I don’t want to put words into his mouth, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he advised the government of Gaza to declare a policy of non-violent resistance as the cleverest strategy, instead of firing rockets into Israel. Twisting a lion’s tail is a brave act of defiance, but can be counterproductive.
One hundred of the four hundred people in the community had been killed, and three of the people who were eventually persuaded to meet knew that someone who killed their child would be in the room. Rosenberg began by asking those on each side to express their needs. One of the Christian chiefs shouted at the Muslims: ‘You people are murderers!’ Rosenberg re-framed that: ‘Chief, are you expressing a need for safety that isn’t being met? You would hope that things could be resolved with non-violence, correct?’ He said, ‘That’s exactly what I’m saying.’
Rosenberg asked if a member of the other tribe would repeat what the chief from the first tribe had said, to make sure he had heard. One of them screamed, ‘Why did you kill my son?’ Rosenberg repeated his summary of what the first chief was feeling and needing; eventually the chief was able to do so.
Then he asked the other chiefs what were their needs. One of them said ‘They have been trying to dominate us for a long time, and we’re not going to put up with it any more.’ Rosenberg again summarized: ‘Are you upset because you have a strong need for equality in this community?’ ‘Yes.’
After about an hour of shouting, each side had heard just one need of the other, when one chief exclaimed, ‘Marshall, we can’t learn this in one day. And if we know how to talk to each other, we don’t have to kill each other.’ Several of them volunteered to be trained.
Restorative justice is being widely discussed in the context of criminal justice. As you know, in Ireland the National Commission on Restorative Justice recommended that it could have valid and effective application in the Irish criminal justice system. using victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing or reparation panels14
A discussion of restorative approaches would not be complete without addressing the subject of punishment. Both practitioners and theorists are coming to realize that punishment, in the conventional sense of threatening to inflict pain, and doing so if the other person behaves in a certain way, has at best a limited effectiveness. Faber and Mazlish devote a whole chapter to alternatives to punishment, which are restorative although they do not use that terminology15. Belinda Hopkins also stresses the need to move on from punitive methods, based on fear, to restorative ones16.
School or college students or employees in a business may participate in creating the conflict-resolving structure itself and the action to be taken when conflicts nevertheless arise. Circles can be used not only as a response to crime or conflicts, but as a regular part of a young person’s development17. Belinda Hopkins advocates circles for every part of the school community, both as regular ‘circle time’ and for problem-solving, with the students themselves developing the ground rules at the beginning of a year18. Ron and Roxanne Claassen in California, similarly, have evolved and practised a system of school discipline that is restorative from the start: students are asked to state their goals, the teacher informs them of hers, and they agree a flowchart of ten steps that will be taken in the event of student-teacher conflict. These are restorative but increasingly interventionist; only the final one, which is hardly ever reached, involves the school’s authority structure. Even this is applied as restoratively as possible, for example not demanding expulsion but transfer to another school19.
The IIRP maintains that ‘individuals are most likely to trust and co-operate freely with systems – whether they themselves win or lose by those systems – when fair process is observed’20. It stresses, however, that this does not mean that restorative management forfeits the prerogative of making decisions and establishing policy, nor taking all decisions by consensus, or winning people’s support through compromises to accommodate everyone; management still has to manage, but builds trust and commitment, producing voluntary co-operation by sharing the knowledge and creativity of the staff.
As an everyday example of how things could be different, let us look at a typical non-restorative organization and its grievance procedure. The basic grade workers will be line-managed by a supervisor, who in turn will be line-managed, and so on. The danger in this authoritarian style is that suggestions are seen as criticism, and questions as insubordination. The grievance procedure will say things like ‘If you have a grievance, raise it with your line manager; if it relates to him or her, raise it with the next in line’, and so on. There is a natural tendency for the senior manager to support the line manager, unless the latter is clearly in the wrong. The procedure is adversarial: Upheld or Not Upheld; it does not encourage recognition of ‘faults on both sides’ or recommendations for improvements within the organization. If the grievance is upheld, relations between the employee and the manager will suffer; if not, the employee is likely to feel more aggrieved. The grievance can continue in this way up the chain of command to the board of management, with the possibility of additional causes for dissatisfaction if the employee feels that the procedure itself has not been satisfactory. The procedure may provide for a final hearing, possibly by the chairman of the board, who again will be under pressure to support the management. After that, if the employee still felt unfairly dealt with, he or she could apply to a tribunal; this in itself would be harmful to the organization’s reputation and the morale of other staff, whether or not the grievance was upheld.
In a restorative organization, the grievance is less likely to arise in the first place. Suppose, as a typical case, an employee wants an extra day off (which will affect other people’s workload), or feels that their own workload has been increased unreasonably. The matter would be raised initially in a circle meeting, which would try to find a way of meeting everyone’s needs. Sometimes agreement might still not be reached. Then the manager would have to make a decision, but only after listening to the wisdom of the circle, so that further action is less likely to be needed. However, if the employee felt that decision was unfair or contrary to company policy, an independent mediator would interview him or her, and then the manager, to explore what could be a settlement that would meet the needs of the employee, the manager and the organization. There could be some ‘shuttle diplomacy’, if necessary, and then they would be invited to meet in a mediation session. As always with mediation, this would not focus on the details of what actually happened (perceptions often differ) or who was to blame; instead they would ask both parties to concentrate on a workable arrangement for the future. Of course no one suggests that there would be a 100 per cent success rate. Ultimately someone has to make a decision, but all the indications are that this approach would be much more likely to improve performance and morale.21
Finally there are different ways of delivering mediation and restorative practices to the community: through practitioners in private practice, by training people within the system (teachers, managers, police), and by community-based mediation services, using trained volunteer mediators. Civil and commercial mediation, as you know better than I, are developing to meet demand as they become better known, with the help of the Mediators’ Institute of Ireland, and similarly in the UK the more recently created Civil Mediation Council.
The provision of restorative practices through the statutory sector is more problematic. They are likely to have a robust management structure, and, until the current crisis, more secure funding. However, in criminal justice in England and Wales, the field which I know best, mediators are likely to be found only in juvenile justice, and in a small minority (perhaps of one) in a large youth offending team whose dominant ethos is still that of conventional criminal justice. Youth offender panels have restorative elements, in that victims can be invited to take part and the focus is on a constructive action plan for the young person; they also involve the community, by using trained volunteers as panel members. But they receive only minimal training in restorative principles, and few victims take part. The legislation can make a big difference: in New Zealand, the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 built family conferencing into the juvenile justice system, and Northern Ireland has followed suit (with the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002), and has achieved higher victim participation22.
The third main way to deliver restorative practices is through the community. In England we have hopes that politicians will recognise that this fits well with the new, though not very clearly spelt out, idea of the ‘Big Society’. We are not sure what they mean by it, although there are suspicions that it is not unconnected with cuts in public expenditure; but what we mean is involvement of members of the public at all levels. It includes parents, extended family and other supporters who attend a family group conference, where they can not only help to reach agreement or confront a young person with the effects of his actions on other people, but also contribute to making an action plan and support him in putting it into effect. In the New Zealand model of FGC, after social workers have provided information about locally available resources, they withdraw, allowing ‘private family time’ in which the family can work out its own solution. In one case in the Netherlands, for example, where a Turkish father objected to his daughter’s adopting Western culture, his sister (the girl’s aunt) used the private time to explain to him ‘You are an OK father, but you are living in another country now.’ What could never be accepted if said by a social worker could be said by a family member in the absence of professionals23.
Mediators can be trained volunteers. The service can be provided by a voluntary organization, usually a registered charity, whose management often includes volunteers and officers of statutory agencies. The community has a role outside the actual mediation. When someone has committed a crime and offers to make reparation, the community in the form of, for example, a local charity can provide an opportunity for community service; if he needs paid work, to keep out of trouble and perhaps pay compensation, local employers can provide it. If he needs work skills or life skills, there is a need for suitable programmes, provided by voluntary organizations or the local authority (for which the local community has voted). All of this contributes to a restorative society.
In England and Wales there are a number of local community mediation services; unfortunately since the national organization Mediation UK closed in 2008, no one knows how many. In addition to neighbourhood mediation they can be a focus for other work in schools, workplace mediation, hate crimes and others. I understand that a few have also been established in Ireland.
The use of volunteers should not be regarded as providing a substandard service. Experience in the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and Poland has shown that volunteers can be capable mediators, and between them they can bring the perspectives of more different cultures (and sometimes languages) that would be possible with paid staff alone. An example comes from a multi-cultural city in the north of England.
The owner of a shop complained of harassment. She sold alcohol, and the mosque next door objected. She was a Sikh, and her partner, who was Black British, had converted to Islam, but did not observe the prohibition of alcohol. She felt that the elders of the mosque did not respect her; they refused to talk to her, as a woman, but only spoke to her partner. Younger, radical members of the mosque threatened her; on one occasion she had to barricade herself in upstairs, and the young people stole from her shop.
Two imams and two mosque members who knew the young Muslims agreed to meet her with the mediators (her partner had left meanwhile). The mediators were a volunteer (a Hindu) and the manager of the community mediation service (a Christian who had converted to Buddhism). She spoke about her fears, and said that she was already isolated from her family because of her non-Sikh partner, and this made it worse. She felt entitled to sell what she wanted to, and to live free from threats. The mosque elders agreed, and the others promised to speak to the young radicals. She in turn would not promote alcohol so conspicuously. During the meeting the Muslims did speak to her directly, and they agreed to nominate an elder to whom she could speak if there were any problems in future. The people concerned recognised each other’s humanity, and a potentially serious situation was calmed with no involvement of the criminal justice system.
A community mediation service, unlike, say, a youth offending team, is entirely committed to restorative principles. Its mediators will not have to take off one ‘hat’ (or a policeman’s helmet) and put on the hat of a mediator: they will already be wearing it. The mediation service will, ideally, be affiliated to a national body. This will require local services to be accredited and comply with a code of restorative principles and practice; this seal of approval should reassure statutory agencies when considering referring cases to them, and also funders. Until now the Restorative Justice Council in England and Wales has concentrated on accrediting individual mediators; in my view this is necessary but not sufficient, and my hope is that they will soon introduce accreditation of mediation services. (Traffic lights are very desirable, but they are no use if there aren’t any cars!)
Some people are sceptical about the use of volunteers, but in Norway, the law setting up a nationwide network of mediation centres, funded by local authorities, requires mediators to be lay people, supervised by staff or a senior mediator. There are about 700 in a population of just under 5 million. In the Netherlands, the organization Eigen Kracht (‘Our Power’) also uses about 500 independent co-ordinators, from 72 ethnicities; they are paid a fee, and each case takes up to 30 hours for preparation and the family group conference itself. Cases they deal with include community conflicts, evictions, schools, domestic violence and other crime. The programme is seen as enabling citizens to keep control over decisions affecting their lives without being dependent on the state. In a phrase reminiscent of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and its Office of Economic Opportunity in the 1960s, Rob van Pagée, the director of Eigen Kracht, says that people who were considered part of the problem can become part of the solution.
In Northern Ireland, community-based restorative justice has been running for about 20 years, but there are fears that some of its work will be taken over by the statutory criminal justice system. It is hoped that a role can be found for both.
An example of how these ideas can grow is the city of Hull, in north-east England. Its population is 280,000, including 57,000 young people. There is high unemployment, partly as a result of the decline of the fishing industry. Collingwood Primary School which had been in difficulties adopted restorative practices, and in two years was rated excellent. Other schools followed suit, and now Hull plans to train 23,000 people who work with young people in restorative practices, as the next step to becoming a restorative city. The chief of police, previously oriented to obtaining the maximum penalties, has accepted that a restorative approach can be more effective in preventing re-offending. He has done this despite a system of key performance indicators which does not give credit for incidents resolved restoratively. Among youth workers, the aim is to create a common language and values, and to be not merely reactive but proactive, preventive, and trying to feel what it is like from the child’s point of view.
The programme started with practice, but is now thinking strategically. The aim is to build-in the use of circles, not just hold one when there is a problem. At least twenty agencies or groups of agencies have been trained, including schools, fostering and adoption, a children’s centre for under-5s, youth clubs, church groups, housing, police and more. The Hull Centre for Restorative Practices runs regular practice forums for specific agencies to ensure quality assurance, maintain standards, support practice and develop it. Lead practitioners monitor, support and challenge practice in organisations. Regular courses are advertised to bring in new staff, and restorative practices are included in staff induction in many places. Some schools insist that staff do training within a certain time period of starting the job. It is hoped that all this reduces the possibility of a RP-trained member of staff feeling isolated in a non-restorative organization. The aim is for restorative practices to be embedded, not an add-on24.
Although there is no community mediation centre in Hull, there is a family mediation service; some statutory and community agencies trained in the use of restorative practices offer mediation, and some of them use volunteer mediators.
Hull is not alone. The county of Norfolk has a police-led initiative to be a restorative county by 2015 In West Lancashire, a first step has been made in which a group of schools pays into a limited company which they have set up to provide training and support for young and adult mediators. Children transfer their skills to their families, and the area has the lowest exclusion rate in Lancashire. The group works alongside other agencies such as the police.
In one case, parents complained about an elderly woman, ‘Annie’, whose house children passed on the way to school. They alleged that she threw things at them. The police said they couldn’t do anything. A meeting was held with her, the children and their parents. She told them how she felt isolated and threatened, and the children admitted that they threw the first stones, and called her a witch. The matter was resolved without bringing criminal charges, and a group of parents gave Annie’s daughter flowers and a cake on her birthday.
This case is interesting because the criminal justice system would probably have categorized Annie as the ‘offender’ and the children as ‘victims’; even if the full story came out, it might only mitigate her ‘offence’ on grounds of provocation, rather than reclassify her as the victim.
Elsewhere in the world, some traditional communities have customary conflict resolution techniques from which we could learn. The Ojibway community in Hollow Water, Manitoba, for example, discovered widespread sexual abuse. Rather than disrupt the community by asking the Canadian authorities to prosecute, which could have led to the perpetrators being imprisoned hundreds of miles away and then returned as outcasts, traditional healing methods were used, which led to a recidivism rate of 2 per cent, as against the national average of 13 per cent25. In other places, the traditional methods have been weakened but are being re-introduced as a way of resolving conflicts over natural resources. In South Kordofan, Sudan, the aid charity SOS Sahel International has found that agricultural problems lead to conflict, and the conflict aggravates the problems. They are therefore training key individuals in conflict management skills which will help communities to defuse potential conflict situations. These individuals include traditional leaders, women, and youths, and the training focuses on different approaches to managing conflict: for example, via negotiation and mediation26.
Where does this leave the theme of your conference? The programme speaks of mediators’ capacity to deal with ever more complex conflict situations, to assist people in creating agreement. Workshops will cover many aspects that I haven’t mentioned. With regard to Values, some of you will be considering legal and ethical issues; it is essential to return to basic principles when deciding how to handle a new situation.
Others will discuss Methods, the mediation process itself, for example dealing with complexity and the use of questions, and there are workshops on mediation in particular areas of human life, such as industrial disputes and in neighbourhood conflict. The possible areas for conflict are of course as varied as human life itself, from bringing up a toddler to international disputes; and the principles involved are uncannily similar, such as treating people with respect, listening to them and helping them to listen to each other, moving from positions to interests, looking to the future more than the past, and helping them to find face-saving choices acceptable to both sides.
The third point was the Structures by which mediation is delivered. Your programme includes supervision and regulation, which will be necessary in all forms of mediation, although there can be questions about whether they should be imposed by the government or by a body such as the MII (or in England and Wales the Restorative Justice Council). The workshop on building a mediation practice will take some of you into the field of delivery. Private practice is obviously a very important way, but I would encourage you also to look beyond it, as no doubt you already do. In organizations, such as schools and businesses (and even charitable organizations!) restorative methods such as circles and non-violent communication may help to avoid conflicts in the first place, or resolve them before they become serious. In the community, there are many decisions and conflicts for which, realistically, people would not go to a professional mediator. I have suggested that communities would benefit by the creation of a network of community mediation services, professionally run and accredited but mainly using volunteer mediators. There are parallels to this in England, in the form of legal advice centres, Citizens’ Advice Bureaux, Victim Support and others, and no doubt their equivalents in Ireland.
Finally, as more and more people have been trained in restorative techniques or experienced them as participants, including children and the staff of more and more public and private organizations, restorative ways of relating to each other will become the norm. Children will grow up to become restorative parents, employers and politicians. There will be restorative cities and counties; a speaker at the recent IIRP conference was only half joking when he said that he wants his country, the Netherlands, to become the first restorative country! In theory mediators, like doctors and lawyers, will eventually work themselves out of a job. But I don’t think they will! But it is a noble aspiration.
Let me end by referring back to my example of reclaiming the desert in Sudan. Over the last two or three decades the big challenge has been learning how to live in harmony with the planet; the next challenge for us all is to learn to live in harmony with each other.
4 MII E-zine 2(2) June 2010, http://www.themii.ie/onlinemarketing/ezine4.htm accessed 2.11.2010.
14 National Commission on Restorative Justice (2010) Final Report. Dublin. http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/International_RJ/pdf/NCRJ%20Final%20Report.pdf accessed 5.11.2009
19 Claassen, R, and R Claassen (2008) Discipline that restores: strategies to create respect, co-operation, and responsibility ion the classroom. Booksurge Publishing, South Carolina: www.booksurge.com
22 Jacobson, J., and P. Gibbs (2009) Out of trouble: making amends – restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland. London: Prison Reform Trust; Campbell, C., R Devlin, D O’Mahony, J Doak, J Jackson, T Corrigan and K McEvoy (2005) Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service (NIO Research and Statistical Series: Report No. 12). Belfast: Queen’s University, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice www.nio.gov.uk/evaluation_of_the_northern_ireland_youth_conference_service.pdf
23 Wachtel, J (c.2007) ‘Making the circles bigger: the Netherlands’ Eigen Kracht holds its 1000th family group conference’. http://www.familypower.org/library/eigenkracht.html accessed 3.11.2010
25 Sawatsky, J (2009). The ethic of traditional communities and the spirit of healing justice: studies from Hollow Water, the Iona Community and Plum Village. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kinglsley Publishers. Chapter 4.