The Restorative Justice Partnership: Yolo County District Attorney’s Office (Yolo County, California)

“We hear anecdotally that there’s a feeling of reconnection. That’s the intangible, that reintegration of bringing the offender, the victim, the community back together. That’s the secret sauce, and I think that’s why we see the drop in recidivism, because you have people reconnecting on a human level.”

—District Attorney Jeff Reisig

The Restorative Justice Partnership (RJP) aims to use restorative justice1 to restore and reconnect a person who has committed harm within their community. In the perspectives of the RJP leadership and staff and staff from the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center we interviewed, traditional prosecution isn’t set up to rehabilitate people, and it is sometimes unnecessary and harmful to engage in traditional prosecution. They added further that the RJP is more survivor-centered than traditional prosecution in that it centers and addresses harm, allowing affected parties to be active members in the restorative justice process. It also explores the unique circumstances of the person who caused harm and the person or persons harmed.

This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, focuses on the RJP’s evolution and its out-of-house approach, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors and stakeholders looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership, staff, and partners. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.

The Restorative Justice Partnership

In 2013, Jeff Reisig, district attorney of Yolo County, California, started a restorative justice diversion program called Neighborhood Courts to provide an alternative to traditional prosecution. The program is largely run by external participants, making it an out-of-house diversion program. Over the eight years the program has existed, it has evolved in several ways, including by expanding its eligibility and changing its name to the Restorative Justice Partnership. Along with more traditional diversion requirements such as community service, the RJP offers an opportunity for participants to attend a restorative justice conference run by volunteers from the community. The RJP is funded primarily by government grants.

The RJP is a pre-filing adult diversion program, though some cases are handled post-filing. Each person is assessed for eligibility, which is decided on a case-by-case basis by the District Attorney’s Office. Both misdemeanors and felonies are eligible for the RJP, but there are a few offenses that are categorically excluded, including major felony offenses. Cases are referred by prosecution staff who handle intake and are then passed to staff who focus on the RJP to ultimately decide if they are eligible.

In cases with a person who has been directly victimized, that person is engaged first. Their consent to the process is required for an RJP offer. Then the person who was identified by prosecutor staff as eligible for the RJP is asked whether they’re interested in participating. If they agree, the District Attorney’s Office ends their involvement while the restorative process begins. A preconference meeting is held to set expectations about how the restorative conference will work, what the person who was deemed eligible for the RJP will be asked to do, and what might go into an agreement.

A conference is then held by volunteers trained by the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center, which has expertise in restorative justice. People who have been victimized can choose to participate directly in the conference, have a victim advocate read a letter explaining their perspective, or consent to the process without participating. Conferences purposely have an inclusive layout with the person who has committed harm sitting in a circle with their fellow community members. The conference ends with all participants creating an agreement with specific terms and a timeline to complete the agreement. Requirements can include educational workshops, community service, and a letter to the person who was victimized.

Once these are all completed, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office closes the case. Closure of the case operates as if the office rejected the case; the office also notifies the agency that arrested or cited the person to amend their records. For people whose cases are filed, the case is dismissed by the court upon their successful completion of the RJP. This process normally takes around six months.

If the person participating in the RJP is unsuccessful because they did not complete their conference or the terms of their agreement, the person is sometimes offered additional time to complete before the office proceeds with traditional prosecution. Anything said in the conference will not be used against them in any future case proceedings. Along with the affected parties, volunteers from the community play an essential role in the restorative justice process. About 500 people in the community have volunteered.

According to their survey response, approximately 10 to 15 percent of felonies and 20 percent of misdemeanors are diverted to the program. Three-quarters of all referred cases successfully complete the program. With the aid of volunteers from the community, one interviewee said the program has also resulted in a 37 percent reduction in recidivism.

How the Partnership Has Evolved

District Attorney Reisig wanted to think creatively about how his office addresses crime in his jurisdiction, so he looked to his neighbors to the south in 2012. He sat in on a Neighborhood Courts session in San Francisco to observe how restorative justice circles operate in practice and thought his jurisdiction could benefit from something similar.

Yolo County’s diversion program started in Davis, a college town, and took on the same name as San Francisco’s. Originally, the program was used for minor alcohol offenses to test a nontraditional model for low-level offenses. As time passed, the program expanded throughout the rest of the county. Initially, the population was mainly individuals charged with their first offense, who were often college students. However, after an evaluator found a large drop in recidivism, an interviewee said the program expanded eligibility to more offenses. The interviewee added that community organizations were also part of the push for expansion; they wanted more people to be able to benefit from the program.

The first expansion made eligible any person with no misdemeanor convictions in the past five years and no prior felony convictions. As evaluations continued to show the program’s success, eligibility expanded further; now a significant number of felonies have joined the diversion program. Additionally, one interviewee said the program eliminated the original exclusion of people with prior felony convictions, because evidence shows that people of color, because of systematic discrimination, can have more criminal history, and the program didn’t want this to cause disparities in eligibility. It’s critical to emphasize that eligibility is decided on a case-by-case basis, and the decision ultimately comes from the prosecutor’s office, with some assistance in certain cases with which law enforcement members are familiar.

One significant change in 2021 was the adoption of a new name for the diversion program; the District Attorney’s Office changed the name from Neighborhood Courts to the Restorative Justice Partnership. As several interviewees stated, the new name more closely reflects the programmatic features and goals. They added that the program does not operate like court and is not focused on punishment; it has an inclusive layout, with the person who has committed harm sitting in a circle with community members. Rather than seeking to impose a sentence on someone, the program’s goal, as stated by interviewed District Attorney’s Office staff, is to come to an agreement, not a directive, on what is needed for the person to rectify the harm they’ve caused.

Out-of-House Restorative Justice Provider

In early design discussions, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office quickly decided it was not the best fit to run the restorative justice conferences, based on the advice of experts and to protect the integrity of the restorative justice principles upon which the program model was built. Though prosecutors have a role in referring cases to the RJP, conferences are staffed by volunteers from the community. After a person who is deemed eligible agrees to participate, the prosecutor stops being involved; they do not run or even attend the conference. The dialogue is run by community volunteers trained by the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center. The conference ends with all participants creating an agreement with specific terms and a timeline to complete the agreement.

The program does require that the District Attorney’s Office trust its partners with expertise in restorative justice. One interviewee believed that prosecutors’ offices should be partners but should not be leading these efforts because of an inherent conflict of interest. The interviewee further stated that a prosecutor’s office, including nonattorney staff, can be viewed as a punisher and enforcer, and that role is not part of the principles of restorative justice. That interviewee and a couple others noted that this difference leads to the need for a neutral party to hold restorative circles. They added that a community-driven organization is well positioned to do that work because restorative justice is about repairing harm done by community members to community members and reintegrating the person who has caused harm back into their community.

The following lessons learned were informed by observations from District Attorney’s Office leadership and staff and from their partners:

• Have prosecutor office leadership champion the program. Yolo County is unique in that its district attorney has been actively involved in establishing and monitoring the RJP throughout its eight years. Their leadership was critical to getting others in the District Attorney’s Office on board with the goals of the program. It was critical to ensuring cooperation and active referrals from line prosecutors, along with getting volunteers, who run the restorative process, on board.
• Bring in other stakeholders early on to get buy-in. A program that diverts people from traditional criminal legal procedures can face resistance from law enforcement, so it’s critical to bring law enforcement members on board early and to educate them about the value of restorative justice. Additionally, Yolo County found it was important to get defense attorneys on board and have them be aware that this program exists for their clients. Synchronizing all of these actors can help change how they think about accountability in the criminal legal system. However, prosecutors’ offices should be prepared to carefully manage competing desires. Perhaps most importantly, they will need to engage the community early on, since community members lead restorative conferences, which are the crux of the RJP.
• Don’t start from scratch, start slow, and build up. As discovered in our interviews, District Attorney Reisig learned from San Francisco’s Neighborhood Courts, and other prosecutors should learn from those already operating similar programs and should rely on community organizations to help them discover how to adapt the program to their communities. Furthermore, one reason for the RJP’s success is that it started slow and expanded eligibility as it showed success. One interviewee said failure sets back not just a program but also the restorative justice movement, so it’s important to be purposeful. Additionally, maintaining fidelity to restorative justice principles was critical. A success factor mentioned by interviewees was finding partners, like the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center, which kept the office committed to the principles of restorative justice and would lead the conferences.
• Be intentional about reducing racial disparities. Importantly, interviewees have stated that the District Attorney’s Office has been intentional in minimizing any racial disparities in those who are eligible for, participate in, and complete the RJP. Until recently, eligibility criteria excluded people with crimes within the previous few years. Historically, people of color have been more system involved because of various modes of discrimination. Excluding people who have recently been convicted of crimes could disparately affect people of color, and Yolo County plans to monitor whether this eligibility change increases the proportion of people of color in the program.
• Carefully consider how to incorporate people who are victimized. Though the RJP may seem like a program that people who have been victimized would request to join, interviewees have said that the nonpunitive focus on restoration for all can be a difficult concept to embrace. Because restorative justice is about healing and can be personal to them, the RJP requires approval from someone who has been directly victimized to allow a participant into the RJP. The RJP works closely with the Victim Assistance and Family Protection Department of the District Attorney’s Office to reach out to and engage people who have been victimized whose cases are eligible for this process. To better meet their needs, the office provides choices so people who have been victimized can determine their level of involvement if they approve the RJP.
• Use an evaluator. Yolo County hired an independent evaluator to assess the RJP. In addition to measuring traditional public safety outcome metrics like recidivism rates, the county surveys all involved parties to hear more about their experiences with and perspectives on the program. The District Attorney’s Office has found this helps to demonstrate success with the community and funders and, in turn, makes the program sustainable, according to an interviewee.
• Secure funding. In taking on this large of an effort and growing the program, the District Attorney’s Office discovered that securing funding is essential and difficult. Grant funding is cyclical, term limited, and not guaranteed. Interviewed staff said that providing evidence of the value the program provides can assist with getting funding. Along with funding, labor and efforts to develop and maintain a volunteer corps are needed. A diverse pool of volunteers who reflect the people going through the program is also critical.