 Good morning. Let's get started for our next session. Good morning, everyone. My name is Nadia Gersbacher. I'm the director of security sector education programs here at the Institute. And welcome to this session on civil military police coordination for human security. We'll be having a variety of presentations and then a discussion, which hopefully will involve you. Let me first turn over to Dr. Lisa who will introduce the project and the handbooks that are being launched. And then after that, I'll introduce the panelists and we'll get going with the presentations and then the discussion. Lisa? Good morning and thank you for coming to this session. This is a project that will be sharing both some of the key concepts and some of the case studies for. But I want to just give you a bit of a background on the project itself. Last year, we actually did a mini session reporting on it. It was a collaboration between GPAC, the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. Dari now is here from GPAC in the audience, sorry, up there. It was also involving the Kroc Institute for International Peace at the University of Notre Dame and Laurel Stone, if she could stand, is here from the Notre Dame. And the Alliance for Peacebuilding and all of our members. So just to just tell you briefly about how we developed the books that we'll be talking about today, it was a three-year participatory process and that process was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We had global consultations in Geneva, Washington DC and The Hague. We had a global steering group with 19 different countries represented and all together there were over 100 organizations involved including many Alliance for Peacebuilding members. Last June, we did a training of trainers in which we had 30 people, police, military from NATO and civil society leaders from 26 different countries participating at Eastern Mennonite University's Summer Peacebuilding Institute in which we tested the curriculum and we got another set of feedback. So over the last three years, it's all been very participatory and it includes the ideas and concepts from many different countries and people. Then just in December of this year, we launched these publications in The Hague at the Civil Military Cooperation Center of Excellence which is a NATO affiliated training center in The Hague and again we had over 80 people, military, police and civil society sitting down together and talking about how do we identify the differences in our approaches, in our values, in our way of working, in our goals but how do we also work on the common ground and find ways of working on specifically the human security agenda. Okay, I'm gonna pass it back to Nadia and we'll be sharing more. Thank you, Lisa. So we, in the agenda, you have a couple of the different presentations. Let me introduce Lisa, Christopher and Deborah at first and we will then get going with the presentations and I'm losing some of the, all right. So let me introduce Christopher Holshek who's over here on chair number four. Colonel Holshek is an international peace and security consultant focused on civil military and peace building related training and education. As a senior fellow at the Alliance for Peace Building, Christopher is helping to shape a new strategic narrative of peace building as applied national strategy, build institutional and disciplinary bridges and foster enduring dialogue between peace builders and national security professionals at policy and operational levels. Deborah Mancini Grifoli is an independent consultant who has been working on this project, has been working on various issues around peace building and security. She is based here in Washington, DC and working on topics related to peace and conflict. Deborah's focus lies with civilian protection, civil military police relations, corporate community engagement and humanitarianism. She has co-authored various manuals and guidebooks now widely used by humanitarian organizations, UN agencies and governments, such as humanitarian negotiation. A handbook for securing access, assistance and protection for civilians in armed conflict. Deborah also regularly conducts trainings and workshops around the world with humanitarian and human rights workers, military personnel, government officials and corporate leaders. And Lisa, and I don't know Lisa, but there you go. I lost you in the shuffle. Lisa Surge is a FPS director of human security. She's also a research professor at peace building at Eastern Mennonite University, Center for Justice and Peace Building. She's currently working with global civil society partners and key security sector experts to write a curriculum on security force civil society relations. 25 years of experience on the ground peace building in Afghanistan and 25 other countries. Lisa trained security forces, governments and international organizations to work in partnership with civil society peace building efforts. So at this time, I will turn it over back to Lisa who will talk to us about a civilian perspective to human security. Lisa. It's actually Chris and I. So Chris is gonna go first. We're gonna double team. Okay. Got it. Okay. You first. Okay, good. Well, so yeah. When you're looking at this, we kind of started to think about what does the environment look like? And it's kind of the old story. The more things change, the more they stay the same. So we looked at this phenomenon of what Farid Zakaria has called the democratization of violence. But the very same platforms such as social media that can transmit content that fosters violence can be also the very same platforms and technologies and so on that foster peace. So it's the democratization of both violence and peace. And if I could describe this, what we're basically doing is we're shifting in an era of warfare and peace where, if you will, that is largely the sort of 20th century this sort of vertical model, the national security model, which is top down. Which is state-centric, industrial era warfare and conflict management. We're now moving to this more distributed, more horizontal concept of peace and conflict. And these are essentially people-centric and they are struggles for identity as was mentioned in fact earlier this morning. So the paradox of this is while a lot of this is being distributed and going downward and more horizontal, it requires therefore a more strategic approach. I spent 25 of my 30 years in the US military in civil affairs and our moniker, the civilians say, think globally, act locally, we would say things strategically and tactically. So the focus is moving to understanding the strategic context that drivers the causalities of violence rather than just what the violence itself, which is, one could sort of compare this with symptoms versus the disease itself. The other thing that's been happening is the field for civil military police coordination has become more complex, more crowded. In my mind's eye, I think that's actually a good news story because a long time ago we tended to look almost primarily or exclusively to the military to solve a lot of these issues and now there are these many other actors in the field who are not only more appropriate, but in many ways more effective than the military. There is still a role for the military. The one thing that I thought that was important for me to mention here is there are some things that still stay the same. One is that peace, this concept of peace is actually a higher ordering principle than security. This is in fact one of the sort of problem areas that we have, the overwhelming focus on security versus peace. But peace itself is strategic. It is inherently strategic. It is not because it is a state of or an objective or a goal, but it is of itself a process. So as we've seen in the so-called decade of war, winning the peace is really the goal and winning the war is only a step to that. In fact, every major military philosopher from Sun Tzu to Colin Gray will tell you that the object of war is to establish a more favorable peace. So in my mind's eye I have seen peace building essentially as applied whole of society or national strategy. So getting down to the more somewhat operational level, it's remembering that in the conduct of this consolidation on the objective in a sort of Klausawitian political military sense, this winning the peace, you have to focus on the real center of gravity. I asked this question in Tom Rick's book of a commander I was confronting in Iraq by saying, sir, what is the battle space? The battle space is human and not state centric. So all of these concepts, counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, countering violent extremism, peace and security operations, the engagement concept the armies have, this idea of centers of gravity, it's all part of the Klausawitian trinity where he talks about the people, the government and the army. The people is in modern warfare, the center of gravity and that's how you get to peace. So the civil military relationship and the state civil society relationship as representative of that is really among the key nexus for managing this transition. And I've always looked at civil military operations not as winning hearts and minds or public relations but as a transition management function. So governance in civil society is what you're trying to institute because that's the antidote necessarily to violence and Lisa has taught me greatly what the term governance actually means. And again, I've mentioned that there are more players in the field who represent civil society who are really the more appropriate and effective capabilities to, for example, counter violent extremism and the military and this has shifted the role. The military is in fact, the force multiplier. Despite what some people have said and not too long ago pass about NGOs being force multipliers it's actually the other way around. Now, this is really not so much of a sea change as we think it is because the truth of the matter is that if you understand civil military operations as the application of the civil military relationship as you understand peace building as applied national strategy, then what you realize is the key in all of this management process of these different actors is how you align, how you balance the civil and the military actors. And we have had a model for that, believe it or not, since 1782 and everyone carries it in their pocket in the form of a US dollar look on the back and look at which way the eagle is looking. That tells you that is a depiction of the civil military relationship. That is the depiction of civil military operations. That is a depiction of what we're driving at with this manage the strategic management process of getting to peace and prioritizing peace. It's already right there. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Lisa. Thank you, Chris. Chris and I really are modeling today what I've spent the last 10 years doing and it's a lot of translation and learning acronyms. You see CVE, Center of Gravity, COG. I wanna just make a mention here that Chris and I were in Iraq almost at the same time. I was in Iraq with Mennonite Central Committee in 2005 and many of the students that we've had it from Iraq who were doing reconciliation work who had come to Eastern Mennonite University and our summer peace building institute, I was working for them and when I left, they said, it's great that you Mennonites come and teach conflict transformation and peace building but what we really need you to do is go engage with your own government, especially your military. And so really today is the culmination of 10 years. Over 10 years of, first of all, the first three years I just listened to the military and tried to learn all these acronyms and this language, it's a real cross-cultural divide. And I see Jim Embry here from the US Army War College because most of my learning really was there. I attended courses, I went and I was at conferences and I spent several years only listening before I could begin to see where are the differences in what we're talking about and where are their similarities. And so really this project has been about focusing on the similarities but also in the handbook there are pointing out where there's different theories of change, different analysis, different language. So part of the handbook is really the translation of the civil military police relationship. What we learned as I talked about that participatory global process that we used to develop it is that all of the civil military police coordination and the whole concept of human security really comes down to how does the state relate to the society? What kinds of community engagement local ownership are there? The handbook on human security has a lot on practical skills for community engagement. How does a civil society organization figure out how to reach out to the police, reach out to the military? How do the military and police pick which civil society organizations they wanna listen to and how they will go about listening to that so it's a very practical handbook in that sense. But the idea is that security is a public good and nobody embodies that more than Chris Holshek. Currently he's on a national service ride around North America trying to promote the idea of service and citizenship and community engagement. And Chris really articulated for me security is a public good and local people, the consumers of security have to have a voice. It really defines the relationship between the police, the military and the public. It became very clear even at our first global consultation in Geneva that we needed to make this about human security because there are real tensions between national security and human security. There is overlap but there are also tensions and so the handbook really focuses on how can we work together for human security because that is the paradigm, the framework in which coordination can happen. We heard earlier this morning about this concept of security sector reform. It's really being discussed a great deal in Europe. It's used less often here in this country but it's this idea that security sector institutions are kind of the center of whether the state and society have a relationship that is seen as legitimate and there's consent for governance. When people in communities fear the security institutions there is something wrong. So when they see them as predators, whether it's in Ferguson here in the United States in our own cities here in this country or in other places around the world, basically the dynamic is the same. How do we move from the people seeing security sector as predators to seeing them as protectors and partners and civil society seeing itself playing a role in security? Civil society has been shifting as we, I don't have a slide but the numbers of civil society organizations around the world is skyrocketing every year. It is growing by leaps and bounds and more and more of those civil society organizations are trained and practiced in peace and security issues. They're doing conflict analyses. They're doing mediation, negotiation, all kinds of work in dialogue, community processes and as that expertise within civil society has grown there is a shift and it's not really civil society not protesting anymore but it's enriching our ability to speak to government. We don't just have to go to the streets and protest. We can also make proposals. We can make security proposals and in the video we'll see in a little bit there's a detail about how civil society is moving from protest to proposal in so many countries where civil society is stepping up and going directly to the police and to the military and saying we have ideas about how to improve public safety and how to improve human security. So we're going to watch an eight minute film that discusses this publication called Local Ownership and Security and then Debra and I will give some of the conceptual background but first of all we'll watch a few of the people who came to our training of trainers last June who really articulated what does this civil military police coordination and local ownership of security look like in practice in a variety of different contexts. So when we were thinking about local ownership which has become such a buzzword we realized it means very different things to very different people and in order to make it more tangible we thought it would be useful to really think of it as something that has two dimensions at least. One is, you can think of it as the wide or the horizontal dimension and the other is the deep or vertical one and the wide dimension is really the idea about inclusion. It's the idea that as many stakeholders as possible representing all different categories of age, gender, religion, race, ethnicity, et cetera should be included into security sector policy making and programming and this slide illustrates how ownership can be widened starting with the national government then working through international NGOs which is not always necessary sometimes even counterproductive but in an ideal case able to draw in elite local civil society who then can draw in women and men from all the segments of local society and this is an aspect of the debate that receives a lot of attention and rightly so because it is so important and it comes with many dilemmas and challenges but there's this other axis or dimension if you want and when this first slide was about who do we engage the next question is really how do we engage and it's the idea that local ownership there are actually many aspects of it but one is that joint efforts between security sector representatives and civil society have to be systematic it's not about a one-off project in some locality it's something that goes through the entire cycle and here we are showing you the cycle of any kind of program in the security sector where in each phase assessment the orange planning implementation monitoring and evaluation there are opportunities for the two groups to really work together in meaningful ways and capacity building of course is an extremely important category also which comes before but also during this entire process and which is often the first opportunity as Lisa was saying for both sides to learn each other's vocabulary but also their interests and most importantly the constraints so it's this idea of comprehensiveness you might know what we're saying on this slide but you wanna just to point out in the Philippines they are actually working on each of these five areas together I think the Philippines may be the only country where that's happening in the world and they really are the gold standard of civil military police coordination and John Rudy who I'll introduce later who's taking on some of this work at the Alliance for Peace Building has done some of this training in the Philippines but the Mindanao Peace Building Institute began training military it's expanded into training entire brigades of the Philippine military and also with the police and the security sector in general they now have 17 civil society centers all over the country that are government approved that jointly assess human security challenges they jointly plan human security operations they implement sometimes together and civil society has a role in monitoring and evaluating at the highest levels of what security operations happened and did they work or did they hurt people and civil society representatives in these forums actually have security clearance so that they get intelligence reports from the government so they not only have their own civil society knowledge but they also get government reports of where activities are happening so they have a much tighter relationship in terms of civil society and the security sector working together through the tensions through the differences and finding out where is the common ground and this example of the Philippines is also a great way to illustrate the probably most important aspect about local ownership that often gets put aside in the debate because it's the most controversial one it's the question of responsibility sharing what actually happens in each of those cycles do civil society simply sit at the table or listen do they actually get to say something if they say something are policies being changed on the basis of the feedback and not only for the decision making also during implementation other responsibilities shared and some of the local community policing projects that we're describing in the report are a great example of civil society representatives working with police in the same committee in a certain neighborhood working to identifying security threats and thinking about possible remedial options these are very successful projects so if you think about local ownership now you can change these are the two axis and if you look at what is currently happening this left upper area is luckily not very populated but there are a lot of projects in this lower end narrow and deep where you have meaningful engagement civil society representatives taken up roles but they're often part of a local elite or you have a lot of projects up here where much more diverse segments are engaged but they're not receiving meaningful roles so now you can just click on it so the meaningful projects which are in this area are the ones that we have focused on in our report and there are of course many layers and nuances there and we've tried to come up with preliminary categories that think about what are really the differences between in different community policing projects for example or other DDR etc and what are categories that we can find but much more work is needed to make local ownership more tangible, more measurable and then more implementable also and a couple more of our observations so the local ownership and security is not a handbook it's a set of case studies of about 40 different situations around the world some in the US, some abroad of community policing, of civil society working together with the military and what Deborah and I are really focusing on is what did we really learn in looking at the patterns across all of those case studies and one of the biggest things that stuck out as we collected these case studies over the last three years was that in every single situation the key person who really organized the coming together had training in peace building because this is what's unique about the peace building field we our theory of change is about relationship building and when there is tension you don't run away from it you go toward it and so it was really the peace building organizations in each of these contexts that had the skills to bring together different stakeholders the processes for how are you going to manage that identifying the differences and the tensions and living with that sitting in the fire feeling but also finding the common ground and is there a place that we can work together so I think this is a real testament to our field that peace building organizations in many different corners of the world at the same time without even knowing each other we're basically using the same methodology of peace building and again the second thing which I've really already mentioned is in every single case the language of human security was there so they recognize that national security state security is a very conflictual thing in many places in the world but when people could start using the framework of human security they could start coming together the third common point I want to point out is that as we went through all 40 case studies but also as we had these global consultations with over a hundred organizations the operational requirements of civil society for working with the police and military really came out and they're very similar if not the same as the humanitarian and development world while humanitarian and development world has enshrined these principles many of the peace building organizations actually have the Red Cross NGO standards which involve these principles up on their wall they're framed when I was working in Kabul you walk in the front door and there's a framed statement of the Red Cross NGO principles about independence, distinction, access and freedom consent and acceptance and of course empowerment which we talked about already so that concludes sort of the key concepts that we have found in the case studies and I wanted, when we were thinking about launching these materials today and having this conversation we wanted to have an illustration from this country of what good civil society community police interaction really looked like and in my own hometown with a friend Lieutenant Boschart from the Harrisonburg Virginia police department who I actually went to high school with at Eastern Mennonite High School many years ago and my colleague Carl Stoffer from Eastern Mennonite University and our community friend Stan McClinn and I think Nadia will read their full bios before they come up here but I wanted a case study because really as we move into this thinking about how does this apply in our own country with our own police departments in every corner of this country as well as thinking about the world so I invite Nadia up to give the bios and then my friends from Harrisonburg. Thank you, thank you Lisa and Deborah and Christopher. So let me just introduce our speakers for the case study Dr. Carl Stoffer, Professor Justice and Development Studies Center for Justice Peacebuilding Eastern Mennonite University Dr. Stoffer's work in restorative justice transitional justice, peacebuilding and post-work reconstruction has taken him to over 35 countries in Africa the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Asia. Dr. Stoffer lived in South Africa for 16 years during which time he worked for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission community policing forums, local development forums and restorative justice programs in the court system. I will then introduce Stan McClinn who's the founder and president of the Harriet Tubman Cultural Center. Stan graduated from Eastern Mennonite Seminary has held several pastorates, traveled internationally and did multiple service projects in Jamaica and Africa. For 16 years he served as executive director of housing inter-denominational missions a ministry of housing projects across America for 12 years. He served as national president of the African American Mennonite Association and currently he serves as the founder and president of the Harriet Tubman Cultural Center and was a leading advocate to rename a street, rename Cantrell Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Harrisburg, Virginia. Sounds like there's story that you need to tell us about here up here. And finally, Lieutenant Kurt Boshart who's a police officer in Harrisburg Police Department Lieutenant Boshart is a 27 year veteran with the Harrisburg Police Department. He graduated from the administrative officer command school with the Southern Police Institute at the University of Louisville in 2013 and 2015. Kurt attended Eastern Mennonite University's summer peace building Institute on restorative justice and he currently works directly for the chief of police's office as the administrative lieutenant. So I invite you to either sit at your chairs or come up here or stand wherever you like and tell us about Harrisburg, Virginia. I guess I'm gonna start off and we'll just start talking a little bit about what we've been doing in Harrisburg. We're excited about the collaborative effort and restorative justice process that we've started. I guess it all began back in December of 2013. In Harrisburg, we have a very active non-profit organization and the director for restorative justice services. They've been practicing there for about 15 to 20 years, I guess, very affection or how should I say, very affectionate about what they were doing. And Sue Prail had approached our chief of police at the time, he had just come to Harrisburg and really wanted the police department to be involved with the restorative justice process. So in December of 2013, I was asked by the chief to actually look into this and see if this is something we can do. So we started looking at it and first thing I did was I contacted Howard Zaire from Easter Mountain University who's known as the grandfather of restorative justice. And we met and we started a coalition, if you will, of different entities within the community. Right now what we have in Harrisburg is we have a coalition on restorative justice. The coalition, as you see up here, has all representatives from all these different entities that meet regularly and actually plan what's gonna happen in the future for restorative justice. But we have members from Easter Mountain University, James Madison University also has a very robust restorative justice practice. They used to have a program where they would have students that would get in trouble at James Madison University and they would go through what their process was called judicial affairs. The director of judicial affairs, Josh Bacon, also attended the SPI at Easter Mountain University. And after that he became so rejuvenated in his career that they actually renamed judicial affairs of James Madison University to the student practices of student affairs and restorative practices. And so they've redone that. Fairfield Center, as I mentioned, criminal defense attorneys, we brought them on board. We also have our prosecuting attorney's office is on board with what we're doing and has supported it 100%. We have civil attorneys, victim advocates, community organizers, the police department, Harrisburg City Schools and juvenile intake. The city schools we'll talk about here in just a little bit as we move along. Basically what we have anytime we're looking at human nature, we're looking at two reasons really. There's only two reasons that people obey the law. First is through fear. They fear the police, they fear getting caught, they fear going to jail, they fear the punishment. So that's one reason that people are going to obey the law is through fear. The other reason people are going to obey the law is through what we call procedural justice and police legitimacy. And that is where people believe in what the police or what the law enforcement or the authority power is saying. They believe in what they're saying and they believe it because they're being treated fairly. If you look at the Department of Justice, 21st century policing, the report that came out on May of 2015, the very first pillar of that is procedural justice and police legitimacy. In 21st century policing what we're looking at and what we're trying to look for and the direction that we need to go is how we're treating the public, how we're engaging with the public and how we're giving people a voice to be actually have an input in what goes on and what happens. So those are really the two ways that people obey the law and those are the two ways that we try to look at. Fear, obviously, is not sustainable in any organization from enforcement policies. That would require a police officer to be on every corner. We can't do that. It's also not effective. So we try to look at how that's gonna look. Why would the police department wanna be involved with a sub-program like restorative justice? And restorative justice, I look at it as very interesting in the sense of what we can do when officers go out and they're responding to calls. Normally we're getting called when people are at their worst. The worst things are happening, bad things are going on in their life and they're probably not in a very good spot. How many of you have ever called the police department because you were having a good time? You're having a barbecue and you say, hey, I'm gonna call the police. They need to come over and check this out. It just doesn't happen. So people are oftentimes looking at police and they're calling us when they're in the worst of times. So the officers are getting there and the interaction, the relationship is automatically on a rocky start. What restorative justice does and we're through a circle process, every time that officer deals with a juvenile or someone that's just committed a crime, it's kind of like what I always call a stamp on their forehead. They're now stamped with that label that they're a criminal, that they've done something wrong. The next time the officers go out on the street and they see that person on the street, what's the first thing they're thinking? That's that criminal, that's that person that did something wrong. So their interaction with them is not always gonna be a positive interaction. Through restorative justice, what we can do is we can bring these officers in a circle process. We can actually have the offender, the victim, actually tell how they feel about certain things, what they've gone through, different things that they've been involved in and we start to see them in a different light. The other thing that it does for the offenders, it gets them to see the officers in a different light as well. They're no longer at that bad point in their life. They're now, it's been weeks later. They're now seeing things differently. They're now able to look at things from a different mindset. So the next time they go out on the street, they have that sense of empathy that has been created through that circle and they now are able to see that person in a different manner, in a different way. As police officers, we're looking for peace. That's what we want. We wanna try to look at victims and try to make sure that they have a voice. What we've learned in the criminal justice system is the criminal justice system doesn't always give the victim a voice. It doesn't always give the victim an opportunity to say what's happened and what's going on. So that's why we wanna look at what's going on there. Through restorative justice, we actually do that. Through the procedural justice and the police legitimacy, what we learned through getting the officers involved with restorative justice is we tend to increase this level of legitimacy within the police department, within the community. The restorative justice process that we do, that we utilize in Harrisburg right now is pre-charge. So in other words, what we have is we have officers going out on calls. They'll take a report of a larceny or report whatever it may be. If the offender is known, then what the officer can do is the officer can ask the victim if they wanna go through the restorative justice process. If the victim agrees, then the officer can take it through the restorative justice process. We then check with the offender. If the offender agrees, we're still good. The third thing that has to happen is the offender has to account for what they did. They have to own up to what they've done. If none of those three things happen, we can't take it through restorative justice. So we have to have the victim has to agree to it. The offender has to agree to it and the offender has to own up to what they've done. After that point, if they all agree, then we can go through the restorative process and no criminal charge is placed. And it's all done pre-charge. So that way there is no record of it as far as the criminal justice system. We found this to be very effective in the few cases that we've had so far in the sense of a lot of times we have the victim asking for it before the officer can even say anything about it. And the victim is saying, can we go through the restorative justice process? So then we go through that process. Measuring success. What I like to refer to as measuring what matters. And in old times in law enforcement, I think we always looked at clearance rates as a way to look at success of the police department and how well we're doing. As a commander of the criminal investigations division for a number of years, that was one of the goals that I was always given by my superiors. What's your clearance rates? Look at that. Well, clearance rates are good. They tell you as part of a story, but really when success, what we should be looking at is, how do people feel? How does the community feel? That's measuring success. And when we can start looking at that as success, is how our community members feel, then we can start looking at really what's gonna matter and how we're doing as an organization and how we're doing as a police department. Well, you can see why we're fortunate in the city of Harrison Bird to have an officer, Lieutenant Boshard. He's not just talking from his head, he's talking from his heart. And it makes a difference. And I was really blessed to be able to come up here this morning with he and Dr. Stauffer, which we go back quite ways. I was asked some specific questions as a organizer, community organizer, and a leader within the city to respond to. So I'm responding to some of these questions from my perspective in terms of some of the aspects I would love to see in a working relationship with the HPD. We do have a very good relationship with the HPD from the chief of police all the way down to the officers on their local beat. I think that's very important for the community to know their officers and to have interaction. So we're gonna respond to some of these community perspectives and share with you on them from the answers to some of these here. As a community organizer and leader, what do you want our expect from the police? My answer was what I want from the police is to do its community service without prejudice of race. This is very important as you see now across the country. What do I expect from the police is to protect, serve and enforce the law with professionalism, honesty, accountability and integrity. Ferguson gets an F because all of these essential components were missing from its police department. What does community policing look like? My answer is community policing looks like law enforcement officers more involved in community than enforcement. Get it to know the neighbors through geographical policing and neighborhood community watch groups. Responding to human needs with concern, compassion and if necessary, the use of daily force as a last resort. This is very important is that the community officers through geographical policing in our community have engagement with the local community to know what's going on in their particular geographical area. It's very important. And it puts a face then just an officer just riding up and down the street within his vehicle. How can the police and community partner together to ensure safety and security for all? The community and the police can partner together by working together as co-labors in partnership concerning community awareness through geographical policing and community neighborhood meetings. Our particular city is divided up into about seven geographical areas. And it's very important to have that co-labor partnership working together to ensure safety and security for all the law enforcement officers must know their communities, be and the residents should know their local community. It's a partnership. It's teamwork working together. Law enforcement officers other than just responding to a need to ensure safety and security for all. And when there's fear in the community many times the residents, when the officers coming to the community they don't know them, they're apprehensive about having a response to them. And so this helps to cut down a lot of animosity where the community can look at the officers as a friend. Like it used to be in the days through that I grew up in. What are the historical issues of race relations in the city of Harrisonburg? Well, in the city of Harrisonburg there is not a chasm between the African American community and the local Harrisonburg police department due to the low 5% population of the African American community. However, there is a history of bad race relationships between Hispanic and Latino immigrants and the U.S. born of Hispanic and Latino descent which is now 20% of working age adults. What are some examples of this here? Well, there was a shooting of a man of Mexican descent out of a tree in the late 90s. There was also within our community there was the 287G campaign and rallies that were held. 287G was a campaign to stop illegal stop and detain meant for ICE deportations and that was successfully done in our community but it left a bad taste in that particular community concern. Gang stops, which was the SUR 13 and MS 13, a lot of individuals driving the car was automatically suspected to be a part of those gangs. And so right today, there's massive fear of concern in a lot of that community whenever they're stopped concerning that particular surveillance and scrutiny. Traffic stops and ICE detainments was another big one in the community. And then the other one is poultry plant workers abuse. Harris suburb happens to be a magnet for a lot of the immigrant communities coming to work in the turkey and poultry plants. And so there is a lot of work to be done to make a difference and we're working hard to try to work at that to bridge some of those gaps. Harris suburb has now become a hub for immigration and what does this mean for police and legitimacy in the local area? Well, within the local Harris suburb public schools it is recorded that there are over 51 different languages as the second largest immigrant speaking region in the state. The local poultry plant such as Tyson's Cargill Purdue has become a hub magnet for immigrant recruits. What does this mean for police and legitimacy in the local area? We listed some areas here. More non-white law enforcement officers according to federal law Title VI which calls for the providing of interpreters for a detainee who does not speak English. More diverse police administration and printed materials in Spanish are Arabic, et cetera. And lastly, the visitation to local ethnic businesses in the area, in the area geographical areas for the hosting of officer friendly chats. And working in these areas here can help a whole lot to foster a good partnership between the HPD and the local citizens ring. We're glad to be able to share this with you today. So let me just summarize with a few thoughts about why we're in this partnership and what are key parts to this partnership. One of the things that's critical for us is you saw the coalition that Kurt named earlier is the fact that often restorative justice has been understood to be another social service in a menu of many social services. We understand restorative justice as in fact more than a social service, it's a social movement. And therefore we think it has the ability not only to help with our individual safety and security and autonomy and freedom, it also helps where conflict erupts to bring meaningful relationships and connections. And finally, we believe restorative justice offers a set of values and practices that bring social political structures into alignment and can serve to sustain these values that are so important for us. So with that backdrop, let me say a few things about police and civil society partnerships not only from our experience in Harrisonburg but from my experience in South Africa and Johannesburg also. First of all, one of the things that's really critical is we need to begin to shift the narrative, the narrative from sort of crime control and the technicalities of crime control to the concepts that we've been hearing today, community, safety, security. These are the things that open up another conversation between police and civil society. In this country, we have lost a lot of our meaningful civic engagement and I think it's partly because we've given over a certain part of that to professional lobbyists and private consultants. And so when you find out there's a conflict in our school system, we bring in a consultant possibly from somewhere else. When we have the resources right within our own community. Niels Christia, criminologist in 1973, wrote the sort of pivotal article in an academic journal where he talked about crime as property, something we own because we're the ones who engage in crime and in conflict. And what happens when that crime and that conflict is taken away from us? Just as we engage in crime and conflict and that is something we own, it should also be ours to own the solutions and the resolutions and this is where restorative justice gives us that handle. So what are some of the roles and I'll close with this in the police and community partnerships as we understand it. First of all, there's accountability and transparency that can flow both ways a lot more quickly and a lot more fluidly and we're looking at various ways in which those structures could be made. We know in some places there has been accountability boards with civil society and the police together. One of the first pieces of legislation that the ANC, Mandela's government put into force in 1994 was the community police forum legislation which required by law every police station in South Africa to have a community policing forum. And to set that up was the beginning of accountability and transparency and building the bridge between an extensive chasm between the community and the police from the apartheid history. Advocacy becomes important unless we have the advocacy channels and this coalition provides an open channel for that advocacy as opposed to an adversarial advocacy process. Organizing becomes critical for the civic society can organize and mobilize and again we're trying to move that away from the adversarial as much as possible even though that's maybe necessary at times to opening up the space in which we can have an equal partnership in the conversation. The civil society plays a critical role in intermediary responsibilities when there is conflicts between the police and the community. The civil society opens a space and a conduit for dialogue and for healing and rehabilitation for those who've been directly affected by either crime or have been inside the correctional systems and have come out and are attempting to re-enter into our communities. Ultimately, as Lisa reminded us, the civil society plays a role of long term peace building if it's empowered to do so, if it's capacitated to do so and if it uses its abilities to educate and to inform and raise awareness. And finally, and dare I say this, I think the civil society does also offer, not always and it's not always perfectly a moral and ethical voice for truth and for reconciliation. And I put both of those together because truth alone does not bring justice, does not bring resolution. We need truth coupled with other ways in which we can reconstruct the way in which we wanna live together in peace. Thank you. Thank you. So let's, we are running a little behind our schedule so we are going to have a sort of a discussion and Q and A session for the next 15 minutes before we let you off to lunch. We have microphones on both sides of the room so I invite anyone who would like to ask questions, make comments to line up either on the left or the right side of the room. I do so that everyone has an opportunity to engage our speakers. I do ask you to keep your questions brief and let others come right after you. So we'll take maybe one, let's take two questions one on each side and then let our panelists respond. I will take volunteers in terms of respond. If you have a specific question to ask for the specific panelists, please go ahead and let us know. As a police, somebody who works on police reform, I have lots of questions, but I'll hold them for lunch or something like that. But thank you very much for the great presentations. Go ahead on this side. Thank you. Really interesting conversation. My name is Cecilia Sopel. I come from the international development world. I just wanted to know if one of you could talk about the messy part in the beginning. How did this happen? Where did the leadership come from? How did you educate people? How did you bring this coalition together? And what were these sort of success factors or which could be things that are completely idiosyncratic to Harrisonburg or whatever that may be? And then sort of related to that, I was just wondering, Harrisonburg is like what, 50,000? 50,000? And if you think that's a factor, if you think that, like if you get bigger or smaller, whether that has anything to do with being able to do this so meaningfully. Thank you. We'll take one more question. Yes, I want to thank you very much for this. I was doing local restorative justice organizing for a few years and then it was really frustrating where there was a lot of lack of peace building in because there's so much frustration and anger. And I was organizing mothers that had their children killed by law enforcement, unarmed men of color. And the big frustration was we start the conversation of police accountability and we start the conversation of oversight committees, but the conversation doesn't begin with subpoena power or any kind of teeth. So the community, it seems like a legitimate role, but it just becomes a big circus where the community, we organize them, we bring them to these events or to these forums and nothing is really, it's just a reporting session. And so I would love you to come to Orange County, California, to Anaheim where we've had police killing after police killing, just four since last, since January. We had a riot yesterday because of the Trump rally. We had KKK riot and then a peace rally. And so we're dealing with a lot of inter-communal conflicts happening. But that's my biggest frustration is that the community's really not empowered to do anything. There's no subpoena power. There's no, they're just, it's all a circus. Thank you. I love you. Any of you want to answer the question about what makes Harrisonburg special? I'll give this a try, I guess. The, as far as what, why it was able to work in our community, I think we have two resources that are right there. Easterman University, James Madison University, both have been just at the foreground of restorative justice worldwide as well as throughout the nation. So I think that gave us a resource that a lot of communities just don't have. And so for that, I'm personally, I'm very grateful for both universities and what they've contributed to us so far. Because I think that's a big part of it. The other thing is, I think from the leadership standpoint, law enforcement I think has to be a part of it. I think that's a big part that was missing prior. And law enforcement needs to be involved with that process in order for it to be successful. Because I think that's really where it starts. It's at the ground level. The officers on the street need to understand the concepts, need to understand what's going on and how it works. So I mean, to piggyback on that, the ally within the police structures is really critical and Curt has provided that for us and a number of others are joining in on that. This was a bit of a snowball effect too. We went to the schools, the Harrisburg City Schools, just to advise them on what we were doing and ask for their cooperation specifically because we had school resource officers there also. And the superintendent of the schools was so delighted with what was happening, he said, well, can you train our teachers and administration in restorative justice? Well, that broadened our mandate in one meeting in ways that we hadn't imagined. And bringing them into the coalition and beginning to see the tight and important relationship between schools, between the police, and between the community, it was really critical. And we're starting to build that relationship in a way that feels like it's a broader alliance. And I think lastly to that question is that Harrisburg has a community where people have a conscious and they have a caring attitude to make a difference. And when we're faced with truth, that doesn't represent truth, when it's confronted, it's confronted in love to make a difference and there's a positive response. Thank you. Maybe Lisa, I'm gonna put you on the spot to answer the other questions. All right, let's take two more questions on both sides. I'm Jim Emery and I actually grew up, I actually grew up right across the mountain in a place called Lou Ray, Virginia. And it's just great to see that Harrisburg community is finally getting things under control. But I say that in jest for all those that don't know that. But one of the things that's very interesting is that it's been a long, I spent about the better part of the last four years in conflict zones throughout the world in various capacities. But the thing that's most interesting and the thing about your process is the fact that it brings out the key point that security is not a condition that's enforced, it's really a process that's pursued. And what you're, and the amazing thing is is I just ended a career at the Army War College where I worked with a Ugandan Brigadier General who talked about the reconciliation process in Africa, analysis of a number of different models. And everything that you're outlining here is really not so much a security process as a reconciliation process. It brings about a relationship amongst the community where the outliers that use violence as a mechanism of change or advantage are really marginalized over time and then brought under control by the community themselves. And sir, you're in the center, your comment there is very well taken I think that really a lot of the things that we had as children, as younger people growing up in the area got out of whack and then an intern had been restored. But just one comment is, and a question back to you is, it's just interesting to see procedures that we pursue overseas now being brought back into our own communities. But I'd just like to ask you about the reconciliation aspect of this. Now, what did you see as the major challenge in achieving community reconciliation amongst a very traditional community that felt threatened by immigrant populations and outliers that were coming in? Thank you for the question. We'll actually get through the individuals that are standing, we'll have everyone make their comments and ask questions and then I'll invite the panelists to address all of them together in the interest of time. Sir? Thank you. Well, I guess I've been attending or putting on conferences at global summits and national conferences for 40 years. I think this is the most consequential session in my experience because of the potential of what this view and this case-backed effort is. Congratulations. And tell us, Lisa, what your dream would be for the use of these publications and what this community might do as part of that dream? Thank you, sir. Please. Yeah, hello, I'm Nick Oakley from Partners Global. I have two questions. The first for our colleagues from the folks in police. I'm curious about the figures you have on reoffending recidivism for those that have gone through the transitional justice, restorative justice process, compared to those that go through normal legal process. And then the second question I have is similar to Bob's ready. And it's probably directed at Lisa, but I wondered what your assessment is of how well we're doing, getting these kinds of ideas and processes around human security embedded in government and militaries around the world. I mean, just recently, the security governance initiative led by the US State Department here, working with about seven governments in West Africa and the Sahel launched its process of agreeing priorities for security, sexual reform and security. And there was no part that civil society had in that process. So here we are, this wonderful process, this wonderful set of materials, and there's still things like that happening that really is a big blind spot in terms of the centrality of having citizens placed at the heart and the very center of these processes. So your comments and suggestions about how we can start a movement of getting these kind of approaches adopted not only by the US, but by governments and militaries, and by the security forces all around the world. Thank you. My name is Didas Kamana, and I'm a student at the American University. I'm from Rwanda. I was just wondering for police and the military talk we were sharing. In Rwandan context, the community were looking at the military and the police as perpetrators of genocide because most police and military were killing the people. And what Rwanda did to transform or to build the trust between civil society and the military or the police was police and the military come back to meet the communities, to work with them. In Rwanda we have a Saturday of each last month, the week, the last week of Saturday, we have community work where the military and the police can come and do community work with the people. Then afterwards they can have dialogue and share and the people among the communities, they can greet police, have fun with the police or military, that they're building again trust. From the military who's killing the people, to the military who can work and have fun with the people. That's community. How, I was just wondering, it's not enough to think about restorative justice, but the ways we can reach a real restorative justice. That's one of the example. And I was just wondering, want to ask who is in charge of police, the police department. How do you think the mindset of police can change vis-à-vis to change the relationship between people and the police? Police is looking at the people, if you are brought among communities or Latinos, you are a criminal before you make a crime. How do you change narratives to know around the look and looking at the people as crimes before they make a crime? Thank you. Thank you. One last question. Thank you. My name is Amir Naik. I research international organizations peacekeeping. And so with the apologies, my question is sort of directed, stage left. If you want to see somebody in the security sector reform unit of the UN Shadr, just mention the word coordination, and you sort of have them back off, because the problem is that international interventions and security sector reform are thoroughly fragmented. It's the US is working with one aspect of one agency, the UK with another, the Germans and so on and so forth. So I agree with and enjoy hearing sort of the ground level coordination. But how do you account for the fact also that there are seven, eight, 15, 72 different governments at the international level that are involved with this? And is there sort of what is the medium or the platform to bring those elements together as well? Thank you. Thank you. Why don't we answer the sort of justice questions first and then wrap it up? Okay. So let me just try to keep that moving quickly as we can. I think, I don't think we refer to the person who asked a question from California also. I mean, I think let's be honest, restorative justice cannot be brought in in the middle of a situation that's on fire and inflamed. And so we have to talk about other ways in which we begin to engage. And this is why peace building must be part of the conversation. So there has to be ways in which we begin to dialogue. We have to organize and we have to put the pressure on and those are not contrary to restorative justice or peace building. It's within mine horizon of where we wanna be. And so I think what we're discovering in the movement is that community organizing is one of the ways in which restorative justice can find its place. And so we need to bring those together. The advocacy work comes first and that's a tough place to be. I think we have to look at each context carefully in that. So finding ways in which we could begin to change the narrative and break the dialogue down between the parties that are so antagonistic now would probably be where the most energy should be put right now in your context without knowing much about the details of that. I think the question about restorative justice, any others that we wanted to address from the group? Sorry, I think there was a question. Recidivism. We're not far enough along in our case studies to give you those statistics, right? We're very much at the beginning and the case load is growing but it's not as a place we would like it to be in the fullness of its diversion. I can speak from other areas in which there has been sample researching done between those who do a restorative process and those who go through the regular criminal justice system as we know it. Probably the best one or the one that we've seen the most success in is the difference between a 34% recidivism rate for those who go through the regular criminal justice system. And that dropping to about 22% for a comparative group that had gone through restorative justice processes. Now, of course you'd want that at zero but for research purposes from 34% down to 22%, that's a significant drop. And we have other research that would back that up. I'm gonna be very brief in answering two of those questions. Are we doing enough or is it working? I would say there are doors open almost everywhere and I did not think those doors existed or the windows did 10 years ago when I started this work but when I started knocking the doors started opening. So I think that often civil society we need to try before deciding it doesn't work because I think in most countries of the world there are entry points, windows, cracks in the door. What is my dream? As Bob Berg asked, really we need to make this macro. We need a 10 year plan. We need funding for that 10 year plan that John Paul Lederach talked about. We really need to take it out to police departments across the country and we're talking about that in Harrisonburg and we would love to talk with other Alliance for Peacebuilding members about how can you engage your police departments in your city and how can we support you in that? Also with the military around the world and our military training centers here in this country how can we begin to do more outreach? Many of the Alliance for Peacebuilding members are already engaged in interacting with the military. We plan to hold a training of trainers on the handbook specifically for Alliance for Peacebuilding members sometime in the next year so please let us know if you're interested in that. We wanna really develop a whole training cadre. We have about five to 10 people now but we wanna make that a much larger gathering because we wanna continue. This handbook is already being used in Colombia, in Ukraine, in the Philippines, in Tajikistan and we are rolling it out to other peacekeeping training centers, other military training centers in a couple weeks. It's a big NATO conference keynote speech on the handbook and the process. So we have a lot of open doors. We need all of you to work with us at the Alliance for Peacebuilding in taking it forward. It is online at this website. It's free, downloadable, you can cut and paste, just please credit and cite it so people know where to find the rest of the materials but there's training exercises, scenario-based learning. It's really, you can really cut and paste and tailor it to your own needs in your own specific situation. And as a last note, I want to invite John Rudy to come just on the stage. John Rudy is just joining the Alliance for Peacebuilding. I mentioned him earlier because he's done this work already in the Philippines with the Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute so he's already been working for many years. He is a fellow Mennonite and we approached this work with humility of learning and listening from the military and the police but also a deep history of 500 years of peace values and witness. And so I think John is actually the perfect person to hand the baton to because I'm stepping back a little I'm still engaged but not full time at the Alliance for Peacebuilding. So thank you to USIP and to Nadia for facilitating this session and all of the important work that USIP is doing in this area. Nadia is really doing incredible work in her own right and if you have, you want to learn more about police reform and training this is the place to come as well. So thank you Nadia. Thank you, thank you Lisa. One quick comments from Chris and then we'll let you go to lunch. Yeah, I'd like to take a moment to do something that I'm going to hear a lot of this weekend and some of the other people in this room. I'd like to thank you gentlemen for your service to your community. And I'd like to thank you ladies for your service to peace because without that the service and sacrifice of soldiers represented in those graves over on the other side of the river would be totally meaningless and valueless. Thank you very much.