To return to CONVENING XXIV's Table of Contents, click here.
To return to the Proceeding Table of Contents for previous CONVENINGS, click here .
To return to CONVENING's homepage, click here.
Kevin J. Me Carthy, Ph.D.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center,
Department of Psychiatry,
New Orleans Louisiana
Marilyn J. Bruin, Ph.D. CFCS,
College of Human Ecology,
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, Minnesota
The concept of community wellness has been evolving on a national basis having been identified as a focus of interest by
the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, This conceptualization has a history of co-evolution
with the principles of Restorative Justice, which seeks to establish equity in criminal justice administration through the
participation of victims of crime, interested community partners, law enforcement and court personnel as well as offenders
and family members. Regional and local standards of community wellness tend to be less well defined and therefore may
reflect structural deficiencies which lead to unintended consequences in a climate of diverse policies, practices and long
term community adjustment goals.
Understanding the effectiveness of these operationalized concepts requires the development of outcome-based assessment
measures. Too often policies which support the burgeoning infrastructure of criminal justice administration are based solely
on the statistical appraisal of crime statistics and lack a longitudinal perspective regarding post-offense community healing
and adjustment. There are multiple victims of crime, though societal recognization of these victims frequently goes
unacknowledged, subsequently adding to the burden of community healing and adjustment.
Recognition of diverse individual and family losses is essential in developing an awareness of the nature and extent of
community impact associated with the effects of victimization. This commonality of experience might be approached by
recognizing the actual victims of crime as primary shareholders, while families of offenders may be acknowledged as
secondary victims in this drama. Law Enforcement, correctional personnel, their family members, criminal justice
administrative personnel and the community at large represent a third level of victimization.
Lastly, while the offender is recognized as perpetrating events which result in this cascade of trauma, it is essential to
acknowledge that the offender is his/her own victims, representing a fourth level of victimization. This schemata of
victimization affords an opportunity to identify the scope of victimization in the aftermath of crime and serves as a
framework for developing resources and services at the community level to cope with the challenges of long term adjustment.
In applying this framework of relational victimization, providers may modify and enhance individual, family and
community adjustment in the aftermath of crime through the strategic management of traumatic incidents and appropriate
referral for extended care. While the recognition of diverse losses is essential to restoring community wellness, it is
important that targeted services be developed to meet the needs of each level of victimization. An integrated approach is asp
essential step toward restoring community equilibrium and cohesion.