Client Perceptions of an FASD-Informed Indigenous Restorative Justice Program

Abstract

Individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) can experience multiple layers of adversity that increase vulnerability to justice involvement. Given the systemic overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in the justice system, community-based interventions are important for supporting Indigenous individuals with FASD who are justice-involved, yet little is known about individual experiences with such interventions. In this community-based study, we conducted interviews with 12 adults in an FASD-informed Indigenous justice program, revealing stories of coping, growth, and hope. Findings suggest that blending FASD assessment with restorative justice approaches can contribute to physical, human, family/social, and community/cultural resources that support wellbeing. We describe tangible strengths and processes to leverage in practice and policy for supporting justice-involved individuals with FASD across settings and communities.

Screening and identification of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in criminal legal settings: A realist review

“…This overrepresentation may be due to complex interacting factors, including unique neurodevelopmental and psychological profiles (Mattson et al., 2019; Mela et al., 2020), elevated rates of adverse experiences (Corrado & McCuish, 2015; Pei et al., 2018) and a lack of appropriately tailored supports and interventions (Flannigan, Pei, Stewart, & Johnson, 2018; Pei & Burke, 2018). Furthermore, well‐recognised sociocultural and structural factors, including colonisation and systemic racism, and their ongoing harmful impacts on social determinants of health also impact Indigenous and racialised groups involved in the criminal legal system in unique ways (Flannigan et al., 2022, 2023; Reid et al., 2023; Rudin, 2008; Tait, 2003). Challenges and needs related to FASD are relevant across criminal legal stages and contexts, including police contact, investigations and rights comprehension, adjudicative competence (including competency for execution in some U.S. jurisdictions), criminal responsibility, sentencing, vulnerability in correctional institutions, post‐release expectations, and recidivism (Bayner & Weiss, 2020; Douds et al., 2013; MacPherson et al., 2011; McLachlan et al., 2014; Mela et al., 2020; Mullally et al., 2023; Reid et al., 2020).…”