A New York City Blueprint - City Of New York
USINGRESTORATIVEAPPROACHESTO ADDRESSINTIMATE PARTNERVIOLENCEA New York City Blueprint
Center for Court Innovation520 Eighth AvenueNew York, NY 10018p. 646.386.3100f. 212.397.0985courtinnovation.orgAUTHORSErika Sasson and Charlene AllenWith the Restorative Justice Blueprint Team: Brittany Davis, Hillary Packer, and Purvi ShahACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank the members of our communities who shared their lived experience with intimatepartner violence, and whose wisdom shaped our understanding of this work. We would also like to thank theadvocates and practitioners, as well as the Mayor’s Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence, whowere thought partners throughout this project. Finally, we’d like to thank all of our teachers and mentors whohave helped us understand the interconnectedness at the heart of this work.Graphic Design: Samiha Amin MeahOctober 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction3Moving Forward: A Funded19Collaborative and a PilotNational Trends4Program A collaborative model19Language and Terminology6 Funding structure19What is intimate partner6 Developing an in-house20 violence?pilot to provide IPV What is restorative justice?6survivors with restorative What are we restoring, if the7processesunderlying relationships aretoxic and harmful?Building a New York CityConclusion8Blueprint Listening to New York City’s8stakeholders Guidelines for effective10restorative practices in NewYork City Considerations for expandingand enhancing restorativepractices in New York City15Endnotes2122
USINGRESTORATIVEAPPROACHESTO ADDRESSINTIMATE PARTNERVIOLENCEA New York City Blueprint
INTRODUCTIONAcross the nation, even as our cities’ crime ratestogether to ask whether and how restorativeunabated. In New York City, we have even seento address intimate partner violence. On the heelshave decreased, intimate partner violence continuesincreases in the rates of victimization across ourcommunities. Surveys of survivors nationally show1that the majority of those harmed neither call policenor seek court intervention. These numbers tell a2system that offers a limited set of options, unused bymany of those in need of support and services.violence, discussed in detail below.more opportunities to delve into this conversation.In October 2017, the Mayor’s Office to Endengaged, with the support of the Chapmanadvocates have long searched for alternatives toPerelman Foundation, the Center and consultantthe legal justice system. In the early days of thebattered women’s movement, advocates debated theefficacy of mandatory arrest legislation intended tocompel the state to treat intimate partner violenceas severely as violence between strangers. ThePurvi Shah to work with the Interagency WorkingGroup on NYC’s Blueprint for Abusive PartnerIntervention (IWG) to develop Seeding Generations,a comprehensive blueprint for the developmentof services for people who cause harm. The3debate centered in communities, particularlyblueprint, which was based on research conductedcommunities of color and queer communities, towhom the system represented more of a threat thana sanctuary. In the ensuing decades, the conversationhas continued, with restorative and transformativejustice models emerging as promising approaches.4In recent years, the conversation around restorativeapproaches to intimate partner violence hasgained momentum. In 2015, the Center for CourtInnovation (the Center), in partnership with theJudges, organized a national roundtable funded byViolence Against Women (OVW) to bring peoplestudy of restorative approaches to intimate partnerDomestic and Gender-Based Violence (ENDGBV)Survivors of intimate partner violence and theirthe United States Department of Justice, Office onof the roundtable, the Center launched a nationalIn New York City, practitioners have also createdstory of unchecked and ongoing harm, and a legalNational Council on Juvenile and Family Courtapproaches could offer a safe and effective pathwaywith NYC agencies, service providers, survivorsand people who have caused harm to a partner,included recommendations to integrate restorativepractices into abusive partner interventionprogramming.5 In March 2018, the New York CityDomestic Violence Task Force (DVTF), co-led byENDGBV and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice(MOCJ), organized a conference entitled, “Safety,Accountability, and Support: Exploring AlternativeApproaches to Intimate Partner Violence.” Theconference brought together survivors, community-based practitioners from across the city, and nationalexperts to examine restorative approaches in thiscontext. These reports, conferences, and researchA New York City Blueprint3
studies provide a sampling of how some of theimplement restorative practices for addressingabout restorative and transformative approaches toincluded survivors of harm, young people, peoplepublic discourse has moved towards inquiringaddressing harm. Beneath the surface, communitiesand activists have long been pushing for morecommunity-based pathways, and are especiallymotivated by connections to the movement to endmass incarceration.Building on years of research and communityconversations, nationally and in New York City, thisreport outlines pathways for developing restorativeand community-based approaches to intimatepartner violence in New York City, in order to offersurvivors, along with their families and communities,more options outside of the legal system to addressthe harm in their lives. The report is the culminationof a series of listening sessions and discussions withthose directly impacted by intimate partner violence,along with those who have worked to create andNATIONALTRENDSNew York City is not alone in its interest andconsideration of restorative approaches to intimatepartner violence. Across the country, peoplehave been creating opportunities for facilitatedconversations to address violence and for moreholistic approaches to family healing. The Centerfor Court Innovation, in partnership with North4Using Restorative Approaches to Address Intimate Partner Violenceintimate partner violence. The listening sessionswho have caused harm, community-based providersof domestic violence services, and legal systempractitioners in the field.These sessions resulted in a wealth of wisdom,which includes steps for moving forward witheffective restorative practices in New York City.These practices can exist alongside options offeredthrough the legal system and may enhancethe options available to address harm in ourcommunities. These approaches are intended toprovide options for survivors who would, forreasons influenced by individual circumstances,which may include culture, race, economic status,and personal safety, choose not to access the legalsystem and are looking for new solutions.
Carolina State University and Dr. Gale Burford,recently completed A National Portrait of RestorativeApproaches to Intimate Partner Violence, the firstnational study that has sought to document howand why communities are seeking these approaches.Funded by OVW, this study surveyed 34 programsnationwide that shared their approaches to thiswork. On the heels of the survey, the researchersconducted telephone interviews with ten programs,followed by five site visits, to create comprehensivecase studies.The survey produced a number of significantfindings. When programs were asked why theybegan to implement restorative programming,“respondents were most likely (80% of respondents)to highlight the lack of effectiveness of conventionalcriminal justice approaches.”6 Notably, programswere also concerned with client feedback andwith a desire for culturally appropriate responses.The programs tended to be highly flexible in theirapproaches, assessing risk on a case-by-case basis.Another important finding was the participationof community. So often, in courts and othersystems, individuals are asked to account for theirbehavior without meaningful participation fromthe community. This individualized approach toaccountability means that broader norm changesaround the fight to end intimate partner violenceis left out of the conversation, and safety becomesthe responsibility of the individual survivor. Thenational study found that the vast majority ofprograms using a restorative approach invite theirparticipants to bring support people to a process.They also include community members in theirprograms, to establish and enforce communityof the puzzle as we seek to increase the effectivenessof our approaches in New York City.Overall, the programs surveyed in the nationalstudy named their priorities as ending violence,promoting victim safety and empowerment, andchanging social norms. Additionally, programs wereconcerned with “child placement and safety (e.g.,stable/permanent placement, healing for children)and improved family support and communication.”This comprehensive focus on the wide-rangingimpacts of intimate partner violence will be helpfulin crafting new approaches in New York City thataddress the needs of all family members whilefocusing on survivor safety.Using survey responses, in-depth interviews, sitevisits and observations of processes, the researchersarticulated guiding principles to inform practice:First, restorative approaches center their responseson the agency and safety of the harmed persons;second, restorative approaches engage the personscausing harm—as well as a network of investedcommunity members—in an active, participatoryprocess of accountability; and, finally, restorativeprograms recognize that culture matters, and aremindful of the tension between honoring andappropriating indigenous practices.While A National Portrait highlights the findingsfrom the national study, it is essential to note thatsome practitioners that are known to be workingwith restorative and transformative approacheschose not to participate in the survey, whichunderscores that the needs and practices are evenmore widespread and layered than what is reflectedin the study.norms against violence and patriarchy and add tothe call for change. This trend is an important pieceA New York City Blueprint5
LANGUAGE ANDTERMINOLOGYWHAT IS INTIMATE PARTNERVIOLENCE?Intimate partner violence (IPV), sometimes referredto as domestic violence, is defined as a range ofcoercive and abusive behaviors, whether physical,sexual, psychological, verbal, and/or emotional,that can manifest as a pattern of coercive control.This report uses the terms “survivors,” and “peoplewho cause harm.” These terms suggest that there isalways a primary aggressor in a relationship whereviolence exists. It should be noted that, not everyonewho lives with intimate partner violence agrees thatthere is a primary aggressor. Moreover, many peoplewho cause harm have also survived harm, and theseterms should not exist within a binary.When working in communities, it is importantto consider how to use accessible and responsivelanguage. For example, even though most people wemet preferred the term “survivor,” others did not.One woman who had been harmed by her partnerfound the term “survivor” alienating and preferredjust to be called by her name. Language needs to beflexible enough to ensure comfort, and practitionersshould ask people how they wish to be identified.WHAT IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE?Restorative justice is deeply rooted in indigenouspractice.9 There are many current definitionsof restorative justice. The following, from theTransform Harm website, captures the principlesthat guided the work of the team of practitionerswho worked on this Blueprint: Restorative justiceoffers people a chance to respond to a conflict orwrongdoing in a way that is both meaningful andjust. By emphasizing the needs of those who werehurt, encouraging accountability by those whocaused the harm, and including the community,restorative justice promotes healing rather thanpunishment.10The team also notes key differences between thetraditional criminal justice approach to harm, andrestorative approaches, in the following manner:11System Responses asks the questions: What law was broken? Who broke it? How do we punish them?Restorative Responses asks the questions: Who was harmed? What do they need to heal or move forward? Whose responsibility is it to repair the harm?6Using Restorative Approaches to Address Intimate Partner Violence
WHAT ARE WE RESTORING, IF THEUNDERLYING RELATIONSHIPS ARETOXIC AND HARMFUL?In using the word restorative justice or “restoration,”the intent is to restore individuals to wholenessand healing, which will look different for eachindividual and in each community. It does not referto restoring to a particular state of relationship andmost certainly does not refer to returning to a powerimbalance or to the confines of a toxic relationship.Some intimate partners might use a restorativeprocess to break up in a healthy and safe way, whileothers might use it to say hard truths and somehowmove forward together, and still others might wantto find safe ways to co-parent together. Alternatively,some survivors may want a restorative process—notto engage the person who caused them harm—butrather to receive support or process harms with theircommunity or chosen family. These are some of theways survivors can work to “restore” their sense ofwellbeing after experiencing harm.A New York City Blueprint7
BUILDING A NEW YORKCITY BLUEPRINTWhat do we need to create restorative practices thatare accessible to survivors in New York City?LISTENING NEW YORK CITY’SSTAKEHOLDERSBuilding on lessons learned from SeedingGenerations, the national research, and movementhistory, we used this project to implement a newseries of listening sessions with practitioners,survivors and people who cause harm. Theinitial outreach demonstrated that New YorkCity practitioners who offer restorative responsesas an intervention to intimate partner violencedo not necessarily identify as restorativepractitioners. Some name their work as faith-based or transformative, or otherwise as culturallyresponsive. With continued outreach, we spoketo more than half a dozen practitioners who hadhands-on experience. A number of programs useda circle process to address harm, while others usedthe term peacemaking to describe their work.These models used restorative processes to addressintimate partner violence between partners directly,to heal from child sexual abuse, or to talk aboutviolence generally within the community. To date,restorative practices have been used in a variety ofcontexts in New York City, but never systematicallyfor addressing intimate partner violence.8Using Restorative Approaches to Address Intimate Partner ViolenceWe held a dozen listening sessions with the goalof gathering information about experiences withsystem-based, community-based or restorativeresponses to intimate partner violence, as well asperceived gaps in services. The sessions included9 practitioners using restorative approaches tointimate partner and family violence; 11 survivors ofharm; 7 young people with experience witnessing,experiencing, or causing harm; 10 people whoidentified as having caused harm to their partners;7 legal system practitioners, and 6 members of theRestorative Justice and Intimate Partner ViolenceWorking Group, which is made up of survivoradvocates, community organizers, and practitionerswho have been meeting for over two years to explorethese issues. Although we tried to speak to a largecross-section of people who are directly impactedby the questions underlying this report, as the workcontinues in New York City, many more people needto be engaged.The sessions confirmed that survivors fromcommunities of color and LGBTQ communitiesparticularly seek interventions that are culturallyrelevant, affirming, and anti-oppressive, and thatwill also address the harm in the context of social,economic, and cultural inequities. One practitionernoted, “I fell upon restorative justice with LGBTQsurvivors because LGBTQ folks did not have a spaceto talk about some of the violence they face. We need
to end violence against and within the communityand no one is talking about this.” Participants12from communities of color also stressed the needfor interventions outside the criminal legal systemthat would not jeopardize their partners or familywith deportation or incarceration. As one survivorsaid, “I needed support that did not demonizeundocumented men of color.”13Takeaways drawn from listening sessions include: Survivors want to come out of isolationwithout being ostracized or labeled for theirexperiences and choices; they identified a needfor individualized therapy, somatic healingpractices, support groups, and other servicesdetached from the criminal legal system for bothsurvivors and their families. Survivors wantservices that do not pathologize the survivor, andthey do not want to have to seek legal recourseor vilify their partner in order to receive services. Survivors reported that available options arenarrow and often cause survivors to opt out orwish they could. Survivors want more optionsthat allow them to choose the path that worksfor them.for their clients. They noted the prevalence ofsurvivors who “just want the abuse to stop”without having to engage with the criminallegal system. They believe that survivors needopportunities to tell their stories. Housing for survivors and their families, as wellas other practical considerations, must be a partof any effective intervention. New York City needs to improve access to avariety of services including emergency helplinesthat will always be answered, since somesurvivors spoke of helplines going directly tovoicemail. People who cause harm are also lookingto participate in safe and well- facilitatedconversations to find ways to move forwardin a healthy way, including needs around coparenting and other relevant issues. They want spaces that are rooted in their cultureand facilitated by people who can relate to them. People practicing restorative approaches forintimate partner violence identified the needfor both increased peer support, training, anda place to troubleshoot complex issues, but Survivors want to see more credible messengersfrom the community (people who share similaridentities, culture, and/or experiences ofsurvivors) involved in the work, along withculturally attuned services, and increasedlanguage access. Survivors and practitioners across communitieswant to see more community education towardending violence; the stigma and culture of silencearound intimate partner violence continues inmany communities. Practitioners who operate in the criminal legalsystem feel frustrated by the lack of optionsA New York City Blueprint9
don’t want this to require “professionalization”curricula and teen accountability programmingprocesses can remain community-based withwith diverse populations in community settings.through credentials or degrees, so that thecredible messengers. Survivors and practitioners identified the needfor any intervention to guard against heteronormative stereotypes of IPV. Young people reported seeing teen datingviolence go unchecked in their communities andasked for assistance from supportive adults innaming the violence and addressing the harm.At the time of this writing,14 New York Cityis simultaneously developing innovativeprogramming to address the complex needs ofsurvivors and families impacted by intimate partnerthat can be utilized throughout New York City Engaging with abusive partners training. acurriculum designed to educate social serviceprofessionals on trauma-informed approachesfor people who cause harm in intimatepartner relationships and best practices foridentification, engagement, and response.GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVERESTORATIVE PRACTICES INNEW YORK CITYviolence through its Interrupting Violence at HomeOver the course of the listening sessions,component. IVAH programs will help address acontributed a wealth of knowledge around good(IVAH) initiative, of which this blueprint is a keynumber of the needs discussed above, includingsupport for survivors and people causing harmoutside of the criminal legal system, through thefollowing programs: Respect and responsibility. a non-mandatedprogram for adults who have caused harm toan intimate partner that will provide trauma-informed and culturally relevant interventionsto address and prevent abuse. The programwill be embedded in existing community-basedsettings, and not require involvement with thepractice. This section will summarize those lessonslearned for engaging with this work. Much of theselessons learned was supported by the nationalresearch described above. Synthesized and takentogether, these pieces form a set of guidelines thatcan animate good practice. Most importantly, thiswork must be predicated on an individual survivor’svoluntary desire to engage in a restorative process,and only with the person causing harm if thatperson is capable and willing to accept some level ofresponsibility and voluntarily elects to participate. .criminal legal systems, so that we are engagingIt is important to note that the restorative processeswhere they are.wants that involves family or community memberscommunity validators and meeting people Respect first. an intervention for young peoplewho have exhibited abusive behavior towardtheir intimate partners or family members.The program will include violence prevention10practitioners and those directly impacted by harmUsing Restorative Approaches to Address Intimate Partner Violenceoutlined here may include any process the survivor(and could be done without the person causingharm). A restorative process may be used for anypotential grouping that a survivor believes willencourage safety, healing, accountability, or greaterwell-being in their lives.
The guidelines favor restorative practices that:1. Are community-based. In order to provide aviable option for survivors who choose notto engage with police or courts, restorativepractices recommended here must be basedin communities rather than referred throughlegal entities. This is necessary because manysurvivors are already wary of the legal system,and also because community-based referralslead practitioners to be accountable to thecommunity, rather than the courts. Additionally,practitioners agree that effective restorativepractices require the person causing harmto take genuine, non-coerced responsibilityfor their actions. Community-based referralshelp increase the likelihood of non-coercedparticipation, and therefore the likelihood ofsuccess. As one participant of a community-based program reflected, “This time, everythingturned around I actually like the facilitatorsbecause they actually relate to me.”152. Are led by trained facilitators. Facilitators mustbe trained in both restorative processes and thedynamics of intimate partner relationships. Thisincludes how power and control can manifest inabuse and undermine a survivor’s internal andA New York City Blueprint11
external relationships. Practitioners working inAs part of preparation, all participants need tofactor that needs special care.understanding that circles and other restorativerestorative processes highlighted an additionalIntimate partner violence is distinct fromother crimes because of an original bond oflove –which can include sex, intimacy, andparenting. Just like power and control, thebonds of intimacy can impact the dynamic andprocesses are not a one-time event. Practicesrange from a few months to more than a year,including preparation, circle(s), and follow-up.As one practitioner notes, “preparation is mostof the work. It’s 60-75% of the work.”17complicate the harm. Facilitators recommendPrior to organizing a circle, practitioners willrelationship.” A skilled facilitator will bewho will be in the circle, including children orunderstanding “the narrative or story of the16attuned to the varying and complex underlyingdynamics of intimate partner violence.3. Include a timeline for preparation. Preparationwith each person who will be participatingin the restorative process—including supportpeople—is key. During the preparation,participants begin to understand the potentialcircle goals and parameters. It not only preparesthe participants for the restorative process butalso, critically, helps the practitioners determinethe participants’ readiness. If the practitionersfeel there is an ulterior motive or manipulationby any participant, they must question whetherthat person is ready for a restorative process.Practitioners must be prepared to not enter aprocess if either party isn’t ready. Practitionersmust also be prepared to make referrals forongoing therapeutic, legal, or social servicesoutside of a restorative process. This can includeintimate partner violence advocacy support (ifan advocate isn’t part of the process), mentalhealth services, grief support, substance abusesupport, economic resources, and anything elsethat surfaces as part of the process.12be committed to investing time into the process,Using Restorative Approaches to Address Intimate Partner Violenceneed to work with survivors of harm to decideother family members. People included need tobe committed to ending the violence, and theymust also be prepped not to blame the victim orcollude with the person who causes harm. Seebelow on preparing support persons.Across the board, practitioners agree thatpreparation is the most important work of therestorative process. During this stage: the dynamics of power and control areraised ahead of time; safety plans are made; and practitioners assess the readiness andexpectations of all participants.4. Prepare survivors. The restorative processesrecommended here are survivor-centered, andall preparation with the survivor needs to begrounded in that framework. Based on theneeds of the survivor, the restorative processesmay include the person who has caused harmand/or other community and family members.This is all determined during the preparationstage, based on the survivor’s needs and thepractitioner’s assessment of safety. The timelinefor preparation will depend on the type ofprocess envisioned, with more time needed to
prepare for cases that bring together a survivorPractitioners agree that a circle process willwith the person causing harm.not be successful if the person causing harm isunwilling to take any responsibility. AlthoughIn cases that involve a survivor who wants todegrees of acceptance of responsibility ofteninclude the person causing harm, to assess forincrease during the circle process, some initialsafety, some programs use assessment tools likeacceptance is required. For example, a personJackie Campbell’s Danger Assessment and thewho caused harm may initially minimize theNorthwest Network of Bisexual, Trans, Lesbianeffects of their actions and, during the course ofand Gay Survivors of Abuse assessment tool forthe circle, come to understand the true impact.power and control. Practitioners ask questions ofHowever, a person who altogether denies thatthe survivor to better understand if andthey caused any harm at all would not be anhow they feel their partner has control overappropriate candidate for a circle process. Onethem and whether they feel safe. For example,program (consistent with others) stressed thatthey may ask if their world is shrinking ratherpreparation with the person who caused thethan growing.harm must include: Intensive listening for the potential forDuring the preparation period with the survivor,accountability;practitioners can also develop non-verbal or Gathering information on how they behavedcoded safety signals to use with the survivorin past relationships, and their familyaround trigger points, so that the survivor canhistory;stop the process at any time without having to Efforts to understand how the currentdo so publicly.The survivor’s own healing is also at issue. Asone practitioner said, “part of the trauma isblaming yourself anyway.” An opportunity to18talk about the survivor’s behavior in a healthyway—looking at it with clarity but not as a causeof violence—can be a positive and useful step.5. Prepare the person who caused harm. Safetyin a restorative process is increased when thefacilitators have built relationships with allparticipants. The facilitator needs to be ableto build a relationship with the person whocaused harm, without excusing or minimizingthe violence.situation escalated to the climax thatbrought the parties in—is there a pattern?.Knowing these things can also help identify thebest facilitators and support people, as well asthe parameters or limitations of the restorativeprocess, including whether it should besupplemented with therapeutic treatment.6. Include support people. Key to a successfulrestorative process is the presence andparticipation of support people for both thesurvivor and the person who causes harm.They are the de-escalators and the safetymonitors, holding the person who causedharm accountable inside and outside of theprocess, while helping everyone shift their lifeA New York City Blueprint13
in meaningful ways. A support person is the onewho loves you, checks you, and may be availableto you always, and will help participants face therealities of the situation and the impacts they arehaving on others. Support people also requirepreparation to understand the expectations andprocesses of a circle and plans for safety andde-escalation. Facilitators should also ensurethat everyone in the circle holds a strong anti-violence norm and will not minimize the harm.Support people represent an importantinvestment from the community in helpingthe participants face the harm, and are key toshifting norms around gender-based violence.7. Set clear parameters for the process. Once allparties have decided to move forward, everyonemust agree on parameters of the process,understanding that the central goals will besafety and healing. Key components include
Group on NYC's Blueprint for Abusive Partner Intervention (IWG) to develop Seeding Generations, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of services for people who cause harm. The blueprint, which was based on research conducted with NYC agencies, service providers, survivors and people who have caused harm to a partner,
New York Buffalo 14210 New York Buffalo 14211 New York Buffalo 14212 New York Buffalo 14215 New York Buffalo 14217 New York Buffalo 14218 New York Buffalo 14222 New York Buffalo 14227 New York Burlington Flats 13315 New York Calcium 13616 New York Canajoharie 13317 New York Canaseraga 14822 New York Candor 13743 New York Cape Vincent 13618 New York Carthage 13619 New York Castleton 12033 New .
relation to persons joining the New York state and local retirement system, the New York state teachers’ retirement system, the New York city employees’ retirement system, the New York city teachers’ retirement system, the New York city board of education retirement system, the New York city police pension fund, or the New York
CITY OF NEW YORK, BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and updates a previous FIS/Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of New York, which incorporates all of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond counties, New York, this alsoFile Size: 1MB
projects identified in the previous Blueprint, the Blueprint for Action 2014-2017. A statistical analysis of sexual assault and domestic violence crime data from 20142016- is included as part of the Blueprint Report. Looking forward, the Blueprint for Progress provides scopes of work for the goals and tasking the next three years, 2017of -2020.
The stock market profits blueprint has been hand crafted to enable you to understand all the factors that play on the stock market. It is called a blueprint because a blueprint is in effect an architectural document to show how something is designed. The Blueprint will show you a powerful way to envisage how the stock market and the stock market
The stock market profits blueprint has been handcrafted to enable you to understand all the factors that play on the stock market. It is called a blueprint because a blueprint is, in effect, an architectural document to show how something is designed. The Blueprint will show you a powerful way to envisage how many factors impact investors and the
Unreal Engine 4 Tutorial Blueprint Tutorial [3] the blueprint and right click on it and select rename and name it "Light". This is what the icon should look like Double click the blueprint Icon to open the blueprint editor the window that has popped up should look like this. 2. Creating a Lamp and Light
Alfredo López Austin Hombre-Dios: religión y política en el mundo náhuatl: México Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas : 2014 209 p. (Serie Cultura Náhuatl. Monografías, 15) Cuadros, ilustraciones ISBN 978-968-36-0934-2 Formato: PDF : Publicado en línea: 27 febrero 2015 Disponible en:
