DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 450 196 UD 034 017

AUTHOR Bazemore, Gordon; Umbreit, MarkTITLE A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin.INSTITUTION Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.REPORT NO NCJ-184738PUB DATE 2001-02-00NOTE 21p.

CONTRACT 96-JN-FX-0024AVAILABLE FROM Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Publication

Reprint/Feedback, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000.Tel: 800-638-8736 (Toll Free); Fax: 301-519-5600; e-mail:askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Accountability; Adolescents; Community Involvement;

*Delinquency; Family Involvement; *Juvenile Justice; ProgramEvaluation; *Sentencing; Victims of Crime; Youth Problems

IDENTIFIERS *Juvenile Crime

ABSTRACTThis bulletin focuses on four restorative conferencing

models within the juvenile justice system: victim-offender mediation;community reparative boards; family group conferencing; and circlesentencing. The bulletin first describes each of the four restorative justicemodels, presenting information on background, concept, procedures and goals,considerations in implementation, lessons learned from research, and sourcesof additional information. It then compares and contrasts the models on thefollowing dimensions: origins and current applications; administrative andprocedural aspects (eligibility, point of referral, staffing, setting,process and protocols, and management of dialog); and community involvementand other dimensions (participants, victim role, gatekeepers, relationship tothe formal justice system, preparation, enforcement, monitoring, and primaryoutcomes sought). Next, the bulletin discusses various issues and concerns tobe addressed in the development and implementation of restorativeconferencing approaches. It also offers guidelines for clearly groundinginterventions in restorative justice principles and includes a test fordetermining whether an intervention strengthens the community response toyouth crime and creates new roles for citizens and community groups.(Contains 60 references.) (SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

From the AdministratorReconciling the needs of victims andoffenders with the needs of thecommunity is-the underlying goal ofrestorative justice. Unlike retributivejustice, which is primarily concernedwith punishing crime, restorativejustice focuses on repeiring the injurythat crime inflicts.

As a means to that end, restorativeconferencing brings together victims,offenders, and other members of thecommunity to hold offenders account-able not only for their crimes but forthe harm they cause to victims.

This Bulletin features four models ofrestorative conferencitig:

Victim-offender mediation.Community reparative boards.Family group conferencing.Circle sentencing.

These models are compared andcontrasted in administration, process,community involvement, and otherdimensions, and several relatedissues and concerns are addressed.

If restorative justice is to succeedin contributing to the systematicreform of our juvenile justice system,it must embody new values thatreflect the needs of victims,offenders, and communities. Themodels described in this Bulletinembody these values and providetools for communities engaged inimplementing restorative justice.

John J. WilsonActing Administrator

JIMENMMEMIMl=l1

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

rae

I

.= A1.11.11.111141!XMIZEIMr..4111114:A^Trik I.1.._*.: a

t*i{ ''

*,..P,t;* i'

,-4*,4r. :.

. ..,'" , . -.

elfri 4,.

. I

A Comparison of FourRestorative ConferencingModelsGordon Bazemore and Mark UmbreitRestorative justice is a framework for ju-venile justice reform that seeks to engagevictims, offenders and their families,other citizens, and community groupsboth as clients of juvenile justice servicesand as resources in an effective responseto youth crime. Traditionally, when acrime is committed, juvenile justice sys-tems have been primarily concerned withthree questions: Who did it? What lawswere broken? What should be done topunish or treat the offender? As noted byHoward Zehr (1990), restorative justiceemphasizes three very different ques-tions: What is the nature of the harm re-sulting from the crime? What needs to bedone to "make it right" or repair theharm? Who is responsible for this repair?Restorative justice also suggests that theresponse to youth crime must strike abalance among the needs of victims, of-fenders, and communities and that eachshould be actively involved in the justiceprocess to the greatest extent possible.

The term "restorative conferencing" isused in this Bulletin to encompass arange of strategies for bringing togethervictims, offenders, and community mem-bers in nonadversarial community-basedprocesses aimed at responding to crimeby holding offenders accountable and re-pairing the harm caused to victims andcommunities. Such strategies, now beingimplemented in North America, Australia,

New Zealand, and parts of Europe, areone component of a new movement in the1990's concerned with making criminaland juvenile justice processes less formal,bringing the processes into neighbor-hoods, and involving community mem-bers in planning and implementation(Barajas, 1995; Bazemore and Schiff, 1996;Griffiths and Hamilton, 1996; Travis, 1996).

This Bulletin focuses on four restorativeconferencing models: victim-offender me-diation, community reparative boards,family group conferencing, and circle sen-tencing. Although these four models by nomeans exhaust the possibilities for com-munity involvement in decisions abouthow to respond to youth crime, the mod-els do illustrate both the diversity andcommon themes apparent in what appearsto be a new philosophy of citizen partici-pation in sanctioning processes.

The Bulletin first describes each of thefour restorative conferencing models,'presenting information on backgroundand concept, procedures and goals, con-siderations in implementation, lessonslearned from research, and sources ofadditional information. The Bulletin thencompares and contrasts the models onthe following dimensions: origins and

Information on the four models is adapted fromRegional Symposium Training Manual, U.S. Depart-meat of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

aeThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

current applications; administrative andprocedural aspects (eligibility, point ofreferral, staffing, setting, process andprotocols, and management of dialog);and community involvement and otherdimensions (participants, victim role,gatekeepers, relationship to the formaljustice system, preparation, enforcement,monitoring, and primary outcomes sought).Next the Bulletin discusses a number ofissues and concerns to be addressed in thedevelopment and implementation of restor-ative conferencing approaches. The Bulletinalso offers guidelines for clearly groundinginterventions in restorative justice prin-ciples and includes a test for determiningwhether an intervention strengthens thecommunity response to youth crime andcreates new roles for citizens and commu-nity groups.

In an evolving movement In which innova-tions are emerging rapidly, it is importantto identify common principles that can bereplicated by local juvenile courts andcommunities and that can serve to guidedecisionmakers in choosing models bestsuited to local community needs. Towardthis end, this Bulletin provides a generalframework within which the myriad alter-native interventions currently being char-acterized as restorative justice can be cat-egorized and objectively analyzed andevaluated. Comparative discussions of newapproaches at this relatively early stage ofdevelopment are important because theyserve to highlight similarities and differ-ences across emerging models. In consid-ering the four models discussed in theBulletin, however, it is important to avoidconfusing the vision of prototypes with therealities of implementation and also to re-member that the philosophy and practicesof any given restorative conferencing pro-gram may deviate substantially from theprototypes presented here.

Victim-OffenderMediationBackground and ConceptAlthough still unfamiliar to many main-stream juvenile and criminal justice audi-ences and marginal to the court process insome jurisdictions where they do operate,victim-offender mediation programsreferred to in some communities as "victim-offender reconciliation programs" and,increasingly, as "victim-offender dialogprograms"have a respectable 20-yeartrack record in the United States, Canada,and Europe Currently, there are approximately

An Example of a Victim-Offender Mediation SessionThe victim was a middle-aged woman. The offender, a 14-year-old neighbor of thevictim, had broken into the victim's home and stolen a VCR. The mediation sessiontook place in the basement of the victim's church.

In the presence of a mediator, the victim and offender talked for 2 hours. At times,their conversation was heated and emotional. When they finished, the mediator feltthat they had heard each other's stories and learned something important aboutthe impact of the crime and about each other.

The participants agreed that the offender would pay $200 in restitution to coverthe cost of damages to the victim's home resulting from the break-in and wouldalso reimburse the victim for the cost of the stolen VCR (estimated at $150). Theyalso worked out a payment schedule.

During the session, the offender made several apologies to the victim and agreedto complete community service hours working in a food bank sponsored by thevictim's church. The victim said that she felt less angry and fearful after learningmore about the offender and the details of the crime. She also thanked themediator for allowing the session to be held at her church.

320 victim-offender mediation programs inthe United States and Canada and morethan 700 in Europe. Several programs inNorth America currently receive nearly1,000 case referrals annually from localcourts. Although the greatest proportionof cases involve less serious propertycrimes committed by young people, theprocess Is used increasingly in response toserious and violent crimes committed byboth juveniles and adults (Umbreit, 1997).

The victim-offender mediation processoffers victims an opportunity to meetoffenders in a safe, structured setting andengage in a mediated discussion of thecrime.2 With the assistance of a trainedmediator, the victim is able to tell theoffender about the crime's physical, emo-tional, and financial impact; receive an-swers to lingering questions about thecrime and the offender; and be directlyinvolved in developing a restitution planfor the offender to pay back any financialdebt to the victim. The process is differ-ent from mediation as practiced in civil orcommercial disputes, because the in-volved parties are in agreement abouttheir respective roles in the crime. Also,the process should not be primarily fo-cused on reaching a settlement, althoughmost sessions do, in fact, result in asigned restitution agreement.' Because ofthese fundamental differences, the terms"victim-offender meeting," "conferencing,"and "dialog" are becoming increasingly

'In some programs, parents of the offender are alsooften part of the mediation session.

3

popular to describe variations from stan-dard mediation practices (Umbreit, 1997).

Procedures and GoalsCases may be referred to victim-offendermediation programs by judges, probationofficers, victim advocates, prosecutors,defense attorneys, and law enforcement.In some programs, cases are primarilyreferred as a diversion from prosecution(assuming that any agreement reachedduring the mediation session Is success-fully completed). In other programs;cases are usually referred after a formaladmission of guilt has been accepted bythe court, with mediation being a condi-tion of probation or other disposition(if the victim has volunteered to partici-pate). Some programs receive case refer-rals at both stages.

During mediation sessions, victims explainhow the crime affected them and are giventhe opportunity to ask questions aboutthe incident and help develop a plan forrestoring losses. Offenders are given theopportunity to tell their stories and takedirect responsibility through makingamends in some form (Umbreit, 1994).

The goals of victim-offender mediationinclude the following:

Supporting the healing process of vic-tims by providing a safe, controlled set-ting for them to meet and speak withoffenders on a strictly voluntary basis.

3Not all mediation sessions lead to financialrestitution.

Allowing offenders to learn about theimpact of their crimes on the victimsand take direct responsibility for theirbehavior.

Providing an opportunity for the victimand offender to develop a mutually ac-ceptable plan that addresses the harmcaused by the crime.

Considerations inImplementationIn implementing any victim-offender me-diation program, it is critically importantto maintain sensitivity to the needs of thevictim. First and foremost, the mediatormust do everything possible to ensurethat the victim will not be harmed in anyway. Additionally, the victim's participa-tion must be completely voluntary. Theoffender's participation should also bevoluntary. Offenders are typically giventhe option of participating in mediationor dialog as one of several dispositionalchoices. Although offenders almost neverhave absolute choice (e.g., the option ofno juvenile justice intervention), theyshould never be coerced into meetingswith victims. The victim should also begiven choices, whenever possible, aboutprocedures, such as when and where themediation session will take place, whowill be present, and who will speak first.Cases should be carefully screened re-garding the readiness of both victim andoffender to participate. The mediatorshould conduct in-person premediation

sessions with both parties to clarify theissues to be resolved. The mediatorshould also make followup contacts andmonitor any agreement reached.

Lessons LearnedA large multisite study of victim-offendermediation programs with juvenile offend-ers (Umbreit, 1994) found the following:

In cases referred to the four study-siteprograms during a 2-year period, 95percent of mediation sessions resultedin a successfully negotiated restitutionagreement to restore the victim's finan-cial losses.

Victims who met with offenders in thepresence of a trained mediator weremore likely to be satisfied with the jus-tice system than were similar victimswho went through the standard courtprocess (79 percent versus 57 percent).After meeting offenders, victims weresignificantly less fearful of beingrevictimized.

Offenders who met with victims werefar more likely to successfully com-plete their restitution obligation thanwere similar offenders who did notparticipate in mediation (81 percentversus 58 percent).Recidivism rates were lower amongoffenders who participated in media-tion than among offenders who did notparticipate (18 percent versus 27 per-cent); furthermore, participatingoffenders' subsequent crimes tendedto be less serious.4

Multisite studies (Coates and Gehm, 1989;Umbreit, 1994) also found that althoughrestitution was an important motivatorfor victim participation in mediation ses-sions, victims consistently viewed actualreceipt of restitution as secondary to theopportunity to talk about the impact ofthe crime, meet the offender, and learnthe offender's circumstances. The studiesalso found that offenders appreciated theopportunity to talk to the victim and feltbetter after doing so.

A recent statewide survey of victim ser-vice providers in Minnesota found that91 percent believed that victim-offendermediation should be available in everyjudicial district because it represents animportant victim service. The American

'In the absence of pure control groups, selection biascannot be ruled out for the comparisons drawn in thisstudy.

Bar Association recently endorsed victim-offender mediation and recommends itsuse throughout the United States. As of1997, victim-offender mediation programshave been identified in nearly every State(Umbreit and Schug, 1997).

For More InformationFor more information on victim-offendermediation, contact:

Dr. Mark Umbreit, Director, Center forRestorative Justice and Peacemaking,University of Minnesota, School ofSocial Work, 105 Peters Hall, 1404Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 551086160,612-624-4923 (phone), 612 -625-3744 (fax), rjp@ticmail.che.umn.edu(e-mail), ssw.che.umn.edu /rjp(Internet).

Victim Offender Mediation Association(VOMA), c/o William T. Preston, Admin-istrator, 143 Canal Street, New SmyrnaBeach, FL 32168,904-424-1591 (phone),904-423-8099 (fax), voma@voma.org(e-mail), www.voma.org (Internet).

Community ReparativeBoardsBackground and ConceptThe community reparative board is a re-cent version of a much older and morewidespread community sanctioning re-sponse to youth crime, generally known bysuch terms as youth panels, neighborhoodboards, or community diversion boards.These panels or boards have been in use inthe United States since the 1920's, and theircontemporary counterparts, reparativeboards, have been in use since the mid-1990's, principally in Vermont. There, theboards are primarily used with adult of-fenders convicted of nonviolent and minoroffenses; more recently, the boards havealso been used with juvenile offenders.5Reparative boards typically are composedof a small group of citizens, prepared fortheir function by intensive training, whoconduct public, face-to-face meetings withoffenders ordered by the court to participate

'Reparative boards are highly localized models, andinformation on them is sketchy. This Bulletin uses theVermont reparative boards as a prototype and casestudy. As noted above, Vermont has used the boardsprimarily with adult offenders but more recently hasbegun to use them with juvenile offenders too. Sub-stantial information is available on the operating pro-cedures of the Vermont boards, and the Vermontmodel can serve as a new prototype for the board/panel-based approach to youth crime.

34

3 EST COPY AVAILABLE

in the process. The boards develop sanc-tion agreements with offenders, monitorcompliance, and submit compliance re-ports to the court.

Procedures and GoalsDuring reparative board meetings, boardmembers discuss with the offender thenature of the offense and its negative con-sequences. Then board members developa set of proposed sanctions, which theydiscuss with the offender until an agree-ment is reached on the specific actionsthe offender will take within a given timeperiod to make reparation for the crime.Subsequently, the offender must documenthis or her progress in fulfilling the terms ofthe agreement. After the stipulated periodof time has passed, the board submits areport to the court on the offender's com-pliance with the agreed-upon sanctions.At this point, the board's involvement withthe offender ends.

The goals of community reparativeboards include the following:

Promoting citizens' ownership of thecriminal and juvenile justice systemsby involving them directly in the jus-tice process.Providing an opportunity for victimsand community members to confrontoffenders in a constructive mannerabout their behavior.Providing opportunities for offenders totake personal responsibility and be helddirectly accountable for the harm theycaused to victims and communities.

Generating meaningful community-driven consequences for criminal anddelinquent actions, thereby reducingcostly reliance on formal justice sys-tem processing.

Considerations inImplementationThe Vermont Department of Correctionsimplemented its Reparative ProbationProgram in 1995, in response to a 1994public opinion survey (conducted byJohn Doble and Associates) in which citi-zens indicated broad support for pro-grams with a reparative emphasis andactive community involvement. Theprogram's reparative boards are part ofa mandated separation of probation intocommunity corrections service units (de-signed to provide supervision for moreserious cases) and court and reparativeservice units (which coordinate and provide

An Example of a Community Reparative Board SessionThe reparative board convened to consider the case of a 17-year-old who hadbeen caught driving with an open can of beer in his father's pickup truck. Theyouth had been sentenced by a judge to reparative probation, and it was theboard's responsibility to decide what form the probation should take. For about30 minutes, the citizen members of the board asked the youth several simple,straightforward questions. The board members then went to another room todeliberate on an appropriate sanction for the youth. The youth awaited the board'sdecision nervously, because he did not know whether to expect something tougheror much easier than regular probation.

When the board returned, the chairperson explained the four conditions of the-offender's probation contract: (1) begin work to pay off his traffic tickets, (2) com-plete a State police defensive driving course, (3) undergo an alcohol assessment,and (4) write a three-page paper on how alcohol had negatively affected his life.The youth signed the contract, and the chairperson adjourned the meeting.

administrative support to reparativeboards).

Based on Vermont's experience, the fol-lowing factors have been identified by theVermont Department of Corrections asimportant in implementing community-driven reparative board programs:

Marketing the program effectively tothe justice system (to judges, prosecu-tors, and defense attorneys).Having a committed, well-trained staff.

Working with victim organizations andensuring that victims are representedand provided adequate opportunity toparticipate.6

Processing cases expeditiously and ina manner that is easy for communitymembers to understand.Facilitating a positive experience forthe board members.Providing quality training for theboards.Supporting the program with adequateresources (e.g., space, time, and staff).Striving for successful outcomes foroffenders, victims, and community par-ticipants in the board's initial cases.

6As noted earlier, reparative boards are intended toprovide an opportunity for victims and communitymembers to confront offenders in a constructive man-ner. In practice thus far, however, these opportunitieshave proved better suited to community input thanvictim involvement. Because of this relatively weakinvolvement of victims, some suggest that reparativeboards are not pure examples of restorative justice.See additional discussion on p. 8, under "Comparingand Contrasting the Four Models: Community Involve-ment and Other Dimensions."

4

5

Getting support from judges in limitingthe time the offender is in the programand on probation.

Lessons LearnedOnly limited quantitative data have beencollected on the effectiveness of commu-nity reparative boards. There is growingconcern that evaluations of reparativeboard programs should consider mea-sures beyond the standard offender-focused measure of recidivism. Additionalmeasures should include responsivenessto victim and community needs, victimand community satisfaction, and impacton the community (including physicalimprovements resulting from board-imposed community work sanctions andindicators of healthy relationships amongcitizens). At this point, experiential andanecdotal information indicates that re-parative boards show much promiseas an effective response to nonviolentcrime.

For More InformationFor more information on reparativeboards, contact:

David Peebles, Director of RestorativeServices, Vermont Department of Cor-rections, 103 South Main Street, Water-bury, VT 05671,802-241-2261 (phone).

The National Institute of CorrectionsInformation Center, 1860 IndustrialCircle, Suite A, Longmont, CO 80501,800-877-1461 (phone).

Also, see Restoring Hope Through Commu-nity Partnerships (American Probation andParole Association, 1996), available fromthe American Probation and Parole Asso-ciation, cio Council of State Governments,

P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910,859-244-8203 (phone); and CommunityReparative Boards: Theory and Practice(Karp and Walther, 2001).

Family GroupConferencingBackground and ConceptFamily group conferencing is based oncenturies-old sanctioning and disputeresolution traditions of the Maori of NewZealand. In its modern form, the modelwas adopted into national legislation inNew Zealand in 1989, making it the mostsystemically institutionalized of any ofthe four models. In South Australia, familyconferencing is now widely used in modi-fied form as a police-initiated diversionapproach known as the Wagga Waggamodel. (Developed by the Wagga WaggaPolice Department, this model uses policeofficers or school officials to set up andfacilitate family conferencing meetings.)Conferencing is also being used in U.S.cities in Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylva-nia, Vermont, and several other Statesand in parts of Canada. (The WaggaWagga model is the primary approachthat has taken hold in North America.)A variety of offenses have been resolvedthrough family group conferencing, in-cluding theft, arson, minor assaults, drugoffenses, vandalism, and, in a number ofStates, child maltreatment cases. In NewZealand, conferencing is used in the dis-position of all but the most violent andserious delinquency cases (Alder and

Wundersitz, 1994; Maxwell and Morris,1993; McElrea, 1993).

Family group conferencing involves thecommunity of people most affected bythe crimethe victim, the offender, andthe family, friends, and key supporters ofbothin deciding the resolution of acriminal or delinquent incident. The af-fected parties are brought together by atrained facilitator to discuss how theyand others have been harmed by theoffense and how that harm might berepaired.

Procedures and GoalsThe conference facilitator contacts the vic-tim and offender to explain the processand invite them to the conference. The fa-cilitator also asks the victim and offenderto identify key members of their supportsystems, who also will be invited to partici-pate. The conference typically begins withthe offender describing the incident. Theother participants then describe the im-pact of the incident on their lives. Someargue that it is preferable to allow the vic-tim to start the discussion, if he or shewishes to do so (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996).Through these narrations, the offender isfaced with the impact of his or her behav-ior on the victim, on those close to the vic-tim, and on the offender's own family andfriends, and the victim has the opportunityto express feelings and ask questionsabout the incident. After a thorough dis-cussion of impacts, the victim is asked toidentify desired outcomes from the confer-ence; in this way, the victim can help toshape the obligations that will be placed

56

on the offender. All participants contributeto the problem-solving process of deter-mining how the offender might best repairthe harm he or she has caused. The ses-sion ends with participants signing anagreement that outlines their expectationsand commitments.

Goals of family group conferencing includethe following:

Providing an opportunity for the victimto be directly involved in the discus-sion of the offense and in decisionsregarding appropriate sanctions to beplaced on the offender.

Increasing the offender's awareness ofthe human impact of his or her behaviorand providing the offender an opportu-nity to take full responsibility for it.

Engaging the collective responsibilityof the offender's support system formaking amends and shaping theoffender's future behavior.

An Example of a FamilyGroup ConferencingSession . , .

A family conferencing group convenedin a local school to consider a casein which a student had injured ateacher and broken the teacher'sglasses in an altercation. Groupmembers included the offender, hismother and grandfather, the victim,the police officer who made the arrest,and about 10 other interested parties(including 2 of the offender's teachersand 2 friends of the victim).

The conferencing process began withcomments by the offender, his motherand grandfather, the victim, and thearresting officer. Each spoke aboutthe offense and its impact. The youthjustice coordinator next asked forinput from the other group membersand then asked all participants whatthey thought the offender should do topay back the victim and the commu-nity for the damage caused by hiscrime. In the remaining 30 minutes ofthe hour-long conference, the groupsuggested that the offender shouldmake restitution to the victim for hismedical expenses and the. cost ofnew glasses and that the offendershould also perform communityservice work on the school grounds.

Allowing both offender and victim toreconnect to key community supportsystems.

Considerations inImplementationThe family group conferencing processhas been implemented in schools, policedepartments, probation offices, residen-tial programs, community mediationprograms, and neighborhood groups.Conferencing is most often used as diver-sion from the court process for juvenilesbut can also be used after adjudicationand disposition to address unresolvedissues or determine specific terms ofrestitution. Conferencing programs havebeen implemented within single agenciesand developed collaboratively among sev-eral agencies. After completing a trainingcourse, either volunteers or paid employ-ees can serve as conference facilitators.

Participation by all involved in confer-ences is voluntary. In addition to thevictim and offender and their family mem7bers, a conference might involve teach-ers, other relatives, peers, special adultfriends, and community resource people.

Lessons LearnedTo date, two studies have been conductedto assess the impact of family group con-ferencing with young offenders. One study(Maxwell and Morris, 1993) assessed theimpact of New Zealand's law mandatingthe widespread use of conferencing. Itfound that families of offenders in confer-encing programs are more frequently andactively involved in the justice processthan are families of offenders whose casesare handled by standard procedures. Italso found that offenders, victims, andtheir families described the conferenceprocess as helpful. Preliminary evaluationsof conferencing programs in the UnitedStates also indicate high levels of victimsatisfaction with the conference processand high rates of offender compliance withagreements reached during conferences(Fercello and Umbreit, 1999; Mc Cold andWachtel, 1998).

Practitioners involved in family groupconferencing programs observe a reduc-tion in fear for many victims. When usedas a diversion from court, conferencingcan provide a much speedier and moresatisfying resolution of incidents thanwould otherwise be the case. Familygroup conferencing also builds commu-nity skills in conflict resolution and par-ticipatory decisionmaking.

For More Information Procedures and GoalsFor more information about family groupconferencing, contact:

David Hines, Woodbury Police Depart-ment, 2100 Radio Drive, Woodbury, MN55125-9528,651-714-3600 (phone).

Kay Pranis or Sue Stacey, MinnesotaDepartment of Corrections, 1450 En-ergy Park Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul,MN 55108,651-642-0329 or 651 -642-0338 (phone).Real Justice, P.O. Box 229, Bethlehem,PA 18016,610-807-9221 (phone).

Circle SentencingBackground and ConceptCircle sentencing is an updated versionof the traditional sanctioning and healingpractices of aboriginal peoples in Canadaand American Indians in the United States(Stuart, 1995; Melton, 1995). Sentencingcirclessometimes called peacemakingcircleswere resurrected in 1991 byjudges and community justice committeesin the Yukon Territory and other northernCanadian communities. Circle sentencinghas been developed most extensively inSaskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukonand has been used occasionally in severalother communities. Its use spread to theUnited States in 1996, when a pilot projectwas initiated in Minnesota. Circle sentenc-ing has been used for adult and juvenileoffenders, for a variety of offenses, and inboth rural and urban settings.

Circle sentencing is a holistic reintegra-tive strategy designed not only to addressthe criminal and delinquent behavior ofoffenders but also to consider the needsof victims, families,.and communities.Within the "circle," crime victims, offend-ers, family and friends of both, justice andsocial service personnel, and interestedcommunity residents speak from theheart in a shared search for an under-standing of the event. Together they iden-tify the steps necessary to assist in heal-ing all affected parties and preventfuture crimes. The significance of thecircle is more than symbolic: all circlememberspolice officers, lawyers,judges, victims, offenders, and commu-nity residentsparticipate in delibera-tions to arrive at a consensus fora sentencing plan that addresses theconcerns of all interested parties.

6

Circle sentencing typically involves a multi-step procedure that includes (1) applica-tion by the offender to participate in thecircle process, (2) a healing circle forthe victim, (3) a healing circle for the of-fender, (4) a sentencing circle to developconsensus on the elements of a sentencingplan, and (5) followup circles to monitorthe progress of the offender. In addition tocommitments by the offender, the sentenc-ing plan may incorporate commitments bythe justice system, community, and familymembers. Specifics of the circle processvary from community to community andare designed locally to fit communityneeds and culture.

Goals of circle sentencing include thefollowing:

Promoting healing for all affectedparties.Providing an opportunity for the of-fender to make amends.Empowering victims, community mem-bers, families, and offenders by givingthem a voice and a shared responsibil-ity in finding constructive resolutions.Addressing the underlying causes ofcriminal behavior.

Building a sense of community and itscapacity for resolving conflict.

Promoting and sharing communityvalues.

Considerations inImplementationThe success of the circle sentencing pro-cess depends to a large extent on a healthypartnership between the formal juvenilejustice system and the community. Partici-pants from both need training and skillbuilding in the circle process and in peace-making and consensus building. It is criti-cally important that the community's plan-ning process allow sufficient time forstrong relationships to develop betweenjustice professionals and community mem-bers. Implementation procedures shouldbe highly flexible, because the circle pro-cess will evolve over time based on thecommunity's knowledge and experience.As it gains experience, the community cancustomize the circle process to fit localresources and culture.

In many communities that have imple-mented the circle sentencing concept,direction and leadership have come froma community justice committee thatdecides which cases to accept, develops

An Example of a Circle Sentencing SessionThe victim was a middle-aged man whose parked car had been badly damagedwhen the offender, a 16-year-old, crashed into it while joyriding in another vehicle.The offender had also damaged a police vehicle.

In the circle, the victim talked about the emotional shock of seeing what hadhappened to his car and his costs to repair it (he was uninsured). Then, an elderleader of the First Nations community where the circle sentencing session wasbeing held (and an uncle of the offender) expressed his disappointment and angerwith the boy. The elder observed that this incident, along with several prior of-lenses by the boy, had brought shame to his family. The elder also noted that inthe old days, the boy would have been required to pay the victim's family substan-tial compensation as_a result of such behavior. After the elder finished, a feather(the "talking piece") was passed-to the next person in the circle, a young man whospoke about the contributions the offender had made to the community, thekindness he had shown toward elders, and his willingness to help others withhome repairs.

Having heard all this, the judge asked the Crown Council (Canadian prosecutor)and the public defender, who were also sitting in the circle, to make statements andthen asked if anyone else in the circle wanted to speak. The Royal CanadianMounted Police officer, whose vehicle had also been damaged, then took thefeather and spoke on the offender's behalf. The officer proposed to the judge that inlieu of statutorily required jail time for the offense, the offender be allowed to meetwith him on a regular basis for counseling and community service. After asking the

_victim and the prosecutor if either had any objections, the judge accepted thisproposal. The judge also ordered restitution to the victim and asked the young adultwho had spoken on the offender's behalf to serve as a mentor for the offender.

After a prayer in which the entire group held hands, the circle disbanded andeveryone retreated to the kitchen area of the community center for refreshments.

support groups for the victim and of-fender, and helps to conduct the circles.In most communities, circles are facili-tated by a trained community member,who is often called a keeper.

Although circles have been used as a re-sponse to serious and violent crimes,circle sentencing is not an appropriate re-sponse to all offenses. Key factors in deter-mining whether a case is appropriate forthe circle process include the offender'scharacter and personality, sincerity, andconnection to the community; the victim'sinput; and the dedication of the offender'sand victim's support groups. Moreover,circles are often labor intensive and re-quire a substantial investment of citizentime and effort; circles should not, there-fore, be used extensively as a response tofirst offenders and minor crime.

The capacity of the circle to advance solu-tions capable of improving the lives of par-ticipants and the overall well-being of thecommunity depends on the effectiveness ofthe participating volunteers. To ensure acadre of capable volunteers, the programshould support a paid community-basedvolunteer coordinator to supply logisticalsupport, establish linkages with other

agencies and community representatives,and provide appropriate training for allstaff.

Lessons LearnedVery little research has been conducted todate on the effectiveness of circle sentenc-ing. One study conducted by Judge BarryStuart in Canada in 1996 indicated that re-cidivism was less likely among offenderswho had participated in circles than amongoffenders who were processed traditionally(Stuart, 1996). Those who have been in-volved with circles report that circles em-power participants to resolve conflict in amanner that promotes sharing of responsi-bility for outcomes, generates constructiverelationships, enhances respect and under-standing among all involved, and fostersenduring, innovative solutions.

For More InformationFor more information on circle sentenc-ing, see Building Community JusticePartnerships: Community PeacemakingCircles, by Barry Stuart. The publicationis available from Aboriginal Justice Sec-tion,- Department of Justice of Canada,Ottawa, ON, Canada K1AOH8, Attention:

7Q

Learning Network, 613-954-0119(phone), 613-957-4697 (fax).

Comparing andContrasting the FourModels: Administrationand ProcessTable 1 describes the origins and cur-rent applications of the four restorativeconferencing models and summarizes ad-ministrative and procedural similaritiesand differences among them. Althoughthe four models share a nonadversarial,community-based sanctioning focus oncases in which offenders either admitguilt or have been found guilty of crimesor delinquent acts, the models vary alongseveral administrative and proceduraldimensions. This discussion highlightsselected dimensions in table 1 that varysignificantly from model to model.

The models differ in point of referral andin structural relationship to formal courtand correctional systems. The models alsodiffer in eligibility, which ranges from mi-nor first offenders to quite serious repeatoffenders (in the case of circle sentencing).

With the exception of most communityreparative boards, decisionmaking is byconsensus. Specific processes and proto-cols, however, vary substantially, rangingfrom circle sentencing's ancient ritual ofpassing a stick or feather as a "talkingpiece" (Stuart, 1995) to the more formaldeliberation process followed by repara-tive boards (Dooley, 1995).

The process of managing dialog varies sig-nificantly among the four models. In repara-tive board hearings, a chairperson guidesmembers through their questioning of theoffender and their discussions with hearingparticipants. In family group conferences, acoordinator manages the discussion byencouraging all participants to speak. Invictim-offender mediation sessions, themediator manages the dialog by encourag-ing victim and offender to take primary re-sponsibility for expressing their feelingsand concerns directly to each other, by en-suring that each participant respects theother's right to speak, and by occasionallyprobing to keep the discussion flowing. Incircle sentencing, participants rely primarilyon the process itself, which requires thatonly one person speak at a time and onlywhen handed the talking piece. Each circlehas a "keeper," but the keeper's role is notto manage the dialog but simply to initiateit, ensure the process is followed, and occa-sionally summarize progress.

Table 1: Restorative Conferencing Models: Administration and Process

Victim-OffenderMediation Reparative Boards

Family GroupConferencing

Origin Since mid-1970's. Since 1995 (similaryouth panels: since1920).

New Zealand, 1989;Australia, 1991.

Circle Sentencing

Since approximately1992.

Currentapplications

Throughout NorthAmerica and Europe.

Vermont; selectedjurisdictions andneighborhoods inother States.

Australia; New Zealand;United States (since1990's), in cities andtowns in Montana,Minnesota, Pennsylva-nia, and other States.

Primarily the Yukon,sporadically in otherparts of Canada.Minnesota, Colorado,and Massachusetts.

Referral point insystem

Mostly diversion andprobation option.Some use in resi-dential facilities formore serious cases.

One of severalprobation options(youth panels: almostexclusively diversion).

New Zealand: through-out juvenile justicesystem. AustralianWagga Wagga model:police diversion. UnitedStates: mostly diver-sion, some use inschools and post-adjudication.

Various stages. Maybe diversion oralternative to formalcourt hearings andcorrections process forindictable offenses.

Eligibility andtarget group

Varies. Primarily diver-sion cases and propertyoffenders. In somelocations, used withserious and violentoffenders (at victim'srequest).

Target group isnonviolent offenders;eligibility limited tooffenders givenprobation and as-signed to the boards.

New Zealand: alljuvenile offenderseligible except thosecharged with murderand manslaughter.Australian Wagga Waggamodel: determined bypolice discretion ordiversion criteria.

Offenders who admitguilt and expresswillingness to change.Entire range of offensesand offenders eligible;chronic offenderstargeted.

Comparing andContrasting the FourModels: CommunityInvolvement andOther DimensionsTable 2 summarizes aspects of commu-nity involvement for each of the four re-storative conferencing models. Table 2also addresses several other dimensionsthat provide useful points of comparisonamong the models, including victim roleand preparation/followup.

The way "community" is defined andinvolved in restorative conferencingmodels is a critical factor affecting thenature and extent of citizen participationin and ownership of the conferencingprocess. As table 2 suggests, victim-offender mediation, for example, ineffect defines the community as the

victim-offender dyad.' In circle sentenc-ing, on the other hand, the communityis conceptualized much more broadlyas all residents of a local neighborhood,village, or aboriginal band; for purposesof implementing the circle process, thecommunity may be defined as anyonewith a stake in the resolution of a crimewho chooses to participate in the circle.

The remainder of this section focuses ontwo particularly important additional di-mensions of the restorative conferencingmodels: victim role and preparation/followup.

Victim RoleThe formal justice system directs itsattention primarily toward the offender,first with regard to guilt or innocence and sec-ond with regard to appropriate punishment,

'Some feel that the community (volunteer) mediatoralso is part of the community definition.

treatment, or monitoring. The communityis often an abstract and distant concern(Barajas, 1995; Clear, 1996). Because vic-tims have been so neglected as stakehold-ers in both formal and community justiceapproaches, it is important to give specialattention to their role in each restorativeconferencing process.

Victim-offender mediation. Mediationprograms offer victims an opportunity totell offenders how the crime has affectedthem, give victims maximum input intoplans for holding offenders responsible,and ensure that victims are compensatedfor their losses to the greatest extent pos-sible. The programs also provide victimswith referrals for needed services andassistance.

Victims frequently are given the opportu-nity to speak first in mediation sessions,which helps them feel empowered or atleast not overwhelmed or abused by the

98

Table 1Continued

Victim-OffenderMediation Reparative Boards

Family GroupConferencing Circle Sentencing

Staffing Mediator. Other posi-tions vary.

Setting Neutral setting (meetingroom in library, church,community center);victim's home (occasion-ally, if all parties approve).

Reparative coordina-tor (probation staff).

Community justicecoordinator.

Community justicecoordinator.

Public building orcommunity center.

Social welfare office,school, communitybuilding, police facility(occasionally).

Community center,school, other publicbuilding, church.

Process andprotocols

Victim speaks first.Mediator facilitates butencourages victim andoffender to speak, doesnot adhere to script.

Mostly private deliber-ation by board afterquestioning offenderand hearing state-ments. Some variationemerging in localboards (youth panelmembers generallydeliberate).

Australian WaggaWagga model: coordina-tor follows script inwhich offender speaksfirst, then victim andothers. New Zealand:model not scripted,allows consensusdecisionmaking afterprivate meeting offamily members.

Keeper opens sessionand allows for com-ments from judge.Prosecutors anddefense present legalfacts of case (for moreserious crimes). Allparticipants allowed tospeak when "talkingpiece" (feather orstick) is passed tothem. Consensusdecisionmaking.

Managing dialog Mediator manages. Board chairpersonmanages. Participantsspeak when asked.

Coordinator manages. After keeper initiates,dialog managed byprocess of passingtalking piece.

process. Mediation programs give theneeds of victims and offenders priorityover the needs of other participants inthe process (e.g., parents and other rela-tives), but victims receive extra attentionto ensure that they are not revictimizedby the process itself. Victim participationin the mediation process is voluntary.Most programs also are voluntary foroffenders and attempt to engage theirparticipation in the least coercive man-ner possible (Umbreit and Greenwood,1998); in some jurisdictions, however,offenders are often less-than-willing par-ticipants (Belgrave, 1995).

Increasingly, mediation programs seek tooffer their services in a victim-sensitivemanner (Umbreit, 1994; Umbreit andGreenwood, 1998). In contrast to othermodels, most research studies report thatvictim satisfaction with victim-offendermediation has been uniformly high(Belgrave, 1995; Umbreit and Coates, 1993).

Reparative boards. The design of Ver-mont's reparative boards was shaped toa large extent by restorative justice con-cepts (Dooley, 1995; and Dooley, Vermont

Department of Corrections, personal com-munication, 1996), and State officials whodeveloped and now monitor the boardsstrongly encourage an emphasis on victimparticipation. Nevertheless, in the earlymonths of operation, victim involvement inmost local boards was minimal (Dooley,personal communication). Some boardsappear to have increased victim involve-ment, but it remains to be seen to what ex-tent citizen board members will wantto take on the demanding task of contact-ing crime victims and engaging their par-ticipation in the justice process (Karp andWalther, 2001). Some boards have demon-strated a strong commitment to makingcertain that offenders repay victims; ulti-mately, this commitment might motivateincreased involvement of victims as thevalue of all forms of victim-offender dialogin improving restitution completion ratesbecomes clearer (Umbreit and Coates,1993). State administrators have also en-couraged boards to refer victims and of-fenders to victim-offender mediation orfamily group conferencing programs, if suchprograms are available in the community and

10

if victims agree to participate (Dooley,1996).

Family group conferencing. The dimen-sions of victim protection and empower-ment are more complex in models that movebeyond the small group or dyad to the lar-ger community. Family group conferencingis perhaps the strongest of all the models inits potential for educating offenders aboutthe harm their behavior causes to others.Concerns have been expressed, however,about the role of victims in this model.Among these concerns are the following:

Emphasis on offender education maycause victim needs to be overshad-owed or trivialized (Belgrave, 1995;Umbreit and Zehr, 1996), as appearsto have been the case when confer-ences have been held with little or novictim input or involvement (Alder andWundersitz, 1994; Maxwell and Mor-ris, 1993).

Standard protocol for family group con-ferences requires that offenders speakfirst (McDonald et al., 1995), which may

9

Table 2: Restorative Conferencing Models: Community Involvement and Other Dimensions

Victim-OffenderMediation Reparative Boards

Family GroupConferencing Circle Sentencing

Who participates?(the community)

Mediator, victim,offender are standardparticipants. Parentsoften involved. Othersoccasionally involved.

Reparative coordi-nator (probationemployee), commu-nity reparative board,offender and support-ers, victim (on alimited basis). Youthpanels (a relatedapproach) usediversion staff.

Coordinator identifieskey participants.Close kin of victimand offender invited.Police, social services,or other supportpersons also invited.Broader communitynot encouraged toparticipate.

Judge, prosecutor,defense counsel partici-pate in serious cases.Victim(s), offender(s),service providers,support group present.Open to entire commu-nity. Justice committeeensures participationof key residents.

Victim role Expresses feelingsregarding crime andimpact. Has major rolein decision regardingoffender obligationand content of re-parative plan. Hasultimate right ofrefusal; consent isessential.

Input into plan soughtby some boards.Inclusion of victimsrare but currentlyencouraged; moreactive role beingconsidered.

Expresses feelingsabout crime, givesinput into reparativeplan.

Participates in circle anddecisionmaking; givesinput into eligibility ofoffender, choosessupport group, and mayparticipate in a healingconference.

Gatekeepers Courts and otherentities make referrals.

Judge. New Zealand: courtand community justicecoordinator. Australiaand United States:police and schoolofficials.

Community justicecommittee.

Relationship toformal system

Varies on continuumfrom core process indiversion and dis-position to marginalprograms withminimal impact oncourt caseloads.

One of severalprobation optionsfor eligible low-riskoffenders withminimal serviceneeds. Plans toexpand. Someimpact on case-loads anticipated.

New Zealand: primaryprocess of hearingjuvenile cases, requiredceding of dispositionpower, major impacton court caseloads.Australia (WaggaWagga) and UnitedStates: police-drivenprocess, variable impacton caseloads, concernregarding net-widening;in United States, usedfor very minor cases(most commonlyshoplifting).

Judge, prosecution,court officials sharepower with community,i.e., selection, sanction-ing, followup. Presentlyminimal impact on courtcaseloads.

affect victims' participation in thediscussion.Some interpretations of family groupconferencing place primary emphasison getting offenders to experienceshame (Alder and Wundersitz, 1994;-Strang, 1995). In such interpretations,victim benefits are limited to an apol-ogy and perhaps material restitution.

Either or both of these benefits maymeet the main needs of many victims,but other needs may be neglected.Moreover, if forgiveness is a primarygoal, the process may be slanted to-ward eliciting apologies from offenders,victims may feel pressured to offerforgiveness and resentful of the impli-cation that they should do so, and re-sentment may cause some victims to

refuse to participate (Umbreit andStacy, 1996).

Other criticisms of victim treatment inthe family group conferencing modelcite a lack of concern with victim em-powerment, lack of protection againstabuse or retaliation, and use of victimsto serve as "props" or to meet offenderneeds (Umbreit and Zehr, 1996).

10

Table 2 Co n tin u e d

Victim-OffenderMediation Reparative Boards

Family GroupConferencing Circle Sentencing

Preparation Typically, face-to-facepreparation with victimand offender to explainprocess. Some pro-grams use phonecontact.

Preservice trainingprovided to boardmembers. No advancepreparation forindividual hearings.

Phone contact with allparties to encourageparticipation andexplain process.New Zealand modelrequires face-to-facevisits with offender,offender's family, andvictim.

Extensive work withoffender and victimprior to circle. Explainprocess and rules ofcircle.

Followup(enforcement andmonitoring)

Varies. Mediator mayfollow up. Probationand/or other programstaff may be responsible.

Condition of proba-tion. Coordinatormonitors and bringspetition of revocationto board, if necessary.

Unclear. Australia(Wagga Wagga):police. New Zealand:coordinator. UnitedStates and Canada:others.

Community justicecommittee. Judge mayhold jail sentence asincentive for offenderto comply with plan.

Primaryoutcome(s)sought

Allow victim to relayimpact of crime tooffender, expressfeelings and needs;victim satisfied withprocess; offender hasincreased awarenessof harm, gains empathywith victim; agreementon reparative plan.

Engage and involvecitizens in decision-making process;decide appropriatereparative plan foroffender; requirevictim awareness,education, and otheractivities that addressways to avoid re-offending in future.

Clarify facts of case.Denounce crime whileaffirming and support-ing offender; restorevictim loss; encourageoffender reintegra-tion. Focus on "deednot need" (i.e., onoffense and harmdone, not offender'sneeds). Some empha-sis on collectiveaccountability.

Increase communitystrength and capacityto resolve disputes andprevent crime; developreparative and rehabili-tative plan; addressvictim concerns andpublic safety issues;assign victim andoffender support groupresponsibilities andidentify resources.

Victim participation and satisfaction wereindeed significant problems during theearly development of family group con-ferencing in New Zealand (Maxwell andMorris, 1993), but it is wrong to concludethat most advocates of the conferencingmodel are not concerned with victims'needs (Moore and O'Connell, 1994;Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994). Recentstudies of family group conferencingprograms in Minnesota (Fercello andUmbreit, 1999; Umbreit and Fercello,1997), Pennsylvania (McCold andWachtel, 1998), and South Australia(Daly, 2000) have found higher rates ofvictim participation and satisfactionthan when the model was first intro-duced in New Zealand (Morris and Max-well, 2001).

Such criticism of victim treatment in fam-ily group conferencing (or in any alterna-tive model) should have as its contextthe extent to which the current formalsystem does or does not provide for

victim reparation, empowerment, andsupport (Stuart, 1996). Nevertheless,as family group conferencing modelsevolve, it will be important to keepin mind that emphasis on offendershaming and reintegration may limitthe model's capacity to meet theneeds of crime victims.

Circle sentencing. Proponents of circlesentencing are concerned with protectingvictims, providing them with support, andhearing their stories. Circle organizersavoid an unbalanced focus on offenders'issues, which may cause victims to with-draw or react by challenging offenders(Stuart, 1996). Victims' telling of their sto-ries is viewed as important not only forvictims, offenders, and their supporters,but also for the community as a whole. Ifa victim is unwilling to participate in acircle, the organizer may encourage afriend or relative to speak on the victim'sbehalf; however, organizers emphasizethe value of community residents hearing

12

victims' stories firsthand whenever pos-sible (Stuart, 1996).

Because the circle sentencing process isso open and community driven, a potentialconcern is that the importance given tovictims' needs may vary widely. The seri-ousness of offenders' needs may slant thefocus of some circles toward offender re-habilitation, service, and support andaway from victims' needs, as also appearsto occur in some family group conferences(Maxwell and Morris, 1993; Umbreit andStacey, 1996). In addition, because thecircle sentencing model requires extensivepreparation on the offender's part beforethe circle convenes (see discussion in thefollowing section), some circles become"stacked" with offender supporters whohave little relationship to victims.

Initially unique to the circle sentencingmodel of conferencing is the conceptof victim support groups (Stuart, 1996).Support groups are formed by community

justice committees, which are responsiblefor achieving an appropriate balanceamong victim, offender, and communityneeds and representation. Usually a sup-port group is formed at the time an of-fender petitions for admission to thecircle, but the group may expand at anytime (including during the circle cer-emony itself).

Preparation/FollowupThe presession preparation stage of anyrestorative conferencing process offersperhaps the greatest opportunity to en-gage citizens in the restorative justiceprocess and ensure their meaningful par-ticipation (Stuart, 1995; Umbreit, 1994).Followup activitiesmonitoring and en-forcement of sanctioning plans and agree-ments that result from decisionmakingsessionsprovide critical linkage be-tween court dispositions and correctionalintervention. Followup has been particu-larly at issue among some critics of re-storative conferencing models (Alderand Wundersitz, 1994). Thus, the extentto which preparation and followup areviewed as vital to success is one of themost interesting and important differ-ences among the four restorativeconferencing models.

Victim-offender mediation. Mediation pro-grams stress the importance of extensivevictim and offender preparation prior tothe mediation session. The most widelyaccepted model encourages mediators tohold at least one separate, face-to-face dis-cussion with the offender and the victim.During these discussions, the mediatorlistens to each person describe how thecrime affected him or her, gives an over-view of the mediation process, identifiesits potential benefits, and invites each per-son to participate. If the offender and vic-tim agree to participate, the mediator in-troduces them to the process in a way thatminimizes anxiety and maximizes the likeli-hood that the two parties will engage indirect dialog with minimal intervention bythe mediator (Umbreit, 1994, 1997). Manypractitioners argue that upfront prepara-tion is often more important than the ses-sion itself in bringing about a successfulresult (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996).

Victim-offender mediation programs varyin their approach to monitoring and en-forcement. In many programs, mediatorsusually help session participants devisea reparation schedule and may even askthem to agree to a followup meeting to re-view progress (Umbreit, 1994). In some

programs, followup may be the responsi-bility of probation or diversion staff (de-pending on the offender's court status),other paid staff, community volunteers, orstudent interns; in others, victim-offendermediation may be one part of a larger resti-tution program responsible for develop-ment and enforcement of reparation agree-ments (Belgrave, 1995; Schneider, 1985).

Reparative boards. In Vermont's repara-tive board programs, case preparationusually is limited to brief intake inter-views with offenders to gather informa-tion about the offense for the board hear-ings. Boards can obtain basic informationabout victim losses from police, court, orprobation records. Nevertheless, someboard programs increasingly are attempt-ing to contact victims prior to hearings.

Monitoring and enforcement policies andprocedures are more formally developedin reparative boards than in other mod-els. Board members themselves have en-forcement responsibilities (i.e., recom-mending revocation or termination ofoffender contracts as necessary), al-though they do not make final enforce-ment decisions. A reparative coordina-tor, who is a State corrections employee,is responsible for monitoring offendercontract compliance (Reparative Proba-tion Program, 1995). If offenders do notmeet contract conditions, the coordi-nator may recommend that they becharged with violation of probation orconditions of the diversion agreementand/or that the court take additionalcorrective action (Dooley, 1996).

Family group conferencing. In NewZealand, preparation is viewed as criticalfor the success of family group confer-ences. Preconference face-to-face meet-ings generally are held with offendersand their families, and victims are con-tacted by phone (Hakiaha, 1995). TheAustralian Wagga Wagga model placesmuch less emphasis on preparation,apparently in the belief that spontaneityis important. Some coordinators, for ex-ample, argue that hearing victims' andoffenders' stories prior to the conferencemay even diminish the impact and focusof the stories (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996).Recently, however, some proponents ofthe Wagga Wagga model are placinggreater emphasis on the need to ensureaccuracy of facts, check with partici-pants, develop plans, and ensure thatkey participants and their supportgroups attend conference sessions(McDonald et al., 1995). 13

Family group conferencing programsgenerally have often left responsibility forcompliance to the offender (Moore andO'Connell, 1994), although the New Zealandmodel does provide for reconvening confer-ences in the event of noncompliance (Max-well and Morris, 1993). Conferencing pro-grams generally do not make monitoringand enforcement responsibilities explicit,although Australia's Wagga Wagga modelanticipates that police officers are ulti-mately responsible for enforcement andthat juvenile justice staff may also playa role (Alder and Wundersitz, 1994). Inthe United States, the enforcement functionis evolving and varies from jurisdiction tojurisdiction. Although preferred practicecalls for encouraging voluntary complianceand assigning monitoring roles to confer-ence participants, final enforcement author-ity rests primarily with the police agenciesthat convene the conferences; however, theextent of actual followup varies.

Circle sentencing. Perhaps because itscommunity empowerment and healinggoals are most ambitious, the circle sen-tencing model demands the most exten-sive presession preparation. As a condi-tion of admission to a circle, offenders arerequired to petition the community justicecommittee, visit an elder or other re-spected community member for a con-ference, begin work on a reparative planthat may involve some restitution to thevictim and community service, and iden-tify a community support group (Stuart,1996). This presession process serves asa screening device and an indicator thatoffenders are serious about personalchange. It is not uncommon for circlesto be canceled or postponed if offendersfail to complete the preliminary steps(Stuart, 1996). When the screening pro-cess works well and offenders meet thepresession obligations, however, a circlecan actually be less a hearing about dispo-sition requirements than a celebration ofthe offender's progress and an opportunityfor victim and offender to tell their stories.

Followup should be as intensive aspreparation in the circle sentencingmodel. Circle participants are expectedto take responsibility for monitoringand enforcing the conditions of thecircle sentence, which often include anextensive list of reparative responsibili-ties, treatment requirements, and (inaboriginal communities) traditionalhealing and community-building rituals.Support groups for offenders and vic-tims, which are formed through commu-nity justice committees, also monitor

12

offenders and act as victim advocatesto ensure that agreements made withinthe circle are carried out. Sentencingcircle agreements are subject to reviewby a judge, who asks for routine reportsfrom the justice committee and supportgroups. At the conclusion of a circle,the judge may assign further monitoringresponsibilities to members of the com-munity and may withhold a final decisionabout detention terms or other sanctionspending the offender's completion of obli-gations as verified at a followup hearing.

Comparing andContrasting the FourModels: SummaryIn comparing these four models, it mustbe remembered that, as noted earlier inthe Bulletin, the philosophy and practiceof any given restorative conferencing pro-gram may deviate substantially from theprototypes presented here. Indeed, theevolution of the restorative justice move-ment is producing significant changes aspractitioners think more carefully aboutthe implications of restorative principlesfor their practice. For example, reparativeboards and victim-offender mediationhave been influenced by family group con-ferencing models, and some family groupconferencing programs have recentlyadopted components of circle sentencing.

The most important conclusion to bedrawn from this comparison of the fourmodels is that there is no one best ap-proach for every community or for everycase within a community. For example,circle sentencing is perhaps the most ho-listic of the models. Yet circles also de-mand the greatest time commitment fromparticipants and thus are not wisely usedon minor or less complex cases.

Some have suggested that the future maybring a single hybrid model. More practi-cally, however, jurisdictions can considerdeveloping a "menu" of conferencing al-ternatives to respond to diverse caseneeds and to make the most efficient useof scarce resources. For example, a briefencounter with a reparative board may bethe most appropriate and cost-effectiveresponse to a property offender with fewprior incidents and no other complicationsrequiring more intensive intervention,whereas circle sentencing may be moreappropriate for serious and chronic offend-ers involved in dysfunctional relationships.

Dimensions of Restorative Justice and DecisionmakingEfforts to increase community participation in the dispositional decisionmakingprocess are nothing new. In the late 1970's. the Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration of the U.S. Department of Justice supported neighborhood justicecenters (also known as dispute resolution centers) in several cities (Garafalo andConnelly, 1980; McGillis and Mullen. 1977). More recently, a variety of initiativeshave placed prosecution and defense services, and even entire courts, in neigh-borhoods and have adapted services to provide a better fit with the needs of localcitizens (National Institute of Justice. 1996b). Federal and State juvenile justiceagencies have been especially concerned with promoting a less formal, moreaccessible neighborhood focus for intervention and in recent years have sup-ported youth courts, juvenile drug courts, and mentoring programs.

These efforts often have been effective in making justice services moregeographically accessible to citizens, increasing flexibility of service delivery(e.g., more convenient hours, more diversity), and encouraging informality inthe decisionmaking process by relying whenever possible on dispute resolu-tion, negotiation. and mediation practices rather than legal rules and proce-dures (Harrington and Merry, 1988: Rottman, 1996). However, when facilitiesand services are merely placed in neighborhoods without the involvement oflocal residents, the result is an isolated program or process that may be said tobe in, but not of, the community (Byrne. 1989; Clear, 1996). Similarly, increas-ing flexibility and breaking down formal barriers may increase citizens' willing-ness to seek and receive assistance but will not necessarily increase theirinvolvement as participants in the justice process or even allow them todetermine what services they would like in their neighborhoods.Unfortunately, emphasis on developing programs and increasing accessibility ofservices has contributed to a one-dimensional definition of restorative justice.Ultimately, neither new programs nor increased access alone will change the Nileof neighborhood residents from service recipients to decisionmakers with a stakein (and sense of ownership of) the process for determining what services areprovided and how they are delivered. By defining new and distinctive roles forcitizens. the four conferencing models examined in this Bulletin add an importantdimension to earlier and ongoing restorative justice initiatives (McGillis andMullen, 1977; National Institute of Justice. 1996a).

What is the relevance of these apparently esoteric models to juvenile justiceprofessionals. victim advocates, treatment providers, and other interventionprofessionals? Notably, an increasing number of State departments of juvenilecourts, probation departments, parole agencies, and corrections systems areadopting one or more aspects of restorative justice policy (e.g., Bazemore and.Griffiths, 1997; Dooley, 1995; Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission,1997; Pranis, 1995). What appear on the surface to be simply informal alternativesto courts actually have relevance to the objectives of all components of thejuvenile justice system.

The larger promise of the evolving approaches is a new avenue for achieving awider and deeper level of citizen involvement in the rehabilitative, sanctioning, andpublic safety missions of juvenile justice than has been possible through offender-focused intervention alone. Prospects for increasing community involvement, thenature of the process of engaging citizens, and the roles assigned to the community(including crime victims) are therefore the most crucial dimensions for comparingand contrasting the four conferencing models that are the focus of this Bulletin.

Each of the four models has its strengthsand weaknesses in a variety of dimen-sions in addition to those consideredhere. Although much remains to belearned and there is much room forimprovement, each model has demon-

1413

strated its unique value to juvenile justicesystems and communities that are tryingto develop more meaningful sanctioningresponses to youth crime.

Field-Initiated ProgramIn 1996, the Hudson Institute, a public policy research organization located inIndianapolis, IN, began to work with the local police department, sheriff's depart-ment. juvenile court. prosecutor's office. and mayor on a project to use Australian-style restorative justice conferences as an alternative response to juvenile offend-ing. The project, which is ongoing, focuses on young (under age 15), first-timeoffenders in Marion County, IN.

Later that year, the Institute applied for and received a grant from OJJDP throughits field-initiated research and evaluation program. These funds were used toconduct an evaluation of the impact of these restorative justice conferences on therecidivism rate of young offenders and other outcomes. To date, more than 400youth have participated in the experimental design used for this evaluation.

The findings are very encouraging. They indicate that restorative justice confer-ences can be successfully implemented in an urban setting in the United States.More than 80 percent of youth referred to a conference are attending the confer-ence and successfully completing the terms of the reparation agreement. ForIndianapolis. this compares very favorably with other court-related diversion pro-grams. In addition, trained observers report that conferences are being imple-mented according to restorative justice principles such as inclusion of affectedparties, respect, and problem solving. Victims receive apologies, and other mutu-ally agreed-to actions are included in the agreements. These characteristics trans-late into victims reporting high levels of satisfaction.

In terms of reoffending, the results are also promising. Both for the total sample andfor youth who successfully completed their diversion programs, youth who attendedconferences were significantly less likely to be rearrested 6 months after the initialincident. Researchers are completing the 12-month followup of participants, andfinal results of the study will be published in a forthcoming OJJDP Bulletin.

Issues and ConcernsRestorative justice is assuming an everhigher profile, and its new decision-making structures and processes arebound to come under close scrutiny. Itis therefore important to address criticalissues and concerns related to evaluatingthe success of new restorative justice ap-proaches, gauging progress in their devel-opment, and meeting the challenges ofbalancing and sharing power.

Evaluating Success andGauging ProgressDespite the proliferation of restorativejustice programs, there is a significantlack of evaluation research to provide anempirical basis for determining whethernew initiatives are achieving their statedobjectives. The exception is victim-offender mediation, which has been thesubject of numerous studies in NorthAmerica and Europe (Coates and Gehm,1989; Dignan, 1990; Marshal and Merry,1990; Umbreit, 1994, 1995; Umbreit andCoates, 1993; Umbreit, Coates, and Rob-erts, 1997; Umbreit and Roberts, 1997).

Perhaps the most critical concern forevaluators and juvenile justice profession-als is that many of the new restorativejustice initiatives have objectives that arefar more holistic than those of traditionalcrime control responses. Whereas tradi-tional crime control efforts typically haveused recidivism rates as a primary out-come measure, an evaluative frameworkfor these new approaches needs to in-clude criteria for measuring outcomes ofcommunity empowerment and solidarity,victim interests, and crime prevention.The framework should also take into ac-count intermediate and process outcomessuch as community and victim involve-ment, reintegrative shaming, reparationto victims, dispute resolution, and heal-ing. As new and more appropriate stan-dards emerge for evaluating restorativejustice models, it is essential that the ba-sis for comparison be the reality of thecurrent system rather than an idealizedversion of its performance. It is also es-sential that any comparisons betweenrestorative justice models and the currentsystem use similar indicators to measureperformance.

15

Another important consideration for anynew restorative justice process is its in-tegrity, i.e., its consistency with restor-ative justice principles. With 25 years ofexperience to draw upon, victim-offendermediation offers the following basicguidelines that can serve to inform anynew restorative conferencing initiativeand its implementation:

If public agencies such as police orprobation initiate a restorative confer-encing process, actual sessions shouldbe cofacilitated by trained communityvolunteers. This increases citizen par-ticipation and reduces the likelihood ofan imbalance of power among partiesinvolved in the sessions. Communityinvolvement and volunteer participa-tion are essential to the success of re-storative conferencing but do not pre-clude the need for public support (e.g.,funding to cover the costs of systemsdevelopment, referrals, training, etc.)to sustain high-quality programs.If a local victim-offender mediation ordialog program already exists, otherrestorative conferencing initiativesshould be developed in collaborationwith the existing program. For ex-ample, volunteer mediators could alsoserve as cofacilitators.Session facilitators should be trainedin mediation and conflict resolutionskills, approaches to understandingthe experiences and needs of crimevictims and young offenders, andcultural and ethical issues that arelikely to affect the process andparticipants.Victims should be able to make in-formed decisions about their participa-tion. They should be told about poten-tial benefits and risks and should neverbe pressured to participate or told to"just trust" the facilitator's judgment.Victims should also be allowed tochoose when and where the session isheld and should have the opportunityto present their story first if they wish.

In-person preparation of primary par-ticipants (victims, offenders, and theirimmediate families) should take placewhenever possible. It is important forfacilitators to connect with the parties,provide information, encourage partici-pation, and build rapport, trust, and asense of safety.

Regardless of what model or combinationof models a local community or juvenilecourt might choose, ongoing monitoring

14

Building Community Through Restorative ConferencingThe true test of restorative conferencing. The ultimatemeasure of success for any approach that claims to advancerestorative justice should be its ability to strengthen thecapacity of communities to respond effectively to crime(Bazemore, 2000). In restorative justice, crime is viewed asboth a cause and result of broken or weakened relationships.As Pranis (1998, p. 10) suggests: "The fabric of community isthe weaving of relationships. Crime harms relationships andthus weakens community. Our response to crime needs toattend to these relationships to rebuild or strengthen thecommunity fabric."

If restorative conferencing models are to be more thananother programmatic add-on, advocates of the modelsshould be challenged to ask whether the models meet thetest of building community. Do these models:

Create positive new relationships or strengthen existingrelationships?

Increase community skills in problem solving andconstructive conflict resolution?

Increase the community sense of capacity and efficacyin addressing problems?

-Increase individual awareness of and commitment to thecommon good?

Create informal support systems or safety nets for victimsand offenders?

Potential roles for the community. Experience has shownthat given the chance, citizens and community groups can playsignificant roles in restorative justice. Such roles may includeservice on advisory boards at local, county, and State levels;policy input through public forums and community surveys;prevention policy development; a variety of victim and offendersupport activities, including church- and community-basedprograms, police chaplaincy programs, healing circles, andneighborhood outreach programs; and volunteer service asvictim advocates, mediators for victim-offender mediationprograms, and reparative board members.

New functions for juvenile justice professionals. Despiteemphasis on the community role, restorative justice shouldnever be viewed as something independent of the formaljustice system. Juvenile courts and juvenile justice profes-sionals must play key leadership roles in partnerships with

community groups to develop and sustain a crediblecommunity response to youth crime. Because current jobdescriptions for juvenile justice professionals usually do notinclude functions associated with restorative justice;-another-test for efforts to engage the community in decisionmakingmust be whether new professional roles are being developed.Such new roles are emerging in several communities whererestorative justice is now actively practiced. For example, in.Deschutes County, OR, probation officers are now calledcommunity justice officers, and their responsibilities includedeveloping and supporting community service projects,developing restorative conferencing, coordinating servicesto crime victims, and performing a variety of community-building and restorative functions.

The process of engaging the community.The process.,followed by juvenile justice professionals in engaging thecommunity may be the most important aspect of creating anew collaborative relationship between. the justice system andthe community. Such a process is illustrated in the following-steps suggested by the Minnesota Department of Corrections:

Gather information about restorative justice and possiblemodels in the community.

- Educate yourself about the community you will be workingwith.

Identify credible leaders in the community or neighborhood,attend community gatherings, read local papers, and asklocal residents about issues and leaders.

Educate yourself about victim services in the communityand establish contact with those services.

Clarify your own goals and values in approaching thecommunity. (What are you trying to achieve? What isimportant to you about what you are doing and howyou do it?)

-Assess potential support in the criminal and juvenile justicesystems and educate key leaders about restorative justice.

Working with community leaders, plan informationalsessions to explore community interest. Invite participationby victims' representatives.

At each session, recruit volunteers who would like to be-involved in creating a new approach in the communitybased on restorative values.

and evaluation will be needed to ensurethat conferencing processes adhere torestorative justice principles. No modelor process is perfect. In practice, there-fore, adherence to these principles maybe viewed as a continuum within whichnew approaches can be assessed andcontinuously improved (table 3).

Sharing and BalancingPowerThe restorative justice processes discussedin this Bulletin are often proposed as alter-natives to the legal-procedural approach todispositional decisionmaking by the juve-nile court. Concerns have been raised, how-ever, about the mechanisms of accountabil-ity in restorative justice decisionmaking. Inconsidering the development of justice pro-grams in aboriginal communities in Canada,

1 e

Griffiths and Hamilton (1996) have raisedconcerns that are just as relevant in urbanU.S. communities:

Care must be taken to ensure thatfamily and kinship networks and thecommunity power hierarchy do notcompromise the administration ofjustice. As in any community, thereis a danger of a tyranny of commu-nity in which certain individuals

15

Table 3: Restorative Community Justice: Least- to Most-Restorative Impact

Least-Restorative Impact Most-Restorative Impact

Entire focus is on determining the amount of financialrestitution to be paid, with no opportunity to talk directlyabout the full impact of the crime on the victim and thecommunity, and also on the offender.

Primary focus is on providing an opportunity for victims andoffenders to talk directly to each other, to allow victims todescribe the impact of the crime on their lives and receiveanswers to questions, and to allow offenders to appreciatethe human impact of their behavior and take responsibilityfor making things right.

No separate preparation meetings with the victim andoffender prior to bringing the parties together.

Separate preparation meetings with the victim and offender,with emphasis on listening to how the crime has affectedthem, identifying needs, and answering questions about themediation process.

Victims not given choice of meeting place (where they wouldfeel most comfortable) or participants; given only writtennotice to appear for mediation session at preset time, with nopreparation.

Victims continually given choices throughout the process:where to meet, whom they would like to be present, etc.

Mediator or facilitator describes offense and offender thenspeaks, with the victim simply asking a few questions orresponding to questions from the mediator.

Victims given choice to speak first and encouraged todescribe offense and participate actively.

Highly directive styles of mediation or facilitation, with themediator talking most of the time, little if any direct dialogbetween the involved parties.

Nondirective style of mediation or facilitation with minimalmediator interference, and use of a humanistic or transforma-tive mediation model.

Low tolerance for moments of silence or expression offeelings.

High tolerance for silence, expression of feelings, anddiscussion of the full impact of the crime.

Voluntary for victim but required of offender regardless ofwhether he or she takes responsibility.

Voluntary for victim and offender.

Settlement-driven and very brief (10-15 minutes). Dialog-driven and typically lasts about an hour (or longer).

Paid attorneys or other professionals serve as mediators. Trained community volunteers serve as mediators or facilita-tors, along with agency staff.

and groups of residents, particularlythose who are members of vulner-able groups, find themselves at themercy of those in positions ofpower and influence. (Griffiths andHamilton, 1996:187-188)

The often dramatic and dysfunctionalpower differentials within communitiesmay make true participatory justice diffi-cult to achieve and, in some settings, mayinstead produce harmful side effects(Griffiths and Corrado, 1998). Ironically,those communities most in need of holis-tic restorative justice programs that en-courage residents to become involved inthe disposition process are often pre-cisely those communities that are themost dysfunctional. Also, residents ofsuch communities may have onlylimited interest in and/or capacity for

involvement, in part because they havenever had the opportunity to developmeaningful partnerships with the juvenilejustice system. If these communities areever to benefit from a restorative ap-proach to the problem of youth crime,proponents of restorative justice mustdirect specific attention to developingstrategies for building a sense of commu-nity among residents and for recruitingand retaining resident volunteers.

A critical issue surrounding the develop-ment and implementation of restorativejustice models is: "Who controls theagenda?" Traditionally, the formal justicesystem has maintained a tight rein oninitiatives designed as alternatives tocriminal and juvenile justice processes.This is evident in the origins and evolutionof diversion programs, which in many

17

jurisdictions appear to have become ap-pendages to the formal justice process. Inthis context, the inability or unwillingnessof decisionmakers in the formal juvenilejustice system to share discretion andpower with communities is likely to resultin "net-widening" (expanding the numberand types of youth brought under the su-pervision of the juvenile justice system)rather than the development of more ef-fective alternative decisionmaking pro-cesses (Blomberg, 1983; Polk, 1994).

If the new restorative justice models followthe pattern of development of earlierneighborhood dispute resolution models(and to a lesser extent of victim-offendermediation, as the oldest of the new mod-els), one would anticipate significant addi-tions to the richness and diversity pos-sible in alternative sanctioning but little

16

impact on the formal system. Both victim-offender mediation and family groupconferencing (except as practiced in NewZealand) ultimately depend on systemdecisionmakers for referrals; the potentialfor true sharing of power is minimal. Ifnew models are to avoid net-widening,marginalization, and irrelevance, commu-nity advocates should begin to work withsympathetic justice professionals who arealso committed to community-driven sys-temic reform.

Although a primary objective of propo-nents of restorative justice is to havenew concepts institutionalized as partof the justice process, the danger is thatsystem control will lead to top-down de-velopment of generic models. Hence,both promise and risk are implied in thedegree of institutionalization that somenew approaches have achieved in a rela-tively short time and in the rather dra-matic system-community collaborationthat appears to be possible with theseapproaches.

Clearly, the high profile given to restor-ative justice initiatives may result in grantfunding for research and new programs.Yet, such support is no guarantee of long-term impact of the type envisioned in therestorative justice literature. Moreover, inthe absence of substantive communityinput (including input from crime victims)at the design and implementation phasesof specific initiatives, an administrativefocus (i.e., one concerned primarily withgrant-funding processes) may even resultin cooptation or watering down of newapproaches in ways that ultimately func-tion to undermine the philosophy andobjectives of restorative justice (VanNess, 1993).

For example, from a restorative justice per-spective, perhaps the biggest challenge toVermont's reparative boards is the factthat they have been implemented withinthe State's formal justice system itself. Onone hand, the boards may have the great-est potential for significant impact on theresponse of the formal system to nonvio-lent crimes. Moreover, the commitment ofadministrators to local control may alsoresult in communities assuming and de-manding a broader mandate. On the otherhand, as a creation of the State correctionsbureaucracy, the reparative boards mayfind themselves at the center of an ongoingstruggle between efforts to give greaterpower and autonomy to citizens and needsof administrators to maintain control andensure system accountability. Indeed,

citizen board members may ultimately bechallenged to decide the extent to whichtheir primary client is the community orthe probation and court system.

Of the four models considered in this Bul-letin, circle sentencing appears to be themost advanced in terms of primacy of thecommunity's decisionmaking role. In itsplacement of neighborhood residents inthe gatekeeper role (see table 2), thismodel provides the most complete ex-ample of power sharing. Acting throughthe community justice committees, com-munities are clearly the "drivers" in deter-mining which offenders will be admittedto the circle and what should be done inthe collective effort to heal the commu-nity. Eligibility for circles is limited onlyby the ability of offenders to demonstrateto community justice committees theirsincerity and willingness to change. Sur-prisingly, the most promising lesson ofcircle sentencing has been that, whengiven decisionmaking power, neighbor-hood residents often choose to includethe most, rather than the least, seriousoffenders in restorative justice processes(Griffiths and Corrado, 1998; Stuart,1996). As a result, however, certain ten-sions have developed within courts andother agencies in Canadian communitiesthat are experimenting with circle sen-tencing. The tensions concern the extentto which power sharing with the commu-nity should be limited and the issue ofwhether statutes are being violated.

Implications andConclusionsThe perpetual absence of the "commu-nity" in "community corrections," eitheras a target of intervention or as a partici-pant in the justice process (Byrne, 1989;Clear, 1996), may be due in part to an in-ability to identify meaningful roles forcitizens. This Bulletin has described fournonadversarial decisionmaking modelsand compared and contrasted the waysin which they define and make opera-tional the role of citizens in responding toyouth crime. As illustrated by a growingnumber of restorative justice initiatives(Pranis, 1995), such citizen involvementmay have important implications for juve-nile justice. The models discussed hereoffer significant potential for changing thecurrent dynamic in which the communityis largely a passive observer of juvenilejustice processes. When juvenile justiceprofessionals identify citizens willing toparticipate in a community sanctioning

18

process, they may also have identified asmall support group willing to assist withoffender reintegration and victim support.

This Bulletin has also attempted to providea general framework for describing the di-mensions of restorative conferencing pro-cesses. One purpose has been to avoid in-discriminate, arbitrary, and all-inclusivegroupings of programs and practices underill-defined terms such as community justiceor restorative justice. As noted at the begin-ning of this Bulletin, comparative discus-sions of new approaches at this relativelyearly stage of development are importantbecause they serve to highlight similaritiesand differences across emerging models.Such discussions may prevent, or at leastminimize, what some have referred to asthe "community-policing syndrome": thewidespread application (and misapplica-tion) of a generic term to a broad range ofinitiatives without a clear understanding ofthe differences between interventions orbenchmark criteria that can be used to as-sess consistency with fundamental prin-ciples and objectives (Mastrofsky and Ritti,1995). Unless proponents of restorative jus-tice distinguish what should and should notbe included under that umbrella and unlessthey refine definitions of success for inter-ventions, they will miss a unique and valu-able opportunity to develop more effectivemethods for enhancing citizen involvementin the response to youth crime and miscon-duct. A useful context for refining defini-tions is to view restorative justice as a wayof thinking about and responding to crimethat emphasizes one basic fact: crimedamages people, communities, and rela-tionships. If crime is about harm, a justiceprocess should therefore emphasize repair-ing the harm.

Systemic reform toward restorative jus-tice must not begin and end with new pro-grams and staff positions. It must encom-pass new values that articulate new rolesfor victims, offenders, and communitiesas key stakeholders in the justice process.Accordingly, such reform should createand perpetuate new decisionmaking mod-els that meet stakeholder needs for mean-ingful involvement. The capacity of thesemodels to influence, and even transform,juvenile justice decisionmaking and inter-vention seems to lie in the potentialpower of these new stakeholders. If vic-tims, offenders, and other citizens are tobe fully engaged in meaningful decision-making processes, however, a dramaticchange must also occur in the role of ju-venile justice professionals. That rolemust shift from sole decisionmaker to

17

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

facilitator of community involvement andresource to the community (Bazemoreand Schiff, 1996).

ReferencesAlder, C., and Wundersitz, J., eds. 1994.Family Group Conferencing and JuvenileJustice: The Way Forward or MisplacedOptimism? Canberra, Australia: AustralianInstitute of Criminology.

American Probation and Parole Associa-tion. 1996. Restoring Hope Through Com-munity Partnerships: The Real Deal inCrime Control. Lexington, KY: AmericanProbation and Parole Association.

Barajas, E., Jr. 1995. Moving Toward Com-munity Justice. Topics in Community Cor-rections. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Federal Bureau ofPrisons, National Institute of Corrections,Community Division.

Bazemore, G. 2000. Community justiceand a vision of collective efficacy: Thecase of restorative conferencing. In Crimi-nal Justice 2000, Volume 3. WashingtonDC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Institute ofJustice, pp 228-297.

Bazemore, G., and Griffiths, C. 1997. Con-ferences, circles, boards, and mediations:The "new wave" of community justicedecisionmaking. Federal Probation61(2):25-37.

Bazemore, G., and Schiff, M. 1996. Com-munity justice/restorative justice: Pros-pects for a new social ecology for commu-nity corrections. International Journal ofComparative and Applied Criminal Justice20(2):311-334.

Belgrave, J. 1995. Restorative justice. Dis-cussion paper. Wellington, New Zealand:New Zealand Ministry of Justice.

Blomberg, T. 1983. Diversion's disparateresults and unresolved questions: An inte-grative evaluation perspective. Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency20(1):24-38.

Braithwaite, J., and Mugford, S. 1994. Con-ditions of successful reintegration cer-emonies. British Journal of Criminology34(2):139-171.

Byrne, J.M. 1989. Reintegrating the con-cept of community into community-based correction. Crime and Delinquency35:471-479.

Clear, T.R. 1996. Toward a corrections of"place": The challenge of "community" incorrections. NIJ Journal (August):52-56.

Coates, R., and Gehm, J. 1989. An empiri-cal assessment. In Mediation and Crimi-nal Justice, edited by M. Wright andB. Galaway. London, England: SagePublications, Ltd.

Daly, K. 2000. Ideals meet reality: Re-search results on youth justice confer-ences in South Australia. Paper preparedfor the Fourth International Conferenceon Restorative Justice for Juveniles,Tuebingen, Germany, October 2000.

Dignan, J. 1990. An Evaluation of an Ex-perimental Adult Reparation Scheme inLettering, Northamptonshire. Sheffield, UK:Centre for Criminological and Legal Re-search, University of Sheffield.

Dooley, M.J. 1995. Reparative ProbationProgram. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Depart-ment of Corrections.

Dooley, M.J. 1996. Restoring Hope ThroughCommunity Partnerships: The Real Deal inCrime Control. Lexington, KY: AmericanProbation and Parole Association.

Fercello, C., and Umbreit, M. 1999. ClientEvaluation of Family Group Conferencing.St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justiceand Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Garafalo, J., and Connelly, K. 1980. Dis-pute resolution centers, part I: Majorfeatures and processes. Criminal JusticeAbstracts 12(3):416-439.

Griffiths, C.T., and Corrado, R. 1998.Implementing restorative youth justice:A case study in community justice andthe dynamics of reform. In RestorativeJuvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm ofYouth Crime, edited by G. Bazemore andL. Walgrave. Monsey, NY: Criminal JusticePress, pp. 237-263.

Griffiths, C.T., and Hamilton, R. 1996. Spiri-tual renewal, community revitalizationand healing. Experience in traditional ab-original justice in Canada. InternationalJournal of Comparative and Applied Crimi-nal Justice 20(2):289-311.

Hakiaha, M. 1995. New Zealand youth fam-ily conference coordinator. Presentationin Whitehorse, YT, Canada.

Harrington, C., and Merry, S. 1988. Ideo-logical production: The making of commu-nity mediation. Law and Society Review22(4):709-733.

Karp, D., and Walther, L. 2001. Communityreparative boards: Theory and practice.In Restorative Community Justice:Cultivating Common Ground for Victims,Communities and Offenders, edited byG. Bazemore and M. Schiff. Cincinnati,OH: Anderson.

Marshall, T., and Merry, S. 1990. Crime andAccountability. London, UK: Home Office.

Mastrofsky, S., and Ritti, R. 1995. Makingsense of community-policing: A theory-based analysis. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Society ofCriminology, Boston, MA, November 1995.

Maxwell, G., and Morris, A. 1993. FamilyParticipation, Cultural Diversity and VictimInvolvement in Youth Justice: A NewZealand Experiment. Wellington, NewZealand: Victoria University.

McCold, P., and Wachtel, B. 1998. Restor-ative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem,Pennsylvania, Police Family GroupConferencing Project. Pipersville, PA:Community Service Foundation.

McDonald, J., Thorsborne, M., Moore,D., Hyndman, M., and O'Connell, T. 1995.Real Justice Training Manual: CoordinatingFamily Group Conferences. Pipersville, PA:Piper's Press.

McElrea, F.W.M. 1993. A new model of jus-tice. In The Youth Court in New Zealand:A New Model of Justice, edited by B.J.Brown. Auckland, New Zealand: LegalResearch Foundation.

McGillis, D., and Mullen, J. 1977. Neighbor-hood Justice Centers: An Analysis of PotentialModels. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Law Enforcement Assistance Ad-ministration, National Institute of Law En-forcement and Criminal Justice.

Melton, A. 1995. Indigenous justice sys-tems and tribal society. Judicature70(3):126-133.

Moore, D.B., and O'Connell, T. 1994. Fam-ily conferencing in Wagga-Wagga: A com-munitarian model of justice. In FamilyConferencing and Juvenile Justice: TheWay Forward or Misplaced Optimism?,edited by C. Adler and J. Wundersitz.Canberra, Australia: Australian Instituteof Criminology.

Morris, A., and Maxwell, G. 2001. Restor-ative conferencing. In Restorative andCommunity Justice: Cultivating CommonGround for Victims, Communities and Of-fenders, edited by G. Bazemore and M. Schiff.Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

1918

National Institute of Justice. 1996a. Na-tional Symposium on Restorative JusticeProceedings, Spring. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.

National Institute of Justice. 1996b. Com-munities: Mobilizing Against Crime: MakingPartnerships Work. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Com-mission. 1997. Balanced and RestorativeJustice in Pennsylvania: A New Mission andChanging Roles Within the Juvenile JusticeSystem. Harrisburg, PA: Juvenile CourtJudges Commission.

Polk, K. 1994. Family conferencing: Theo-retical and evaluative questions. In Fam-ily Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: TheWay Forward or Misplaced Optimism?edited by C. Adler and J. Wundersitz.Canberra, Australia: Australian Instituteof Criminology.

Pranis, K. 1995. Building community sup-port for restorative justice: Principles andstrategies. Unpublished paper. St. Paul,MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Pranis, K. 1998. Restorative Justice: Prin-ciples, Practices and Implementation, Section6, Building Community. National Institute ofCorrections Curriculum. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureauof Prisons, National Institute of Corrections.

Reparative Probation Program. 1995. Pro-gram Design. Waterbury, VT: VermontDepartment of Corrections.

Rottman, D. 1996. Community courts:Prospects and limits in community jus-tice. NIJ Journal (August):50-51.

Schneider, A., ed. 1985. Guide to JuvenileRestitution. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Strang, A. 1995. Family group confer-encing: The victims' perspective. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Criminology, Boston,MA, November 1995.

Stuart, B. 1995. Sentencing circles-Making"real" differences. Unpublished paper.Whitehorse, Canada: Territorial Court ofthe Yukon.

Stuart, B. 1996. Circle sentencing-Turning swords into ploughshares. InRestorative Justice: International Perspec-tives, edited by B. Galaway and J. Hudson.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press,pp. 193-206.

Travis, J. 1996. Lessons for the criminaljustice system from twenty years of polic-ing reform. Keynote address at the FirstAnnual Conference of the New York Cam-paign for Effective Crime Policy, NewYork, NY.

Umbreit, M. 1994. Victim Meets Offender:The Impact of Restorative Justice in Media-tion. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, M. 1995. Holding juvenile offend-ers accountable: A restorative justiceperspective. Juvenile and Family CourtJournal (Spring):33-41.

Umbreit, M. 1997. Humanistic mediation:A transformation journey of peacemaking.Mediation Quarterly 14(3):201-213.

Umbreit, M., and Coates, R. 1993. Impactof mediating victim-offender conflict: Ananalysis of programs in three States. Juve-nile and Family Court Journal 43(1):21-28.

Umbreit, M., Coates, R., and Roberts, A.1997. Cross-national impact of restorativejustice through mediation and dialogue.ICCA Journal on Community Corrections8(2):46-50.

Umbreit, M., and Fercello, C. 1997. Familygroup conferencing program results inclient satisfaction. Juvenile Justice UpdateJournal 3(6):3-13.

Umbreit, M., and Greenwood, J. 1998.Victim Sensitive Guidelines for Victim Of-fender Mediation. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office for Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M., and Roberts, A.W. 1997. Vic-tim offender mediation in England: Anassessment of two programs. In The Prom-ise of Mediation, edited by G. Pisapia andD. Antonucci. Milan, Italy: CEDAM,pp. 63-83.

Umbreit, M., and Schug, B.A. 1997. Direc-tory of Victim Offender Mediation Programsin the US. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restor-ative Justice and Mediation, University ofMinnesota.

Umbreit, M., and Stacy, S. 1996. Familygroup conferencing comes to the U.S.: Acomparison with victim offender media-tion. Juvenile and Family Court Journal47(2):29-39.

Umbreit, M., and Zehr, H. 1996. Restor-ative family group conferences: Differingmodels and guidelines for practice. Fed-eral Probation 60(3):24-29.

2

Van Ness, D. 1993. New wine and old wine-skins: Four challenges of restorative jus-tice. Criminal Law Forum 4(2):251-276.

Zehr, H. 1990. Changing Lenses: A NewFocus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale,PA: Herald Press.

BibliographyBazemore, G. 1997. What's new about thebalanced approach. Juvenile and FamilyCourt Journal 48(1):1-23.

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. 1995. Re-thinking the sanctioning function in juve-nile court: Retributive or restorative re-sponses to youth crime. Crime andDelinquency 41(3):296-316.

Depew, R.C. 1994. Popular Justice and Ab-original Communities: Some PreliminaryConsiderations. Ottawa, Canada: Depart-ment of Justice of Canada.

Goldstein, H. 1987. Toward community-oriented policing: Potential, basic require-ments and threshold questions. Crime andDelinquency 33:6-30.

Hudson, J., Galaway, B., Morris, A., andMaxwell, G. 1996. Research on familygroup conferencing in child welfare inNew Zealand. In Family Group Conferences:Perspectives on Policy and Practice.Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Klien, A. 1995. Community Probation:Acknowledging Probation's Multiple Clients.Topics in Community Corrections. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Insti-tute of Corrections, Community Division.

LaPrairie, C. 1994. Community justice orjust communities? Aboriginal communi-ties in search of justice. Unpublished pa-per. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Jus-tice of Canada.

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. 1998. Guide for Implementingthe Balanced and Restorative JusticeModel. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Robinson, J. 1996. Research on familygroup conferencing in child welfare inNew Zealand. In Family Group Confer-ences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice,edited by J. Hudson et al. Monsey, NY:Criminal Justice Press, pp. 49-64.

Young, M. 1995. Restorative Community Jus-tice: A Call to Action. Washington, DC: Na-tional Organization for Victim Assistance.

19

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

AcknowledgmentsGordon Bazemore, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Criminology andCriminal Justice and Director of the Community Justice Institute at Florida AtlanticUniversity. Mark Umbreit, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Restorative Justiceand Peacemaking at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Bazemore and Dr. Umbreitare Principal Investigators for the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, anOJJDP-funded research initiative that is a joint project of Florida Atlantic Univer-sity and the Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking.

Photographs © 1997-99 Artville Stock Images.

Share With Your ColleaguesUnless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849-6000800-638-8736301-519-5600 (fax)E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G-91

This Bulletin was prepared under grantnumber 95-JN-FX-0024 from the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

ERICIU.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OEM

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Informati On Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release. form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John Wilson, Acting Administrator

W ag 0,Z?

rty

. _

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

fit(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position cr policy.

February MOB

4)aa o@I FE3 ag

A Comparison of FourRestorative ConferencingModelsGordon Bazemore and Mark UmbreitRestorative justice is a framework for ju-venile justice reform that seeks to engagevictims, offenders and their families,other citizens, and community groupsboth as clients of juvenile justice servicesand as resources in an effective responseto youth crime. Traditionally, when acrime is committed, juvenile justice sys-tems have been primarily concerned withthree questions: Who did it? What lawswere broken? What should be done topunish or treat the offender? As noted byHoward Zehr (1990), restorative justiceemphasizes three very different ques-tions: What is the nature of the harm re-sulting from the crime? What needs to bedone to "make it right" or repair theharm? Who is responsible for this repair?Restorative justice also suggests that theresponse to youth crime must strike abalance among the needs of victims, of-fenders, and communities and that eachshould be actively involved in the justiceprocess to the greatest extent possible.

The term "restorative conferencing" isused in this Bulletin to encompass arange of strategies for bringing togethervictims, offenders, and community mem-bers in nonadversarial community-basedprocesses aimed at responding to crimeby holding offenders accountable and re-pairing the harm caused to victims andcommunities. Such strategies, now beingimplemented in North America, Australia,

New Zealand, and parts of Europe, areone component of a new movement in the1990's concerned with making criminaland juvenile justice processes less formal,bringing the processes into neighbor-hoods, and involving community mem-bers in planning and implementation(Barajas, 1995; Bazemore and Schiff, 1996;Griffiths and Hamilton, 1996; Travis, 1996).

This Bulletin focuses on four restorativeconferencing models: victim-offender me-diation, community reparative boards,family group conferencing, and circle sen-tencing. Although these four models by nomeans exhaust the possibilities for com-munity involvement in decisions abouthow to respond to youth crime, the mod-els do illustrate both the diversity andcommon themes apparent in what appearsto be a new philosophy of citizen partici-pation in sanctioning processes.

The Bulletin first describes each of thefour restorative conferencing models,'presenting information on backgroundand concept, procedures and goals, con-siderations in implementation, lessonslearned from research, and sources ofadditional information. The Bulletin thencompares and contrasts the models onthe following dimensions: origins and

' Information on the four models is adapted fromRegional Symposium Training Manual, U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997.

2

From the AdministratorReconciling the needs of victims andoffenders with the needs of thecommunity is the underlying goal ofrestorative justice. Unlike retributivejustice, which is primarily concernedwith punishing crime, restorativejustice focuses on repairing the injurythat crime inflicts.

As a means to that end, restorativeconferencing brings together victims,offenders, and other members of thecommunity to hold offenders account-able not only for their crimes but forthe harm they cause to victims.

This Bulletin features four models ofrestorative conferencing:

Victim-offender mediation.Community reparative boards.Family group conferencing.Circle sentencing.

These models are compared andcontrasted in administration, process,community involvement, and otherdimensions, and several relatedissues and concerns are addressed.

If restorative justice is to succeedin contributing to the systematicreform of our juvenile justice system,it must embody new values thatreflect the needs of victims,offenders, and communities. Themodels described in this Bulletinembody these values and providetools for communities engaged inimplementing restorative justice.

John J. WilsonActing Administrator

current applications; administrative andprocedural aspects (eligibility, point ofreferral, staffing, setting, process andprotocols, and management of dialog);and community involvement and otherdimensions (participants, victim role,gatekeepers, relationship to the formaljustice system, preparation, enforcement,monitoring, and primary outcomes sought).Next the Bulletin discusses a number ofissues and concerns to be addressed in thedevelopment and implementation of restor-ative conferencing approaches. The Bulletinalso offers guidelines for clearly groundinginterventions in restorative justice prin-ciples and includes a test for determiningwhether an intervention strengthens thecommunity response to youth crime andcreates new roles for citizens and commu-nity groups.

In an evolving movement in which innova-tions are emerging rapidly, it is importantto identify common principles that can bereplicated by local juvenile courts andcommunities and that can serve to guidedecisionmakers in choosing models bestsuited to local community needs. Towardthis end, this Bulletin provides a generalframework within which the myriad alter-native interventions currently being char-acterized as restorative justice can be cat-egorized and objectively analyzed andevaluated. Comparative discussions of newapproaches at this relatively early stage ofdevelopment are important because theyserve to highlight similarities and differ-ences across emerging models. In consid-ering the four models discussed in theBulletin, however, it is important to avoidconfusing the vision of prototypes with therealities of implementation and also to re-member that the philosophy and practicesof any given restorative conferencing pro-gram may deviate substantially from theprototypes presented here.

Victim-OffenderMediationBackground and ConceptAlthough still unfamiliar to many main-stream juvenile and criminal justice audi-ences and marginal to the court process insome jurisdictions where they do operate,victim-offender mediation programsreferred to in some communities as "victim-offender reconciliation programs" and,increasingly, as "victim-offender dialogprograms"have a respectable 20-yeartrack record in the United States, Canada,and Europe. Currently, there are approximately

An Example of a Victim-Offender Mediation SessionThe victim was a middle-aged woman. The offender, a 14-year-old neighbor of thevictim, had broken into the victim's home and stolen a VCR. The mediation sessiontook place in the basement of the victim's church.

In the presence of a mediator, the victim and offender talked for 2 hours. At times,their conversation was heated and emotional. When they finished, the mediator feltthat they had heard each other's stories and learned something important aboutthe impact of the crime and about each other.

The participants agreed that the offender would pay $200 in restitution to coverthe cost of damages to the victim's home resulting from the break-in and wouldalso reimburse the victim for the cost of the stolen VCR (estimated at $150). Theyalso worked out a payment schedule.

During the session, the offender made several apologies to the victim and agreedto complete community service hours working in a food bank sponsored by thevictim's church. The victim said that she felt less angry and fearful after learningmore about the offender and the details of the crime. She also thanked themediator for allowing the session to be held at her church.

320 victim-offender mediation programs inthe United States and Canada and morethan 700 in Europe. Several programs inNorth America currently receive nearly1,000 case referrals annually from localcourts. Although the greatest proportionof cases involve less serious propertycrimes committed by young people, theprocess is used increasingly in response toserious and violent crimes committed byboth juveniles and adults (Umbreit, 1997).

The victim-offender mediation processoffers victims an opportunity to meetoffenders in a safe, structured setting andengage in a mediated discussion of thecrime.' With the assistance of a trainedmediator, the victim is able to tell theoffender about the crime's physical, emo-tional, and financial impact; receive an-swers to lingering questions about thecrime and the offender; and be directlyinvolved in developing a restitution planfor the offender to pay back any financialdebt to the victim. The process is differ-ent from mediation as practiced in civil orcommercial disputes, because the in-volved parties are in agreement abouttheir respective roles in the crime. Also,the process should not be primarily fo-cused on reaching a settlement, althoughmost sessions do, in fact, result in asigned restitution agreement.3 Because ofthese fundamental differences, the terms"victim-offender meeting," "conferencing,"and "dialog" are becoming increasingly

'In some programs, parents of the offender are alsooften part of the mediation session.

2

3

popular to describe variations from stan-dard mediation practices (Umbreit, 1997).

Procedures and GoalsCases may be referred to victim-offendermediation programs by judges, probationofficers, victim advocates, prosecutors,defense attorneys, and law enforcement.In some programs, cases are primarilyreferred as a diversion from prosecution(assuming that any agreement reachedduring the mediation session is success-fully completed). In other programs,cases are usually referred after a formaladmission of guilt has been accepted bythe court, with mediation being a condi-tion of probation or other disposition(if the victim has volunteered to partici-pate). Some programs receive case refer-rals at both stages.

During mediation sessions, victims explainhow the crime affected them and are giventhe opportunity to ask questions aboutthe incident and help develop a plan forrestoring losses. Offenders are given theopportunity to tell their stories and takedirect responsibility through makingamends in some form (Umbreit, 1994).

The goals of victim-offender mediationinclude the following:

Supporting the healing process of vic-tims by providing a safe, controlled set-ting for them to meet and speak withoffenders on a strictly voluntary basis.

'Not all mediation sessions lead to financialrestitution.