Family Group Tier 3 Conferencing

Strategy Brief, February, 2014. Ann O’Connor, & Reece L. Peterson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

amily Group Conferencing is one of several types of restor- Fative practices that have received widespread attention and use in the United States . Restorative practices are related to the “restorative justice” movement growing out of community efforts to improve policing and alternative sentencing for juve- nile offenders.

Tier 3 “Restorative justice is a framework for juvenile justice reform that seeks to engage victims, offenders and their , other Intervention citizens, and community groups both as clients of juvenile jus- tice services and as resources in an effective response to youth crime.” (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001, p. 1)

Restorative justice is now being adapted for use in schools, and is often referred to as “re- storative practices” when used in schools (See Strategy Brief on Restorative Practices). One of the primary practices involved in implementing a restorative justice practices philosophy the whether in the community or in the schools is “ group conferencing.”

What Is Family Group Conferencing?

Family Group Conferencing is a procedure to bring the people together who are negatively affected by a behavior, and to address the behavior and the person who acted inappropriately:

“Family group conferencing involves the community of people most affected by the crime— the victim, the offender, and the family, friends, and key supporters of both—in deciding the resolution of a criminal or delinquent incident. The affected parties are brought together by a trained facilitator to discuss how they and others have been harmed by the offense and how that harm might be repaired.” (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001, p. 5)

When adapted to schools this conference would focus on the expectations identified for the school environment, and the problems created by violations of those expectations. It might bring together teachers, administrators, psychologists or counselors, representatives of the student body, , the “victim” student or students, and the “offending” student to discuss and teach appropriate behavior and consider appropriate consequences. This is intended as a way to “repair” the “harm” which occurred in the school as a result of the behavior.

What is the origin of Family Group Conferencing?

Family group conferencing is based on a long-standing traditional form of dispute resolution of the Maori people of New Zealand, which subsequently has been incorporated into the laws Building & Sustaining Family Group Conferencing 2 Student Engagement there. The model has become widespread in Australia as well, and is based on the ini- tiated diversion approach known as the “Wagga Wagga model” where school officials and police officers set up and facilitate conference meet- ings (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001).

These family group conferences have been used to address crimes as diverse as: arson, assaults, drug offenses, theft, vandalism, and in some states, maltreatment. In New Zealand, this type of conferencing is used in the disposition of all but the most violent and serious delinquency cases (Bazemore & Um- breit, 2001). In the United States it is being employed as a diversionary option for many of these crimes under the authority of the local or juvenile courts, and is being experimented with as an intervention for child maltreatment cases (Nebraska Court Improvement Project, 2002), student’s behavior might be useful. It is now but can also be used after adjudication and becoming more widely used in schools to disposition to address unresolved issues or de- address serious behavior problems, disrup- termine specific terms of restitution. The goal tion and aggression. Thus the family group of family group conferencing is to ensure that conference becomes a disciplinary diversion, offenders face community disapproval, under- an alternative to long term suspension or stand how their actions harmed the commu- expulsion. nity, and make a written agreement to repair the damage. Community members then help How does Family Group Conferenc- to reintegrate the offender back into the com- ing Work? munity once the offender has made amends (Bazemore, 2009). Now this form of confer- Schools in Nottingham, employ encing is being used in Canada, and numerous what is there called “restorative conferencing” states in the United States including Minnesota, in addressing bullying, name-calling, assault, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Illinois (Bazemore, harassment, and truancy in school. Each 2009). (See the strategy briefs on Restitution school involved has staff trained in restorative and Youth Courts for other programs with this conferencing. When a problem arises, the goal). trained staff member invites those involved to attend a restorative conference. The partici- Use in Schools pants then: 1) discuss the incident in a calm manner, 2) identify who was harmed and how While originally devised for juvenile de- they felt, as well ways to amend the harm linquency, the same approach has also been done, possibly including an apology, 3) formu- adapted by the schools for use with school- late a written agreement on the actions that related behavior problems, as well as adapted will be taken, and 4) provide support for the to support children and families with mental implementation of the plan. In developing health needs. This process has already been this plan, the group may discuss the reasons implemented in community agencies, resi- the inappropriate behavior occurred, as well dential treatment programs, and other arenas as alternative more appropriate behaviors and where mediation between a student, and the methods to avoid the same problems in the persons in his environment affected by this future. Most importantly, there is a commit- Building & Sustaining Family Group Conferencing 3 Student Engagement ment of all to monitor and support the success- In another study (Umbreit, Vos & Coates, ful implementation of the plan. 2006), family group conferencing had satisfac- tion rates ranging from 73% to 98% and two The family group conference relies on the recent studies have reported satisfaction rates presence of family, friends, service providers, with the agreements developed at the con- and others as the support system that will assist ferencing sessions ranging from 90% to 100% the youth in actually implementing the restor- . The same study found that 83% of juvenile ative agreement reached at the meeting. Imple- offenders would recommend conferencing and mentation of the agreement is the responsibility that 89% of the juvenile offenders that attended of the youth, but the conference members also conferencing thought the agreement was fair. monitor and provide support for implementa- Well over half of the victims received apologies tion of the components in the agreement. In (although the facilitator does not require them). this way, it has some similarities to wraparound In four different studies, reported by Umbreit (See strategy brief on Wraparound) in that it et al. (2006), the completion rate of the agree- empowers the family, friends, and community ments reached in conferences ranged from 85% to create a plan related to youth behavior, and to 95%. In a school-based study he reported, provide the necessary supports to effectively 70% of the conferences were done in place of guide youth behavior. It is different from the school suspension. Another study that found wraparound process in that it is short-term and that students who expressed remorse had one involves typically just one meeting. In family third fewer repeat offenses than those who did group conferencing the plan focuses more on not express remorse. There may be other posi- the immediate problematic behavior and the tive outcomes of family group conferencing. In restitution related to that. It has less of a focus 2001, Bazemore & Umbreit stated: on service coordination and on resource devel- opment for long term care than wraparound “Practitioners involved in family group (although those could be included). conferencing programs observe a reduction in fear for many victims. When used as a diversion What Do We Know About Family from court, conferencing can provide a much speedier and more satisfying resolution of inci- Group Conferencing? dents than would otherwise be the case. Family group conferencing also builds community skills Due to its origin, much of the research on in conflict resolution and participatory decision- Family Group Conferencing comes from the making” (p. 6). justice or juvenile justice system. One study (Maxwell & Morris, 1993) assessed the impact More recently studies of the use of Family of New Zealand’s law mandating the widespread Group Conferencing in schools have begun to be use of conferencing. It found that families of available. One very significant study conducted offenders in conferencing programs are more in Minneapolis Public Schools examined Family frequently and actively involved in the justice Group Conferencing conducted with 83 students process than are families of offenders whose that were recommended for expulsion over a cases are handled by standard procedures. It more than two year period to see if the Family also found that offenders, victims, and their Group Conference would make a difference in families described the conference process as improving student behavior, maintaining fam- helpful. Preliminary evaluations of conferencing ily and student relationships with school, and programs in the United States also indicate high keeping the students in school after the inter- levels of victim satisfaction with the conference vention. The study is significant in that over half process and high rates of offender compliance of the students had committed assaults. Many with agreements reached during conferences had brought weapons to school, and other (Fercello & Umbreit, 1999; McCold & Wachtel, behaviors included drugs, treat/intimidation, 1998). vandalism and harassment. All of these would Building & Sustaining Family Group Conferencing 4 Student Engagement

placement at the new school, and targets that likely be considered relatively severe behavior may enable the student to safely return to their incidents. The study was also significant in that original school, if they so choose, with their about 55% of the participants were African good standing restored (after a minimum of 45 American, and another 15% multiracial and 12% days and usually at a logical break, i.e., after the American Indian. All three of these groups were completion of a quarter or semester of study). significantly over represented compared to their The conference plan often includes referrals to proportions in the student population in the therapeutic or social services.”(McMorris, et. al., district. As a result the study reflected the over 2013, p11) representation of these groups common in most reports of discipline. Significant improvements occurred in several areas that were measured. McMorris The study used pre and post survey of et al. (2013) found that Family Group Confer- parents and student, and an examination of stu- encing effectively increases and student dent’s academic and behavioral records before, engagement in school, students and parents during and after the intervention to evaluate considered participation in the conference the use of a Restorative Conference Program. a positive experience, there was increased There was not control group comparison. communication between the school and the parents and students, there were decreases in After a disciplinary incident which there are problem behaviors including fighting, and there grounds for expulsion, the student was referred were increases in attendance. There were also to the Restorative Conferencing Program. While statistically significant increases in academic the student served a required out-of-school performance and in credit accumulation. There suspension, district social works work with stu- were also increases in the students’ perceived dent and family to identify an alternative school ability to succeed in school, to make better deci- placement. When in the initial suspension was sions and to communicate with their parents.. completed, a restorative conference was held McMorris concluded that conferencing “appears concurrent with starting the new school. The to interrupt the dis-engagement and drop-out conference includes the district social work with trajectories that may result from punitive and training in restorative conferencing, representa- exclusionary disciplinary approaches” (McMor- tives of the student, family or guardians, and ris, 2013, p. 40). Although further research is anyone else identified as important to helping needed, this study appears to provide strong the student get back on track. The conference support for the restorative conference to pro- is facilitated by a neutral trained facilitator from vide a non-exclusionary Tier 3 (tertiary) inter- the Legal Rights Center, a community agency vention for serious behaviors which otherwise that implements restorative practices. Victims result in expulsion. were usually not included, but plans to repair harm were included.

“During the conference, all present help the family and student identify their strengths. The incident that led to the recommendation for expulsion is discussed in full, in addition to related issues at school or home. All pres- ent (including staff from the new school and the school district) are called upon to reflect on the accountability for the incident and for providing support for the student to better suc- ceed at school. After these steps the facilitator guides the participants through the creation of a detailed accountability plan for successful Building & Sustaining Family Group Conferencing 5 Student Engagement

Making Family Group Conferencing Work

Goals of family group conferencing accord- ing to Bazemore & Umbreit (2001) include the following: • Providing an opportunity for the victim to be directly involved in the discussion of the • offense and in decisions regarding appropri- ate sanctions to be placed on the offender. • Increasing the offender’s awareness of the human impact of his or her behavior and • providing the offender an opportunity to take teachers, principal or assistant principal, other full responsibility for it. relatives, peers, special adult friends, and com- • Engaging the collective responsibility of munity resource people. Unlike wraparound, the offender’s support system for making family group conferencing typically occurs in amends one session (or in the case of the Minneapolis • and shaping the offender’s future behavior. study two sessions) that may last for an ex- • Allowing both offender and victim to recon- tended period of time (all day if necessary). A nect to key community support systems workable plan and commitment to implement it (p. 5-6) must be in place before the end of the meeting (Umbreit & Stacy, 1996). After completing a training course, either volunteers or paid employees can serve as con- Bazemore & Umbreit (2001) explain the ference facilitators. Participation by all involved process: in these conferences is voluntary. Family group “The conference facilitator contacts the conferencing works better when the victim will- victim and offender to explain the process and ingly participates, but an unwilling victim should invite them to the conference. The facilitator not be pressured to attend, as a primary consid- also asks the victim and offender to identify key eration of a conference is safety for all involved members of their support systems, who also will (Wearmouth, McKinney, & Glynn, 2007). Before be invited to participate. The people at the con- the conference begins it is important to “iden- ference are reminded that, “the problem is the tify the appropriate community of care around problem, the person is not the problem” (p. 5). the young person on whom the conference will focus” (Wearmouth, McKinney, & Glynn, 2007, The conference typically begins with the p. 44). In addition to the victim, offender, and offender, or student, describing the incident. their family members, a conference might involve The other participants then describe the impact of the incident on their lives. Some argue that it is preferable to allow the victim to start the discussion, if he or she wishes to do so (Umbreit & Stacy, 1996). Through these narrations, the offender is faced with the impact of his or her behavior on the victim, on those close to the victim, and on the offender’s own family and friends, and the victim has the opportunity to express feelings and ask questions about the incident. After a thorough discussion of impacts, the victim is asked to identify desired outcomes from the conference; in this way, the victim can Building & Sustaining Family Group Conferencing 6 Student Engagement help to shape the obligations that will be placed • Schools need to decide what types of be- on the offender. All participants contribute to havior will be appropriately addressed by the problem-solving process of determining conferences (Restorative Practices Develop- how the offender might best repair the harm ment Team, 2003) he or she has caused (Wearmouth, McKinney & Glynn, 2007). “The session ends with partici- As can be seen by the study conducted pants signing an agreement that outlines their in Minneapolis a well-trained facilitator who expectations and commitments” (Umbreit & can provide objective pont of view may be an Stacy, 1996, p. 5). Those in attendance at the important component of effectiveness in school meeting also commit themselves to supporting discipline disputes. and monitoring implementation of the plan to make sure it is carried out. When using confer- Conclusion encing in schools, the principal should attempt to control or manage the process of conferenc- The family group conference model is a ing because he or she would not be the facili- useful tool for bringing together members of a tator. However, it is recommended that the family, a school, and a community to create a principal be the person in charge of proposing plan and offer support for students with chronic or recommending a conference (Wearmouth, behavioral or mental health needs, as well as McKinney, & Glynn, 2007). students who might otherwise be suspended or expelled for a variety of behavior serious Implementing Family Group Confer- incidents. It is an effective restorative practice encing in Schools for teaching offenders about the harm they caused (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). In the To introduce any restorative practices in school setting, conferencing helps to address a school requires planning, negotiation, and the power imbalances between school officials deliberation (Wearmouth, McKinney, & Glynn, and the student and community. In the confer- 2007). The following list contains issues that ad- ence, everyone must listen respectfully, not ministrators need to think about when deciding interrupt, and adhere to the agreement made in to implement a restorative practice, especially the conference. Such conferencing can be used conferencing: in place of suspensions and expulsions while • Having support of staff and the community still repairing the harm or hurt that has been of the school are essential so consultation caused (Wearmouth, McKinney, & Glynn, 2007). should be sought before beginning a confer- Although there has been limited research on encing program the use of this procedure in schools, on disgnifi- • Schools need to determine that conferenc- cant study has provided strong support for the ing fits into the current culture of the school potential value of this intervention. As a result • It is recommended that an outside com- family group conferencing should be considered munity support person assist in conduct- a promising Tier 3 intervention for students with ing conferences as this tends to enhance serious problematic behaviors which violate participation of all groups school codes of conduct. • Principals should be trained in referring students for conferencing

Notes: This fact sheet draws heavily from the OJJDP Bulletin NCJ 184738 on Restorative Conferencing Models by C. Bazemore & M. Umbreit (2001). However, any errors in this fact sheet are ours.

See related Strategy Briefs on Restorative Practices, Restitution, Youth Courts, and the Resource Brief, Resources on Restorative Practices. All are available from the Student Engagement Project, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 202 Barkley Center. at http://k12engagement.unl.edu Building & Sustaining Family Group Conferencing 7 Student Engagement

Recommended citation:

O’Connor, A., & Peterson, R. (2014, February). Family group conferencing. Strategy brief. Lin- coln, NE: Student Engagement Project, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the Nebraska De- partment of . http://k12engagement.unl.edu/family-group-conferencing.

Family Group Conferencing References

Bazemore, G. (2009). The expansion of punishment and the restriction of justice: Loss of limits in retributive policy and the restorative justice alternative. 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook, NY: Sage Publica- tions.

Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2001). A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice; Bulletin NCJ 184738; https://www.nttac.org/views/docs/jabg/balancedRestoreJustice/comparison_four_rc_models.pdf

Fercello, C., & Umbreit, M. (1999). Client Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restor- ative Justice and Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (1993). Family Participation, Cultural Diversity and Victim Involvement in Youth Justice: A New Zealand Experiment. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University.

McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.

McMorris, B.J., Beckman, K., Shea, G., Baumgartner, J. & Eggert, R.C. (2013, December). Applying restorative practices to Minneapolis Public Schools Students recommended for possible expulsion: A Pilot Program Evaluation of the Family Youth Restorative Conference Program. Final Report. Minneapolis, MN: School of Nursing and the Healthy Youth Development Prevention Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota.

Nebraska Court Improvement Project. (2002). The Family Group Conference (brochure). Lincoln, NE: The UNL Cen- ter on Children, Families and the Law, 121 South 13th Street, Suite 302, Lincoln, NE 68588; 402-472-9814.

Restorative Practices Development Team. (2003). Restorative practices for schools. Hamilton, New Zealand: Univer- sity of Waikato.

Umbreit, M., & Stacy, S. (1996). Family group conferencing comes to the U.S.: A comparison with victim offender mediation. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 47(2), 29–39.

Umbreit, M.S., Vos, B., & Coates, R.B. (2006). Restorative justice dialogue: Evidence-based practice. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota.

Wearmouth, J., McKinney, R., & Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative justice in schools: A New Zealand example. Educa- tional Research, 49(1), 37-49.

Building & Sustaining Student Engagement http://k12engagement.unl.edu. © 2014 Reece L. Peterson, Barkley Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732; [email protected]. Supported by Nebraska Department of Education Project 94-2810-248-1B1-13 (USDE Grant #HO27A110079). Contents do not necessarily represent the policy of NDE or USDE, and no endorsement should be assumed. Permission to duplicate is granted for non-commercial use by school personnel working in school settings.