U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator February 2001

A Comparison of Four From the Administrator Restorative Conferencing Reconciling the needs of victims and offenders with the needs of the Models community is the underlying goal of restorative justice. Unlike retributive justice, which is primarily concerned with punishing crime, restorative Gordon Bazemore and Mark Umbreit justice focuses on repairing the injury that crime inflicts. Restorative justice is a framework for ju- New Zealand, and parts of Europe, are venile justice reform that seeks to engage one component of a new movement in the As a means to that end, restorative victims, offenders and their families, 1990’s concerned with making criminal conferencing brings together victims, other citizens, and community groups and juvenile justice processes less formal, offenders, and other members of the both as clients of juvenile justice services bringing the processes into neighbor- community to hold offenders account- and as resources in an effective response hoods, and involving community mem- able not only for their crimes but for to youth crime. Traditionally, when a bers in planning and implementation the harm they cause to victims. crime is committed, juvenile justice sys- (Barajas, 1995; Bazemore and Schiff, 1996; tems have been primarily concerned with Griffiths and Hamilton, 1996; Travis, 1996). This Bulletin features four models of three questions: Who did it? What laws restorative conferencing: This Bulletin focuses on four restorative were broken? What should be done to ◆ conferencing models: victim-offender me- Victim-offender mediation. punish or treat the offender? As noted by ◆ diation, community reparative boards, Community reparative boards. Howard Zehr (1990), restorative justice ◆ family group conferencing, and circle sen- Family group conferencing. emphasizes three very different ques- ◆ Circle sentencing. tions: What is the nature of the harm re- tencing. Although these four models by no sulting from the crime? What needs to be means exhaust the possibilities for com- These models are compared and done to “make it right” or repair the munity involvement in decisions about contrasted in administration, process, harm? Who is responsible for this repair? how to respond to youth crime, the mod- community involvement, and other Restorative justice also suggests that the els do illustrate both the diversity and dimensions, and several related response to youth crime must strike a common themes apparent in what appears issues and concerns are addressed. balance among the needs of victims, of- to be a new philosophy of citizen partici- pation in sanctioning processes. If restorative justice is to succeed fenders, and communities and that each in contributing to the systematic should be actively involved in the justice The Bulletin first describes each of the reform of our juvenile justice system, process to the greatest extent possible. four restorative conferencing models,1 it must embody new values that presenting information on background reflect the needs of victims, The term “restorative conferencing” is and concept, procedures and goals, con- offenders, and communities. The used in this Bulletin to encompass a siderations in implementation, lessons models described in this Bulletin range of strategies for bringing together learned from research, and sources of embody these values and provide victims, offenders, and community mem- additional information. The Bulletin then tools for communities engaged in bers in nonadversarial community-based compares and contrasts the models on implementing restorative justice. processes aimed at responding to crime the following dimensions: origins and by holding offenders accountable and re- John J. Wilson pairing the harm caused to victims and Acting Administrator communities. Such strategies, now being 1 Information on the four models is adapted from implemented in North America, Australia, Regional Symposium Training Manual, U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997. current applications; administrative and procedural aspects (eligibility, point of An Example of a Victim-Offender Mediation Session referral, staffing, setting, process and protocols, and management of dialog); The victim was a middle-aged woman. The offender, a 14-year-old neighbor of the and community involvement and other victim, had broken into the victim’s home and stolen a VCR. The mediation session dimensions (participants, victim role, took place in the basement of the victim’s church. gatekeepers, relationship to the formal In the presence of a mediator, the victim and offender talked for 2 hours. At times, justice system, preparation, enforcement, their conversation was heated and emotional. When they finished, the mediator felt monitoring, and primary outcomes sought). that they had heard each other’s stories and learned something important about Next the Bulletin discusses a number of the impact of the crime and about each other. issues and concerns to be addressed in the development and implementation of restor- The participants agreed that the offender would pay $200 in restitution to cover ative conferencing approaches. The Bulletin the cost of damages to the victim’s home resulting from the break-in and would also offers guidelines for clearly grounding also reimburse the victim for the cost of the stolen VCR (estimated at $150). They interventions in restorative justice prin- also worked out a payment schedule. ciples and includes a test for determining whether an intervention strengthens the During the session, the offender made several apologies to the victim and agreed community response to youth crime and to complete community service hours working in a food bank sponsored by the creates new roles for citizens and commu- victim’s church. The victim said that she felt less angry and fearful after learning nity groups. more about the offender and the details of the crime. She also thanked the mediator for allowing the session to be held at her church. In an evolving movement in which innova- tions are emerging rapidly, it is important to identify common principles that can be replicated by local juvenile courts and 320 victim-offender mediation programs in popular to describe variations from stan- communities and that can serve to guide the United States and Canada and more dard mediation practices (Umbreit, 1997). decisionmakers in choosing models best than 700 in Europe. Several programs in suited to local community needs. Toward North America currently receive nearly Procedures and Goals 1,000 case referrals annually from local this end, this Bulletin provides a general Cases may be referred to victim-offender courts. Although the greatest proportion framework within which the myriad alter- mediation programs by judges, probation of cases involve less serious property native interventions currently being char- officers, victim advocates, prosecutors, crimes committed by young people, the acterized as restorative justice can be cat- defense attorneys, and law enforcement. process is used increasingly in response to egorized and objectively analyzed and In some programs, cases are primarily serious and violent crimes committed by evaluated. Comparative discussions of new referred as a diversion from prosecution both juveniles and adults (Umbreit, 1997). approaches at this relatively early stage of (assuming that any agreement reached development are important because they The victim-offender mediation process during the mediation session is success- serve to highlight similarities and differ- offers victims an opportunity to meet fully completed). In other programs, ences across emerging models. In consid- offenders in a safe, structured setting and cases are usually referred after a formal ering the four models discussed in the engage in a mediated discussion of the admission of guilt has been accepted by Bulletin, however, it is important to avoid crime.2 With the assistance of a trained the court, with mediation being a condi- confusing the vision of prototypes with the mediator, the victim is able to tell the tion of probation or other disposition realities of implementation and also to re- offender about the crime’s physical, emo- (if the victim has volunteered to partici- member that the philosophy and practices tional, and financial impact; receive an- pate). Some programs receive case refer- of any given restorative conferencing pro- swers to lingering questions about the rals at both stages. gram may deviate substantially from the crime and the offender; and be directly During mediation sessions, victims explain prototypes presented here. involved in developing a restitution plan how the crime affected them and are given for the offender to pay back any financial the opportunity to ask questions about debt to the victim. The process is differ- Victim-Offender the incident and help develop a plan for ent from mediation as practiced in civil or restoring losses. Offenders are given the Mediation commercial disputes, because the in- opportunity to tell their stories and take volved parties are in agreement about direct responsibility through making Background and Concept their respective roles in the crime. Also, amends in some form (Umbreit, 1994). Although still unfamiliar to many main- the process should not be primarily fo- stream juvenile and criminal justice audi- cused on reaching a settlement, although The goals of victim-offender mediation ences and marginal to the court process in most sessions do, in fact, result in a include the following: some jurisdictions where they do operate, signed restitution agreement.3 Because of ◆ victim-offender mediation programs— these fundamental differences, the terms Supporting the healing process of vic- referred to in some communities as “victim- “victim-offender meeting,” “conferencing,” tims by providing a safe, controlled set- offender reconciliation programs” and, and “dialog” are becoming increasingly ting for them to meet and speak with increasingly, as “victim-offender dialog offenders on a strictly voluntary basis. programs”—have a respectable 20-year track record in the United States, Canada, 2 In some programs, parents of the offender are also 3 and Europe. Currently, there are approximately often part of the mediation session. Not all mediation sessions lead to financial restitution.

2 ◆ Allowing offenders to learn about the sessions with both parties to clarify the Bar Association recently endorsed victim- impact of their crimes on the victims issues to be resolved. The mediator offender mediation and recommends its and take direct responsibility for their should also make followup contacts and use throughout the United States. As of behavior. monitor any agreement reached. 1997, victim-offender mediation programs ◆ Providing an opportunity for the victim have been identified in nearly every State and offender to develop a mutually ac- Lessons Learned (Umbreit and Schug, 1997). ceptable plan that addresses the harm A large multisite study of victim-offender caused by the crime. mediation programs with juvenile offend- For More Information ers (Umbreit, 1994) found the following: For more information on victim-offender Considerations in ◆ mediation, contact: Implementation In cases referred to the four study-site programs during a 2-year period, 95 ◆ Dr. Mark Umbreit, Director, Center for In implementing any victim-offender me- percent of mediation sessions resulted Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, diation program, it is critically important in a successfully negotiated restitution University of Minnesota, School of to maintain sensitivity to the needs of the agreement to restore the victim’s finan- Social Work, 105 Peters Hall, 1404 victim. First and foremost, the mediator cial losses. Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108– must do everything possible to ensure ◆ Victims who met with offenders in the 6160, 612–624–4923 (phone), 612–625– that the victim will not be harmed in any 3744 (fax), [email protected] way. Additionally, the victim’s participa- presence of a trained mediator were more likely to be satisfied with the jus- (e-mail), ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp tion must be completely voluntary. The (Internet). offender’s participation should also be tice system than were similar victims ◆ voluntary. Offenders are typically given who went through the standard court Victim Offender Mediation Association the option of participating in mediation process (79 percent versus 57 percent). (VOMA), c/o William T. Preston, Admin- or dialog as one of several dispositional ◆ After meeting offenders, victims were istrator, 143 Canal Street, New Smyrna choices. Although offenders almost never significantly less fearful of being Beach, FL 32168, 904–424–1591 (phone), have absolute choice (e.g., the option of revictimized. 904–423–8099 (fax), [email protected] (e-mail), www.voma.org (Internet). no juvenile justice intervention), they ◆ Offenders who met with victims were should never be coerced into meetings far more likely to successfully com- with victims. The victim should also be plete their restitution obligation than Community Reparative given choices, whenever possible, about were similar offenders who did not Boards procedures, such as when and where the participate in mediation (81 percent mediation session will take place, who versus 58 percent). will be present, and who will speak first. Background and Concept Cases should be carefully screened re- ◆ Recidivism rates were lower among The community reparative board is a re- garding the readiness of both victim and offenders who participated in media- cent version of a much older and more offender to participate. The mediator tion than among offenders who did not widespread community sanctioning re- should conduct in-person premediation participate (18 percent versus 27 per- sponse to youth crime, generally known by cent); furthermore, participating such terms as youth panels, neighborhood offenders’ subsequent crimes tended boards, or community diversion boards. to be less serious.4 These panels or boards have been in use in the United States since the 1920’s, and their Multisite studies (Coates and Gehm, 1989; contemporary counterparts, reparative Umbreit, 1994) also found that although boards, have been in use since the mid- restitution was an important motivator 1990’s, principally in Vermont. There, the for victim participation in mediation ses- boards are primarily used with adult of- sions, victims consistently viewed actual fenders convicted of nonviolent and minor receipt of restitution as secondary to the offenses; more recently, the boards have opportunity to talk about the impact of also been used with juvenile offenders.5 the crime, meet the offender, and learn Reparative boards typically are composed the offender’s circumstances. The studies of a small group of citizens, prepared for also found that offenders appreciated the their function by intensive training, who opportunity to talk to the victim and felt conduct public, face-to-face meetings with better after doing so. offenders ordered by the court to participate A recent statewide survey of victim ser- vice providers in Minnesota found that 91 percent believed that victim-offender 5 Reparative boards are highly localized models, and mediation should be available in every information on them is sketchy. This Bulletin uses the Vermont reparative boards as a prototype and case judicial district because it represents an study. As noted above, Vermont has used the boards important victim service. The American primarily with adult offenders but more recently has begun to use them with juvenile offenders too. Sub- stantial information is available on the operating pro- 4 In the absence of pure control groups, selection bias cedures of the Vermont boards, and the Vermont cannot be ruled out for the comparisons drawn in this model can serve as a new prototype for the board/ study. panel-based approach to youth crime.

3 in the process. The boards develop sanc- tion agreements with offenders, monitor An Example of a Community Reparative Board Session compliance, and submit compliance re- ports to the court. The reparative board convened to consider the case of a 17-year-old who had been caught driving with an open can of beer in his father’s pickup truck. The Procedures and Goals youth had been sentenced by a judge to reparative probation, and it was the board’s responsibility to decide what form the probation should take. For about During reparative board meetings, board 30 minutes, the citizen members of the board asked the youth several simple, members discuss with the offender the straightforward questions. The board members then went to another room to nature of the offense and its negative con- deliberate on an appropriate sanction for the youth. The youth awaited the board’s sequences. Then board members develop decision nervously, because he did not know whether to expect something tougher a set of proposed sanctions, which they or much easier than regular probation. discuss with the offender until an agree- ment is reached on the specific actions When the board returned, the chairperson explained the four conditions of the the offender will take within a given time offender’s probation contract: (1) begin work to pay off his traffic tickets, (2) com- period to make reparation for the crime. plete a State police defensive driving course, (3) undergo an alcohol assessment, Subsequently, the offender must document and (4) write a three-page paper on how alcohol had negatively affected his life. his or her progress in fulfilling the terms of The youth signed the contract, and the chairperson adjourned the meeting. the agreement. After the stipulated period of time has passed, the board submits a report to the court on the offender’s com- ◆ pliance with the agreed-upon sanctions. administrative support to reparative Getting support from judges in limiting At this point, the board’s involvement with boards). the time the offender is in the program and on probation. the offender ends. Based on Vermont’s experience, the fol- The goals of community reparative lowing factors have been identified by the Lessons Learned boards include the following: Vermont Department of Corrections as important in implementing community- Only limited quantitative data have been ◆ Promoting citizens’ ownership of the driven reparative board programs: collected on the effectiveness of commu- criminal and juvenile justice systems nity reparative boards. There is growing ◆ by involving them directly in the jus- Marketing the program effectively to concern that evaluations of reparative tice process. the justice system (to judges, prosecu- board programs should consider mea- tors, and defense attorneys). sures beyond the standard offender- ◆ Providing an opportunity for victims ◆ focused measure of recidivism. Additional and community members to confront Having a committed, well-trained staff. measures should include responsiveness offenders in a constructive manner ◆ Working with victim organizations and to victim and community needs, victim about their behavior. ensuring that victims are represented and community satisfaction, and impact ◆ Providing opportunities for offenders to and provided adequate opportunity to 6 on the community (including physical take personal responsibility and be held participate. improvements resulting from board- directly accountable for the harm they ◆ Processing cases expeditiously and in imposed community work sanctions and caused to victims and communities. a manner that is easy for community indicators of healthy relationships among ◆ Generating meaningful community- members to understand. citizens). At this point, experiential and driven consequences for criminal and ◆ Facilitating a positive experience for anecdotal information indicates that re- delinquent actions, thereby reducing the board members. parative boards show much promise costly reliance on formal justice sys- as an effective response to nonviolent ◆ Providing quality training for the tem processing. crime. boards. Considerations in ◆ Supporting the program with adequate For More Information resources (e.g., space, time, and staff). Implementation For more information on reparative The Vermont Department of Corrections ◆ Striving for successful outcomes for boards, contact: offenders, victims, and community par- implemented its Reparative Probation ◆ ticipants in the board’s initial cases. David Peebles, Director of Restorative Program in 1995, in response to a 1994 Services, Vermont Department of Cor- public opinion survey (conducted by rections, 103 South Main Street, Water- John Doble and Associates) in which citi- 6 bury, VT 05671, 802–241–2261 (phone). zens indicated broad support for pro- As noted earlier, reparative boards are intended to provide an opportunity for victims and community grams with a reparative emphasis and ◆ The National Institute of Corrections members to confront offenders in a constructive man- Information Center, 1860 Industrial active community involvement. The ner. In practice thus far, however, these opportunities program’s reparative boards are part of have proved better suited to community input than Circle, Suite A, Longmont, CO 80501, a mandated separation of probation into victim involvement. Because of this relatively weak 800–877–1461 (phone). community corrections service units (de- involvement of victims, some suggest that reparative Also, see Restoring Hope Through Commu- signed to provide supervision for more boards are not pure examples of restorative justice. See additional discussion on p. 8, under “Comparing nity Partnerships (American Probation and serious cases) and court and reparative and Contrasting the Four Models: Community Involve- Parole Association, 1996), available from service units (which coordinate and provide ment and Other Dimensions.” the American Probation and Parole Asso- ciation, c/o Council of State Governments,

4 P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578–1910, Wundersitz, 1994; Maxwell and Morris, on the offender. All participants contribute 859–244–8203 (phone); and Community 1993; McElrea, 1993). to the problem-solving process of deter- Reparative Boards: Theory and Practice mining how the offender might best repair Family group conferencing involves the (Karp and Walther, 2001). the harm he or she has caused. The ses- community of people most affected by sion ends with participants signing an the crime—the victim, the offender, and agreement that outlines their expectations Family Group the family, friends, and key supporters of and commitments. both—in deciding the resolution of a Conferencing criminal or delinquent incident. The af- Goals of family group conferencing include Background and Concept fected parties are brought together by a the following: trained facilitator to discuss how they ◆ Family group conferencing is based on and others have been harmed by the Providing an opportunity for the victim to be directly involved in the discus- centuries-old sanctioning and dispute offense and how that harm might be resolution traditions of the Maori of New repaired. sion of the offense and in decisions Zealand. In its modern form, the model regarding appropriate sanctions to be placed on the offender. was adopted into national legislation in Procedures and Goals New Zealand in 1989, making it the most ◆ Increasing the offender’s awareness of systemically institutionalized of any of The conference facilitator contacts the vic- the human impact of his or her behavior tim and offender to explain the process the four models. In South Australia, family and providing the offender an opportu- conferencing is now widely used in modi- and invite them to the conference. The fa- nity to take full responsibility for it. fied form as a police-initiated diversion cilitator also asks the victim and offender ◆ Engaging the collective responsibility approach known as the Wagga Wagga to identify key members of their support model. (Developed by the Wagga Wagga systems, who also will be invited to partici- of the offender’s support system for making amends and shaping the Police Department, this model uses police pate. The conference typically begins with officers or school officials to set up and the offender describing the incident. The offender’s future behavior. facilitate family conferencing meetings.) other participants then describe the im- Conferencing is also being used in U.S. pact of the incident on their lives. Some cities in Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylva- argue that it is preferable to allow the vic- nia, Vermont, and several other States tim to start the discussion, if he or she An Example of a Family and in parts of Canada. (The Wagga wishes to do so (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996). Group Conferencing Through these narrations, the offender is Wagga model is the primary approach Session that has taken hold in North America.) faced with the impact of his or her behav- A variety of offenses have been resolved ior on the victim, on those close to the vic- A family conferencing group convened through family group conferencing, in- tim, and on the offender’s own family and in a local school to consider a case cluding theft, arson, minor assaults, drug friends, and the victim has the opportunity in which a student had injured a offenses, vandalism, and, in a number of to express feelings and ask questions teacher and broken the teacher’s States, child maltreatment cases. In New about the incident. After a thorough dis- glasses in an altercation. Group Zealand, conferencing is used in the dis- cussion of impacts, the victim is asked to members included the offender, his position of all but the most violent and identify desired outcomes from the confer- mother and grandfather, the victim, serious delinquency cases (Alder and ence; in this way, the victim can help to the police officer who made the arrest, shape the obligations that will be placed and about 10 other interested parties (including 2 of the offender’s teachers and 2 friends of the victim). The conferencing process began with comments by the offender, his mother and grandfather, the victim, and the arresting officer. Each spoke about the offense and its impact. The youth justice coordinator next asked for input from the other group members and then asked all participants what they thought the offender should do to pay back the victim and the commu- nity for the damage caused by his crime. In the remaining 30 minutes of the hour-long conference, the group suggested that the offender should make restitution to the victim for his medical expenses and the cost of new glasses and that the offender should also perform community service work on the school grounds.

5 ◆ Allowing both offender and victim to For More Information Procedures and Goals reconnect to key community support For more information about family group Circle sentencing typically involves a multi- systems. conferencing, contact: step procedure that includes (1) applica- tion by the offender to participate in the ◆ David Hines, Woodbury Police Depart- Considerations in circle process, (2) a healing circle for Implementation ment, 2100 Radio Drive, Woodbury, MN the victim, (3) a healing circle for the of- 55125–9528, 651–714–3600 (phone). The family group conferencing process fender, (4) a sentencing circle to develop has been implemented in schools, police ◆ Kay Pranis or Sue Stacey, Minnesota consensus on the elements of a sentencing departments, probation offices, residen- Department of Corrections, 1450 En- plan, and (5) followup circles to monitor tial programs, community mediation ergy Park Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul, the progress of the offender. In addition to programs, and neighborhood groups. MN 55108, 651–642–0329 or 651–642– commitments by the offender, the sentenc- Conferencing is most often used as diver- 0338 (phone). ing plan may incorporate commitments by sion from the court process for juveniles ◆ Real Justice, P.O. Box 229, Bethlehem, the justice system, community, and family but can also be used after adjudication PA 18016, 610–807–9221 (phone). members. Specifics of the circle process and disposition to address unresolved vary from community to community and issues or determine specific terms of are designed locally to fit community restitution. Conferencing programs have Circle Sentencing needs and culture. been implemented within single agencies Goals of circle sentencing include the and developed collaboratively among sev- Background and Concept following: eral agencies. After completing a training Circle sentencing is an updated version course, either volunteers or paid employ- of the traditional sanctioning and healing ◆ Promoting healing for all affected ees can serve as conference facilitators. practices of aboriginal peoples in Canada parties. and American Indians in the United States Participation by all involved in confer- ◆ Providing an opportunity for the of- (Stuart, 1995; Melton, 1995). Sentencing ences is voluntary. In addition to the fender to make amends. circles—sometimes called peacemaking victim and offender and their family mem- circles—were resurrected in 1991 by ◆ Empowering victims, community mem- bers, a conference might involve teach- judges and community justice committees bers, families, and offenders by giving ers, other relatives, peers, special adult in the Yukon Territory and other northern them a voice and a shared responsibil- friends, and community resource people. Canadian communities. Circle sentencing ity in finding constructive resolutions. has been developed most extensively in ◆ Addressing the underlying causes of Lessons Learned Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon criminal behavior. To date, two studies have been conducted and has been used occasionally in several ◆ Building a sense of community and its to assess the impact of family group con- other communities. Its use spread to the capacity for resolving conflict. ferencing with young offenders. One study United States in 1996, when a pilot project (Maxwell and Morris, 1993) assessed the was initiated in Minnesota. Circle sentenc- ◆ Promoting and sharing community impact of New Zealand’s law mandating ing has been used for adult and juvenile values. the widespread use of conferencing. It offenders, for a variety of offenses, and in found that families of offenders in confer- both rural and urban settings. Considerations in encing programs are more frequently and Implementation Circle sentencing is a holistic reintegra- actively involved in the justice process The success of the circle sentencing pro- than are families of offenders whose cases tive strategy designed not only to address the criminal and delinquent behavior of cess depends to a large extent on a healthy are handled by standard procedures. It partnership between the formal juvenile also found that offenders, victims, and offenders but also to consider the needs of victims, families, and communities. justice system and the community. Partici- their families described the conference pants from both need training and skill process as helpful. Preliminary evaluations Within the “circle,” crime victims, offend- ers, family and friends of both, justice and building in the circle process and in peace- of conferencing programs in the United making and consensus building. It is criti- States also indicate high levels of victim social service personnel, and interested community residents speak from the cally important that the community’s plan- satisfaction with the conference process ning process allow sufficient time for and high rates of offender compliance with heart in a shared search for an under- standing of the event. Together they iden- strong relationships to develop between agreements reached during conferences justice professionals and community mem- (Fercello and Umbreit, 1999; McCold and tify the steps necessary to assist in heal- ing all affected parties and prevent bers. Implementation procedures should Wachtel, 1998). future crimes. The significance of the be highly flexible, because the circle pro- Practitioners involved in family group circle is more than symbolic: all circle cess will evolve over time based on the conferencing programs observe a reduc- members—police officers, lawyers, community’s knowledge and experience. tion in fear for many victims. When used judges, victims, offenders, and commu- As it gains experience, the community can as a diversion from court, conferencing nity residents—participate in delibera- customize the circle process to fit local can provide a much speedier and more tions to arrive at a consensus for resources and culture. satisfying resolution of incidents than a sentencing plan that addresses the In many communities that have imple- would otherwise be the case. Family concerns of all interested parties. mented the circle sentencing concept, group conferencing also builds commu- direction and leadership have come from nity skills in conflict resolution and par- a community justice committee that ticipatory decisionmaking. decides which cases to accept, develops

6 Learning Network, 613–954–0119 An Example of a Circle Sentencing Session (phone), 613–957–4697 (fax). The victim was a middle-aged man whose parked car had been badly damaged when the offender, a 16-year-old, crashed into it while joyriding in another vehicle. Comparing and The offender had also damaged a police vehicle. Contrasting the Four In the circle, the victim talked about the emotional shock of seeing what had Models: Administration happened to his car and his costs to repair it (he was uninsured). Then, an elder and Process leader of the First Nations community where the circle sentencing session was Table 1 describes the origins and cur- being held (and an uncle of the offender) expressed his disappointment and anger with the boy. The elder observed that this incident, along with several prior of- rent applications of the four restorative conferencing models and summarizes ad- fenses by the boy, had brought shame to his family. The elder also noted that in the old days, the boy would have been required to pay the victim’s family substan- ministrative and procedural similarities and differences among them. Although 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 who the four models share a nonadversarial, community-based sanctioning focus on spoke about the contributions the offender had made to the community, the kindness he had shown toward elders, and his willingness to help others with cases in which offenders either admit guilt or have been found guilty of crimes home repairs. or delinquent acts, the models vary along Having heard all this, the judge asked the Crown Council (Canadian prosecutor) several administrative and procedural and the public defender, who were also sitting in the circle, to make statements and dimensions. This discussion highlights then asked if anyone else in the circle wanted to speak. The Royal Canadian selected dimensions in table 1 that vary Mounted Police officer, whose vehicle had also been damaged, then took the significantly from model to model. feather and spoke on the offender’s behalf. The officer proposed to the judge that in The models differ in point of referral and lieu of statutorily required jail time for the offense, the offender be allowed to meet with him on a regular basis for counseling and community service. After asking the in structural relationship to formal court and correctional systems. The models also victim and the prosecutor if either had any objections, the judge accepted this proposal. The judge also ordered restitution to the victim and asked the young adult differ in eligibility, which ranges from mi- nor first offenders to quite serious repeat who had spoken on the offender’s behalf to serve as a mentor for the offender. offenders (in the case of circle sentencing). After a prayer in which the entire group held hands, the circle disbanded and everyone retreated to the kitchen area of the community center for refreshments. With the exception of most community reparative boards, decisionmaking is by consensus. Specific processes and proto- support groups for the victim and of- agencies and community representatives, cols, however, vary substantially, ranging fender, and helps to conduct the circles. and provide appropriate training for all from circle sentencing’s ancient ritual of In most communities, circles are facili- staff. passing a stick or feather as a “talking tated by a trained community member, piece” (Stuart, 1995) to the more formal who is often called a keeper. Lessons Learned deliberation process followed by repara- tive boards (Dooley, 1995). Although circles have been used as a re- Very little research has been conducted to sponse to serious and violent crimes, date on the effectiveness of circle sentenc- The process of managing dialog varies sig- circle sentencing is not an appropriate re- ing. One study conducted by Judge Barry nificantly among the four models. In repara- sponse to all offenses. Key factors in deter- Stuart in Canada in 1996 indicated that re- tive board hearings, a chairperson guides mining whether a case is appropriate for cidivism was less likely among offenders members through their questioning of the the circle process include the offender’s who had participated in circles than among offender and their discussions with hearing character and personality, sincerity, and offenders who were processed traditionally participants. In family group conferences, a connection to the community; the victim’s (Stuart, 1996). Those who have been in- coordinator manages the discussion by input; and the dedication of the offender’s volved with circles report that circles em- encouraging all participants to speak. In and victim’s support groups. Moreover, power participants to resolve conflict in a victim-offender mediation sessions, the circles are often labor intensive and re- manner that promotes sharing of responsi- mediator manages the dialog by encourag- quire a substantial investment of citizen bility for outcomes, generates constructive ing victim and offender to take primary re- time and effort; circles should not, there- relationships, enhances respect and under- sponsibility for expressing their feelings fore, be used extensively as a response to standing among all involved, and fosters and concerns directly to each other, by en- first offenders and minor crime. enduring, innovative solutions. suring that each participant respects the other’s right to speak, and by occasionally The capacity of the circle to advance solu- probing to keep the discussion flowing. In tions capable of improving the lives of par- For More Information circle sentencing, participants rely primarily ticipants and the overall well-being of the For more information on circle sentenc- on the process itself, which requires that community depends on the effectiveness of ing, see Building Community Justice only one person speak at a time and only the participating volunteers. To ensure a Partnerships: Community Peacemaking when handed the talking piece. Each circle cadre of capable volunteers, the program Circles, by Barry Stuart. The publication has a “keeper,” but the keeper’s role is not should support a paid community-based is available from Aboriginal Justice Sec- to manage the dialog but simply to initiate volunteer coordinator to supply logistical tion, Department of Justice of Canada, it, ensure the process is followed, and occa- support, establish linkages with other Ottawa, ON, Canada K1AOH8, Attention: sionally summarize progress.

7 Table 1: Restorative Conferencing Models: Administration and Process

Victim-Offender Family Group Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing Origin Since mid-1970’s. Since 1995 (similar New Zealand, 1989; Since approximately youth panels: since Australia, 1991. 1992. 1920).

Current Throughout North Vermont; selected Australia; New Zealand; Primarily the Yukon, applications America and Europe. jurisdictions and United States (since sporadically in other neighborhoods in 1990’s), in cities and parts of Canada. other States. towns in Montana, Minnesota, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylva- and Massachusetts. nia, and other States.

Referral point in Mostly diversion and One of several New Zealand: through- Various stages. May system probation option. probation options out juvenile justice be diversion or Some use in resi- (youth panels: almost system. Australian alternative to formal dential facilities for exclusively diversion). Wagga Wagga model: court hearings and more serious cases. police diversion. United corrections process for States: mostly diver- indictable offenses. sion, some use in schools and post- adjudication.

Eligibility and Varies. Primarily diver- Target group is New Zealand: all Offenders who admit target group sion cases and property nonviolent offenders; juvenile offenders guilt and express offenders. In some eligibility limited to eligible except those willingness to change. locations, used with offenders given charged with murder Entire range of offenses serious and violent probation and as- and manslaughter. and offenders eligible; offenders (at victim’s signed to the boards. Australian Wagga Wagga chronic offenders request). model: determined by targeted. police discretion or diversion criteria.

Comparing and victim-offender dyad.7 In circle sentenc- treatment, or monitoring. The community ing, on the other hand, the community is often an abstract and distant concern Contrasting the Four is conceptualized much more broadly (Barajas, 1995; Clear, 1996). Because vic- Models: Community as all residents of a local neighborhood, tims have been so neglected as stakehold- Involvement and village, or aboriginal band; for purposes ers in both formal and community justice of implementing the circle process, the approaches, it is important to give special Other Dimensions community may be defined as anyone attention to their role in each restorative Table 2 summarizes aspects of commu- with a stake in the resolution of a crime conferencing process. nity involvement for each of the four re- who chooses to participate in the circle. storative conferencing models. Table 2 Victim-offender mediation. Mediation also addresses several other dimensions The remainder of this section focuses on programs offer victims an opportunity to that provide useful points of comparison two particularly important additional di- tell offenders how the crime has affected among the models, including victim role mensions of the restorative conferencing them, give victims maximum input into and preparation/followup. models: victim role and preparation/ plans for holding offenders responsible, followup. and ensure that victims are compensated The way “community” is defined and for their losses to the greatest extent pos- involved in restorative conferencing Victim Role sible. The programs also provide victims models is a critical factor affecting the with referrals for needed services and The formal justice system directs its nature and extent of citizen participation assistance. attention primarily toward the offender, in and ownership of the conferencing process. As table 2 suggests, victim- first with regard to guilt or innocence and sec- Victims frequently are given the opportu- ond with regard to appropriate punishment, offender mediation, for example, in nity to speak first in mediation sessions, effect defines the community as the which helps them feel empowered or at least not overwhelmed or abused by the 7 Some feel that the community (volunteer) mediator also is part of the community definition.

8 Table 1—Continued

Victim-Offender Family Group Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing Staffing Mediator. Other posi- Reparative coordina- Community justice Community justice tions vary. tor (probation staff). coordinator. coordinator.

Setting Neutral setting (meeting Public building or Social welfare office, Community center, room in library, church, community center. school, community school, other public community center); building, police facility building, church. victim’s home (occasion- (occasionally). ally, if all parties approve).

Process and Victim speaks first. Mostly private deliber- Australian Wagga Keeper opens session protocols Mediator facilitates but ation by board after Wagga model: coordina- and allows for com- encourages victim and questioning offender tor follows script in ments from judge. offender to speak, does and hearing state- which offender speaks Prosecutors and not adhere to script. ments. Some variation first, then victim and defense present legal emerging in local others. New Zealand: facts of case (for more boards (youth panel model not scripted, serious crimes). All members generally allows consensus participants allowed to deliberate). decisionmaking after speak when “talking private meeting of piece” (feather or family members. stick) is passed to them. Consensus decisionmaking.

Managing dialog Mediator manages. Board chairperson Coordinator manages. After keeper initiates, manages. Participants dialog managed by speak when asked. process of passing talking piece.

process. Mediation programs give the Department of Corrections, personal com- if victims agree to participate (Dooley, needs of victims and offenders priority munication, 1996), and State officials who 1996). over the needs of other participants in developed and now monitor the boards Family group conferencing. The dimen- the process (e.g., parents and other rela- strongly encourage an emphasis on victim tives), but victims receive extra attention participation. Nevertheless, in the early sions of victim protection and empower- ment are more complex in models that move to ensure that they are not revictimized months of operation, victim involvement in by the process itself. Victim participation most local boards was minimal (Dooley, beyond the small group or dyad to the lar- ger community. Family group conferencing in the mediation process is voluntary. personal communication). Some boards Most programs also are voluntary for appear to have increased victim involve- is perhaps the strongest of all the models in its potential for educating offenders about offenders and attempt to engage their ment, but it remains to be seen to what ex- participation in the least coercive man- tent citizen board members will want the harm their behavior causes to others. Concerns have been expressed, however, ner possible (Umbreit and Greenwood, to take on the demanding task of contact- 1998); in some jurisdictions, however, ing crime victims and engaging their par- about the role of victims in this model. Among these concerns are the following: offenders are often less-than-willing par- ticipation in the justice process (Karp and ticipants (Belgrave, 1995). Walther, 2001). Some boards have demon- ◆ Emphasis on offender education may strated a strong commitment to making cause victim needs to be overshad- Increasingly, mediation programs seek to certain that offenders repay victims; ulti- offer their services in a victim-sensitive owed or trivialized (Belgrave, 1995; mately, this commitment might motivate Umbreit and Zehr, 1996), as appears manner (Umbreit, 1994; Umbreit and increased involvement of victims as the Greenwood, 1998). In contrast to other to have been the case when confer- value of all forms of victim-offender dialog ences have been held with little or no models, most research studies report that in improving restitution completion rates victim satisfaction with victim-offender victim input or involvement (Alder and becomes clearer (Umbreit and Coates, Wundersitz, 1994; Maxwell and Mor- mediation has been uniformly high 1993). State administrators have also en- (Belgrave, 1995; Umbreit and Coates, 1993). ris, 1993). couraged boards to refer victims and of- ◆ Standard protocol for family group con- fenders to victim-offender mediation or Reparative boards. The design of Ver- ferences requires that offenders speak family group conferencing programs, if such mont’s reparative boards was shaped to first (McDonald et al., 1995), which may a large extent by restorative justice con- programs are available in the community and cepts (Dooley, 1995; and Dooley, Vermont

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

Victim-Offender Family Group Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing Who participates? Mediator, victim, Reparative coordi- Coordinator identifies Judge, prosecutor, (the community) offender are standard nator (probation key participants. defense counsel partici- participants. Parents employee), commu- Close kin of victim pate in serious cases. often involved. Others nity reparative board, and offender invited. Victim(s), offender(s), occasionally involved. offender and support- Police, social services, service providers, ers, victim (on a or other support support group present. limited basis). Youth persons also invited. Open to entire commu- panels (a related Broader community nity. Justice committee approach) use not encouraged to ensures participation diversion staff. participate. of key residents.

Victim role Expresses feelings Input into plan sought Expresses feelings Participates in circle and regarding crime and by some boards. about crime, gives decisionmaking; gives impact. Has major role Inclusion of victims input into reparative input into eligibility of in decision regarding rare but currently plan. offender, chooses offender obligation encouraged; more support group, and may and content of re- active role being participate in a healing parative plan. Has considered. conference. ultimate right of refusal; consent is essential.

Gatekeepers Courts and other Judge. New Zealand: court Community justice entities make referrals. and community justice committee. coordinator. Australia and United States: police and school officials.

Relationship to Varies on continuum One of several New Zealand: primary Judge, prosecution, formal system from core process in probation options process of hearing court officials share diversion and dis- for eligible low-risk juvenile cases, required power with community, position to marginal offenders with ceding of disposition i.e., selection, sanction- programs with minimal service power, major impact ing, followup. Presently minimal impact on needs. Plans to on court caseloads. minimal impact on court court caseloads. expand. Some Australia (Wagga caseloads. impact on case- Wagga) and United loads anticipated. States: police-driven process, variable impact on caseloads, concern regarding net-widening; in United States, used for very minor cases (most commonly shoplifting).

affect victims’ participation in the Either or both of these benefits may refuse to participate (Umbreit and discussion. meet the main needs of many victims, Stacy, 1996). ◆ Some interpretations of family group but other needs may be neglected. ◆ Other criticisms of victim treatment in conferencing place primary emphasis Moreover, if forgiveness is a primary the family group conferencing model on getting offenders to experience goal, the process may be slanted to- cite a lack of concern with victim em- shame (Alder and Wundersitz, 1994; ward eliciting apologies from offenders, powerment, lack of protection against Strang, 1995). In such interpretations, victims may feel pressured to offer abuse or retaliation, and use of victims victim benefits are limited to an apol- forgiveness and resentful of the impli- to serve as “props” or to meet offender ogy and perhaps material restitution. cation that they should do so, and re- needs (Umbreit and Zehr, 1996). sentment may cause some victims to

10 Table 2—Continued

Victim-Offender Family Group Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing Preparation Typically, face-to-face Preservice training Phone contact with all Extensive work with preparation with victim provided to board parties to encourage offender and victim and offender to explain members. No advance participation and prior to circle. Explain process. Some pro- preparation for explain process. process and rules of grams use phone individual hearings. New Zealand model circle. contact. requires face-to-face visits with offender, offender’s family, and victim.

Followup Varies. Mediator may Condition of proba- Unclear. Australia Community justice (enforcement and follow up. Probation tion. Coordinator (Wagga Wagga): committee. Judge may monitoring) and/or other program monitors and brings police. New Zealand: hold jail sentence as staff may be responsible. petition of revocation coordinator. United incentive for offender to board, if necessary. States and Canada: to comply with plan. others.

Primary Allow victim to relay Engage and involve Clarify facts of case. Increase community outcome(s) impact of crime to citizens in decision- Denounce crime while strength and capacity sought offender, express making process; affirming and support- to resolve disputes and feelings and needs; decide appropriate ing offender; restore prevent crime; develop victim satisfied with reparative plan for victim loss; encourage reparative and rehabili- process; offender has offender; require offender reintegra- tative plan; address increased awareness victim awareness, tion. Focus on “deed victim concerns and of harm, gains empathy education, and other not need” (i.e., on public safety issues; with victim; agreement activities that address offense and harm assign victim and on reparative plan. ways to avoid re- done, not offender’s offender support group offending in future. needs). Some empha- responsibilities and sis on collective identify resources. accountability.

Victim participation and satisfaction were victim reparation, empowerment, and victims’ stories firsthand whenever pos- indeed significant problems during the support (Stuart, 1996). Nevertheless, sible (Stuart, 1996). early development of family group con- as family group conferencing models Because the circle sentencing process is ferencing in New Zealand (Maxwell and evolve, it will be important to keep Morris, 1993), but it is wrong to conclude in mind that emphasis on offender so open and community driven, a potential concern is that the importance given to that most advocates of the conferencing shaming and reintegration may limit model are not concerned with victims’ the model’s capacity to meet the victims’ needs may vary widely. The seri- ousness of offenders’ needs may slant the needs (Moore and O’Connell, 1994; needs of crime victims. Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994). Recent focus of some circles toward offender re- Circle sentencing. Proponents of circle habilitation, service, and support and studies of family group conferencing programs in Minnesota (Fercello and sentencing are concerned with protecting away from victims’ needs, as also appears victims, providing them with support, and to occur in some family group conferences Umbreit, 1999; Umbreit and Fercello, 1997), Pennsylvania (McCold and hearing their stories. Circle organizers (Maxwell and Morris, 1993; Umbreit and avoid an unbalanced focus on offenders’ Stacey, 1996). In addition, because the Wachtel, 1998), and South Australia (Daly, 2000) have found higher rates of issues, which may cause victims to with- circle sentencing model requires extensive draw or react by challenging offenders preparation on the offender’s part before victim participation and satisfaction than when the model was first intro- (Stuart, 1996). Victims’ telling of their sto- the circle convenes (see discussion in the ries is viewed as important not only for following section), some circles become duced in New Zealand (Morris and Max- well, 2001). victims, offenders, and their supporters, “stacked” with offender supporters who but also for the community as a whole. If have little relationship to victims. Such criticism of victim treatment in fam- a victim is unwilling to participate in a ily group conferencing (or in any alterna- circle, the organizer may encourage a Initially unique to the circle sentencing model of conferencing is the concept tive model) should have as its context friend or relative to speak on the victim’s the extent to which the current formal behalf; however, organizers emphasize of victim support groups (Stuart, 1996). Support groups are formed by community system does or does not provide for the value of community residents hearing

11 justice committees, which are responsible programs, followup may be the responsi- Family group conferencing programs for achieving an appropriate balance bility of probation or diversion staff (de- generally have often left responsibility for among victim, offender, and community pending on the offender’s court status), compliance to the offender (Moore and needs and representation. Usually a sup- other paid staff, community volunteers, or O’Connell, 1994), although the New Zealand port group is formed at the time an of- student interns; in others, victim-offender model does provide for reconvening confer- fender petitions for admission to the mediation may be one part of a larger resti- ences in the event of noncompliance (Max- circle, but the group may expand at any tution program responsible for develop- well and Morris, 1993). Conferencing pro- time (including during the circle cer- ment and enforcement of reparation agree- grams generally do not make monitoring emony itself). ments (Belgrave, 1995; Schneider, 1985). and enforcement responsibilities explicit, although Australia’s Wagga Wagga model Reparative boards. In Vermont’s repara- anticipates that police officers are ulti- Preparation/Followup tive board programs, case preparation mately responsible for enforcement and The presession preparation stage of any usually is limited to brief intake inter- that juvenile justice staff may also play restorative conferencing process offers views with offenders to gather informa- a role (Alder and Wundersitz, 1994). In perhaps the greatest opportunity to en- tion about the offense for the board hear- the United States, the enforcement function gage citizens in the restorative justice ings. Boards can obtain basic information is evolving and varies from jurisdiction to process and ensure their meaningful par- about victim losses from police, court, or jurisdiction. Although preferred practice ticipation (Stuart, 1995; Umbreit, 1994). probation records. Nevertheless, some calls for encouraging voluntary compliance Followup activities—monitoring and en- board programs increasingly are attempt- and assigning monitoring roles to confer- forcement of sanctioning plans and agree- ing to contact victims prior to hearings. ence participants, final enforcement author- ments that result from decisionmaking ity rests primarily with the police agencies sessions—provide critical linkage be- Monitoring and enforcement policies and that convene the conferences; however, the tween court dispositions and correctional procedures are more formally developed extent of actual followup varies. intervention. Followup has been particu- in reparative boards than in other mod- els. Board members themselves have en- larly at issue among some critics of re- Circle sentencing. Perhaps because its storative conferencing models (Alder forcement responsibilities (i.e., recom- community empowerment and healing mending revocation or termination of and Wundersitz, 1994). Thus, the extent goals are most ambitious, the circle sen- to which preparation and followup are offender contracts as necessary), al- tencing model demands the most exten- though they do not make final enforce- viewed as vital to success is one of the sive presession preparation. As a condi- most interesting and important differ- ment decisions. A reparative coordina- tion of admission to a circle, offenders are tor, who is a State corrections employee, ences among the four restorative required to petition the community justice conferencing models. is responsible for monitoring offender committee, visit an elder or other re- contract compliance (Reparative Proba- spected community member for a con- Victim-offender mediation. Mediation pro- tion Program, 1995). If offenders do not ference, begin work on a reparative plan grams stress the importance of extensive meet contract conditions, the coordi- that may involve some restitution to the victim and offender preparation prior to nator may recommend that they be victim and community service, and iden- the mediation session. The most widely charged with violation of probation or tify a community support group (Stuart, accepted model encourages mediators to conditions of the diversion agreement 1996). This presession process serves as hold at least one separate, face-to-face dis- and/or that the court take additional a screening device and an indicator that cussion with the offender and the victim. corrective action (Dooley, 1996). offenders are serious about personal During these discussions, the mediator change. It is not uncommon for circles listens to each person describe how the Family group conferencing. In New to be canceled or postponed if offenders crime affected him or her, gives an over- Zealand, preparation is viewed as critical fail to complete the preliminary steps view of the mediation process, identifies for the success of family group confer- (Stuart, 1996). When the screening pro- its potential benefits, and invites each per- ences. Preconference face-to-face meet- cess works well and offenders meet the son to participate. If the offender and vic- ings generally are held with offenders presession obligations, however, a circle tim agree to participate, the mediator in- and their families, and victims are con- can actually be less a hearing about dispo- troduces them to the process in a way that tacted by phone (Hakiaha, 1995). The sition requirements than a celebration of minimizes anxiety and maximizes the likeli- Australian Wagga Wagga model places the offender’s progress and an opportunity hood that the two parties will engage in much less emphasis on preparation, for victim and offender to tell their stories. direct dialog with minimal intervention by apparently in the belief that spontaneity is important. Some coordinators, for ex- the mediator (Umbreit, 1994, 1997). Many Followup should be as intensive as practitioners argue that upfront prepara- ample, argue that hearing victims’ and preparation in the circle sentencing offenders’ stories prior to the conference tion is often more important than the ses- model. Circle participants are expected sion itself in bringing about a successful may even diminish the impact and focus to take responsibility for monitoring of the stories (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996). result (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996). and enforcing the conditions of the Recently, however, some proponents of circle sentence, which often include an Victim-offender mediation programs vary the Wagga Wagga model are placing extensive list of reparative responsibili- in their approach to monitoring and en- greater emphasis on the need to ensure ties, treatment requirements, and (in forcement. In many programs, mediators accuracy of facts, check with partici- aboriginal communities) traditional usually help session participants devise pants, develop plans, and ensure that healing and community-building rituals. a reparation schedule and may even ask key participants and their support Support groups for offenders and vic- them to agree to a followup meeting to re- groups attend conference sessions tims, which are formed through commu- view progress (Umbreit, 1994). In some (McDonald et al., 1995). nity justice committees, also monitor

12 offenders and act as victim advocates to ensure that agreements made within Dimensions of Restorative Justice and Decisionmaking the circle are carried out. Sentencing circle agreements are subject to review Efforts to increase community participation in the dispositional decisionmaking by a judge, who asks for routine reports process are nothing new. In the late 1970’s, the Law Enforcement Assistance from the justice committee and support Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice supported neighborhood justice groups. At the conclusion of a circle, centers (also known as dispute resolution centers) in several cities (Garafalo and the judge may assign further monitoring Connelly, 1980; McGillis and Mullen, 1977). More recently, a variety of initiatives responsibilities to members of the com- have placed prosecution and defense services, and even entire courts, in neigh- munity and may withhold a final decision borhoods and have adapted services to provide a better fit with the needs of local about detention terms or other sanctions citizens (National Institute of Justice, 1996b). Federal and State juvenile justice pending the offender’s completion of obli- agencies have been especially concerned with promoting a less formal, more gations as verified at a followup hearing. accessible neighborhood focus for intervention and in recent years have sup- ported youth courts, juvenile drug courts, and mentoring programs. Comparing and These efforts often have been effective in making justice services more geographically accessible to citizens, increasing flexibility of service delivery Contrasting the Four (e.g., more convenient hours, more diversity), and encouraging informality in Models: Summary the decisionmaking process by relying whenever possible on dispute resolu- In comparing these four models, it must tion, negotiation, and mediation practices rather than legal rules and proce- be remembered that, as noted earlier in dures (Harrington and Merry, 1988; Rottman, 1996). However, when facilities the Bulletin, the philosophy and practice and services are merely placed in neighborhoods without the involvement of of any given restorative conferencing pro- local residents, the result is an isolated program or process that may be said to gram may deviate substantially from the be in, but not of, the community (Byrne, 1989; Clear, 1996). Similarly, increas- prototypes presented here. Indeed, the ing flexibility and breaking down formal barriers may increase citizens’ willing- evolution of the restorative justice move- ness to seek and receive assistance but will not necessarily increase their ment is producing significant changes as involvement as participants in the justice process or even allow them to practitioners think more carefully about determine what services they would like in their neighborhoods. the implications of restorative principles Unfortunately, emphasis on developing programs and increasing accessibility of for their practice. For example, reparative services has contributed to a one-dimensional definition of restorative justice. boards and victim-offender mediation Ultimately, neither new programs nor increased access alone will change the role have been influenced by family group con- of neighborhood residents from service recipients to decisionmakers with a stake ferencing models, and some family group in (and sense of ownership of) the process for determining what services are conferencing programs have recently provided and how they are delivered. By defining new and distinctive roles for adopted components of circle sentencing. citizens, the four conferencing models examined in this Bulletin add an important The most important conclusion to be dimension to earlier and ongoing restorative justice initiatives (McGillis and drawn from this comparison of the four Mullen, 1977; National Institute of Justice, 1996a). models is that there is no one best ap- What is the relevance of these apparently esoteric models to juvenile justice proach for every community or for every professionals, victim advocates, treatment providers, and other intervention case within a community. For example, professionals? Notably, an increasing number of State departments of juvenile circle sentencing is perhaps the most ho- courts, probation departments, parole agencies, and corrections systems are listic of the models. Yet circles also de- adopting one or more aspects of restorative justice policy (e.g., Bazemore and mand the greatest time commitment from Griffiths, 1997; Dooley, 1995; Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission, participants and thus are not wisely used 1997; Pranis, 1995). What appear on the surface to be simply informal alternatives on minor or less complex cases. to courts actually have relevance to the objectives of all components of the Some have suggested that the future may juvenile justice system. bring a single hybrid model. More practi- The larger promise of the evolving approaches is a new avenue for achieving a cally, however, jurisdictions can consider wider and deeper level of citizen involvement in the rehabilitative, sanctioning, and developing a “menu” of conferencing al- public safety missions of juvenile justice than has been possible through offender- ternatives to respond to diverse case focused intervention alone. Prospects for increasing community involvement, the needs and to make the most efficient use nature of the process of engaging citizens, and the roles assigned to the community of scarce resources. For example, a brief (including crime victims) are therefore the most crucial dimensions for comparing encounter with a reparative board may be and contrasting the four conferencing models that are the focus of this Bulletin. the most appropriate and cost-effective response to a property offender with few prior incidents and no other complications requiring more intensive intervention, Each of the four models has its strengths strated its unique value to juvenile justice whereas circle sentencing may be more and weaknesses in a variety of dimen- systems and communities that are trying appropriate for serious and chronic offend- sions in addition to those considered to develop more meaningful sanctioning ers involved in dysfunctional relationships. here. Although much remains to be responses to youth crime. learned and there is much room for improvement, each model has demon-

13 Another important consideration for any Field-Initiated Program new restorative justice process is its in- tegrity, i.e., its consistency with restor- In 1996, the Hudson Institute, a public policy research organization located in ative justice principles. With 25 years of Indianapolis, IN, began to work with the local police department, sheriff’s depart- experience to draw upon, victim-offender ment, juvenile court, prosecutor’s office, and mayor on a project to use Australian- mediation offers the following basic style restorative justice conferences as an alternative response to juvenile offend- guidelines that can serve to inform any ing. The project, which is ongoing, focuses on young (under age 15), first-time new restorative conferencing initiative offenders in Marion County, IN. and its implementation: Later that year, the Institute applied for and received a grant from OJJDP through ◆ If public agencies such as police or its field-initiated research and evaluation program. These funds were used to probation initiate a restorative confer- conduct an evaluation of the impact of these restorative justice conferences on the encing process, actual sessions should recidivism rate of young offenders and other outcomes. To date, more than 400 be cofacilitated by trained community youth have participated in the experimental design used for this evaluation. volunteers. This increases citizen par- ticipation and reduces the likelihood of The findings are very encouraging. They indicate that restorative justice confer- an imbalance of power among parties ences can be successfully implemented in an urban setting in the United States. involved in the sessions. Community More than 80 percent of youth referred to a conference are attending the confer- involvement and volunteer participa- ence and successfully completing the terms of the reparation agreement. For tion are essential to the success of re- Indianapolis, this compares very favorably with other court-related diversion pro- storative conferencing but do not pre- grams. In addition, trained observers report that conferences are being imple- clude the need for public support (e.g., mented according to restorative justice principles such as inclusion of affected funding to cover the costs of systems parties, respect, and problem solving. Victims receive apologies, and other mutu- development, referrals, training, etc.) ally agreed-to actions are included in the agreements. These characteristics trans- to sustain high-quality programs. late into victims reporting high levels of satisfaction. ◆ If a local victim-offender mediation or In terms of reoffending, the results are also promising. Both for the total sample and dialog program already exists, other for youth who successfully completed their diversion programs, youth who attended restorative conferencing initiatives conferences were significantly less likely to be rearrested 6 months after the initial should be developed in collaboration incident. Researchers are completing the 12-month followup of participants, and with the existing program. For ex- final results of the study will be published in a forthcoming OJJDP Bulletin. ample, volunteer mediators could also serve as cofacilitators. ◆ Session facilitators should be trained Issues and Concerns Perhaps the most critical concern for in mediation and conflict resolution evaluators and juvenile justice profession- skills, approaches to understanding Restorative justice is assuming an ever als is that many of the new restorative higher profile, and its new decision- the experiences and needs of crime justice initiatives have objectives that are victims and young offenders, and making structures and processes are far more holistic than those of traditional bound to come under close scrutiny. It cultural and ethical issues that are crime control responses. Whereas tradi- likely to affect the process and is therefore important to address critical tional crime control efforts typically have issues and concerns related to evaluating participants. used recidivism rates as a primary out- ◆ the success of new restorative justice ap- come measure, an evaluative framework Victims should be able to make in- formed decisions about their participa- proaches, gauging progress in their devel- for these new approaches needs to in- opment, and meeting the challenges of clude criteria for measuring outcomes of tion. They should be told about poten- tial benefits and risks and should never balancing and sharing power. community empowerment and solidarity, victim interests, and crime prevention. be pressured to participate or told to “just trust” the facilitator’s judgment. Evaluating Success and The framework should also take into ac- Gauging Progress count intermediate and process outcomes Victims should also be allowed to choose when and where the session is Despite the proliferation of restorative such as community and victim involve- ment, reintegrative shaming, reparation held and should have the opportunity justice programs, there is a significant to present their story first if they wish. lack of evaluation research to provide an to victims, dispute resolution, and heal- ◆ empirical basis for determining whether ing. As new and more appropriate stan- In-person preparation of primary par- new initiatives are achieving their stated dards emerge for evaluating restorative ticipants (victims, offenders, and their objectives. The exception is victim- justice models, it is essential that the ba- immediate families) should take place offender mediation, which has been the sis for comparison be the reality of the whenever possible. It is important for subject of numerous studies in North current system rather than an idealized facilitators to connect with the parties, America and Europe (Coates and Gehm, version of its performance. It is also es- provide information, encourage partici- 1989; Dignan, 1990; Marshal and Merry, sential that any comparisons between pation, and build rapport, trust, and a 1990; Umbreit, 1994, 1995; Umbreit and restorative justice models and the current sense of safety. Coates, 1993; Umbreit, Coates, and Rob- system use similar indicators to measure Regardless of what model or combination erts, 1997; Umbreit and Roberts, 1997). performance. of models a local community or juvenile court might choose, ongoing monitoring

14 Building Community Through Restorative Conferencing The true test of restorative conferencing. The ultimate community groups to develop and sustain a credible measure of success for any approach that claims to advance community response to youth crime. Because current job restorative justice should be its ability to strengthen the descriptions for juvenile justice professionals usually do not capacity of communities to respond effectively to crime include functions associated with restorative justice, another (Bazemore, 2000). In restorative justice, crime is viewed as test for efforts to engage the community in decisionmaking both a cause and result of broken or weakened relationships. must be whether new professional roles are being developed. As Pranis (1998, p. 10) suggests: “The fabric of community is Such new roles are emerging in several communities where the weaving of relationships. Crime harms relationships and restorative justice is now actively practiced. For example, in thus weakens community. Our response to crime needs to Deschutes County, OR, probation officers are now called attend to these relationships to rebuild or strengthen the community justice officers, and their responsibilities include community fabric.” developing and supporting community service projects, developing restorative conferencing, coordinating services If restorative conferencing models are to be more than to crime victims, and performing a variety of community- another programmatic add-on, advocates of the models building and restorative functions. should be challenged to ask whether the models meet the test of building community. Do these models: The process of engaging the community. The process followed by juvenile justice professionals in engaging the ◆ Create positive new relationships or strengthen existing community may be the most important aspect of creating a relationships? new collaborative relationship between the justice system and ◆ Increase community skills in problem solving and the community. Such a process is illustrated in the following constructive conflict resolution? steps suggested by the Minnesota Department of Corrections: ◆ Increase the community sense of capacity and efficacy ◆ Gather information about restorative justice and possible in addressing problems? models in the community. ◆ Increase individual awareness of and commitment to the ◆ Educate yourself about the community you will be working common good? with. ◆ Create informal support systems or safety nets for victims ◆ Identify credible leaders in the community or neighborhood, and offenders? attend community gatherings, read local papers, and ask local residents about issues and leaders. Potential roles for the community. Experience has shown that given the chance, citizens and community groups can play ◆ Educate yourself about victim services in the community significant roles in restorative justice. Such roles may include and establish contact with those services. service on advisory boards at local, county, and State levels; ◆ Clarify your own goals and values in approaching the policy input through public forums and community surveys; community. (What are you trying to achieve? What is prevention policy development; a variety of victim and offender important to you about what you are doing and how support activities, including church- and community-based you do it?) programs, police chaplaincy programs, healing circles, and neighborhood outreach programs; and volunteer service as ◆ Assess potential support in the criminal and juvenile justice victim advocates, mediators for victim-offender mediation systems and educate key leaders about restorative justice. programs, and reparative board members. ◆ Working with community leaders, plan informational New functions for juvenile justice professionals. Despite sessions to explore community interest. Invite participation emphasis on the community role, restorative justice should by victims’ representatives. never be viewed as something independent of the formal ◆ At each session, recruit volunteers who would like to be justice system. Juvenile courts and juvenile justice profes- involved in creating a new approach in the community sionals must play key leadership roles in partnerships with based on restorative values. and evaluation will be needed to ensure Sharing and Balancing Griffiths and Hamilton (1996) have raised that conferencing processes adhere to Power concerns that are just as relevant in urban restorative justice principles. No model U.S. communities: The restorative justice processes discussed or process is perfect. In practice, there- in this Bulletin are often proposed as alter- fore, adherence to these principles may Care must be taken to ensure that natives to the legal-procedural approach to family and kinship networks and the be viewed as a continuum within which dispositional decisionmaking by the juve- new approaches can be assessed and community power hierarchy do not nile court. Concerns have been raised, how- compromise the administration of continuously improved (table 3). ever, about the mechanisms of accountabil- justice. As in any community, there ity in restorative justice decisionmaking. In is a danger of a tyranny of commu- considering the development of justice pro- nity in which certain individuals grams in aboriginal communities in Canada,

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 financial Primary focus is on providing an opportunity for victims and restitution to be paid, with no opportunity to talk directly offenders to talk directly to each other, to allow victims to about the full impact of the crime on the victim and the describe the impact of the crime on their lives and receive community, and also on the offender. answers to questions, and to allow offenders to appreciate the human impact of their behavior and take responsibility for making things right.

No separate preparation meetings with the victim and Separate preparation meetings with the victim and offender, offender prior to bringing the parties together. with emphasis on listening to how the crime has affected them, identifying needs, and answering questions about the mediation process.

Victims not given choice of meeting place (where they would Victims continually given choices throughout the process: feel most comfortable) or participants; given only written where to meet, whom they would like to be present, etc. notice to appear for mediation session at preset time, with no preparation.

Mediator or facilitator describes offense and offender then Victims given choice to speak first and encouraged to speaks, with the victim simply asking a few questions or describe offense and participate actively. responding to questions from the mediator.

Highly directive styles of mediation or facilitation, with the Nondirective style of mediation or facilitation with minimal mediator talking most of the time, little if any direct dialog mediator interference, and use of a humanistic or transforma- between the involved parties. tive mediation model.

Low tolerance for moments of silence or expression of High tolerance for silence, expression of feelings, and feelings. discussion of the full impact of the crime.

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

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, particularly involvement, in part because they have jurisdictions appear to have become ap- those who are members of vulner- never had the opportunity to develop pendages to the formal justice process. In able groups, find themselves at the meaningful partnerships with the juvenile this context, the inability or unwillingness mercy of those in positions of justice system. If these communities are of decisionmakers in the formal juvenile power and influence. (Griffiths and ever to benefit from a restorative ap- justice system to share discretion and Hamilton, 1996:187–188) proach to the problem of youth crime, power with communities is likely to result proponents of restorative justice must in “net-widening” (expanding the number The often dramatic and dysfunctional direct specific attention to developing and types of youth brought under the su- power differentials within communities strategies for building a sense of commu- pervision of the juvenile justice system) may make true participatory justice diffi- nity among residents and for recruiting rather than the development of more ef- cult to achieve and, in some settings, may and retaining resident volunteers. fective alternative decisionmaking pro- instead produce harmful side effects cesses (Blomberg, 1983; Polk, 1994). (Griffiths and Corrado, 1998). Ironically, A critical issue surrounding the develop- those communities most in need of holis- ment and implementation of restorative If the new restorative justice models follow tic restorative justice programs that en- justice models is: “Who controls the the pattern of development of earlier courage residents to become involved in agenda?” Traditionally, the formal justice neighborhood dispute resolution models the disposition process are often pre- system has maintained a tight rein on (and to a lesser extent of victim-offender cisely those communities that are the initiatives designed as alternatives to mediation, as the oldest of the new mod- most dysfunctional. Also, residents of criminal and juvenile justice processes. els), one would anticipate significant addi- such communities may have only This is evident in the origins and evolution tions to the richness and diversity pos- limited interest in and/or capacity for of diversion programs, which in many sible in alternative sanctioning but little

16 impact on the formal system. Both victim- citizen board members may ultimately be process, they may also have identified a offender mediation and family group challenged to decide the extent to which small support group willing to assist with conferencing (except as practiced in New their primary client is the community or offender reintegration and victim support. Zealand) ultimately depend on system the probation and court system. decisionmakers for referrals; the potential This Bulletin has also attempted to provide Of the four models considered in this Bul- a general framework for describing the di- for true sharing of power is minimal. If new models are to avoid net-widening, letin, circle sentencing appears to be the mensions of restorative conferencing pro- most advanced in terms of primacy of the cesses. One purpose has been to avoid in- marginalization, and irrelevance, commu- nity advocates should begin to work with community’s decisionmaking role. In its discriminate, arbitrary, and all-inclusive placement of neighborhood residents in groupings of programs and practices under sympathetic justice professionals who are also committed to community-driven sys- the gatekeeper role (see table 2), this ill-defined terms such as community justice model provides the most complete ex- or restorative justice. As noted at the begin- temic reform. ample of power sharing. Acting through ning of this Bulletin, comparative discus- Although a primary objective of propo- the community justice committees, com- sions of new approaches at this relatively nents of restorative justice is to have munities are clearly the “drivers” in deter- early stage of development are important new concepts institutionalized as part mining which offenders will be admitted because they serve to highlight similarities of the justice process, the danger is that to the circle and what should be done in and differences across emerging models. system control will lead to top-down de- the collective effort to heal the commu- Such discussions may prevent, or at least velopment of generic models. Hence, nity. Eligibility for circles is limited only minimize, what some have referred to as both promise and risk are implied in the by the ability of offenders to demonstrate the “community-policing syndrome”: the degree of institutionalization that some to community justice committees their widespread application (and misapplica- new approaches have achieved in a rela- sincerity and willingness to change. Sur- tion) of a generic term to a broad range of tively short time and in the rather dra- prisingly, the most promising lesson of initiatives without a clear understanding of matic system-community collaboration circle sentencing has been that, when the differences between interventions or that appears to be possible with these given decisionmaking power, neighbor- benchmark criteria that can be used to as- approaches. hood residents often choose to include sess consistency with fundamental prin- the most, rather than the least, serious ciples and objectives (Mastrofsky and Ritti, Clearly, the high profile given to restor- offenders in restorative justice processes 1995). Unless proponents of restorative jus- ative justice initiatives may result in grant (Griffiths and Corrado, 1998; Stuart, tice distinguish what should and should not funding for research and new programs. 1996). As a result, however, certain ten- be included under that umbrella and unless Yet, such support is no guarantee of long- sions have developed within courts and they refine definitions of success for inter- term impact of the type envisioned in the other agencies in Canadian communities ventions, they will miss a unique and valu- restorative justice literature. Moreover, in that are experimenting with circle sen- able opportunity to develop more effective the absence of substantive community tencing. The tensions concern the extent methods for enhancing citizen involvement input (including input from crime victims) to which power sharing with the commu- in the response to youth crime and miscon- at the design and implementation phases nity should be limited and the issue of duct. A useful context for refining defini- of specific initiatives, an administrative whether statutes are being violated. tions is to view restorative justice as a way focus (i.e., one concerned primarily with of thinking about and responding to crime grant-funding processes) may even result that emphasizes one basic fact: crime in cooptation or watering down of new Implications and damages people, communities, and rela- approaches in ways that ultimately func- Conclusions tionships. If crime is about harm, a justice tion to undermine the philosophy and process should therefore emphasize repair- objectives of restorative justice (Van The perpetual absence of the “commu- ing the harm. Ness, 1993). nity” in “community corrections,” either as a target of intervention or as a partici- Systemic reform toward restorative jus- For example, from a restorative justice per- pant in the justice process (Byrne, 1989; tice must not begin and end with new pro- spective, perhaps the biggest challenge to Clear, 1996), may be due in part to an in- grams and staff positions. It must encom- Vermont’s reparative boards is the fact ability to identify meaningful roles for pass new values that articulate new roles that they have been implemented within citizens. This Bulletin has described four for victims, offenders, and communities the State’s formal justice system itself. On nonadversarial decisionmaking models as key stakeholders in the justice process. one hand, the boards may have the great- and compared and contrasted the ways Accordingly, such reform should create est potential for significant impact on the in which they define and make opera- and perpetuate new decisionmaking mod- response of the formal system to nonvio- tional the role of citizens in responding to els that meet stakeholder needs for mean- lent crimes. Moreover, the commitment of youth crime. As illustrated by a growing ingful involvement. The capacity of these administrators to local control may also number of restorative justice initiatives models to influence, and even transform, result in communities assuming and de- (Pranis, 1995), such citizen involvement juvenile justice decisionmaking and inter- manding a broader mandate. On the other may have important implications for juve- vention seems to lie in the potential hand, as a creation of the State corrections nile justice. The models discussed here power of these new stakeholders. If vic- bureaucracy, the reparative boards may offer significant potential for changing the tims, offenders, and other citizens are to find themselves at the center of an ongoing current dynamic in which the community be fully engaged in meaningful decision- struggle between efforts to give greater is largely a passive observer of juvenile making processes, however, a dramatic power and autonomy to citizens and needs justice processes. When juvenile justice change must also occur in the role of ju- of administrators to maintain control and professionals identify citizens willing to venile justice professionals. That role ensure system accountability. Indeed, participate in a community sanctioning must shift from sole decisionmaker to

17 facilitator of community involvement and Clear, T.R. 1996. Toward a corrections of Karp, D., and Walther, L. 2001. Community resource to the community (Bazemore “place”: The challenge of “community” in reparative boards: Theory and practice. and Schiff, 1996). corrections. NIJ Journal (August):52–56. In Restorative Community Justice: Cultivating Common Ground for Victims, Coates, R., and Gehm, J. 1989. An empiri- Communities and Offenders, edited by cal assessment. In Mediation and Crimi- References G. Bazemore and M. Schiff. Cincinnati, nal Justice, edited by M. Wright and Alder, C., and Wundersitz, J., eds. 1994. OH: Anderson. B. Galaway. London, England: Sage Family Group Conferencing and Juvenile Publications, Ltd. Marshall, T., and Merry, S. 1990. Crime and Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Accountability. London, UK: Home Office. Optimism? Canberra, Australia: Australian Daly, K. 2000. Ideals meet reality: Re- Institute of Criminology. search results on youth justice confer- Mastrofsky, S., and Ritti, R. 1995. Making ences in South Australia. Paper prepared sense of community-policing: A theory- American Probation and Parole Associa- for the Fourth International Conference based analysis. Paper presented at the tion. 1996. Restoring Hope Through Com- on Restorative Justice for Juveniles, annual meeting of the American Society of munity Partnerships: The Real Deal in Tuebingen, Germany, October 2000. Criminology, Boston, MA, November 1995. Crime Control. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. Dignan, J. 1990. An Evaluation of an Ex- Maxwell, G., and Morris, A. 1993. Family perimental Adult Reparation Scheme in Participation, Cultural Diversity and Victim Barajas, E., Jr. 1995. Moving Toward Com- Lettering, Northamptonshire. Sheffield, UK: Involvement in Youth Justice: A New munity Justice. Topics in Community Cor- Centre for Criminological and Legal Re- Zealand Experiment. Wellington, New rections. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- search, University of Sheffield. Zealand: Victoria University. ment of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Institute of Corrections, Dooley, M.J. 1995. Reparative Probation McCold, P., and Wachtel, B. 1998. Restor- Community Division. Program. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Depart- ative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem, ment of Corrections. Pennsylvania, Police Family Group Bazemore, G. 2000. Community justice Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: and a vision of collective efficacy: The Dooley, M.J. 1996. Restoring Hope Through Community Service Foundation. case of restorative conferencing. In Crimi- Community Partnerships: The Real Deal in nal Justice 2000, Volume 3. Washington Crime Control. Lexington, KY: American McDonald, J., Thorsborne, M., Moore, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Probation and Parole Association. D., Hyndman, M., and O’Connell, T. 1995. Justice Programs, National Institute of Real Justice Training Manual: Coordinating Fercello, C., and Umbreit, M. 1999. Client Justice, pp 228–297. Family Group Conferences. Pipersville, PA: Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing. Piper’s Press. Bazemore, G., and Griffiths, C. 1997. Con- St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice ferences, circles, boards, and mediations: and Mediation, University of Minnesota. McElrea, F.W.M. 1993. A new model of jus- The “new wave” of community justice tice. In The Youth Court in New Zealand: Garafalo, J., and Connelly, K. 1980. Dis- decisionmaking. Federal Probation A New Model of Justice, edited by B.J. 61(2):25–37. pute resolution centers, part I: Major Brown. Auckland, New Zealand: Legal features and processes. Criminal Justice Research Foundation. Bazemore, G., and Schiff, M. 1996. Com- Abstracts 12(3):416–439. munity justice/restorative justice: Pros- McGillis, D., and Mullen, J. 1977. Neighbor- pects for a new social ecology for commu- Griffiths, C.T., and Corrado, R. 1998. hood Justice Centers: An Analysis of Potential nity corrections. International Journal of Implementing restorative youth justice: Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of A case study in community justice and Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Ad- Restorative 20(2):311–334. the dynamics of reform. In ministration, National Institute of Law En- Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of forcement and Criminal Justice. Belgrave, J. 1995. Restorative justice. Dis- Youth Crime, edited by G. Bazemore and cussion paper. Wellington, New Zealand: L. Walgrave. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Melton, A. 1995. Indigenous justice sys- New Zealand Ministry of Justice. Press, pp. 237–263. tems and tribal society. Judicature 70(3):126–133. Blomberg, T. 1983. Diversion’s disparate Griffiths, C.T., and Hamilton, R. 1996. Spiri- results and unresolved questions: An inte- tual renewal, community revitalization Moore, D.B., and O’Connell, T. 1994. Fam- grative evaluation perspective. Journal and healing. Experience in traditional ab- ily conferencing in Wagga-Wagga: A com- of Research in Crime and Delinquency original justice in Canada. International munitarian model of justice. In Family 20(1):24–38. Journal of Comparative and Applied Crimi- Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The nal Justice 20(2):289–311. Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?, Braithwaite, J., and Mugford, S. 1994. Con- edited by C. Adler and J. Wundersitz. ditions of successful reintegration cer- Hakiaha, M. 1995. New Zealand youth fam- Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute emonies. British Journal of Criminology ily conference coordinator. Presentation of Criminology. 34(2):139–171. in Whitehorse, YT, Canada. Morris, A., and Maxwell, G. 2001. Restor- Byrne, J.M. 1989. Reintegrating the con- Harrington, C., and Merry, S. 1988. Ideo- ative conferencing. In Restorative and cept of community into community- logical production: The making of commu- Community Justice: Cultivating Common based correction. Crime and Delinquency nity mediation. Law and Society Review Ground for Victims, Communities and Of- 35:471–479. 22(4):709–733. fenders, edited by G. Bazemore and M. Schiff. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

18 National Institute of Justice. 1996a. Na- Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, Van Ness, D. 1993. New wine and old wine- tional Symposium on Restorative Justice pp. 193–206. skins: Four challenges of restorative jus- Proceedings, Spring. Washington, DC: U.S. tice. Criminal Law Forum 4(2):251–276. Travis, J. 1996. Lessons for the criminal Department of Justice, Office of Justice Changing Lenses: A New Programs, National Institute of Justice. justice system from twenty years of polic- Zehr, H. 1990. ing reform. Keynote address at the First Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, National Institute of Justice. 1996b. Com- Annual Conference of the New York Cam- PA: Herald Press. munities: Mobilizing Against Crime: Making paign for Effective Crime Policy, New Partnerships Work. Washington, DC: U.S. York, NY. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Bibliography Umbreit, M. 1994. Victim Meets Offender: Programs, National Institute of Justice. Bazemore, G. 1997. What’s new about the The Impact of Restorative Justice in Media- balanced approach. Juvenile and Family Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Com- tion. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Court Journal 48(1):1–23. mission. 1997. Balanced and Restorative Umbreit, M. 1995. Holding juvenile offend- Justice in Pennsylvania: A New Mission and Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. 1995. Re- ers accountable: A restorative justice Changing Roles Within the Juvenile Justice thinking the sanctioning function in juve- perspective. Juvenile and Family Court System. Harrisburg, PA: Juvenile Court nile court: Retributive or restorative re- Journal (Spring):33–41. Judges Commission. sponses to youth crime. Crime and Delinquency 41(3):296–316. Polk, K. 1994. Family conferencing: Theo- Umbreit, M. 1997. Humanistic mediation: A transformation journey of peacemaking. retical and evaluative questions. In Fam- Depew, R.C. 1994. Popular Justice and Ab- Mediation Quarterly 14(3):201–213. ily Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The original Communities: Some Preliminary Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism? Umbreit, M., and Coates, R. 1993. Impact Considerations. Ottawa, Canada: Depart- edited by C. Adler and J. Wundersitz. of mediating victim-offender conflict: An ment of Justice of Canada. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute analysis of programs in three States. Juve- Goldstein, H. 1987. Toward community- of Criminology. nile and Family Court Journal 43(1):21–28. oriented policing: Potential, basic require- Pranis, K. 1995. Building community sup- Umbreit, M., Coates, R., and Roberts, A. ments and threshold questions. Crime and port for restorative justice: Principles and 1997. Cross-national impact of restorative Delinquency 33:6–30. strategies. Unpublished paper. St. Paul, justice through mediation and dialogue. Hudson, J., Galaway, B., Morris, A., and MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections. ICCA Journal on Community Corrections Maxwell, G. 1996. Research on family 8(2):46–50. Pranis, K. 1998. Restorative Justice: Prin- group conferencing in child welfare in ciples, Practices and Implementation, Section Umbreit, M., and Fercello, C. 1997. Family New Zealand. In Family Group Conferences: 6, Building Community. National Institute of group conferencing program results in Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Corrections Curriculum. Washington, DC: client satisfaction. Juvenile Justice Update Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau Journal 3(6):3–13. of Prisons, National Institute of Corrections. Klien, A. 1995. Community Probation: Umbreit, M., and Greenwood, J. 1998. Acknowledging Probation’s Multiple Clients. Reparative Probation Program. 1995. Pro- Victim Sensitive Guidelines for Victim Of- Topics in Community Corrections. Wash- gram Design. Waterbury, VT: Vermont fender Mediation. Washington, DC: U.S. ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Corrections. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Insti- tute of Corrections, Community Division. Rottman, D. 1996. Community courts: Programs, Office for Victims of Crime. Prospects and limits in community jus- Umbreit, M., and Roberts, A.W. 1997. Vic- LaPrairie, C. 1994. Community justice or tice. NIJ Journal (August):50–51. tim offender mediation in England: An just communities? Aboriginal communi- assessment of two programs. In The Prom- ties in search of justice. Unpublished pa- Schneider, A., ed. 1985. Guide to Juvenile ise of Mediation, per. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Jus- Restitution. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- edited by G. Pisapia and D. Antonucci. Milan, Italy: CEDAM, tice of Canada. ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- pp. 63–83. grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Delinquency Prevention. Umbreit, M., and Schug, B.A. 1997. Direc- Prevention. 1998. Guide for Implementing tory of Victim Offender Mediation Programs the Balanced and Restorative Justice Strang, A. 1995. Family group confer- in the US. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restor- Model. Washington, DC: U.S. Department encing: The victims’ perspective. Paper of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, presented at the annual meeting of the ative Justice and Mediation, University of Minnesota. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency American Society of Criminology, Boston, Prevention. MA, November 1995. Umbreit, M., and Stacy, S. 1996. Family group conferencing comes to the U.S.: A Robinson, J. 1996. Research on family Stuart, B. 1995. Sentencing circles—Making group conferencing in child welfare in “real” differences. Unpublished paper. comparison with victim offender media- tion. Juvenile and Family Court Journal New Zealand. In Family Group Confer- Whitehorse, Canada: Territorial Court of ences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice, the Yukon. 47(2):29–39. edited by J. Hudson et al. Monsey, NY: Umbreit, M., and Zehr, H. 1996. Restor- Stuart, B. 1996. Circle sentencing— Criminal Justice Press, pp. 49–64. Turning swords into ploughshares. In ative family group conferences: Differing Fed- Young, M. 1995. Restorative Community Jus- Restorative Justice: International Perspec- models and guidelines for practice. eral Probation tice: A Call to Action. Washington, DC: Na- tives, edited by B. Galaway and J. Hudson. 60(3):24–29. tional Organization for Victim Assistance.

19 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID DOJ/OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 184738

This Bulletin was prepared under grant Acknowledgments number 95–JN–FX–0024 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Gordon Bazemore, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Criminology and U.S. Department of Justice. Criminal Justice and Director of the Community Justice Institute at Florida Atlantic University. Mark Umbreit, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Restorative Justice Points of view or opinions expressed in this and Peacemaking at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Bazemore and Dr. Umbreit document are those of the authors and do not are Principal Investigators for the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, an necessarily represent the official position or OJJDP-funded research initiative that is a joint project of Florida Atlantic Univer- policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of sity and the Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking. Justice. Photographs © 1997–99 Artville Stock Images. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention is a component of the Of- fice of Justice Programs, which also includes Share With Your Colleagues the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse Publication Reprint/Feedback P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000 800–638–8736 301–519–5600 (fax) E-mail: [email protected]