DOCSLIB.ORG

Family Group Conferencing in Youth Inclusion and Support Panels

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Family Group Conferencing in Youth Inclusion and Support Panels View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Education Resource Archive Youth Justice Board Family Group Conferencing in Youth Inclusion and Support Panels: Empowering Families and Preventing Crime and Antisocial Behaviour? Janet Walker, Christine Thompson, Graeme Wilson and Karen Laing with Mike Coombes and Simon Raybould Contents Preface 5 The Research Task 5 The Research Team 6 Acknowledgements 6 This Report 8 Addendum 9 Executive Summary 10 Introduction 10 The Research Task 11 Integrating Family Group Conferencing Within the YISPs 13 Empowering Families 13 Promoting Restorative Justice 15 Implementing Family Plans 15 Making a Difference 16 The Potential for Enhancing YISP Practice: Conclusions and Recommendations 18 1 Supporting Families and Preventing Crime 23 The Policy Context within which YISPs Were Established 23 Prevention and Early Intervention 24 The Family Group Conferencing Process 29 2 Evaluating the Enhanced Effectiveness of YISPs 34 The National Evaluation of YISPs 34 Our Approach to the Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing 35 The Scoping Study 36 Revised Research Objectives 38 Research Methods 39 Collection and Analysis of Baseline Quantitative Micro-level Data 40 Survey Data 43 Qualitative Data Sets 45 Exploring Effectiveness 47 Contextualisation 49 3 Integrating Family Group Conferencing within the YISPs 51 The Pilots 51 The YISP Panels 56 The Relationship Between Family Group Conferences and YISP Panels 63 An Integrated Approach 65 Implementing FGC 66 2 Referrals to the Pilots and to Family Group Conferencing 71 Getting Involved with the YISP: Parents’ Perceptions 73 Children’s Perceptions Concerning Referral to a YISP 77 Going to a Family Group Conference 78 Linking FGC into the YISP Process: Summary of Key Findings 79 4 Empowering Families 81 Family Group Conferences: Principles and Characteristics 81 Setting Up Family Group Conferences in the YISPs 82 Preparing Other Family Members and Friends 90 Deciding Who Attends the Conference 94 Structuring the Family Group Conference 95 Reactions after the Family Group Conference 107 The Use of Advocates 110 Empowerment and Participation 112 The Importance of Family Empowerment 114 Meeting the Challenges 115 The Views of Practitioners 117 Striking the Right Balance 118 5 Promoting restorative justice 119 Best Practice in Restorative Justice 121 Previous Research Evidence 122 The Evidence from the FGC/YISP Pilots 124 Our Observations on Restorative Conferences in the YISPs 131 Developing Restorative Justice 132 6 Developing and Implementing Family Plans 134 Initial Satisfaction with the Plan 135 Implementing Family Plans 136 Reflections 6–9 Months after the Family Group Conference 144 Children’s Perceptions of the Family Plan 145 Developing Tailored Packages of Support 147 Being SMART 153 Encouraging Change 154 7 Making a Difference: Indicators of Change 157 Previous Findings Relating to the Effectiveness of YISPs 158 YISP Interventions 160 Modelling Using the MIS Data Sets 163 Follow-up Survey Questionnaires 173 The Evidence from Scale Measures 176 Exploring the Effectiveness of FGC – Parents’ Perceptions 178 Children’s Perceptions of Impact 184 Understanding Families’ Responses 186 3 Professional Perspectives 187 Longer-term Achievements 192 Drawing the Evidence Together 194 8 The Potential for Enhancing YISP Practice 197 Issues Relating to the Implementation of FGC 198 Issues Relating to FGC Processes 204 Issues Relating to the Outcomes Associated with FGC 212 Promoting Promising Practice 214 Looking Ahead 216 References 218 Appendix 1: Data obtained for the evaluation 222 Appendix 2: Profiles of the children in the interview sample 241 4 Preface The Research Task Towards the end of 2004, we were selected by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) to conduct an evaluation in five areas of England and Wales in which the Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) had successfully bid to pilot the integration of family group conferencing (FGC) within YISP processes. The evaluation, which began in February 2005, was designed to extend and build on our national evaluation of thirteen pilot YISPs, the results of which were published in 2007. We developed a research design and research methods which mirrored as closely as possible those used in the 2007 national evaluation in order to be able to map the new data about FGC on to those obtained during the national evaluation. The nature of the pilots prevented us from undertaking a rigorous study using methods such as random-controlled trials, nor were we able to secure good enough before-and-after FGC data to provide comparison of different processes. We adopted an action research approach which combined quantitative and qualitative methods and which enabled us to work closely with our sponsors at the YJB and with the pilots throughout the evaluation. We presented a detailed report of the scoping phase of the evaluation in May 2005, and submitted regular progress and interim reports to the YJB thereafter. In addition, we provided feedback to the pilots at regular meetings convened by the YJB. During these we discussed the challenges we faced in collecting adequate case-level data, and the pilots shared the difficulties they faced locally in implementing FGC and meeting the targets set by the YJB. We were privileged to share the learning journey which the pilots embarked on in 2004 and to observe the tensions and transitions they experienced. In so doing, we were able to enhance our own understanding of the FGC and YISP processes in each pilot and to discern similarities and differences between them. Inevitably, an evaluation of a new initiative is able to collect a good deal of information about processes and rather less about the outcomes. The formative evaluation provides insights which add to the evidence base about the potential of FGC to enhance YISP practice and points to the issues which need to be considered in any developments in FGC with vulnerable young people at risk of offending and antisocial behaviour. While our summative evaluation must be treated with appropriate caution, it raises important issues in respect of the potential of FGC to enhance outcomes. The study posed a number of challenges, not least that of managing diverse and often incomplete data sets. Our ability to undertake all the planned analyses was compromised by a lack of robust data on all the variables we had originally specified, but we believe that the study is inevitably richer for the breadth of understanding we have been able to derive from the data available to us. 5 The Research Team The evaluation of FGC drew on the expertise of key members of a multi- disciplinary research team from Newcastle University which was also evaluating the thirteen pilot YISPs. The study was co-ordinated initially within the Newcastle Centre for Family Studies (NCFS) under the direction of Professor Janet Walker, and later transferred to the Institute of Health and Society (IHS) when Professor Walker moved into the Institute in summer 2007. Karen Laing was responsible for profiling the case-study areas and analysing data relating to both YISP and FGC cases in the pilot areas, and Dr Christine Thompson and Dr Graeme Wilson were responsible for undertaking the qualitative enquiries and for interviewing children, young people, families, and their keyworkers and YISP and FGC staff in the case-study areas. All three facilitated the focus groups at the end of the evaluation. Professor Mike Coombes and Dr Simon Raybould, in the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, orchestrated the management and analyses of the quantitative data returned by the pilots, and considered the generalisability of the findings. Together with the NCFS team, they contributed to the overall design of the evaluation, modifying and refocusing it as the pilots developed their practice and adopted new ways of recording case-level data. In early 2006, Dr Stephen Parkin joined the research team. He contributed to the qualitative elements of the study, conducted interviews with family members, and undertook a preliminary literature review and a preliminary analysis of observational and interview data. He left the team in August 2006 to pursue his academic studies. We offer him our thanks for the important contributions he made while he was an integral member of the research team. Throughout our evaluation we were supported in our work by Janette Pounder and Jane Tilbrook, who provided administrative oversight and secretarial support, and also transcribed many interviews. They prepared all our reports to the YJB and then painstakingly typed successive drafts of the final report. Michael Ayton, our copy editor, has worked closely with us to ensure that our outputs are both accessible and meaningful. We offer our thanks to all of them. Acknowledgements An evaluation such as this cannot be completed without the co-operation and help of many people. We made many demands on YISP pilot staff and we know that managing the requirements of a national evaluation at the same time as developing a new and complex initiative is far from easy. Staff in all the pilots were enormously helpful and were willing to respond to our unending requests. We are enormously grateful to everyone in all the pilot YISPs for staying cheerful and working all hours to enable us to complete our data collection. We are especially grateful to FGC co-ordinators and facilitators and to YISP keyworkers for introducing the research to children and families and for securing their willingness to participate in the study. Without their help we would not have been able to hear and report the views of the children and families who experienced FGC as part of their YISP intervention. They also agreed to us observing YISP panels and family group conferences, thus giving us invaluable insights into the world of FGC as it is experienced by professionals and family 6 members. Our heartfelt thanks go to all the YISP and FGC staff for making this evaluation possible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fgc Odr Brochure Rev 2-21-2017.Pdf
    “FGC processes are not therapeutic interventions or forums for ratifying professionally crafted decisions. Rather, FGC processes actively seek the collaboration and leadership of family groups in crafting and implementing plans that support the safety, permanency and well- being of their children.” American Humane Association Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution-approved Mediation Centers. Contact the center listed below that serves your county to schedule mediation, family group conferencing, and other collaborative processes at the location most convenient to you. Central Mediation Center, Kearney 800-203-3452 [email protected] 308-237-4692 www.centralmediationcenter.com Adams, Blaine, Buffalo, Chase, Clay, Custer, Dawson, Dundy, Franklin, Frontier, Furnas, Garfield, Gosper, Greeley, Hall, Hamilton, Harlan, Hayes, Hitchcock, Howard, Kearney, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, McPherson, Merrick, Nuckolls, Perkins, Phelps, Red Willow, Sherman, Thomas, Valley, Webster, Wheeler counties Concord Mediation Center, Omaha 402-345-1131 [email protected] www.concordmediationcenter.com Douglas and Sarpy counties Nebraska Mediation Center, Fremont 866-846-5576 [email protected] 402-753-9415 www.nebraskamediationcenter.com Antelope, Boone, Boyd, Brown, Burt, Cedar, Cherry, Colfax, Cuming, Dakota, Dixon, Dodge, Holt, Keya Paha, Knox, Madison, Nance, Pierce, Platte, Rock, Stanton, Thurston, Washington, Wayne counties The Mediation Center, Lincoln 402-441-5740 [email protected] www.themediationcenter.org Lancaster
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Saving Ideas Rejected at Meeting
    THE TWEED SHIRE Volume 2 #15 Thursday, December 10, 2009 Advertising and news enquiries: Phone: (02) 6672 2280 Our new Fax: (02) 6672 4933 property guide [email protected] starts on page 19 [email protected] www.tweedecho.com.au LOCAL & INDEPENDENT Water-saving ideas Restored biplane gets the thumbs up rejected at meeting Luis Feliu years has resulted in new or modified developments having rainwater tanks Water-saving options for Tweed resi- to a maximum of 3,000 litres but re- dents such as rainwater tanks, recy- stricted to three uses: washing, toilet cling, composting toilets as well as flushing and external use. Rainwater population caps were suggested and tanks were not permitted in urban rejected at a public meeting on Mon- areas to be used for drinking water day night which looked at Tweed Some residents interjected, saying Shire Council’s plan to increase the that was ‘absurd’ and asked ‘why not?’ shire’s water supply. while others said 3,000 litres was too Around 80 people attended the small. meeting at Uki Hall, called by the Mr Burnham said council’s water Caldera Environment Centre and af- demand management strategy had fected residents from Byrrill Creek identified that 5,000-litre rainwater concerned about the proposal to dam tanks produced a significant decrease their creek, one of four options under in overall demand but council had no discussion to increase the shire’s water power to enforce their use. supply. The other options are rais- Reuse not explored Nick Challinor, left, and Steve Searle guide the Tiger
    [Show full text]
  • Family Group Conference
    FAMILIES FIRST Professional Handbook Index Background Background ................................................................................................................2 Family Group Conferences (FGC) are a family-led decision-making process where the family and service providers come together to discuss and develop a plan that aims to ensure Vision ...........................................................................................................................3 the safety and wellbeing of the child or young person. The process draws upon Maori Key outcomes ............................................................................................................ 3 culture and their development was a response to the large number of Maori children being removed into state institutions. Key principles .............................................................................................................4 Family Group Conferences are now used, mainly in child welfare, in over 20 countries Key standards ............................................................................................................5 including Austria, Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, FGC process ................................................................................................................8 Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, South Africa, the USA, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Practice guidance roles & responsibilities
    [Show full text]
  • Confessions of a Family Group Conference Coordinator
    Confessions of a Family Group Conference Coordinator Sheila Ozeer Family group conferences provide a forum for families to come together to make decisions about the welfare of their children. This is only made possible, though, if all those involved in the FGC process fulfill their roles toward commitment, encouragement, empowerment and believing in the FGC model. Those involved are social services agencies and service providers, families and adults important to the child(ren), and family group conference coordinators. As well as sharing the presenter's knowledge and experiences of being a family group conference coordinator, the session will look in depth at how important the role of the coordinator is, as they are crucial in the FGC process. • We’ll be looking briefly at ‘What is a Family Group Conference?’ & what ‘The FGC Model & Process’ is • ‘The Role & Responsibilities of the Players’ • ‘Co-ordinator’s Job Description’ & ‘Person Specification’ that’s required and necessary to be able to do the job effectively • I’m hoping to generate enough interest and enthusiasm in what could be potential FGC co-ordinators amongst you! • Overview of the referrals I’ve been involved in • The challenges & issues raised • • Just before we go into ‘What is a Family Group Conference’, it might help to mention the types of cases referred from the Children & Families SS Division: • Where the rehabilitation of a looked after child is being considered, FGC to ascertain level & type of family support available if the child were to return home, or alternatively
    [Show full text]
  • The Silent Brotherhood the Chilling Inside Story of America's Violent Anti-Government Militia Movement
    The Silent Brotherhood The Chilling Inside Story of America's Violent Anti-Government Militia Movement CSSBD Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt © A SIGNET BOOK Contents Preface ix List of Main Characters and Organizations xi Prologue: The Underground 15 1: Robbie, the All-American Boy 27 2: Gathering Aryans, the Covenant People 64 3: Establishing the White American Bastion 95 4: The Turn to Crime 128 5: Enter the Zionist Occupation Government 168 6: Alan Berg: The Man You Love to Hate 209 7: Brink's and the $3,800,000 War Chest 251 8: Survivalism: The Man Who Ate the Dog 291 9: Judas Arrives on American Airlines 356 10: Blood, Soil, and Honor 407 Epilogue: "Blood Will Flow" 450 Bibliography 474 Acknowledgments 476 Index 479 Preface Comfortably secure Americans are used to thinking of ter- rorism as something that carries a foreign dateline. But the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City in April 1995—and the suspicion that an army veteran of the Persian Gulf War may be the perpetrator of that deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil—will erase forever the false notion that this threat comes from beyond our shores. Home-grown terrorists have long scarred America's landscape with guns and bombs. From our biggest metrop- olises to the heartland cities, these true believers have struck. When they surface, their acts give us a glimpse into a shadowy world of fear. Often with political aims, they target their weapons at individuals and institutions they be- lieve are conspiring against the true America and its sacred Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Term and Immediate Outcomes of Family Group Conferencing in Washington State (June 2001)
    September 10 2002 www.restorativepractices.org Restorative Practices E FORUM Long Term and Immediate Outcomes of Family Group Conferencing in Washington State (June 2001) NANCY SHORE, JUDITH WIRTH, KATHARINE CAHN, BRIANA YANCEY, KARIN GUNDERSON ABSTRACT in the eighties and nineties, public opinion situation is more complicated than the This article presents the findings of a retrospec- began to blame this focus on family preser- smooth easy swing of a pendulum between tive study of 70 family group conferences (FGC) vation, and called for renewed attention to family preservation or adoption. conducted in Washington State. These 70 FGCs child safety. The challenge for the child welfare system is addressed the well-being of 138 children. The The passage of the Adoption and Safe Fami- to move practice, policy, and thinking off families within the evaluation were primarily re- lies Act of 1997 (ASFA) was seen as a push to the restrictive paradigm of the pendulum ferred by foster care units rather than investiga- tive units and involved cases that had been in the the family preservation end of the arc, pri- swing. Social workers and families need to child welfare system for over 90 days. Families oritizing the safety of the children. Policies work together to create a plan that provides were invited to participate in the decision-mak- and programs shifted from family preserva- ing process, engaging both the maternal and pa- tion to pushing for timely safe permanent ternal sides of the family with greater success than placements for children. Adoption was iden- Social workers and standard case planning approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Sydney Murugan Temple
    JOURNAL OF THE ASIA EDUCATION Teachers’ ASSOCIATION Volume 42, No 4 December 2014 Celebrating 40 Years – Valuing cultural diversity and promoting intercultural understanding in a networked world Mission Statement AETA, a voluntary non-profit organisation, dedicates itself in this Mission Statement to endeavour to: 1. promote Asian Studies in Australian schools whether as a separate discipline, or as part of studies in other disciplines; 2. publish a journal dedicated to providing appropriate input about Asia to school teachers, as well as being a forum for the dissemination of ideas for improving Asian Studies in Australian schools; 3. publish resources which can be helpful in teaching about Asia in Australian schools; 4. promote and/or participate in conferences, seminars, or other discussions which are aimed at promoting Asian Studies or enhancing their quality 5. make representations to governmental or other bodies regarding Asian Studies courses or their content in school curricula; 6. make representations to tertiary institutions regarding Asian Studies in tertiary courses, particularly for teacher education; and 7. disseminate news about this Association’s activities and its views about Asian Studies education through the media and through specialist newsletters and journals. AETA Executive President / Treasurer Jenny Curtis Vice President Paul(ine) Sheppard Secretary Judy Pilch Editor Diane Dunlop AETA Committee Members Dr Susan Bliss Christine Cigana Terry Haddow Paul McCartan Julie O’Keeffe Marcia Rouen Cec White – Adviser and Assistant to Executive (co-opted member) Contributions to the Asia Education Teachers’ Association journal are most welcome. For policy guidelines for submission of articles to the AETA journal go to – www.aeta.org.au/journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Group Conferencing: an Alternative Approach to the Placement of Alaska Native Children Under the Indian Child Welfare Act
    HILL.DOC 6/2/2005 2:11 PM COMMENT FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCING: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO THE PLACEMENT OF ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN UNDER THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT * LAVERNE F. HILL The Indian Child Welfare Act establishes a cultural safeguard for Alaska Native children caught up in the child welfare system by re- quiring professionals to make “active efforts” toward reunifying the child with family members and their tribe. Complying with this stan- dard has been a challenge because the adversarial system governing the child welfare proceedings does not fully recognize the Alaska Na- tive belief that the family and tribe have a shared responsibility in the upbringing of children. In this Comment, the author discusses how utilizing Family Group Conferencing, a procedure originating in New Zealand that encourages family and community involvement and re- spects the unique values and customs of indigenous peoples, will as- sist child welfare professionals in meeting the “active efforts” stan- dard. I. INTRODUCTION A child’s cultural background is a critical element in determining proper placement of the child after the State removes her from her paren- tal home.1 With ever-increasing numbers of minority children in the Copyright © 2005 by Laverne F. Hill. This Article is also available on the Internet at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/alr. * J.D., Vanderbilt University Law School, 2005; B.A. (American Studies), Smith Col- lege, 2001. 1. See Bo Eskay, Review, H.B. 2168 - Codifying a Shift in Social Values Toward Transracial Adoption, 28 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 711, 719 (1996) (arguing that “interests specific to transracial placement include: proper identity development, cultural transmission, and cultural preservation”) (footnotes omitted).
    [Show full text]
  • Family Group Conferencing in Child Welfare1
    Family Group Conferencing in Child Welfare1 Della Knoke This information sheet describes Family n Through collaborative problem solving, Group Conferencing and summarizes key families can resolve issues and develop findings of evaluations that have been plans that keep their children safe and conducted in a number of areas across well cared for. 2009 | #77E Canada and the United States. n Solutions developed by the family are more likely than those imposed by What is Family Group Conferencing? professionals to respect and preserve children’s bonds to their families, Family group conferencing (FGC) is a process that brings families together to make decisions communities and cultures. or resolve disagreements. In child welfare, FGC n Families are more likely to respect and aims to enable families to develop effective adhere to plans that they develop than service plans that safeguard children and those imposed on them by professionals. promote their welfare. FGC defines “family” n To encourage trust and open dialogue, broadly to include people related by blood discussions that occur during FGC are including the immediately family, extended confidential, except where disclosure is family, as well as people who have significant required by law (e.g., necessary for the relationships with the family or child. child’s safety). FGC originated in New Zealand and is based on family-based decision-making traditions When is FGC used in child welfare? used in Maori culture. In 1989, New Zealand extended the use of FGC to all children FGC can be used whenever planning for or who were considered to be in need of care making decisions about the care of a child.
    [Show full text]
  • Mom Sentenced for Killing Baby Judge Skanchy Hands Down Maximum Prison Sentence
    www.tooeletranscript.com TUESDAY TOOELE Tooele man TRANSCRIPT transforms tiny beads into wondrous creations. See B1 BULLETIN July 12, 2005 SERVING TOOELE COUNTY SINCE 1894 VOL. 112 NO. 14 50 cents No Horsin’ Around Mom sentenced for killing baby Judge Skanchy hands down maximum prison sentence by Mary Ruth Hammond call to Tooele County Sheriff’s STAFF WRITER dispatchers, stating their Defense Attorney Scott infant son was not breathing. Broadhead tried hard Monday Tooele Police Officers Jamie morning to convince Judge Cholico and Becky Bracken Randall N. Skanchy that his were the first law enforce- client, Connie Long, did not ment officials to arrive on actively participate in the scene. death of her son Jan. 14 — Bracken testified during a but the judge did not buy that preliminary hearing before theory. Judge William E. Pitt last Long, 29, will spend up to April, that as she arrived at 15 years at Utah Sate Prison the Long home a minute or for child abuse/homicide. two after being dispatched to Connie’s husband, Kevin the residence, baby Paul was Long, was sentenced by Judge still lying in his crib but was Skanchy to a 1-15 year term “obviously deceased.” at Utah State Prison in April Even though Connie Long for the death of the couple’s admitted to police during an five-month-old son, Paul. interrogation on Jan. 14 that Police reports reflect that she forcefully held a paci- just before 8:25 a.m. on Jan. 14, the Longs placed a 911 SEE LONG ON A8 Fire chiefs update response protocols by Karen Lee Scott Regina Dekanich, dispatch STAFF WRITER supervisor for the Tooele With the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Partial List of Reality Shows Signed to Dga Agreements
    DGA’s REALITY DIRECTORS Contact Guide EF OP CH PRO T JE CT R FACT RU SE FEAR OR N W LO D BI A T E G Y S K K B E A K TAN A R N R ME O G HA R T G G S I H I N C I A E B ’ R T S A F E N D H E C X E R T C E F T T A F O S R O A P G E M M C N O I A Z F D A E R L M O I A R R E R T S S A I E A B W S D R T M A P A O T J K N A E K I E E N Y E V I B N N A C L A I R M E E A S T K M A U M L I E L T E L R C U H C A I L L A C E E N G A R N G G A R R I D T S ’ L U R A U P WHAT PRODUCERS AND AGENTS ARE SAYING ABOUT DGA REALITY AGREEMENTS: “The DGA has done an amazing job of building strong relationships with unscripted Producers. They understand that each show is different and work with us to structure deals that make sense for both the Producers and their Members on projects of all sizes and budgets. We always benefit from having talented and professional DGA Directors and AD teams on our shows and the Guild has made the deal-making process as easy as possible.” – Dan Murphy, EVP of Production & Operations, Magical Elves “There is no question that working with the Directors Guild and its members have contributed to the success of our shows.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: a Meta- Analysis Author(S): David B
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta- Analysis Author(s): David B. Wilson, Ph.D., Ajima Olaghere, Ph.D., Catherine S. Kimbrell, M.A. Document Number: 250872 Date Received: June 2017 Award Number: 2015-JF-FX-0063 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant No. 2015-JF-FX-0063 Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis David B. Wilson, PhD Ajima Olaghere, PhD Catherine S. Kimbrell, MA Department of Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia May 12, 2017 This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-JF-FX-0063 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, to George Mason University. The statements expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department.
    [Show full text]