Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
implementation of conferencing as a restorative policing practice.
Family group conferencing is considered an important new development
in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively
with young first-time offenders by diverting them from court and
involving their extended families and victims in conferences to
address their wrongdoing. Cases deemed eligible for the study were
property crimes including retail and other thefts, criminal mischief
and trespass, and violent crimes including threats, harassment,
disorderly conduct, and simple assaults. A total of 140 property crime
cases and 75 violent crime cases were selected for the experiment,
with two-thirds of each type randomly assigned to a diversionary
conference (treatment group) and one-third of each type assigned to
formal adjudication (control group). Participation in the conference
was voluntary. If either party declined or if the offender did not
admit responsibility for the offense, the case was processed through
normal criminal justice channels. Those cases constituted a second
treatment group (decline group). The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police
Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year
study on the effectiveness of police-based family group
conferencing. Beginning on November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were
conducted for the study. Approximately two weeks after their cases
were disposed, victims, offenders, and offenders' parents in the three
experimental groups (control, conference, decline) were surveyed by
mail, in-person interviews, or telephone interviews. Those who
participated in conferences (Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different
questionnaire than those whose cases went through formal adjudication
(Parts 5, 7, and 9), with similar questions to allow for comparison
and some questions particular to the type of processing used on their
case. Disposition data on cases were collected from five district
magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12,
1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group
cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest
database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district
magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court
database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
(Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered
to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the
conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later
(post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of
offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type,
offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition
data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the
conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current
arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge,
arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced,
current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of
community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected
information on police attitudes and work environment before and after
the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include
ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision,
administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on
operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration,
external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to
9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims
about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice
system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs
about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and
offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with
the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held
accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful,
if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the
respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an
opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the
offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better
opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's
attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a
conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the
talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim
participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better
understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only
wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.