Introduction

An increasing number of crime 

victims are choosing to meet face-toface with the persons who victimized

them. In such meetings victims can let

offenders know how the crime affected

their lives, receive answers to lingering

questions, and be directly involved in

holding offenders accountable for the

harm they caused. Today, there are 

victim-offender mediation (VOM) programs in more than 300 communities

throughout the United States, involving

thousands of cases each year. VOM is

recognized as a viable alternative to the

more traditional retributive response by

probation, prosecution, courts, correctional facilities, and communities. As

the field of victim-offender mediation

has grown extensively over the past 25

years, it has become increasingly

important to conduct the process in a

victim-sensitive manner.

To determine how widespread this

service to victims has become and to

further promote victim-sensitive mediation practices, the Office for Victims

of Crime (OVC) provided a grant to

the Center for Restorative Justice &

Peacemaking (formerly the Center for

Restorative Justice & Mediation),

School of Social Work, University of

Minnesota, in 1996 to conduct the

most comprehensive survey yet undertaken in the growing field of victimoffender mediation. The Center

documented the results of this research

in the five publications currently contained in The Restorative Justice and

Mediation Collection. All five documents identify the major issues concerning victim-offender mediation

programs and the promising practices

developed by programs in operation.

This bulletin highlights these findings, first by providing a basic

description of victim-offender mediation and second by summarizing the

five publications in The Restorative

Justice and Mediation Collection.

A Description of VictimOffender Mediation

What Is It?

Victim-offender mediation is a

process that provides interested 

victims (primarily those of property

crimes and minor assaults) the

opportunity to meet their offenders 

in a safe and structured setting. The

goal is to hold offenders directly 

The Restorative Justice and

Mediation Collection:

Executive Summary Restorative justice and mediation

programs are viable options for

serving victims as they try to

resolve the impact of crime on their lives.

This bulletin summarizes the five documents in The Restorative Justice and

Mediation Collection, which covers a

number of issues related to restorative justice. Four of the documents focus on victimoffender mediation, a major programmatic

intervention that fully embraces the concepts

of restorative justice. 

The first of these documents, Guidelines for

Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation:

Restorative Justice Through Dialogue, assists

administrators in developing or enhancing

victim-offender mediation programs. It provides practical guidance for mediators to

facilitate balanced and fair mediation that

ensures the safety of all participants. The

National Survey of Victim-Offender

Mediation Programs in the United States

presents results from a national survey about

the characteristics of victim-offender mediation programs operating nationwide and the

major issues facing them in their day-to-day

operations. This document describes the actual functioning of the programs, whereas the

Guidelines sets standards for the practice of

victim-offender mediation. 

Next, the Directory of Victim-Offender

Mediation Programs in the United States

lists victim-offender mediation programs

across the country and provides program

and contact information. The Family Group

Conferencing: Implications for Crime

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bulletin Office for Victims of Crime

Advocating for the Fair 

 Treatment of Crime Victims

Message From

The Director

July 2000

Continued on page 2
OVC Bulletin

2

accountable for their behavior while

providing important support and

assistance to victims. With the assistance of trained mediators, victims

are able to express the full impact the

crimes have had on their lives and to

be directly involved in developing

restitution plans that holds offenders

financially accountable for the losses

they have caused. Offenders are able

to take responsibility for their behavior, learn the full impact of their

actions, and develop plans for making amends to the persons they violated. Some VOM programs are

called “victim-offender meetings”

or “victim-offender conferences.”

The first VOM program in the United

States was developed in Elkart,

Indiana, in 1978 and modeled after a

similar program in Kitchener, Ontario,

Canada, that began in 1974. These

initial programs were called VictimOffender Reconciliation Programs

(VORPs). Today, some VOM programs are identified as VORPs,

although as the field has become

increasingly victim-sensitive most

programs have dropped any reference

to “reconciliation.” The intent is to

provide a safe place for dialogue,

negotiation, and problem solving to

foster a sense of victim empowerment

and to clarify future expectations

rather than place blame for past

behavior. Major emphasis is placed 

on having the mediator conduct inperson, separate premediation sessions with the victim and offender

prior to bringing them together.

Thorough preparation of the parties

is central to creating a safe place 

for dialogue.

When Are Cases Referred?

In some programs, cases are referred

to VOM as a diversion from prosecution, assuming the mediation agreement is successfully completed. In

other programs, cases are referred

after a formal admission of guilt has

been accepted by the court, with the

mediation being a condition of probation (if the victim is interested).

Some programs receive case referrals

at both the diversion and postadjudication levels. Most cases are

referred from the juvenile justice 

system, although some programs also

receive referrals from the adult criminal justice system. Judges, probation

officers, victim advocates, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and police

officers can make referrals to VOM

programs. In all cases, however,

victim participation should be entirely voluntary.

How Is VOM Different

From Other Kinds of

Mediation?

Mediation is being used in an

increasing number of conflict situations, such as divorce and child custody cases, community disputes,

commercial disputes, and other civil

court-related conflicts. In such settings, the parties are called “disputants,” and the assumption is that

both are contributing to the conflict

and, therefore, need to compromise

to reach a settlement. Often, mediation in these cases focuses heavily

upon reaching a settlement, with 

less emphasis upon discussing the

full impact of the conflict on the 

disputants’ lives.

Victims document discusses a related form of

restorative justice dialogue that originated in

New Zealand and Australia and has been

replicated in some communities in the

United States. The Multicultural

Implications of Restorative Justice: Potential

Pitfalls and Dangers document explores

concerns about the implementation of

restorative justice programs when working

with persons of cross-cultural perspectives. 

The Office for Victims of Crime does not

recommend that every victim participate in

victim-offender mediation, family group

conferencing, or other restorative justice

interventions. Such participation is a personal decision that each victim must make for

herself or himself. We strongly advocate,

however, that all restorative justice programs

be extremely sensitive to the needs and concerns of victims who would like to meet

with their offenders. Victims should be

granted a choice in the location, timing, and

structure of the sessions and the right to end

their participation at any stage in the process.

These protections for victims do not mean

that offenders can be treated insensitively.

Both victims and offenders must be dealt

with respectfully.

We sincerely hope that restorative justice

programs run by probation and parole agencies, judicial agencies, religious groups, victim services organizations, community-based

organizations, and other restorative justice

offices study these documents and embrace

the victim-sensitive guidelines that are relevant to their particular type of intervention.

Restorative justice programs can only be

strengthened by operating with heightened

awareness of the needs of crime victims. 

Kathryn M. Turman

Director

Office for Victims of Crime

Message From

The Director

Continued from page 1
3

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary

In victim-offender mediation, the

involved parties are not “disputants.”

Generally, one party has clearly committed a criminal offense and has

admitted doing so, whereas the other

has clearly been victimized. Therefore, the issue of guilt or innocence

is not mediated, nor is there an

expectation that crime victims compromise or request less than what

they need to manage their losses. 

Although many other types of mediation are largely “settlement driven,”

VOM is primarily “dialogue driven,”

with emphasis upon the victim’s

needs, offender accountability, and

some restoration of losses. Most

VOM sessions (more than 95 percent) result in a signed restitution

agreement. This agreement, however,

is secondary to the importance of the

initial dialogue between the parties.

The dialogue addresses emotional

and informational needs of victims

and the development of victim empathy in the offenders, which can help

to prevent criminal behavior in the

future. Research has consistently

found that the restitution agreement

is less important to crime victims

than the opportunity to express their

feelings about the offense directly to

the offenders.

Are Crime Victims

Interested?

Interest in victim-offender mediation

has grown since the late 1970s, but

VOM is not appropriate for all

crimes. In all cases, it must be presented as a voluntary choice to the

victim. Over the past 20 years and in

thousands of cases throughout North

America, experience has shown that

the majority of victims presented

with the option of mediation chose 

to participate in the process. A recent

statewide public opinion poll in

Minnesota found that 82 percent of 

a random sample of citizens from

throughout the State would consider

participating in a victim-offender

mediation program if they were victims of property crime. Interviews

with 280 victims who participated in

victim-offender mediation programs

in 4 States found that 91 percent of

victims felt their participation was

totally voluntary.

How Many Programs Exist?

There are more than 300 VOM programs throughout the United States

and more than 700 in Europe. The

American Bar Association recently

endorsed the practice of VOM and recommends its development in all courts

throughout the country. A recent

statewide survey of victim service

providers in Minnesota found that 91

percent believed that VOM should be

available in every judicial district since

it represents an important opportunity

for crime victims to resolve the impact

of crime on their lives.

What Have We Learned

From Research?

It is becoming increasingly clear that

the victim-offender mediation process

can serve to humanize the criminal

justice experience for both victim and

offender. Research shows that:

■ Victims of crime who meet with

their offenders are far more likely

to be satisfied with the justice

system response to their cases

than victims of similar crimes

who go through the traditional

court process (Umbreit, 1994a

and 1994b).

■ After meeting with offenders,

victims are significantly less

fearful of being revictimized

(Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and

Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b).

■ Offenders who meet with their 

victims are far more likely to be

held directly accountable for

their behavior and to successfully

complete their restitution obligations (Umbreit, 1994a and

1994b).

■ Considerably fewer and less 

serious crimes are subsequently

committed by offenders who met

with their victims (Nugent and

Paddock, 1995; Schneider, 1986;

and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b).

Multisite studies in Canada 

(Umbreit, 1995a and 1995c),

England (Marshall and Merry, 1990;

and Umbreit and Roberts, 1996), and

the United States (Coates and Gehm,

1998; and Umbreit 1994a and 1994b)

have confirmed the above findings.

An Overview of The

Restorative Justice and

Mediation Collection

The remainder of this bulletin provides

a brief summary of each of the documents that constitute The Restorative

Justice and Mediation Collection.

Information presented includes a brief

discussion of each topic, the current

research and findings on that topic,

implications for the future, and how

each restorative justice program

improves victim services.
4

OVC Bulletin

National Survey of 

Victim-Offender 

Mediation Programs 

in the United States

A national survey of VOM programs

was conducted in 1996–1997 by the

Center for Restorative Justice &

Peacemaking at the University of

Minnesota School of Social Work in

St. Paul. This survey was made possible by a grant from the Office for

Victims of Crime.

A total of 289 victim-offender 

mediation programs were identified

through this survey—both large,

well-established programs that had

been in operation for many years and

brand new programs that had yet to

receive their first case referral. Of the

total, 35 programs were new and had

not yet developed enough of a “track

record” to provide program data.

Extensive phone surveys were conducted with 116 of the established programs. The following themes emerged

from the survey findings.

Program Development

■ Victim-offender mediation programs, once primarily developed

within nonpublic agencies such

as community- or religion-based

organizations, by 1996 and 1997

had also been developed in probation departments, victim 

services agencies, prosecuting

attorneys’ offices, and correctional facilities.

■ Victim-offender mediation programs most frequently identified

their primary source of funding as

either State or Federal agencies.

■ The primary referral sources 

to victim-offender mediation 

programs were probation officers, judges, and prosecutors.

■ The four most common offenses

referred to victim-offender mediation programs, in order of frequency, were vandalism, minor

assaults, theft, and burglary.

Some VOM programs occasionally handled cases of more severe

violence: assault with a deadly

weapon, assault resulting in bodily harm, sexual assault, domestic

violence, negligent homicide,

attempted murder, and murder.

■ The most frequent point in the

justice process at which the 

victim-offender mediation session occurred was identified (in

56 percent of programs surveyed) 

as post-adjudication (either predisposition or post-disposition).

The mediation occurred at a

diversion level (prior to any formal finding of guilt) in 34 percent of the programs surveyed.

■ The most frequently identified

locations for VOM sessions were

program offices, neighborhood/

community centers, conference

rooms in libraries, and places of

worship.

Mediators

■ Throughout the 20-year development of VOM in the United

States, considerable emphasis

has been put on preparing the

parties for the mediation. This

has usually involved separate inperson meetings between victim

and mediator and between

offender and mediator prior to

bringing the parties together. The

mediator’s role at a premediation

meeting is to listen to the victim

or offender tell his or her story

about the crime that occurred and

how it affected him or her,

explain to both parties what the

mediation program is about, and

invite the participation of each

party. In nearly all of the programs surveyed, the victim and

offender were called prior to the

mediation session.

■ The three most important tasks 

of the mediator were, in order of

frequency, facilitating dialogue

between the victim and the

offender, making the parties feel

comfortable and safe, and assisting the parties in negotiating a

mutually acceptable plan for

restitution for the victim.

■ Participants in the survey identified many benefits of comediation, which is widely used in the

field of victim-offender mediation. Benefits include greater

opportunity for involvement of

community volunteers, quality

control, responding to issues

unique to a specific case, more

thorough case processing and

debriefing, increased safety, and

teamwork.

■ Victim-offender mediation programs frequently trained volunteers from the community to

serve as mediators.

■ When asked if victim-offender

mediators should be required to

complete a legislatively mandated number of hours of VOM

training, a majority of respondents to the survey (61 percent)

indicated no.
5

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary

Program Features

■ Forty-five percent of the programs surveyed worked exclusively with juvenile offenders

and their victims, 9 percent

worked exclusively with adult

offenders and their victims, and

46 percent worked with both

juvenile and adult offenders and

their victims.

■ Of cases that were mediated, 87

percent per program resulted in a

written restitution agreement and

99 percent of these agreements

were successfully completed.

■ All programs in the survey indicated that victim participation in

the mediation program was voluntary, and 99 percent indicated

that victims can back out of the

program at any time. Offender

participation in mediation was

voluntary in 79 percent of programs, and mandatory in 21 percent of programs.

■ In 65 percent of the programs 

surveyed, offenders were

required to admit their guilt to

the offense that led to their referral to the victim-offender mediation program.

■ In 94 percent of the programs

surveyed, the victim and offender

sit across from each other during

the mediation session, allowing

for direct eye contact.

■ Following a brief opening statement by the mediators, typical

victim-offender mediation sessions begin with the parties each

telling their stories—describing

what happened and the impact of

the crime on their lives.

■ In more than half of the programs surveyed, victims told

their story first.

■ In more than half of the programs surveyed, the mediator

determined which party should

begin the storytelling phase of

the mediation; in other programs

this decision was made by the

program staff, the victim, or the 

victim and the offender.

■ Only a small percentage (8 percent) of victim-offender mediation programs never had parents

of juvenile offenders present during the mediation session. More

than half of the programs surveyed always had the parents

present. 

The findings that emerged from this

national survey of victim-offender

mediation programs contributed to

the development of guidelines for

victim-sensitive mediation practices

that are documented in the OVC 

publication Guidelines for VictimSensitive Victim-Offender Mediation

within The Restorative Justice and

Mediation Collection.

Guidelines for VictimSensitive Victim-Offender

Mediation: Restorative

Justice Through Dialogue

Based on the experiences of VOM

practitioners in the field of restorative

justice over the past 20 years and the

results of the national survey of VOM

programs, it is becoming increasingly

clear that victim-offender mediation

can humanize the criminal justice

experience for both the victim and 

the offender. VOM holds offenders

directly accountable to the people

they have victimized, allows for

more active involvement of crime

victims and community members (as

volunteer mediators and support persons) in the justice process, and may

reduce further criminal behavior by

offenders. Victim-offender mediation

and dialogue is intended to provide a

restorative conflict resolution process

that actively involves victims and

offenders in repairing (to the degree

possible) the emotional and material

harm caused by crime. This process

also provides opportunities for both

victims and offenders to discuss

offenses and express their feelings,

for victims to get answers to their

questions, and for victims and

offenders to develop mutually acceptable restitution plans that address the

harm caused by crime.

This publication lists the underlying

principles of VOM and provides fundamental guidelines to follow when

conducting a mediation session

between victim and offender and

suggestions to strengthen victimoffender mediation programs. The

following is a list of the guidelines

designed to help the mediator ensure

the success of a mediation session:

■ Ensure victim safety.

■ Screen cases for suitability for

the mediation process.

■ Verify that the offender wants to

participate in mediation before

contacting the victim, to avoid

possible revictimization of the

victim.

■ Allow the offender to choose

whether to participate in the

mediation process.
6

OVC Bulletin

■ Conduct an in-person preconference session with the victim.

• Listen carefully to the victim.

• Provide information and 

answer questions about the 

VOM program.

• Discuss risks and benefits 

of mediation and assist the 

victim in making an informed 

decision about whether to 

participate.

■ Conduct careful, extensive victim

preparation.

• Ensure that the victim’s 

expectations are realistic.

• Assess the victim’s losses and 

needs.

• Estimate restitution 

possibilities.

■ Allow the victim to—

• Choose whether to participate 

in the mediation process.

• Select a friend or relative as a 

support person at the session.

• Schedule the mediation 

session at a convenient time.

• Select the mediation site.

• Arrange the seating.

• Decide who speaks first.

• Terminate the session at any 

time.

• Determine the type of 

restitution.

■ Conduct an in-person preconference session with the offender.

• Make sure the offender understands the mediation process 

and its relationship to the 

judicial system.

• Provide information about 

the offender’s rights.

• Help the offender decide 

whether to participate.

• Encourage the offender to 

carefully reflect on the crime,

prepare what he or she wishes 

to say about it, and reflect on 

the victim’s experience with 

the crime.

■ Conduct careful, extensive 

offender preparation.

• Ensure that the offender’s 

expectations are realistic—that

he or she knows an apology is 

not enough to repair the harm 

caused by the crime.

• Assess the offender’s ability to

fulfill restitution agreements.

■ Allow the offender to select a

friend or relative to be a support

person at the VOM session.

■ Use victim-sensitive language

that avoids implying judgment or

pressuring the victim in any way.

■ Use a humanistic, dialoguedriven model of mediation.

• Convey a nonjudgmental,

sensitive approach.

• Establish a relaxed, positive 

atmosphere.

• Focus on the dialogue between

the victim and the offender.

• Discuss participant guidelines.

• Encourage and be attentive to 

feedback from participants.

• Provide the option of a 

followup session.

■ Follow up after the mediation

session.

• Monitor the agreement until 

completion.

• Notify the victim of agreement alteration or completion.

• Schedule additional sessions if

needed.

• Maintain telephone contact 

with both parties.

• Evaluate all mediations and 

survey participants for satisfaction with the process and 

its outcome.

■ Train mediators in victim 

sensitivity.

The above guidelines are grounded in

a humanistic approach to mediation

that places more emphasis on dialogue than a written settlement. The

humanistic approach demands that

the mediator create a safe place to

foster dialogue between the parties

about the emotional and material

impact of the crime; written restitution agreements often occur but are

secondary to the importance of dialogue between participants. Multisite

studies over the years have consistently highlighted the prime importance of direct dialogue that focuses

on peacemaking rather than problem

solving and resolution. Humanistic

mediation has been applied in many

settings including community mediation, victim-offender mediation,

workplace mediation, family mediation, and peer mediation in schools.

Recommendations

The Guidelines makes the following

program development recommendations to strengthen VOM programs

and encourage evaluation and 

collaboration:
7

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary

■ Create an advisory board.

■ Ensure quality control through 

program evaluation.

• Collect responses from 

participants.

• Have the mediator provide a 

self-evaluation.

• Gather feedback from probation officers or victim services

personnel who work with the 

parties involved in mediation.

■ Develop and maintain an extensive and effective network with

stakeholders in the community.

■ Maintain high-quality standards 

for mediators.

• Screen applicants seeking 

training as mediators.

• Use mediation training sessions as an additional opportunity to screen mediators.

• Maintain quality control

through meaningful relationships between program staff 

and mediators.

• Establish regular continuing 

education to strengthen 

skills.

■ Explore opportunities for broadening the scope of program 

services.

• Develop a skills-training 

course for juvenile offenders 

and their parents.

• Improve mediators’ ability to 

serve victims and offenders.

• Coordinate with the community to allow offenders to perform community service.

• Provide offender rehabilitation

opportunities.

• Help offenders develop empathy for victims.

• Use mediation to foster positive family relationships when 

offenders leave corrections.

The Guidelines also makes the following recommendations for mediation training to promote high

standards for mediators:

■ Maximize experiential learning

by enhancing role playing.

• Demonstrate a realistically 

performed role play.

• Arrange the role-play schedule

so that each trainee experiences each role.

• Coach trainees on how to play

the roles so that they do not 

overdramatize.

• Guide trainees in debriefing 

the role play so that they can 

evaluate what worked or did 

not work and why.

• Use experienced mediators to 

coach role players.

• Videotape role plays involving

trainees.

• Design role plays to address 

specific problems.

• Use input from victims and 

offenders to create role plays.

• Use current cases as the basis 

for role plays.

• Role play atypical parts of the 

mediation process.

■ Use a multidimensional format to

enhance learning.

• Incorporate into training the 

personal experiences, perspectives, and knowledge of 

trainees.

• Consider onsite observations 

by trainees.

• Make training as realistic 

as possible.

• Vary the training format.

• Vary the pace of training.

• Incorporate experiential learning whenever possible.

• Make the training manual user

friendly.

• Be current and creative; be 

fresh and interesting; be 

engaging.

■ Assist trainees in enhancing the

potential of the preparation

phase.

• Encourage trainees to consider

the use of outside support 

persons to help prepare participants for mediation.

• Develop materials that victims

and offenders can use when 

preparing for mediation.

• Explore with trainees methods

for increasing victim and 

offender participation and 

interaction.

• Guide trainees in how to help 

victims and offenders determine their goals.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive

Victim-Offender Mediation is meant

to provide a flexible outline that can

be adjusted to fit the cultural context

of each community and the specific

needs of the participating victims,
8

OVC Bulletin

offenders, and support people. The

ultimate goal of VOM is to offer a

safe place for dialogue between victims and offenders that can offer an

opportunity to resolve the impact of

crime on their lives.

Multicultural Implications

of Restorative Justice:

Potential Pitfalls and

Dangers

The key to progress toward adaptation

of restorative justice frameworks is

increased sensitivity to crosscultural issues and dynamics that

affect restorative justice programs and

the administration of justice itself.

Often the cultural backgrounds of victim, offender, and program staff member are different from one another,

sometimes leading to miscommunication, feelings of being misunderstood,

or even revictimization.

A great danger when speaking of

cross-cultural issues is overgeneralization. There are as many differences within cultures as between

cultures. For example, significant

customs, communication styles, and

shared values distinguish the rural

Caucasian from the urban Caucasian,

the upper-class African-American

from the lower-class AfricanAmerican, the Mexican Latino from

the Puerto Rican Latino, the reservation American Indian from the nonreservation American Indian.

Differences between persons raised

or living in unlike cultures are often

reflected in communication styles.

Those differences are typically as

evident in the way points of view are

communicated as they are in the

message being relayed. Differences

can be found in the proximity

between conversants—some are more

comfortable speaking with less distance between them and others. Body

movements such as posture and restlessness can vary from culture to 

culture. Paralanguage, or vocal cues

such as volume of voice, silence, and

inflections, can cause miscommunication between persons of different

cultural backgrounds. Variations in

density of language, such as terse,

direct language versus poetic, indirect language, can cause tension and

misunderstandings. Victim-offender

mediation is more successful when

persons working with victims and

offenders understand how differences

in communication styles can lead to

miscommunication, which defeats

the restorative justice process.

Cultural differences also exist within

larger cultures. Racial identity,

socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, rural

or urban environment, and many

other defining characteristics shape

how individuals view the world and

their place and chances in that world

and affect individuals’ propensity to

blame the offender, the victim, or the

community for crime. Cultural factors also help determine whether participants come to a restorative justice

program seeking revenge or repair,

desiring to act or to be acted upon, or

expecting success or defeat.

Multicultural Implications of

Restorative Justice also makes recommendations to prepare restorative

justice practitioners to be more effective. Recommended steps include the

following:

■ Understand one’s own behaviors,

communication styles, and “cultural baggage.”

■ Refrain from making quick

assumptions about others.

■ Perceive the participants as individuals within the context of 

culture. Note how they see their

world.

■ Nurture relationships with individuals in an unfamiliar culture

or community.

■ Prepare VOM participants by 

helping them understand the viewpoints and different communication styles of other participants.

Multicultural Implications of

Restorative Justice emphasizes

increasing awareness of and sensitivity to other cultural values or communication styles as an integral part of

achieving success in the restorative

justice process. Recommendations are

made not to change behaviors but to

reduce the tension and potential conflict that might surface without understanding the differences in world

view among the participants.

Family Group

Conferencing: Implications

for Crime Victims

Family group conferencing (FGC)

provides an opportunity for the community of people most affected by a

crime—the victim and the offender

and the family, friends, and key supporters of both—to talk about the

impact of the crime and decide how

the offender should be held accountable for the harm he or she caused to

the victim. The facilitator contacts

the victim and offender to explain the
9

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary

process and invites them to the conference; the facilitator also asks them

to identify key members of their support systems who will be invited to

participate as well. Participation by

all involved is voluntary. The offender must admit to the offense to participate. The parties are brought

together by a trained facilitator to

discuss how they and others have

been harmed by the offense and how

that harm might be repaired.

Background

FGC originated in New Zealand as a

way to address the failures of traditional juvenile justice and incorporate

indigenous Maori values that emphasize the roles of family and community in addressing wrongdoing.

Institutionalized into law in 1989,

FGC is now the standard way to

process juvenile cases in New

Zealand. Australia subsequently

adopted the concept and has implemented a number of FGC models in

various communities. Representatives

from both countries have lectured

and provided training workshops

throughout the United States and

Canada. Audiences have ranged from

VOM and other restorative justice

practitioners to law enforcement officers, school officials, and a growing

number of victim advocates.

One Pennsylvania-based organization, REAL JUSTICE, is vigorously

promoting a specific police- and

school-based model that originated in

Wagga Wagga, Australia. REAL

JUSTICE has trained hundreds of

police officers and school personnel

and is working to replicate the

Australian model in a number of sites

in the country. The Minnesota

Legislature funded the development

of FGC pilot projects using the

REAL JUSTICE model in nine communities in Minnesota’s First Judicial

District. 

FGC is clearly grounded in

Australian criminologist Dr. John

Braithwaite’s theory of “reintegrative

shaming” of offenders with its

emphasis on changing offender

behavior (Braithwaite, 1989). It is

also influenced by Silvan Tomkins’

affect theory (Tomkins, 1992).

Practitioners in the field found that

by themselves these theories were

not sufficient to address the importance of engaging crime victims in

the conferencing process. Restorative

justice theory did not play a large

part in the origin of FGC, but it was

later used to help conceptualize and

fine-tune the approach, resulting, for

example, in a greater appreciation of

the centrality of victims’ roles. Now,

New Zealand Judge F.W.M. McElrea

calls the approach the first truly

restorative system institutionalized

within a Western legal system.

Similarities to and Differences

From Victim-Offender Mediation

FGC seems to be a natural expansion

of the dominant model of VOM currently used by most of the more than

300 programs in North America and

more than 700 programs in Europe.

Like VOM, FGC provides victims an

opportunity to express the full impact

of the crime upon their lives, receive

answers to any lingering questions

about the incident, and participate in

holding offenders accountable for

their actions. Offenders can tell their

stories of why the crime occurred

and how it has affected their lives.

They are given an opportunity to

make things right with the victims—

to the degree possible—through

some form of compensation. FGC

primarily works with juvenile offenders who have committed property

crimes, but it has also been used with

violent juvenile offenders and adult

offenders. This is consistent with the

development of VOM in North

America over the past 20 years.

Differences between the two programs

include who fills the facilitating role

and the number of participants. FGC

typically uses public officials (police

officers, probation officers, school

officials) rather than trained volunteers as facilitators. Although these

public officials’ roles include mediation, they are more broadly defined,

combining mediation with other

methods of interaction and allowing

for more directed facilitation. The

FGC process also casts a much wider

circle of participants than VOM,

although the national survey found

that more than 90 percent of VOM

programs frequently have parents or

other support persons present at the

mediation session. Family Group

Conferencing lists the advantages and

disadvantages of the VOM and FGC

models and also provides guiding

principles to ensure that intervention

for victims, offenders, families, and

communities truly reflects restorative

justice values.

Family group conferencing provides

victims and communities with another way to facilitate recovery from

crime. Like any good idea or program, however, it may have unintended consequences. FGC may not

be appropriate for every situation; in
10

OVC Bulletin

each case it must be adapted to the

specific context and needs of the

individuals involved. Some cases

might warrant family group conferencing instead of the smaller group

involved in victim-offender mediation or vice versa. More serious cases

may even require both forms of

mediation. Most important, though,

is that research and development in

the field of restorative justice continue to pursue new ways to provide

crime victims with options that effectively serve their needs.

Directory of VictimOffender Mediation

Programs in the 

United States

The Directory lists victim-offender

mediation programs in the United

States, alphabetized first by State,

then by city, and finally by program

name. If no programs are listed for a

particular city or State, it means that

the Center for Restorative Justice &

Peacemaking, the organization that

assembled the Directory, has no

record of a victim-offender mediation

program in that city or State. The

Directory is continually updated 

by the Center. The most current

Directory is available online at

ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp. You also 

may order copies by phone at

612–624–4923 or via e-mail at

rjp@tlcmail.che.umn.edu.

Conclusion

The number of VOM programs is

increasing in communities throughout the country, and the principles

and guidelines in The Restorative

Justice and Mediation Collection will

contribute to the development of the

highest quality victim-sensitive mediation services possible. Considerable

room, however, remains for continued experimentation in this emerging

field.

At least three significant trends have

developed in the field. First, the number of victim-offender mediation programs working with property crime

and minor assaults has steadily

increased and is likely to expand further in the coming years. At the time

of the national survey, more than

1,200 programs had been identified

worldwide, with 300 programs in 

the United States and the balance

developing in Europe and other parts

of the world.

Second, other forms of victimoffender dialogue such as family

group conferencing and peacemaking

circles are emerging in various locations. Increasingly, a growing number of established VOM programs are

employing a multimethod approach

that offers a range of victim-offender

communication options, from small

one-on-one mediation sessions to

large group conferences or circles

involving many family members and

other involved community members.

In fact, one of the most illuminating

findings of the national survey was

that the vast majority of current

victim-offender mediation programs

routinely involve parents in the

process, and sometimes other support

persons as well. The original one-onone mediation model that emerged in

the late 1970s and early 1980s

appears to be used less and less.

Finally, it is clear that an increasing

number of VOM programs are

receiving referrals for cases of

severely violent offenses. At least six

States are developing statewide programs that offer mediation and dialogue to those victims and survivors

of severe violence who have

expressed a need to meet their

offenders. These new initiatives are

often developed through the victim

services office of a State’s department of corrections. The programs in

Ohio and Texas are particularly well

developed and are the subject of a

new multiyear evaluation being conducted to assess the impact of victimoffender mediation and dialogue in

such crimes as sexual assault,

attempted homicide, and first-degree

murder. All of these trends bode well

for more extensive engagement of

crime victims in the process of

restorative justice.

These trends also raise a number of

difficult issues and highlight numerous unanswered questions, such as

the following:

■ Will the pressure to develop new

programs and to handle an

increasing number of cases compromise the underlying principles

of victim-sensitive mediation?

■ In their haste to manage increasing caseloads, will programs

eliminate the separate in-person

premediation preparation meetings that are so integral to creating safe conditions for dialogue?

■ As more family and community

members participate in newer

forms of victim-offender communication, will the primary interests and needs of crime victims

be diminished?
11

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary

■ As new programs develop, will

they gravitate toward the dominant settlement-driven type of

mediation, rather than the 

dialogue-driven approach of

humanistic mediation that has

been found to be highly victimsensitive?

■ As more community volunteers

serve as mediators, will they

receive adequate training in 

victim-sensitive mediation 

practices?

■ Will programs and individual

mediators work with severely

violent offenses without the necessary advanced training and

therefore increase the probability

of revictimizing the victim or

victimizing the offender?

■ As programs expand to work

with severely violent crime cases,

will mediators in such cases

engage the parties in multiple inperson preparation meetings over

many months or will they yield

to the inevitable pressure to

process cases quickly?

■ How is the labor-intensive cost 

of providing victim-sensitive

mediation in crimes of severe

violence to be covered?

■ Should the cost of VOM in

crimes of severe violence be covered by State victim compensation laws for those victims and

survivors of severely violent

crime who request a meeting

with their offenders?

■ Are correctional officials likely

to allow a meeting between a

victim of severe violence and the

offender (who is usually incarcerated) to occur in the prison?

Preliminary data indicate exceptionally high levels of client satisfaction

with the process and outcome of

VOM and dialogue in crimes of

severe violence. The process is

designed to hold offenders truly

accountable, help victims manage the

loss resulting from the crime, and

help all parties move on with their

lives in a positive way. The constructive potential that victim-offender

mediation holds warrants continued

support for additional studies.

OVC plans to publish two documents

as additions to the collection in the

future.

For Further

Information

For further information about victimsensitive victim-offender mediation

and dialogue, including articles,

monographs, videos, training materials and opportunities, and research

reports, contact

Center for Restorative Justice &

Peacemaking

School of Social Work

University of Minnesota

105 Peters Hall

1404 Gortner Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

Phone: 612–624–4923

Fax: 612–625–4288

E-mail: rjp@tlcmail.che.umn.edu

World Wide Web:

ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp

For additional copies of this bulletin,

please contact

Office for Victims of Crime

Resource Center (OVCRC)

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Phone: 1–800–627–6872 or

301–519–5500

E-mail orders for print publications

to puborder@ncjrs.org

E-mail questions to

askovc@ncjrs.org

References and

Additional Resources

Bazemore, G., and M.S. Umbreit.

(1999) Conferences, Circles, Boards,

and Mediations: Restorative Justice

and Citizen Involvement in the

Response to Youth Crime. St. Paul,

MN: Center for Restorative Justice &

Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Bazemore, G., and M.S. Umbreit.

(1995) “Rethinking the Sanctioning

Function in Juvenile Court:

Retributive or Restorative Responses

to Youth Crime.” Crime &

Delinquency 41(3): 296–316.

Bazemore, G., and L. Walgrave.

(1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice:

Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame,

and Reintegration. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Coates, R.B., and J. Gehm. (1989)

“An Empirical Assessment.” In M.

Wright and B. Galaway (eds.),

Mediation and Criminal Justice.

London, England: Sage Publications,

251–263.

Galaway, B., and J. Hudson. (1996)

Restorative Justice: An International

Perspective. Monsey, NY: Criminal

Justice Press.
12

OVC Bulletin

Marshall, T.F. (1998) Restorative

Justice: An Overview. St. Paul, MN:

Center for Restorative Justice &

Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Marshall, T.F., and S. Merry. (1990)

Crime and Accountability. London,

England: Home Office.

Nugent, W.R., and J.B. Paddock.

(1995) “The Effect of VictimOffender Mediation on Severity of

Reoffense.” Mediation Quarterly

12(4): 353–367.

Nugent, W.R., M.S. Umbreit, L.

Winamaki, and J. Paddock. (In press)

“Participation in Victim-Offender

Mediation and Re-Offense:

Successful Replications?” Journal of

Research on Social Work Practice.

Schneider, A.L. (1986) “Restitution

and Recidivism Rates of Juvenile

Offenders: Results from Four

Experimental Studies.” Criminology

24(3): 533–553.

Sue, D.W., and D. Sue. (1990)

Counseling the Culturally Different,

2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley

& Sons.

Tomkins, S. (1992) Affect, Imagery,

and Consciousness, Series of four

books. New York, NY: Springer

Publishing Company.

Umbreit, M.S. (2000) Family Group

Conferencing: Implications for

Crime Victims. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M.S. (1997) “Humanistic

Mediation: A Transformative Journey

of Peace-Making.” Mediation

Quarterly 14(3): 201–213.

Umbreit, M.S. (1995a) “The

Development and Impact of VictimOffender Mediation in the U.S.”

Mediation Quarterly 12(3): 263–276.

Umbreit, M.S. (1995b) Mediating

Interpersonal Conflicts: A Pathway

to Peace. West Concord, MN: CPI

Publishing.

Umbreit, M.S. (1995c) Mediation of

Criminal Conflict: An Assessment of

Programs in Four Canadian

Provinces. St. Paul, MN: Center for

Restorative Justice & Mediation,

University of Minnesota.

Umbreit, M.S. (1995d) “Moving to a

Higher Plane: A Humanistic Model

of Mediation.” In M. Umbreit,

Mediating Interpersonal Conflicts: A

Pathway to Peace. West Concord,

MN: CPI Publishing, 198–216.

Umbreit, M.S. (1994a) “Crime

Victims Confront Their Offenders:

The Impact of a Minneapolis

Mediation Program.” Journal of

Research on Social Work Practice

4(4): 436–447.

Umbreit, M.S. (1994b) Victim Meets

Offender: The Impact of Restorative

Justice and Mediation. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, M.S., and W. Bradshaw.

(1995) Victim-Sensitive Offender

Dialogue Model. St. Paul, MN:

Center for Restorative Justice &

Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Umbreit, M.S., and R.B. Coates.

(2000) Multicultural Implications of

Restorative Justice: Potential Pitfalls

and Dangers. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M.S., and R.B. Coates.

(1993) “Cross-Site Analysis of

Victim Offender Mediation in Four

States.” Crime and Delinquency

39(4): 565–585.

Umbreit, M.S., and J. Greenwood.

(2000) Guidelines for VictimSensitive Victim-Offender Mediation:

Restorative Justice Through

Dialogue. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M.S., and A.W. Roberts.

(1996) Mediation of Criminal

Conflict in England: An Assessment

of Services in Coventry and Leeds.

St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative

Justice & Mediation, University of

Minnesota.

Umbreit, M.S., and B. Vos. (In press)

“Homicide Survivors Meet the

Offender Prior to Execution:

Restorative Justice Through

Dialogue.” Homicide Studies 2000.

Umbreit, M.S., W. Bradshaw, and 

R. Coates. (Forthcoming) VictimSensitive Victim-Offender Mediation

and Dialogue in Crimes of Severe

Violence. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime. 

Umbreit, M.S., W. Bradshaw, and R.

Coates. (1998) “Impact of VictimOffender Mediation in Canada,

England, and the United States.”

Crime Victim Report 1(6): 83, 90–92.

Umbreit, M.S., R. Coates, and A.W.

Roberts. (In press) “Victim-Offender

Mediation: A Cross-National

Perspective.” Mediation Quarterly.
13

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary

Umbreit, M.S., J. Greenwood, and

W. Bradshaw. (1998) Victim-Sensitive

Victim-Offender Mediation Training

Manual. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M.S., J. Greenwood, C.

Fercello, and J. Umbreit. (2000)

National Survey of Victim-Offender

Mediation Programs in the United

States. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M.S., J. Greenwood, C.

Fercello, J. Umbreit, and R. Schug.

(2000) Directory of Victim-Offender

Mediation Programs in the United

States. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for

Victims of Crime.

Van Ness, D., and K. Strong. (1997)

Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson Publishing Company.

Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses:

A New Focus for Crime and Justice.

Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.

About the Author

This bulletin was prepared by Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director of the

Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking (formerly the Center for

Restorative Justice & Mediation) at the School of Social Work, University of Minnesota. Colleagues who assisted Dr. Umbreit in writing and

producing the publications described in this publication were William

Bradshaw, Ph.D.; Robert B. Coates, Ph.D.; Claudia Fercello, M.S.W.; 

Jean Greenwood, M.Div.; Robert Schug; and Jenni Umbreit.

This document was prepared under the direction of the Office for Victims

of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Office for

Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which

also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

NCJ 180301
Do you need practical guidelines for establishing a victim-offender mediation program

in your community? Would you like to contact other victim-offender programs and

obtain information on what other programs are doing? Do you need information on how

to effectively serve victims in a cross-cultural mediation forum?

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) is pleased to announce the availability of a new

resource series that provides guidance on establishing victim-sensitive restorative 

justice programs. This series is a valuable resource for probation and parole agencies,

judicial agencies, religious groups, victim service organizations, community-based

organizations, or others interested in a restorative conflict resolution process.

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection includes the following documents:

■ National Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States

■ Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice 

Through Dialogue

■ Multicultural Implications of Restorative Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers

■ Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

■ Directory of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States

All five documents are packaged in a custom slipcase.

ORDER FORM

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection (NCJ 176970) is available from the OVC Resource Center (OVCRC).

To obtain a set, mail or fax this form to OVCRC or call OVCRC at 1–800–627–6872. 

Please send the collection to:

Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Organization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Street Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

City: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ZIP Code: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Telephone: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fax: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

E-mail: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mail this order form to National Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000,

or fax it to 410–792–4358.

The RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

and MEDIATION COLLECTION
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OVC

PERMIT NO. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300