U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate

representation of minorities in the juvenile justice

system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant

funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to

States, local governments, and private agencies;

and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination Unit informs individuals

and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; disseminates

information on juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and missing children; and coordinates program

planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit’s activities

include publishing research and statistical reports,

bulletins, and other documents, as well as overseeing

the operations of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes interagency cooperation and coordination

among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the

area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries

out this responsibility through the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program seeks to

promote effective policies and procedures for addressing the problem of missing and exploited children.

Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act

of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of

activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children; training and technical assistance

to a network of 47 State clearinghouses, nonprofit

organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as

amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to

provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice

system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent juvenile victimization

and respond appropriately to juvenile delinquency. This is accomplished through developing and implementing prevention programs and a juvenile justice system that protects the public safety, holds juvenile offenders accountable,

and provides treatment and rehabilitative services based on the needs of each individual juvenile.
i

Guide for Implementing

the Balanced and Restorative

Justice Model

Report

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

December 1998
ii

The Balanced and Restorative Justice Project is supported by a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Florida Atlantic University and is a joint project of the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work and Florida Atlantic University. This document was prepared under grant number 95–JN–FX–0024.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

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

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
iii

Foreword

America has made great strides in developing an effective youth policy—thanks, in large measure, to juvenile

justice and other youth service professionals who are using what works, developing new approaches, and applying research and evaluation information to control juvenile crime and improve our juvenile justice system.

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders provides an

overarching approach to addressing juvenile crime and victimization. The Strategy emphasizes prevention and

early intervention and the development of a system of graduated sanctions that holds youth accountable and

protects communities.

The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Model is an effective tool for achieving youth accountability

and enhancing community safety. BARJ can be used to combat delinquency in your State, county, or city. The

three priorities of BARJ—public safety, accountability, and competency development—recognize both victim

and offender restoration as critical goals of community justice. Achieving these goals leads to improved quality

of life and increased safety for individuals and communities alike.

The Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model is the result of years of collaborative efforts

by OJJDP’s BARJ Project and juvenile justice professionals across the Nation, and will serve as a valuable

resource for those seeking to carry out this constructive approach.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
v

Acknowledgments

The Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model is the result of 5 years of joint development,

training, and technical assistance efforts by the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Project and juvenile

justice professionals throughout the United States. The BARJ Project team has learned much from the many

juvenile justice practitioners who have been willing to take risks, try new approaches, and test the ideas of the

BARJ approach in daily work. The BARJ team members are indebted to those practitioners who have joined

them in walking down the learning path.

Assistance in producing this Guide has been provided by Jane Johncox, Dakota County, MN; Susan Day,

West Palm Beach, FL; and Deborah Brockman Galvin, Deschutes County, OR. Numerous juvenile justice

professionals from BARJ Project demonstration sites and other innovative jurisdictions across the United

States, Canada, and Great Britain provided information about their programs and processes. Juvenile justice

professionals, victim advocates, and policymakers who reviewed the material and made valuable comments

include Sandy Duncan, Stephanie Haider, George Kinder, Bruce Kittle, Anne McDiarmid, Carolyn McLeod,

Jim Moeser, Caroline Nicholl, Brenda Urke, Maddy Wenger, and Earl Wright. Lillian Abelson gathered information about resources, practices, and program examples, and Robert Schug provided word processing

assistance and supported the preparation of this document.

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project

Principal Investigators

Gordon Bazemore, Community Justice Institute, Florida Atlantic

University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Mark Umbreit, Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Primary Consultants

Mark Carey, Dakota County Community Corrections, Hastings, MN

Andrew Klein, Quincy District Court, Quincy, MA

Dennis Maloney, Deschutes County Department of Community Justice,

Bend, OR

Principal Writer

Kay Pranis, Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul, MN

Editor

Rachel Lipkin, Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
vii

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................ v

Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................................................ x

About the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project ....................................................................... xi

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose of This Document ............................................................................................................................ 1

Overview of the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project ...................................................................... 3

Balanced and Restorative Justice Philosophy ...................................................................................... 5

Principles of Restorative Justice .................................................................................................................. 5

The Restorative Justice Vision ..................................................................................................................... 5

The Balanced Approach Mission .................................................................................................................. 5

Transforming the Current Juvenile Justice System Into a More Restorative Model ........................... 6

Getting Started: Steps in Organizational Change ...................................................................................... 7

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice: Accountability ............................................................ 9

Characteristics of Restorative Accountability Strategies .......................................................................... 9

Restorative Accountability Practice Definitions ...................................................................................... 10

Promising Programs: Accountability ......................................................................................................... 11

Common Problems in Choosing Accountability Strategies ..................................................................... 15

Recommended Participants for Implementation ...................................................................................... 15

Roles for Juvenile Justice Professionals ................................................................................................... 16

Expected Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Benefits to Juvenile Justice Professionals ................................................................................................ 16

Guiding Questions for Juvenile Justice Professionals ............................................................................ 17

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice: Competency Development ................................. 19

Characteristics of Restorative Competency Development ...................................................................... 19

Restorative Competency Development Practice Definitions ................................................................. 21

Promising Programs: Competency Development ..................................................................................... 22

Common Problems in Competency Development Programming ........................................................... 25
viii

Recommended Participants for Implementation ...................................................................................... 25

Roles for Juvenile Justice Professionals ................................................................................................... 25

Expected Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Benefits to Juvenile Justice Professionals ................................................................................................ 26

Guiding Questions for Juvenile Justice Professionals ............................................................................ 26

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice: Community Safety ................................................... 27

Characteristics of Restorative Community Safety ................................................................................... 27

Restorative Community Safety Practice Definitions ............................................................................... 29

Juvenile Offender-Focused Community Safety Practice:

Graduated Community-Based Surveillance ........................................................................................... 29

Community-Focused Community Safety Practice ................................................................................. 30

Promising Programs: Community Safety .................................................................................................. 31

Common Problems in Choosing Community Safety Strategies ............................................................. 32

Recommended Participants for Implementation ...................................................................................... 33

Roles for Juvenile Justice Professionals ................................................................................................... 33

Expected Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 33

Benefits to Juvenile Justice Professionals ................................................................................................ 33

Guiding Questions for Juvenile Justice Professionals ............................................................................ 34

Putting the Pieces Together ....................................................................................................................... 35

Weaving the Strands of Accountability, Competency Development, and Community Safety ........... 35

Balanced and Restorative Justice in Practice ........................................................................................... 35

Role Changes in Balanced and Restorative Justice .......................................................................... 39

New Roles for Victims, Communities, Juvenile Offenders, and Juvenile Justice Professionals ...... 39

Changing Decisionmaking Roles: New Options ....................................................................................... 39

Skills and Knowledge Needed by the Juvenile Justice Professional ..................................................... 40

Juvenile Justice Professional Role-Change Examples ............................................................................ 40

Juvenile Justice Professionals Engaging the Community ..................................................................... 40

Identification and Involvement of Key Stakeholders ............................................................................. 42

Long-Term Prevention Activities ............................................................................................................ 42

Creation of Partnerships for Prevention ................................................................................................. 42

A Change in Countywide Systems Toward Restorative Justice ........................................................... 43

A Move From Community “Corrections” to Community “Justice” ...................................................... 44

Community Policing: Solving Problems ................................................................................................. 45

Getting Help: Strategies for Involving Stakeholders ....................................................................... 47

Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................................................ 47
ix

Measuring Outcomes .................................................................................................................................... 51

Guiding Questions for Measuring Outcomes for Individual Dispositions ........................................... 51

Guiding Questions for Measuring Outcomes for the Juvenile Justice System ................................... 51

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice Tools .............................................................................. 53

Quality Restorative Justice Practice ......................................................................................................... 53

Grounding Interventions in Key Restorative Justice Values................................................................. 53

Community Justice Officer Position Description ................................................................................... 53

Sample Disposition ...................................................................................................................................... 56

Balanced and Restorative Justice Case Management Guide .................................................................. 56

Case Studies That Demonstrate Change Toward a Balanced and

Restorative Justice Model .......................................................................................................................... 59

Dakota County Community Corrections, Dakota County, MN: Organizational Change .................. 59

Overview of the Dakota County Restorative Justice Effort ................................................................. 59

Dakota County Within the Context of the Larger Balanced and Restorative Justice Effort .............. 60

Organizational Change: Eliciting Staff Support..................................................................................... 61

Implications for Other Jurisdictions ....................................................................................................... 62

Department of Juvenile Justice, Palm Beach County, FL: Expanding the Victim Component ........ 62

Overview of the Palm Beach County Restorative Justice Effort .......................................................... 62

Palm Beach County Within the Context of the Larger Balanced and Restorative Justice Effort ...... 62

Case Study: Expanding the Victim Component ..................................................................................... 63

Implications for Other Jurisdictions ....................................................................................................... 64

Community Intensive Supervision Project (CISP), Allegheny County Juvenile Court

Services, Pittsburgh, PA: Involvement of the Community ....................................................................... 64

Overview of CISP .................................................................................................................................... 64

CISP Within the Context of the Larger Balanced and Restorative Justice Effort .............................. 65

CISP Strengths Related to the Balanced and Restorative Justice Approach....................................... 65

Case Study: Building Links With Neighborhoods and Community Residents .................................... 66

Implications for Other Jurisdictions ....................................................................................................... 67

Bumps in the Road: Issues and Challenges ............................................................................................... 67

Appendixes

Appendix A: For More Information ........................................................................................................A–1

Appendix B: Deschutes County Department of Community Justice Position Description ............ B–1

Appendix C: Sample Disposition..............................................................................................................C–1
x

Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Key Competencies ....................................................................................................................... 20

Table 2 Differences Between Individual Treatment and Competency Development Practices ........... 21

Table 3 Range of Community Safety Interventions for Use by Juvenile Justice Professionals .......... 28

Table 4 Weaving the Strands Together ................................................................................................... 37

Table 5 New Roles in the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model ..................................................... 41

Table 6 Quality of Restorative Justice Practice Continuum .................................................................. 54

Table 7 Balanced and Restorative Justice Case Management Guide ................................................... 56

Figure

Figure 1 The Balanced Approach ................................................................................................................ 6
xi

About the Balanced and Restorative

Justice Project

The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Project began as a national initiative of the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 1993 through a grant to Florida Atlantic University (FAU).

In 1994, FAU developed a partnership arrangement with the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation

through a subcontract with the University of Minnesota. The goals of the project are to provide training and

technical assistance and develop a variety of written materials to inform policy and practice pertinent to the

balanced approach mission and restorative justice.

The Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model is part of a series of policy and practice monographs and training materials for the field. Other publications in the series include:

◆ Balanced and Restorative Justice, Program Summary (1995) (available through NCJRS).

◆ Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century (published for

OJJDP by the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project).

◆ Balanced and Restorative Justice Project Training Guide (published for OJJDP by the Balanced and Restorative

Justice Project).

Balanced and Restorative Justice Report Cover Design

This Report’s cover design features three unique abstract icons created to

symbolize the three major conceptual components of the philosophical framework for balanced and restorative justice (BARJ): accountability, competency

development, and community safety. The icon that represents accountability shows

balance; for example, a negative action on the part of an offender is balanced by

a positive response from coparticipant implementors of the BARJ approach.

The icon for competency development shows steps leading upward, a positive direction that represents self-improvement on the part of the offender. The icon for

community safety symbolizes protection, which is represented by the two shielding

elements that surround an interior sphere.
1

Introduction

The debate over the future of the juvenile court and

the juvenile justice system has historically been between proponents of a retributive, punitive philosophy and advocates of the traditional individual

treatment mission. Both approaches have failed to

satisfy basic needs of individual crime victims, the

community, and juvenile offenders.

The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)

Model outlines an alternative philosophy, restorative

justice, and a new mission, “the balanced approach,”

which requires juvenile justice professionals to devote attention to:

◆ Enabling offenders to make amends to their victims and community.

◆ Increasing offender competencies.

◆ Protecting the public through processes in which

individual victims, the community, and offenders

are all active participants.

The BARJ Model responds to many issues raised by

the victims’ movement, including concerns that victims have little input into the resolution of their own

cases, rarely feel heard, and often receive no restitution or expression of remorse from the offender.

The balanced approach is based on an understanding of crime as an act against the victim and the

community, which is an ancient idea common to

tribal and religious traditions of many cultures.

Practitioners have used techniques consistent with

this approach for years; however, they have lacked a

coherent philosophical framework that supports

restorative practice and provides direction to guide

all aspects of juvenile justice practice. The BARJ

Model provides an overarching vision and guidance

for daily decisions.

Juvenile justice professionals, including probation

and parole officers, prosecutors, judges, case managers, and victim advocates, recognize the need for

juvenile justice system reform. People who work on

the front lines of the system are faced daily with the

frustration of seeing growing numbers of young

people involved in criminal behavior, youth who

leave the system with little hope for real change, and

countless crime victims and community members

who are left out of the process. That frustration has

inspired many of these professionals to work toward

changing organizational culture, values, and programs to reflect a more balanced and restorative

approach to juvenile justice.

The BARJ Model is a vision for the future of juvenile justice that builds on current innovative practices and is based on core values that have been

part of most communities for centuries. It provides

a framework for systemic reform and offers hope

for preserving and revitalizing the juvenile justice

system.

Implementation must begin with consensus building among key stakeholders and testing with small

pilot projects to develop the model. This evolutionary process can build on existing programs and

practices that reflect restorative justice principles,

such as victim-offender mediation, family group

conferencing, community service, restitution, and

work experience.

Purpose of This Document

This document is intended to assist juvenile justice

professionals in implementing a BARJ approach in

their work. The BARJ mission includes attention to

each of three components:
2

◆ Accountability.

◆ Competency development.

◆ Community safety.

For each of these three components, the Guide for

Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model

outlines:

◆ Key characteristics of appropriate practices.

◆ Promising practice examples, including practice

definitions and existing programs.

◆ Common problems faced in attempting to implement the model.

◆ Possible allies for implementation.

◆ Roles for juvenile justice professionals.

◆ Expected outcomes.

◆ Benefits to juvenile justice professionals.

◆ Guiding questions.

The Guide presents practical information and tools

to enable juvenile justice professionals to implement

the BARJ philosophy and mission. The information

in this document is based on the experience of juvenile justice practitioners in several BARJ Project

pilot sites and in other jurisdictions where this new

vision for juvenile justice has inspired experimentation and testing of new ideas.

The document is a guide only, not a prescription.

There is no single “right way” to implement the

BARJ Model. Within the general principles and values of restorative justice, implementation may vary

based on local resources, traditions, and culture. The

process of change toward a balanced and restorative

system is one of continual learning and assessment.

The BARJ approach is a way of thinking about how

the community responds to crime, not a set of directions. Because practitioners know their own communities and are aware of local resources, values, and

cultures, they are the experts in determining how to

apply these ideas within their own jurisdictions in

collaboration with other stakeholders.

Once the BARJ goals and objectives are understood, practitioners can assess where the greatest

opportunities are for taking the first steps. Moving

toward a BARJ system is an evolutionary process,

taken one step at a time. Local conditions will dictate which first step has the greatest probability of

success on which to build further steps.

The Guide provides criteria by which practitioners

can judge current or proposed practice in terms of

BARJ principles. It also provides examples of appropriate programs and practices. However, these

examples can never be definitive, because creative

practitioners and communities are continually devising new strategies for achieving BARJ goals.

To effectively evaluate any new or existing practice,

practitioners must understand the guiding values of

the approach and be familiar with the characteristics

of interventions that adhere to restorative justice

values. It is not sufficient to know just technique.

Practitioners must also understand underlying values and principles.

For a more indepth discussion of the underlying

theoretical concepts, see Balanced and Restorative Justice (Program Summary), Balanced and Restorative

Justice for Juveniles: A Framework for Juvenile Justice in

the 21st Century, and Balanced and Restorative Justice

Project Training Guide.

This document provides concrete examples to assist

juvenile justice professionals at all levels in examining

how their roles can change to facilitate greater victim

involvement, community partnerships, and positive

development for offenders. For example, probation

officers can work more directly with victims of crime

by coordinating a victim-offender mediation program.

Judges can share decisionmaking with the community by supporting community panels to hear cases.

Police officers can collaborate with schools and community members to help set up positive community

Appendix A to this Report includes key resources that expand upon each of the above

variables as they relate to each of the three BARJ

components of accountability, competency development, and community safety.
3

service projects that allow offenders the opportunity

to build valuable competencies. Victim advocates can

work with juvenile justice professionals to set up victim impact panels.

The information in this document is intended to

stimulate the reader’s thinking and to assist in the

journey of continual discovery of new possibilities

for a balanced and restorative response to crime.

Readers are encouraged to use the Guide’s framework to design new programs and processes that fit

their individual environments.

Overview of the Balanced and

Restorative Justice Project

In its 4-year history, the BARJ Project has provided

assistance to numerous juvenile justice systems and

professionals across the country. Training and technical assistance have been provided in numerous

State and local jurisdictions across the United

States.

The BARJ Model is gaining support in communities

and juvenile justice systems nationwide. A dozen

States have balanced approach or restorative justice

legislation, another half dozen are reviewing bills

that would change their juvenile justice codes, and

numerous States and local jurisdictions have

adopted restorative justice policies.

Project monographs and other materials have found

their way into policy documents at the State level.

The importance of this legislation and policy is that it

sends a message to local practitioners already interested in implementing restorative justice, giving them

a green light to proceed with implementation of these

ideas.

Although the scope of the BARJ effort is national,

to ensure that all training and technical assistance

material was grounded in real-world practice, three

primary jurisdictions were chosen that were willing

to demonstrate the BARJ Model in their local systems. For the past 3 years, the BARJ Project has

targeted developmental assistance toward these

three demonstration sites—Palm Beach County, FL;

Dakota County, MN; and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), PA. Each site has received technical assistance visits, written material, and training both on

and offsite. Recently, the project has supported exchanges between managers and senior staff in various jurisdictions that have allowed information

sharing between sites. For the past 2 years, the

project has also funded a part-time coordinator for

each demonstration effort. These individuals have

been instrumental in coordinating training, developing local policy and new programs, attracting grant

funds for program demonstration, and providing

outreach to community and crime victim groups.

Each jurisdiction has made measurable progress in

moving toward the restorative vision of a balanced

approach to community justice.
5

The foundation of restorative juvenile justice practice is a coherent set of values and principles, a guiding vision, and an action-oriented mission.

Principles of Restorative Justice

◆ Crime is injury.

◆ Crime hurts individual victims, communities, and

juvenile offenders and creates an obligation to

make things right.

◆ All parties should be a part of the response to the

crime, including the victim if he or she wishes, the

community, and the juvenile offender.

◆ The victim’s perspective is central to deciding

how to repair the harm caused by the crime.

◆ Accountability for the juvenile offender means

accepting responsibility and acting to repair the

harm done.

◆ The community is responsible for the well-being

of all its members, including both victim and

offender.

◆ All human beings have dignity and worth.

◆ Restoration—repairing the harm and rebuilding

relationships in the community—is the primary

goal of restorative juvenile justice.

◆ Results are measured by how much repair was

done rather than by how much punishment was

inflicted.

◆ Crime control cannot be achieved without active

involvement of the community.

◆ The juvenile justice process is respectful of age,

abilities, sexual orientation, family status, and

diverse cultures and backgrounds—whether racial, ethnic, geographic, religious, economic, or

other—and all are given equal protection and due

process.

The Restorative Justice Vision

◆ Support from the community, opportunity to define the harm experienced, and participation in

decisionmaking about steps for repair result in

increased victim recovery from the trauma of

crime.

◆ Community involvement in preventing and controlling juvenile crime, improving neighborhoods,

and strengthening the bonds among community

members results in community protection.

◆ Through understanding the human impact of

their behavior, accepting responsibility, expressing remorse, taking action to repair the damage,

and developing their own capacities, juvenile offenders become fully integrated, respected members of the community.

◆ Juvenile justice professionals, as community justice facilitators, organize and support processes in

which individual crime victims, other community

members, and juvenile offenders are involved in

finding constructive resolutions to delinquency.

The Balanced Approach Mission

Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the balanced

approach mission.

Balanced and Restorative Justice Philosophy
6

Transforming the Current Juvenile

Justice System Into a More

Restorative Model

Juvenile justice professionals have the power to

transform juvenile justice into a more balanced and

restorative justice system. By developing new roles,

setting new priorities, and redirecting resources,

juvenile justice professionals can:

◆ Make needed services available for victims of

crime.

◆ Give victims opportunities for involvement and

input.

◆ Actively involve community members, including

individual crime victims and offenders, in making

decisions and carrying out plans for resolving

issues and restoring the community.

◆ Build connections among community members.

◆ Give juvenile offenders the opportunity and encouragement to take responsibility for their behavior.

◆ Actively involve juvenile offenders in repairing

the harm they caused.

◆ Increase juvenile offenders’ skills and abilities.

Figure 1. The Balanced Approach

Community Safety

Accountability Competency Development

Clients/Customers Goals Values

Victims Accountability When an individual commits an offense, the

offender incurs an obligation to individual

victims and the community.

Youth Competency development Offenders who enter the juvenile justice system

should be more capable when they leave than

when they entered.

Community Community safety Juvenile justice has a responsibility to protect

the public from juveniles in the system.

Adapted from Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. 1998. Juvenile Probation: The Balanced Approach. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges.

Restorative Justice
7

Getting Started: Steps in

Organizational Change

The new roles and daily practices for juvenile justice

professionals described in this Guide will be most

effective if implemented as a part of comprehensive

systemic change in juvenile justice. System-level

leadership in organizational change will set the climate for line staff commitment to a new vision.

At the most general level, jurisdictions implementing

the model need to:

◆ Develop consensus around common goals and

performance objectives of the balanced approach

mission.

◆ Assess current practices and policies for consistency with those goals and objectives.

◆ Establish action steps and benchmarks for gauging progress and ensuring movement toward the

goals and objectives.

◆ Begin using the mission actively each day to guide

decisions.

To accomplish significant reform, the BARJ Model

must be understood as an alternative that replaces,

rather than adds to, existing practices and policies.

BARJ is a framework for strategic planning rather

than a new service or program.

The following is a list of key activities that jurisdictions find necessary for implementing their desired

system reforms toward a more balanced and restorative justice model:

◆ Identify the stakeholders in the work of juvenile

justice.

◆ Involve representatives of the stakeholders in all

planning.

◆ Assess the current status of the agency with respect to BARJ policies and practices by asking:

How are resources spent?

What are the current performance outcomes

for agency intervention?

Who benefits (victims, community members,

juvenile offenders, juvenile justice professionals)?

How do staff spend their time?

What are community perceptions about juvenile justice?

What are victim perceptions about juvenile

justice?

Who has input into disposition decisions?

What is the level of community involvement in

the juvenile justice process?

What factors determine case handling?

◆ Identify discrepancies between current practices

and BARJ goals and objectives.

◆ Identify the most promising opportunities for

change.

◆ Set specific goals based on the information you

have gathered.

◆ Create an ongoing advisory process involving

stakeholders.

◆ Measure results.

◆ Modify plans periodically based on results.

Changes in practice must go hand in hand with

changes in the value system. Implementing this new

approach will be evolutionary, and some practices

will look similar on the surface but will be guided by

different values. Consequently, it is essential that

policy and practice be tested against restorative values on a regular basis.

Frequently referring to and reflecting on the overall

vision will assist in keeping changes on track. It is also

important that specific implementation plans be developed at the grassroots level through a communitybased process that engages all stakeholders.

There is no single blueprint for this model. For change

to be meaningful, implementation of the BARJ approach should be guided by the needs of each jurisdiction and its community members. Implementation may

appear different in different jurisdictions, but if the

process of planning and implementation is closely tied

to the restorative framework, common values will be

reflected, leading to similar outcomes.
9

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice:

Accountability

The BARJ Model defines accountability as taking

responsibility for your behavior and taking action to

repair the harm. Accountability in the BARJ Model

takes different forms than in the traditional juvenile

justice system. Accountability in most juvenile justice

systems is interpreted as punishment or adherence

to a set of rules laid down by the system. However,

neither being punished nor following a set of rules

involves taking full responsibility for behavior or

making repairs for the harm caused. Punishment

and adherence to rules do not facilitate moral development at a level that is achieved by taking full

responsibility for behavior.

Taking full responsibility for behavior requires:

◆ Understanding how that behavior affected other

human beings (not just the courts or officials).

◆ Acknowledging that the behavior resulted from a

choice that could have been made differently.

◆ Acknowledging to all affected that the behavior

was harmful to others.

◆ Taking action to repair the harm where possible.

◆ Making changes necessary to avoid such behavior

in the future.

In the BARJ Model, accountability goals are often

met through the process itself as much as through

actions decided by the process. To be accountable

for behavior is to answer to individuals who are

affected by the behavior. Face-to-face meetings with

community members or victims in which an offender

takes responsibility and hears about the impact on

others constitute significant forms of accountability.

To fully acknowledge responsibility for harm to others is a painful experience. It is, however, a process

that opens up the opportunity for personal growth

that may reduce the likelihood of repeating the

harmful behavior. It is difficult to accept full responsibility for harming others without a support system

in place and a sense that there will be an opportunity to gain acceptance in the community. Therefore,

accountability and support must go hand in hand.

Support without accountability leads to moral

weakness. Accountability without support is a form

of cruelty.

—Stan Basler

Oklahoma Conference of Churches

Characteristics of Restorative

Accountability Strategies

Strategies that lead to restorative accountability

goals:

◆ Focus on repair of harm to the victim.

◆ Provide a process for making amends to the

community.

◆ Provide a process for greater understanding of

how the incident affected others.

◆ Offer a meaningful way for the juvenile to take

responsibility for the actions.

◆ Encourage apology or expressions of remorse.

◆ Involve the victim and the community in determining the accountability measures.
10

Restorative Accountability

Practice Definitions

◆ Victim-Offender Mediation and Dialogue.

Victim-offender mediation/dialogue is a process

that provides interested victims of property crimes

and minor assaults with the opportunity to meet

the juvenile offender in a safe and structured setting. The goal of victim-offender mediation is to

hold the juvenile offender directly accountable for

his or her behavior while providing important assistance to the victim.

With the help of a trained mediator (usually a

community volunteer), the victim is able to tell

the juvenile offender how the crime affected him

or her, to receive answers to questions, and to be

directly involved in developing a restitution plan.

The juvenile offender is able to take direct responsibility for his or her behavior, to learn of the

full impact of the behavior, and to develop a plan

for making amends to those violated. Cases can

be referred both pre- and postadjudication.

A written restitution agreement or plan is usually

generated during the mediation but is secondary

to discussion of the full impact of the crime on

those affected, often in the presence of the juvenile offender’s parents.

These types of programs may be called “victimoffender meeting,” “victim-offender conferencing,”

or “victim-offender reconciliation” programs.

◆ Family Group Conferencing. Based on traditions of the Maori of New Zealand, a family

group conference is a meeting of the community

of people who are most affected by a crime or

harmful behavior. The conferences are coordinated by trained facilitators. The victim, the juvenile offender, and the victim’s and offender’s

families and friends participate. All have the opportunity to speak about how the crime has affected their lives. Other affected community

members may also be involved. The purpose of

the meeting is to decide, as a group, how the harm

will be repaired by the offender. The meeting may

occur before or after sentencing or as an alternative to going through the traditional juvenile justice system.

◆ Peacemaking Circles. A peacemaking circle is a

community-directed process, in partnership with

the juvenile justice system, for developing consensus on an appropriate disposition that addresses

the concerns of all interested parties. Peacemaking circles use traditional circle ritual and structure from Native-American culture. They create a

respectful space in which all interested community members, victim, victim supporters, offender,

offender supporters, judge, prosecutor, defense

counsel, police, and court workers can speak from

the heart in a shared search for understanding of

the event and to identify the steps necessary to

assist in healing all affected parties and prevent

future occurrences.

Circles typically involve a multistep procedure,

including application by the offender to the circle

process, a healing circle for the victim, a healing

circle for the offender, a disposition circle to develop consensus on the elements of a disposition

agreement, and followup circles to monitor

progress of the offender. The disposition plan may

incorporate commitments by the system, community, family members, and the offender.

◆ Financial Restitution to Victims. Restitution is

technically the return of goods or money stolen or

the repair of damaged property. Financial restitution is an attempt to repay or restore to the victim

the value of what was lost. Victims must be directly

involved in determining the amount of losses.

◆ Personal Services to Victims. Personal services

to victims are services provided directly to victims, such as house repairs, lawnwork, and seasonal chores. Personal services can strongly

reinforce personal accountability for juvenile offenders by making them responsible directly to

victims. It is the victim’s right to choose whether a

juvenile offender will perform personal service.

◆ Community Service. Community service is productive work performed by juvenile offenders that

benefits communities, such as equipment repairs in

parks, winterizing homes for the elderly, and other
11

upkeep, repair, and maintenance projects. Often,

community service projects enhance conditions for

the less fortunate in communities.

Restorative community service provides an

opportunity for the juvenile offender to make

amends to the community in a way that is valued

by the community. When the community work

service experience allows youth to create new,

positive relationships with members of the community, the fabric of the community is strengthened. The process also works to increase the

juvenile offender’s investment in the community.

Successful community work service helps to

change the juvenile offender’s negative view of

the community to a positive one.

Community members and the offender recognize

the offender’s capacity to contribute to the general well-being of the community. Community

work service must have personal meaning to both

the community and the youth performing it. The

best examples are projects that use youth as mentors, resources, leaders, and interactive community members. Whenever possible, crime victims

should be asked about what specific type of

community service the offender should perform

(i.e., their choice of a particular charity, church,

or agency that is important to them).

◆ Written or Verbal Apology to Victims and

Other Affected Persons. An apology is a written

or verbal communication to the crime victim and

the community in which a juvenile offender accurately describes the behavior and accepts full

responsibility for the actions.

◆ Victim or Community Impact Panels. These

panels are forums that offer victims and other

community members the opportunity to describe

their experiences with crime to juvenile offenders.

Participants talk with juvenile offenders about

their feelings and how the crime has affected their

lives. Panels may be conducted in the community

or in residential facilities and may meet several

times to help offenders better understand the full

human impact of crime in communities.

◆ Community or Neighborhood Impact Statements. These statements drafted by community

members provide an opportunity for citizens

whose lives are affected by crime to inform the

court, community reparative board, or offender

how crimes affect the community’s quality of

life. Community impact statements have been

used in crimes that are thought of as victimless,

such as drug offenses.

◆ Victim Empathy Groups or Classes. The victim

empathy class is an educational program designed

to teach offenders about the human consequences

of crime. Offenders are taught how crime affects

the victim and the victim’s family, friends, and

community, and how it also affects them and their

own families, friends, and communities. A key

element of the classes is the direct involvement of

victims and victim service providers. They tell

their personal stories of being victimized or of

helping victims to reconstruct their lives after a

traumatic crime.

Promising Programs:

Accountability

◆ Institute for Conflict Management; Orange, CA.

The Institute for Conflict Management is sponsored by the St. Vincent de Paul Society, a churchrelated and community-based social service

agency. Prior to bringing a victim and offender

together, a mediator meets separately with each

party to listen to each story, explain the process,

and invite participation. During the mediation

session, the victim and offender discuss the crime

and its impact on their lives. They devise a plan

for the offender to make amends.

This program began in 1989 as a relatively small

program. Today, it represents the largest victimoffender mediation program in North America.

Recently, the program received a county grant for

more than $300,000 to divert more than 1,000

juvenile offenders from an overcrowded court

system.

The program provides 30 to 40 hours of classroom training for community volunteers who

serve as mediators. An evaluation by Neimeyer

and Shichor (1996) found that 99 percent of its

mediation sessions resulted in a successfully
12

negotiated agreement and that 96.8 percent of

these agreements were successfully completed

or nearing completion.

◆ Juvenile Reparation Program; Center for Community Justice; Elkhart, IN. The Juvenile

Reparation Program (JRP) targets older juveniles who may have previously failed in the juvenile justice system and risk continuing their

negative behavior into adulthood.

JRP staff assist the youth in developing a contract, which routinely includes accountability

strategies such as restitution to the victim, volunteer service as symbolic restitution to the community, and specific self-improvement strategies. The

contract may also include face-to-face mediation

with the victim.

To address community safety goals, the youth are

restricted to their homes, except when attending

approved activities such as school, employment,

or counseling. Community volunteer telephone

monitors ensure that the youth follow these rules

and provide added encouragement.

◆ Victim Offender Reconciliation Program

(VORP) of Nashville; Nashville, TN. The

Council of Community Services, an alliance of

private and public social service and advocacy

agencies, established VORP of Nashville in 1989

with a broad base of support from individuals,

religious organizations, and the justice system to

offer victim-offender mediation and alternatives

to incarceration. The program has trained more

than 100 volunteer mediators and offers conflict

resolution classes twice per week at juvenile court

that count toward community service hours for

the juveniles who attend.

As a community-based program, VORP of Nashville is committed to assisting the juvenile court in

implementing the BARJ Model. Mediators are

available onsite at the courts and attend the general sessions court at least once per week. Police

officers and judges can refer cases directly, and

juvenile offenders under age 12 are automatically

referred for mediation.

The program has two neighborhood community

mediation sites, with plans to expand to other

neighborhoods, thus allowing the community

greater access to alternative methods of conflict

resolution.

◆ Victim-Offender Meetings; Victim Restoration

Program; Dakota County Community Corrections; Dakota County, MN. The Victim Restoration Program of Dakota County Community

Corrections provides opportunities for crime victims to meet face to face with the juvenile offenders who violated them. They can talk about the

offense and its full impact and develop a plan for

restoring victim losses. Community volunteers are

trained in victim-offender mediation skills, with

an emphasis on the use of victim-sensitive communication and procedures. Volunteers complete

35 training hours and are expected to accept 8 to

10 cases per year.

◆ Crime Repair Crew; Dakota County Community Corrections; Dakota County, MN. As a

form of community service to hold juvenile offenders accountable, Dakota County Community

Corrections has established the Crime Repair

Crew. The crew, under the direction of a trained

coordinator, consists of juvenile nonviolent offenders. The crew is contacted by police, if a victim wishes, to immediately repair any damage and

clean up at a property crime scene. The crew is

available to respond at any time, on short notice.

The crew offers juvenile offenders the opportunity to “give back” to the community while learning skills in construction and painting.

Each job affords crew members the opportunity

to learn how criminal activity impacts community

residents. The program differs from existing work

crew operations in that work is performed not

only for government and nonprofit organizations

but also for businesses and private citizens whose

lives have been interrupted by criminal activity.

◆ Restorative Justice Program; Youth Service

Bureau; Forest Lake, MN. As part of the Restorative Justice Program, juvenile offenders appear

before a panel of community volunteers, read a

letter of apology, list expenses related to their

offense, and hear from community members

about how the crime affected the community.

Victims or victim representatives may attend the
13

panels. The program allows juveniles to take responsibility for and reflect on their actions while

being held accountable to the community. For

example, juvenile offenders develop a contract

that includes a community service project to be

completed in conjunction with their parents and

family members. They attend peer personal-goal

groups, write research papers on offense-related

topics, and attend educational programs with

their parents regarding their offense. The program is usually reserved for first-time offenders of

lesser property crimes, including shoplifting, vandalism, and age-related offenses. Participants are

typically 11, 12, or 13 years old.

◆ Navaho Peacemaker Court; Navaho Nation

(Arizona, New Mexico, Utah). In 1982, the Navaho Nation created a horizontal system of justice

that promotes equality, balance, and preservation

of relationships. In the Navaho tradition, disharmony exists when things are “not as they should

be.” The Navaho Peacemaker Court includes

songs, prayers, history, and stories. A “peacemaker,” generally a designated elder or other respected community member, guides the victim,

offender, and support community to harmony by

persuasion, not coercion. Peacemakers, who have

strong values and morals that are based on Navaho teachings, act as guides to identify how harmony can be regained through community

solidarity.

◆ Nez Perce Peacemaker Project; Nez Perce

Tribal Court; Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc.;

Lewiston, ID. The Nez Perce Peacemaker

Project offers tribal members a more traditional,

culturally appropriate alternative to court. The

project trains law students and tribal members to

comediate disputes. Cases are referred by the Nez

Perce Tribal Court to the project, where they are

screened and the involved parties are prepared

for the eventual mediation session. Tribal mediations include victims, offenders, and other family

and tribal members who are affected by the conflict. Agreements to restore victim losses are mutually determined by all parties.

◆ Community Justice Corps; Department of

Community Justice; Deschutes County, OR.

Numerous projects of the Deschutes County, OR,

Department of Community Justice exemplify the

idea of “community service as a resource.” For

example, the Community Justice Corps supervises adult and juvenile probationers and parolees

who work on a variety of human service and

public works projects. Through community service, adults and youth make amends to the community for their offenses while gaining valuable

skills. In these projects, youth have worked with

volunteer builders and carpenters to help construct a homeless shelter (after raising money for

materials) and a domestic abuse crisis center.

Offenders provide important long-term benefits

to their community, learn about the needs of other

citizens (including those victimized by violent

abuse), develop skills, and have positive interactions with law-abiding adults. The corps also promotes community safety, because the offender’s

time during community service is occupied under

adult supervision for significant portions of the

day and evening.

◆ Reparative Probation Program; Vermont

Department of Corrections. Intended for offenders convicted of misdemeanor or nonviolent

felony crimes, the Reparative Probation Program

directly involves community members meeting

face to face with offenders to negotiate a “reparative agreement” that specifies how offenders will

make reparation to their victims and other community members.

A judge, using an administrative probation order

with the condition that the offender has no further involvement in criminal activity, sentences

the offender to the Reparative Probation Program following adjudication of guilt with a suspended sentence. The offender’s requirement to

complete the program is also a special condition

of probation.

Following sentencing, the probation department

conducts a brief intake, including information

about the crime, criminal history, and the extent

of damages/injuries. The offender then appears

before a five- or six-member community reparation board in the community where the crime was

committed. During the meeting, the nature of the

offense, its impact, and restitution are discussed.
14

The offender leaves the room while the board

deliberates on the sanctions. The offender subsequently rejoins the meeting to discuss the proposed agreement. All parties agree and sign the

agreement. The board may then meet with the

offender from time to time to monitor progress.

If the agreement is satisfied, the board recommends the offender’s discharge from probation.

If the offender fails to satisfy the agreement

within the required period, he or she may be

returned to the court for further action or continued supervision.

◆ Travis County Neighborhood Conference

Committees; Austin, TX. Neighborhood Conference Committees are community citizen panels that

hear youth diversion cases and help families and

youth resolve legal issues. Committee members are

volunteers who live or work within a community

(as defined by ZIP Code). Eligible cases include

first-time offenders for residence and nonweapon

misdemeanors. The committee holds separate interviews with the youth and his or her parents to

gain a better understanding of the family’s life and

possible causes of the criminal act. The committee

determines sanctions appropriate for each offense

and each family situation. A contract is created that

all participants sign to enable restoration of loss to

the neighborhood, restitution to the victim, and

reintegration and acceptance of the juvenile into

the community after completion of the agreement.

Participation in the process is voluntary.

◆ Restorative Justice Program (Family Group

Conferencing); Woodbury Police Department;

Woodbury, MN. The Woodbury Police Department Restorative Justice Program is a juvenile

diversion program operated by the police department that intervenes prior to prosecution/court

intervention. Juvenile crimes are investigated by

officers in a traditional way, that is, with cases prepared for prosecution and investigations and petition forms completed prior to restorative justice

program consideration. (All cases considered for

diversion in this program must be prosecutable.)

A trained police officer screens all juvenile cases

to determine if they will be diverted. Screening

criteria include:

Seriousness of the offense.

Past record of the youth.

Attitude of the youth.

Attitude of the youth’s parents.

To participate in the program, offenders must

admit their offenses. Each case is screened individually using the above four criteria as guides—

not as hard-and-fast rules.

Once the case is referred to the Restorative

Justice Program, all necessary participants are

contacted. The juvenile offender, the offender’s

parents, the victim, and the victim’s family and

friends are invited to participate in a community

conference using the family group conferencing

model. The process is explained to all participants

via telephone and followup letter. Personal visits

are made only when absolutely necessary. If all

agree to the process, a conference is scheduled.

The conference is facilitated by trained officers.

Facilitators direct conversations between participants and protect them from unfair treatment due

to adult/juvenile power imbalances or revictimization. Facilitators never attempt to force a settlement in the conference or agreement process.

The conference concludes with a written agreement signed by the juvenile offender and victim to

make restitution to the victim and/or community.

Comments from supporters at the conference are

encouraged. The agreement must be fulfilled in a

timely manner and any breakdown in the process

prior to completion results in a referral to court.

Agreements are monitored by the police department to ensure that they are fulfilled.

Conferences are always voluntary for both the

victim and offender. (The traditional court process is also an option.) Once a conference is completed and the agreement is satisfied, the case is

closed.

◆ Impact of Crime on Victims Program; State

of California, Department of Youth Authority. The goal of the Impact of Crime on Victims

Program is to increase juvenile offenders’ understanding of the personal harm caused by
15

crime. Program objectives for youthful offenders are to:

Prevent further victimization.

Create offender awareness of the impact that

crime has on the victim, the family, and the

community.

Teach offenders how to make positive

decisions.

The program involves 60 hours of classroom instruction using small-group discussion, lectures,

victim and victim advocate speakers, video presentations, case studies, role-play, reading, written exercises, and homework.

The curriculum covers property crime, domestic

violence, elder abuse, child maltreatment, sexual

assault, robbery, assault, homicide, and gang

violence.

◆ Community Justice Project; Washington

County, MN, Department of Court Services.

The Washington County Community Justice

Project, which is part of the county’s probation

department, conducts victim-offender conferences

at both diversion and postdisposition stages. Approximately 70 percent of the cases referred during 1996 were mediated. Of cases referred, more

than 70 percent were juvenile cases. Referrals

originated primarily from probation officers,

judges, prosecutors, and victim advocates. Fifty

percent of referrals were felonies, and 50 percent

were misdemeanors.

In addition to conducting victim-offender conferences, project mediators are available to conduct

conferences in matters that have not been criminally charged, such as group conflicts in schools

or neighborhoods.

The project also sponsors community forums on

restorative justice and issues that concern specific neighborhoods. For example, mediators

have facilitated dialogue within schools experiencing tension due to issues such as race and

ethnicity. Project staff are involved in extensive

outreach to the community and actively provide

technical assistance in conflict management and

conferencing to educators, law enforcement, and

social service providers in surrounding jurisdictions. The program recently completed a new

training manual.

Common Problems in Choosing

Accountability Strategies

◆ Confusing Community Safety Strategies and

Accountability Strategies. From a restorative

justice perspective, punishment or restrictions on

freedom are not forms of accountability because

they do not involve an offender’s accepting responsibility or taking direct action to repair harm.

Restrictions on freedom may serve community

safety goals, but they do not contribute to accepting responsibility, increasing understanding of the

human harm, or making amends.

◆ Deciding on Strategies To Repair Harm Without Offering Opportunity for Input From Victims. Accountability should focus on repairing

the harm of the incident. If victims wish to participate, they are in the best position to define the

harm of the crime and suggest possible reparation. Absent victim input, strategies for reparation

may be inappropriate.

◆ Having Only the Justice System Determine

Accountability Sanctions Without Stakeholder

Involvement. Answering to the community and

to the victim puts a human face on the crime and

is a more powerful form of accountability than

just answering to the system. Without community

and victim involvement, an opportunity for a

more personal message to the offender is lost.

Community involvement also increases the possibility for ultimate reintegration of the juvenile

offender.

Recommended Participants for

Implementation

◆ Support system of juvenile offender (e.g., family,

extended family, neighbor, coach, and clergy).

◆ Victim and victim support system (e.g., family,

extended family, neighbor, coworker, and faith

community member).
16

◆ Victim advocacy groups (e.g., Mothers Against

Drunk Driving, Parents of Murdered Children,

and victim assistance programs, for assistance

with impact panels or victim empathy classes,

staff training, and planning and advisory groups).

◆ Community members (e.g., panel members, volunteer mediators, and planning and advisory

groups).

◆ Nonprofit organizations in the community

(e.g., community service sites).

◆ Employers (e.g., owners or managers of worksites

where the offender can earn monies for restitution

and learn job skills).

◆ Law enforcement personnel.

◆ School personnel.

Roles for Juvenile Justice

Professionals

◆ Facilitate victim-offender mediation or family

group conferences. This role requires skill

training.

◆ Organize community volunteers to facilitate

victim-offender mediation or family group conferences. Volunteers can be recruited through

community fairs, faith communities, advertisements, and civic groups.

◆ Solicit input from victims to determine the nature

of the harm and possible ways of making amends.

◆ Create employment opportunities for juvenile

offenders to earn monies for restitution. Work

with local businesses or the chamber of commerce

for short-term job opportunities.

◆ Develop sites for community work service, particularly work that is highly valued by the community (e.g., work that eases the suffering of

others is particularly revered).

◆ Develop victim empathy groups or classes with

input and assistance from victim services or victim advocacy groups. Request curriculum that is

available from the Office for Victims of Crime,

U.S. Department of Justice.

◆ Help create victim impact panels.

◆ Organize volunteer community panels, boards, or

committees that meet with the offender to discuss

the incident and offender obligation to repair the

harm to victims and community members.

◆ Facilitate the process of apologies to victims and

communities.

◆ Invite local victim advocates to provide ongoing

victim-awareness training for probation staff.

Expected Outcomes

◆ Repayment of material losses to victim.

◆ Visible contribution to the community.

◆ Victim sense of acknowledgment of the harm and

some degree of repair.

◆ Community sense of juvenile offender’s having

made some degree of amends.

◆ Increased juvenile offender awareness of the

behavior’s impact on other people.

Benefits to Juvenile Justice

Professionals

◆ Greater victim satisfaction with performance of

juvenile justice professionals.

◆ Greater community satisfaction with the juvenile

justice system.

◆ Increased fulfillment of requirements by the juvenile offender because he or she recognizes that

the accountability strategies in the BARJ approach are fair and reasonable.

◆ Increased options for creative forms of accountability because of input from the victim, community, and offender.

◆ A broader group of people who feel responsibility

for ensuring fulfillment of the accountability strategies as a result of their involvement in the support system of the offender or other involvement

in the process.
17

◆ Opportunities to facilitate a process that promotes a greater sense of closure for the victim and

personal growth of the offender.

Guiding Questions for Juvenile

Justice Professionals

◆ How do we increase the offender’s understanding

of the effect of the incident on the victim, the

victim’s family, the offender’s own family, and the

neighborhood?

◆ How do we encourage offenders to take responsibility for their actions?

◆ How do we help the crime victim to feel that she

or he did not deserve what happened?

◆ How do we increase opportunities for victims to

define the harm (physical, emotional, financial)

from the incident and create ways for the offender

to repair the harm where possible, if the victim

desires?

◆ How do we offer opportunities for the offender

and encourage him or her to make repairs to the

victim and the community?

◆ How do we involve the community in creating

opportunities for the offender to take responsibility and repair the harm?
19

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice:

Competency Development

Competency is the capacity to do something well

that others value. Juvenile offenders, like other

young people, need to become competent, caring

individuals who are concerned for those around

them. Once juvenile offenders have been held accountable for rectifying their behavior with their

victims, the BARJ approach provides opportunities

for them to belong, contribute, form close relationships, make meaningful choices, develop transferable skills, and mentor others while avoiding

harmful behavior.

To allow them to practice and demonstrate competency, juvenile offenders need meaningful community roles that contribute to the well-being of others.

The cycle of reciprocity (doing favors for one another) is the basis of community, and this requires

the capability to perform functions of value to

others.

Restorative accountability practice can also build

competencies. Restorative community service allows

youth to develop competencies by learning new

skills and work habits. A youth who participates in a

victim-offender mediation session may gain personal

skills and insight about conflict management. Victim

empathy classes may increase the interpersonal skills

of a juvenile. A sense of competency is fundamental

to a healthy relationship with family and community.

See table 1 for a list of key competencies.

Characteristics of Restorative

Competency Development

◆ Strategies build on the strengths of offenders,

families, and communities.

◆ Youth are given a role in work, family, and community that instills a sense of belonging, usefulness, and control.

◆ Youth have active roles that allow them to practice productive behavior.

◆ Cognitive learning and decisionmaking are integrated with active, experiential, and productive

pursuits.

◆ Treatment and services (e.g., counseling) are used

as supports for the overall restorative process

rather than in isolation.

◆ Youth work and interact with law-abiding adults

in the community (especially the elderly).

◆ Delinquent and nondelinquent youth and adults

are mixed whenever possible to avoid the image

of programs for “bad kids.”

◆ Activities are designed with input from the community (e.g., employers, civic groups, and religious institutions).

◆ Activities are chosen that can be continued

permanently.

It is not enough to develop strategies to prevent

dangerous things, such as substance abuse, or to

preach against behaviors that place youth in

jeopardy. We must be equally adamant about

stating and enabling goals that we wish young

people to achieve: postsecondary education,

community involvement, civic contribution, and

leadership roles.

Source: Pittman and Fleming. 1991. A New Vision:

Promoting Youth Development.
20

Vocational ◆ Preparation and experience for work, career, and family life

◆ Understanding and value of work, leisure, and family life.

◆ Awareness of life’s options and steps for making choices.

Education, Knowledge, ◆ Adequate credentials, basic academic skills, and eligibility for

Reasoning, and Creativity and awareness of opportunities for continued learning and

advancement.

◆ Broad base of knowledge and ability to appreciate and

demonstrate creative expression.

◆ Good oral, written, and computing skills and ability to learn.

◆ Interest in lifelong learning and achieving.

Personal/Social, Conflict ◆ Intrapersonal skills, such as the ability to understand emotions

Management, and and practice self-discipline.

Communication Skills ◆ Interpersonal skills, such as working with others and developing

and sustaining friendships through cooperation, empathy,

negotiation, and conflict management.

◆ Developing judgment skills and a coping system.

Decisionmaking, Reasoning, ◆ Ability to make good decisions in daily interactions, to manage

and Problem Solving anger and emotions, and to solve problems creatively.

Citizenship ◆ Understanding of the history and values of one’s Nation,

community, and racial, ethnic, or cultural group.

◆ Desire to be ethical and to be involved in efforts that contribute

to the broader good.

Health/Recreation ◆ Good current health status and evidence of knowledge, attitudes,

and behaviors that will ensure future well-being, including nonviolence, exercise, good nutrition, and effective contraceptive and

safe sex practices.

◆ Opportunities are provided for youth to help their

peers, younger children, and the less fortunate.

◆ Group experience and teamwork are emphasized

frequently.

Table 2 contrasts examples of competency development practices with individual treatment interventions. Balanced and restorative competency

development allows young offenders to become active participants in the process. As such, youth build

a sense of personal ownership in the outcome.

In contrast, in traditional individual treatment approaches, young offenders are seen as recipients of

services. Traditional individual treatment interventions listed in the table may be necessary for an individual youth. However, in restorative justice, these

interventions are used most effectively to support

Table 1. Key Competencies

Adapted from Pittman and Fleming. 1991. A New Vision: Promoting Youth Development.
21

Individual Treatment Competency Development

Group and family counseling Peer counseling, leadership development, service

projects, and family living skills

Drug therapy and drug education Youth as drug educators and drug researchers

Remedial education Cross-age tutoring (juvenile offenders teach younger

children) and educational action teams

Job readiness and job counseling Work experience, service crews, employment, job

preparation, and career exploration

Recreational activities Youth as recreation aides and recreation planners

Outdoor challenge programs Conservation projects, community development

projects, recycling, and community beautification

projects

Cultural sensitivity training Youth-developed cultural education projects

Youth and family mediation Conflict resolution training and youth as school

conflict mediators

Mentoring and “big brother” programs Work with adult mentors on community projects and

intergenerational projects with the elderly

Adapted from G. Bazemore and P. Cruise. 1995.

competency development strategies—not instead of

or as a prerequisite for competency development.

Competencies are best developed when young offenders have the opportunity to become providers

of service to others in the community—not just passive consumers of services. Through the competency

development process, young offenders have the potential to view themselves and be viewed by those

around them as community assets and resources

rather than as liabilities or threats to community life.

Restorative Competency

Development Practice Definitions

◆ Work Experience in Jobs Involving Meaningful

Skills. Meaningful skills are those that have value

for the community and transfer competencies to

offenders that enhance the offender’s ability to

make future contributions to the community as a

valued citizen.

◆ Service Learning. Service learning involves

doing worthwhile work in the community, with

a purposeful outcome that the offender can

recognize. This work meets a real need in the

community, is positively acknowledged by the

community, and achieves clear educational outcomes. Service learning aids the development of

work skills, social competencies, and reliability

that the offender can transfer to compensated

work.

◆ Participation in Resource and Action Teams

(Planning and Problem Solving for Real Issues). Rather than being viewed as recipients of

services, youth are seen as true resources for and

representatives of the community. Juvenile justice professionals may facilitate a process where

Table 2. Differences Between Individual Treatment and Competency Development Practices
22

juveniles have the opportunity to identify needs

in the community and work together to implement a needed service or change.

◆ Cognitive and Decisionmaking Skills Training.

Cognitive and decisionmaking skills training addresses specific deficit areas that may hamper an

offender’s ability to analyze situations and make

reasonable decisions about his or her behavior.

Attention is given to improving the youth’s moral

reasoning, which means decisionmaking processes (as opposed to a religious definition of

morality).

Developmental deficits related to self-control,

cognitive style, interpersonal problem solving,

critical thinking, and values are addressed

through psychoeducational and social learning

techniques to help juvenile offenders rehearse

both new behavioral and thinking techniques.

Programming areas also help youth examine and

define their current beliefs, thinking, and values

and the impact these attributes have on their

lives. Anger management and empathy development may be components of cognitive and

decisionmaking skills training. Attention is given

to beliefs and reasoning that inform an offender

about “right” and “wrong” in his or her

decisionmaking process.

◆ Dispute Resolution and Mediation Training

and Practice. Training youth to become mediators or facilitators for victim-offender mediation

and family or larger group (e.g., school)

conferencing is an excellent means of building

competencies for choosing alternatives to violence

to settle disputes and to improve communication

and listening skills.

◆ Emotional Control Training. Emotional control

training is designed to foster social and moral

growth in offenders. The overriding goal is to

help juvenile offenders rise above past behaviors

and reenter the community as productive members who are connected to others. Emotional control training involves cognitive and social

competencies, including self-control, cognitive

style, interpersonal problem solving, critical

thinking, and values.

Promising Programs: Competency

Development

◆ Community Justice Corps; Deschutes County

Department of Community Justice; Deschutes

County, OR. Probation officers created this comprehensive community work service program to

offer juvenile offenders the opportunity to give

back to their community while gaining valuable

competencies. The corps has built a 70-bed shelter for the homeless, stocked firewood for the

county’s impoverished elderly, and performed

many other services.

◆ ALIVE (A Look in the Victim’s Eyes);

Deschutes County Department of Community

Justice; Deschutes County, OR. A core competency required in the BARJ philosophy is empathy for others. If juvenile offenders can develop

a genuine sense of empathy for their victims, the

likelihood of their continued criminal behavior

can be reduced. In Deschutes County, young

offenders complete a six-session course designed

to build empathy for victims. The program is particularly useful in advance of victim-offender mediation. Offenders engage in role-playing and

discussion groups and hear from victims in an

effort to boost their sense of empathy.

◆ Neighborhood Citizens Committee; Long

Beach, CA. The Neighborhood Citizens Committee (NCC) was organized to address the problem

of increased criminal activity by juveniles, both in

numbers and severity. NCC works within the Los

Angeles Probation Department to involve parents

and juveniles in alleviating troublesome aspects of

family life and guide the juveniles toward a more

meaningful future.

NCC consists of community volunteers dedicated

to helping youth who have committed minor offenses. The volunteers listen to the youth and

their families, give attention to the juvenile as an

individual, and supervise community service that

stresses responsibility, contributes to society, and

helps the youth develop an awareness of the

world around him or her through exposure to

new people, places, and events.
23

Juveniles referred by the juvenile justice system

are placed on a 6-month contract during which

they perform community service. Leisure time

is structured, and the youth are encouraged to

set future goals for themselves. They are given

reading assessments, tutored, and monitored

throughout the contract period. NCC also receives referrals from schools and from law enforcement regarding juveniles who have never

been arrested but who may need adult supervision and positive redirection.

NCC recently formed a roundtable discussion

group for male juvenile offenders who have no

father or other positive role model in their lives.

Another NCC committee plans social activities

for juveniles and their parents where they discuss

topics such as job applications, interview dress

and behavior, and back-to-school competencies,

including attitude, attendance, and study habits.

◆ Community Intensive Supervision Program

(CISP); Service and Action Projects With the

Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation; Allegheny

County, PA. The Garfield CISP community work

provided by juvenile offenders has become an

integral service to the community. Projects include “Get Out to Vote” and “Paint Your Heart

Out,” in which CISP youth and staff painted two

homes in the Garfield and Homewood communities for low-income, elderly, and disabled community members. Other projects include envelope

stuffing for the Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation

(a local nonprofit organization); distributing fliers

to neighbors about community events; removing

graffiti from walls and cleaning and weeding vacant lots in the Garfield community; painting the

juvenile court and family court in downtown

Pittsburgh; shoveling snow for neighborhood

business residents; collecting old telephone books

for recycling; distributing food to the elderly and

other community members in Garfield; participating in the Martin Luther King community celebration; and many other community efforts that

help to meet the needs of the greater community.

CISP community service provides an excellent

learning experience for CISP youth and for community members, who continue to express positive

comments regarding these community projects.

◆ CISP Drug Awareness Education; Allegheny

County, PA. Juvenile offenders who either have

graduated from CISP or are at advanced levels in

the program are active in mentoring and instructing newer participants.

◆ Youth Restoration/Back on Track Program;

Palm Beach County, FL. Youth Restoration/

Back on Track is a collaboration between the

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, municipal

police departments, the Florida Department of

Juvenile Justice, and community organizations,

such as The 100 Black Men of Palm Beach

County and MAD DADS of Greater Delray

Beach Youth. Side by side with adult mentors in

the community, youth plan, implement, and manage community service projects that directly benefit local neighborhoods and fulfill court-ordered

community service hours. Juvenile offenders in

this program also earn money toward restitution

for victims.

Examples of projects in Palm Beach include the

following:

More than 50 youth participated in a restoration and beautification project of the Barton

Memorial Park, a historical black cemetery.

The playground of a shelter for HIV-positive

and AIDS-infected children was cleaned and

upgraded.

Homes of many elderly and disabled residents

were painted and landscaped.

Youth performed skits and folktales at a cultural fair designed to teach tolerance and cultural sensitivity.

Youth planned and implemented a voter

registration drive. Earnings from this project,

provided through stipends paid by the League

of Women Voters, were used for victim

restitution.

◆ South Florida Youth Environmental Service

Program; Palm Beach County, FL. The core

of this program features paid work experience

and also unpaid community service, in which

serious juvenile offenders work with national

park staff to maintain and restore portions of the
24

Loxahatchee Wildlife Preserve in the Florida

Everglades. Educational curriculums that emphasize environmental preservation and environmental career exploration are incorporated into this

competency-building experience.

Accountability to victims is addressed by direct

payments that are deducted from offender paychecks (or payment into a victims fund when

original victims cannot be located). The program

incorporates victim-awareness classes and victim

panels to enable youth to learn more about the

impact of their criminal behavior and to develop

empathy.

◆ Montana Conservation Corps; Helena, MT.

The Montana Conservation Corps matches

young offenders with AmeriCorps (a Federal

youth-for-community-service agency) workers

who, together, perform environmental restoration, national park maintenance, and social

services in crews of six youth and six adult

mentors. Program youth complete community

service requirements, pay restitution, and work

on decisionmaking, conflict management, and

leadership skills in the applied setting of the

community service project. AmeriCorps workers

also mentor youth for 8 to 10 hours per week.

◆ Expanded Life Choices Programming for

Women Under Supervision; Dakota County

Corrections Department; Dakota County, MN.

Expanded Life Choices is offered for women who

are under court supervision. The program is designed to be a bridge to skills needed to change

personal patterns of behavior. It encourages the

positive development of skills that women can use

in different situations rather than providing

simple answers for individual problems.

Topics include:

Introduction and assessment of sources of

learned behavior.

Self-esteem.

Communication.

Values.

Changes/problems and decisions.

Conflict management.

Power and control.

Each session is 2 hours in length, and attendance

is reported the next day.

◆ A-B-C Cognitive Change Program; Dakota

County Corrections Department; Dakota

County, MN. This program has four components:

Part I assists offenders in examining and defining their current beliefs, thinking, and values

and the impact these attributes have on their

lives. The goal is to support group members in

identifying faulty, inappropriate, or distorted

beliefs and thinking that lead to problematic or

illegal behavior.

Part II focuses on anger management and effective problem-solving skills.

Part III has offenders examine their relationships with others and their victim empathy.

Part IV assists group members in setting goals

and developing a prevention plan.

◆ Carver-Scott Educational Cooperative Services

and STS (Sentence to Serve)–PLUS Programs;

Carver County Court Services; Chaska, MN.

STS–PLUS is designed to reduce recidivism for

delinquent youth, improve the lives of youth in

the community, reduce the number of school

dropouts, enhance education and vocational

skills, and reconnect youth to the community

through service learning projects.

Youthful offenders are among the participants in

the Carver-Scott Educational Cooperative, which

is a collaborative program involving educators,

social services, law enforcement, public health,

and juvenile justice professionals.

Youth are given school credit based on their experience with community service projects. In addition, a portion of their court-ordered community

work service is pardoned when they adhere to

their personalized educational plan.

Two recent community service projects involved

planning and cultivating crops on a working farm

and assisting in building housing for women with

children who are leaving violent relationships.
25

For the farming project, youth researched and

decided what crops would be grown and what

methods of farming were necessary for the best

yields. They also contacted local produce retailers and arranged to have their crop of sunflowers and pumpkins sold. They learned about

markets, finance, planning, and teamwork and

also made strong connections with members of

their community.

Youth are also involved at the farm in raising

horses and serving as riding guides for disabled

riders. This experience teaches them how to care

for the horses, build relationships, and serve the

community.

For the housing program, youth researched issues

related to family violence and learned about the

needs of women leaving violent relationships.

Together with community members and under

the direction of program staff, youth helped to

construct homes for families in transition. During

the process, they learned about alternatives to

violence and conflict management.

Common Problems in

Competency Development

Programming

◆ Assuming That Treatment and Remediation

Are the Same as Competency Development.

Treatment and remediation may be needed to

support competency development, but youth do

not become competent by completing treatment

programs. Treatment and remediation typically

are grounded in a deficit orientation, which assumes that young offenders have little to contribute to their communities. Competency

development must focus on strengths.

◆ Programming for Competency Development in

Isolation From the Community. Competency

development must involve practicing skills in

community settings and should be designed to

increase interaction with conventional adults

other than the service provider. Valued competencies are defined by community needs and norms.

◆ Using Traditional Passive Learner Models.

Youth must learn and practice competency

through active, experiential learning that produces tangible results and includes a reflection

component.

◆ Using Programs That Do Not Build Transferable Skills. Youth must be able to demonstrate

competencies that are valued by the community

and useful in conventional settings.

◆ Stating Conditions of Supervision Only in the

Negative (e.g., “Shall Nots”) and Imposing Passive Requirements (e.g., Attend Counseling or

Report Weekly). The absence of bad behavior or

deficits is not competency. Competency is the

enhancement and building of strengths, resources, interests, potentials, and positive attributes. A key question to consider is, “If you

take away an undesirable behavior, what are you

left with?”

Recommended Participants for

Implementation

◆ School staff.

◆ Employers.

◆ Community service programs.

◆ Adult mentors.

◆ Family.

◆ Staff from skill-based community programs (e.g.,

victim-offender mediation programs).

Roles for Juvenile Justice

Professionals

◆ Assess youth, family, and community strengths,

resources, and interests.

◆ Develop work and service opportunities for all

youth under supervision.

◆ Develop community partnerships with employers,

religious institutions, clubs, and civic groups to
26

provide work and service roles for youth on

supervision, and recruit supervisors.

◆ Advocate for a new school curriculum that builds

on the strengths and interests of delinquent youth

and allows for school credit for creative community service experience.

◆ Find creative, active roles for youth in treatment

programs as helpers to other youth.

◆ Develop projects in which youth can be trained in

areas such as mediation, conflict management,

and drug prevention and then educate others.

◆ Arrange speaking engagements for youth who are

succeeding in competency development activities.

◆ Involve youth in program-planning groups and

committees with juvenile justice staff and other

adults in the community.

◆ Involve youth in voter registration and other programs that teach and reinforce citizenship.

◆ Conduct or facilitate decisionmaking skills, conflict management, and cognitive training courses

for offenders and individuals who work with offenders.

Juvenile justice professionals can play a critical role

in facilitating competency development by providing

opportunities for youth to practice and demonstrate

competency. However, because juvenile offenders

will not develop transferable competencies within

traditional treatment programs and probation casework, community partnerships are a crucial component in implementing competency development

practices.

Expected Outcomes

◆ Increased capacity of young offenders to contribute productively to their communities.

◆ Increased capacity of adults and community

groups to accept and integrate delinquent youth.

◆ Measurable increase in educational, occupational,

social, and decisionmaking abilities of juvenile

offenders.

◆ Increased bonding to conventional adults.

◆ Improvements in self-image and public image of

delinquent youth.

◆ Clear demonstration by offenders of skills valued

by the community.

◆ Increased involvement of community members in

the juvenile justice system.

Benefits to Juvenile Justice

Professionals

◆ Increased community satisfaction with the juvenile justice system as a result of measurable increases in competency of delinquent youth.

◆ Enhanced image of juvenile justice workers as

assets to the community because of their ability to

facilitate transformation of delinquent youth into

community assets.

◆ Increased number of conventional adults in the

community who become invested in the success of

the juvenile offender.

◆ Personal satisfaction derived from facilitating

positive change in the juvenile offender.

Guiding Questions for Juvenile

Justice Professionals

◆ How do we increase the juvenile offender’s skills

for living successfully in the community?

◆ How do we demonstrate the juvenile offender’s

competencies to the community?

◆ How do we engage the juvenile offender and

community members together in activities in

which they experience a sense of competency and

contribution to one another?
27

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice:

Community Safety

Community safety in the BARJ Model refers to

both immediate and long-term safety. Achieving

community safety requires practices that reduce risk

and promote the community’s capacity to manage

behavior. Balanced and restorative community

safety is not focused only on short-term external

control of individual juvenile offenders. It requires

equal attention to working with adults and youth to

change behavior. Reducing risk often focuses on

individual offenders, but building community capacity to manage behavior focuses on adults and organizations within the community. Community safety is

achieved when community members live in peace,

harmony, and mutual respect and when citizens and

community groups feel that they personally can prevent and control crime.

Many strategies used for accountability and competency development goals can also contribute to community safety goals. For example, community

service, through structuring time and increasing the

juvenile’s investment in the community, contributes

to community safety. Most forms of competency

development involve structured activities with adult

supervision, which reduce the opportunity to offend.

Accountability strategies emphasize taking responsibility for behavior, which reinforces internal behavior control—the most effective way to achieve

long-term community safety. A major goal of competency development strategies is to establish a place

of value for the juvenile in the community that creates an incentive for abiding by the norms of the

community. Therefore, the community safety goal is

dependent upon effective accountability and competency development strategies.

Characteristics of Restorative

Community Safety

◆ The opportunity to commit offenses is restricted

by community surveillance or by involving

known juvenile offenders in structured, supervised, and productive activities.

◆ Juvenile justice professionals use a consistent

continuum of sanctions in response to a juvenile

offender’s failure to comply with supervision

conditions.

◆ The level of restriction matches the level of

risk (i.e., the higher the risk, the more time is

structured).

◆ Response to breaches of safety measures is swift

and focused.

◆ Strategies do not rely solely on the juvenile justice

system but engage the community in protecting

itself (e.g., crime watch, block clubs, and

mentoring).

◆ Behaviors associated with the risk of delinquency

for a particular individual are monitored (e.g.,

drug testing).

◆ Community safety interventions do not unduly

restrict the agency’s attainment of goals related to

accountability and competency development.

◆ Juvenile justice professionals seek to better understand a community’s fear of young people and

develop strategies that involve youth and adults in

collaborative problem solving.
28

Type of Prevention Strategy Goal Cost Effectiveness

Tertiary Prevention ◆ Incarceration. Reduce short-term Low cost effectiveness

◆ Surveillance. juvenile offending

Electronic monitoring.

Tracking.

Random drug testing.

Secondary Prevention ◆ Continuum of graduated Reduce long-term Medium cost effectiveness

sanctions: “progressive offending

response system.”

◆ Structuring juvenile offenders’

time in competency development,

reparative activities.

◆ “Natural surveillance” and

community guardians.

Employers.

Educators.

Relatives.

Mentors.

Primary Prevention ◆ Community problem solving. Prevention High cost effectiveness

◆ Mediation and dispute

resolution.

◆ Capacity building.

◆ New roles and leadership

experiences for all youth.

◆ To improve community safety programs, offender

behavior is carefully monitored by professionals

and other adults in the community.

◆ Strategies include working with schools to reduce

violence and promote mediation, conflict resolution, parenting training, school safety, and restorative practices.

◆ To build the community’s capacity for controlling

and preventing crime, strategies include working

with churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, and

civic and community groups in education,

mentoring, and positive youth development.

◆ Youth connections to positive community members are strengthened.

◆ Community members know each other, mutually

agree about behavioral tolerance limits, and work

together to prevent crime.

◆ Interventions do not increase the risks to the

community from juvenile offenders. For example,

interventions should not escalate anger, model

unhealthy power and control dynamics, establish

unhealthy peer groups, or increase a youth’s isolation from conventional community members. In

other words, interventions should do no further

harm.

To put restorative community safety practices into a

broader perspective, table 3 illustrates a range of

juvenile justice community safety interventions from

least to most cost effective.

Table 3. Range of Community Safety Interventions for Use by Juvenile Justice Professionals
29

Restorative Community Safety

Practice Definitions

Juvenile Offender-Focused Community

Safety Practice: Graduated CommunityBased Surveillance

Restorative community safety practice is based on

the belief that youth who have strong connections to

their communities and who care about the people in

their neighborhoods are less likely to offend. Wherever possible, restorative community safety supports

creating relationships between youth and members

of the community that inhibit offending.

Certain young offenders may require incarceration;

however, restorative community safety seeks to increase opportunities for youth to remain in the community. Juvenile justice professionals can implement

any number of the community-based surveillance

measures defined below in relation to the severity of

the offense and the risk posed by a particular youth.

Unlike traditional incarceration, the restorative

community safety practices defined below that

feature community-based surveillance all serve to

structure the time of juveniles, provide adult supervision, and support relationships between youth and

the community. The goals of each of the defined

practices are to (1) limit the opportunities for youth

to reoffend and (2) strengthen rather than sever

connections to their community.

Increasingly, juvenile justice professionals are finding that supervision can be most efficiently accomplished in structured group settings. For example,

working with youth in education programs, service

crews, and victim-awareness, competency development classes provides an effective alternative to individual counseling and surveillance.

◆ Monitored School Attendance. To ensure that

juvenile offenders attend classes, monitors or

counselors visit schools daily to check on attendance, behavior, and academic performance. Restorative juvenile justice programs place a high

priority on a youth’s educational performance.

Monitoring is one way to ensure that performance standards are met, thereby helping juvenile offenders develop competencies. Monitoring

also serves to structure a juvenile’s time under

adult supervision and reduce the opportunity for

new offenses.

◆ Monitored Employment Attendance. Job

attendance may be monitored by an offender’s

employer and reported to his or her probation

officer. Monitoring involves the community

(employer) in supervising and structuring the

juvenile’s time. Juveniles who maintain good

work attendance gain skills and earn income that

can be used to pay restitution to crime victims.

◆ Monitored Program Attendance. Depending on

the program, attendance is monitored by juvenile

justice professionals, community volunteers, mentors, or program facilitators. Monitoring ensures

that youth are participating in positive activities

and limits their chances to reoffend.

◆ Supervised Community Work Service. A supervised structured work experience for youth, designed to build relationships with community

members, serves the community, builds offender

competencies, and also serves community safety

goals by providing adult supervision and strengthening ties to the community. Community work

service offers youth the opportunity to be valued

by others for their contributions.

◆ Supervised Recreation. Supervised recreation

is another means of intensive monitoring of

offender behavior and serves to deter offending.

Supervised recreation helps youth to develop

appropriate recreational and relational skills,

such as sportsmanship and conflict resolution,

and good health.

An additional component of supervised recreation

is participation in cultural events. Pride in their

culture and community enables youth to think

more critically about how an offending behavior

might show disrespect to self, family, and community. Participation may include, but not be limited

to, attending movies, sporting events, and other

cultural events. These outings expose youth to

various music, art, theater, and other educational

experiences in the community and help shape positive values and community pride. Participation is
30

supervised by juvenile justice professionals and

community volunteers.

◆ Community Guardians. An adult community

member assumes responsibility for monitoring

some juvenile offender activities. For example, a

community guardian may escort or chaperone

juveniles attending cultural or recreational events.

Community guardians provide adult mentoring

and supervision and foster relationships and a

sense of belonging to the community.

◆ Family Monitoring. Offender families monitor

associated behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, anger, and withdrawal) and report to juvenile justice

professionals. This practice limits a youth’s opportunity to reoffend and helps build competency for

both the juvenile offender and his or her family.

Through assessment, the agency identifies service

needs that can provide support for enhancing

family competency in areas of setting limits, interacting with schools, supporting their children’s

involvement in successful activities, and developing other positive parenting approaches that promote competency in the youth and reduce the risk

of subsequent delinquent behavior.

◆ Day Reporting Centers. As an alternative to

secure facilities or residential placement, offenders are allowed to remain in their homes overnight and must report to a day reporting center

for structured programming during the day. The

program may include education, skill building,

tutoring, community service, or employment

activities.

◆ Electronic Monitoring. Offenders are monitored by means of an electronic device that is

usually worn around the ankle. The most common devices transmit a signal that can be received by a probation officer when driving by a

youth’s residence, school, or place of employment, or the signal may be connected to a residential phone line. Other forms of monitoring

systems are available.

Electronic monitoring enables probation officers

and others working with juvenile offenders to

maintain geographic awareness of a youth whose

movements or activities may be restricted to certain locations or environments, such as when

under house arrest.

◆ House Arrest With Random Checks Performed

by Juvenile Justice Staff or Others. Sentencing

to house arrest allows a juvenile offender to return

to his or her home but restricts movement in the

greater community. Random checks, performed by

juvenile justice staff, volunteers, or others, are conducted through electronic monitoring that identifies the youth’s location.

◆ Random Urinalysis Conducted by Juvenile Justice Staff or Others. Random urinalysis is conducted to monitor for offending behavior. If testing

indicates a violation, juvenile justice professionals

intervene. Tests are often conducted randomly on

offenders whose offenses are related to drug use.

Random testing acts to deter offending behavior

while youth are being supervised.

For youth who do not fulfill their obligations to repair the harm that they caused to victims of crime

and the victimized community, who continue to offend, or who pose a high risk to others, residential

placement or confinement in a secure facility may

be used.

◆ Residential Placement. Offending youth are sent

to an out-of-home placement in a residential facility that may include release during the day for

supervised activities.

◆ Confinement in a Secure Facility. The traditional lockup facility is used for highest risk youth

and those who repeatedly fail to comply with key

obligations and responsibilities.

Community-Focused Community

Safety Practice

The following community-focused community safety

practices require the building of partnerships and

involvement of community members.

◆ Partnerships With Community Police. To assist

with juvenile offender surveillance, parental support, and mentoring efforts, community members

in partnership with law enforcement and probation serve as role models to aid the youth in fulfilling their obligations under restorative justice.
31

◆ “Beat Probation” or “Neighborhood Supervision.” Probation agents are assigned to geographical areas (neighborhoods) instead of to

caseloads that are scattered throughout a city.

The juvenile justice professional thereby views

the community as his or her client or consumer of

services. This practice encourages the development of community partnerships between juvenile

justice professionals and community members

that allow the professionals to more effectively

join with the community in working with offenders to help prevent recidivism and promote community connections. Whenever possible, juvenile

justice professionals assist the community in addressing underlying problems beyond the individual offender (a problem-oriented versus

incident-driven approach).

Walter Dickey, in Community Justice: Striving for

Safe, Secure, and Just Communities (1996), characterizes major community concerns as often

including:

Situational crime prevention (i.e., monitoring

hot spots where youth often appear, such as

shopping malls).

Street order and quality of life.

Intimidating gangs.

Apartment complexes as sources of disorder,

such as drug traffic.

Repeat victimization.

Drug houses.

Lack of housing, jobs, and education in communities where offenders are concentrated.

Beat probation changes the persons involved in

community problems, the role of government, the

priorities of juvenile justice professionals, the

methods of supervision, and the places that supervision occurs in order to meet the needs of the

community.

◆ Peer Mediation and Dispute Resolution in

Schools. Schools and community members teach

youth conflict management skills and alternatives

to violence. Learning these valuable skills when

they are young deters these youth from future

violence, builds their self-esteem, and helps them

develop empathy.

◆ Anger Management and Mediation Courses for

Teachers and Parents. Community safety is enhanced when the adults who work with juvenile

offenders understand critical thinking processes

and can model those skills.

◆ Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion.

Most juvenile burglaries happen in the daytime.

As both parents more often work outside the

home, many homes are left vulnerable to these

types of breakins. If juveniles are kept in school,

their opportunity for offending is restricted.

In BARJ, schools provide alternatives to suspension and expulsion that build competencies in

youth. For individuals who are suspended or

expelled, mandatory community work service

is ordered, preferably involving experiences that

build competencies and have personal meaning

to the juvenile.

◆ Community Guardians and “Natural Surveillance.” Community members contribute to restorative community safety by helping to guide

young people toward activities that build community and develop self-esteem and potential

while monitoring and mentoring youth on community supervision.

Promising Programs:

Community Safety

◆ Community Intensive Supervision Program;

Allegheny County, PA. Designed to provide an

alternative to institutionalization for youth under

court supervision, this program uses the following

strategies to address community safety concerns:

monitored school attendance, required attendance

at the CISP neighborhood center 7 days a week

from approximately 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., electronic

monitoring, and drug and alcohol testing. Extensive community service opportunities provide

structured supervised time.

◆ Massachusetts Probation Agencies Target

Drunk Driving. Each year, tens of thousands of

Americans are killed by drunk drivers, and many
32

more are injured in drunk-driving crashes. Probation agencies in Massachusetts have targeted certain bars that are known to have served drunk

drivers before their arrests and have supplied the

names of the bars to licensing boards. The State

has also abolished “happy hours” after probation

agencies documented how the practice generated

a disproportionate number of drunk drivers.

◆ Police and Probation Working in the Community—Operation Night Light; Boston, MA.

Operation Night Light is a cooperative effort

between the Youth Violence Task Force and the

Massachusetts Department of Probation that

sends teams of police and probation officers on

regular home, school, or worksite visits to enforce

curfews or court-designated area restrictions and

ensure that youth on probation are complying

with the terms of their probation. The visits provide for an interactive relationship between the

probation officer and the probationer, strengthen

relationships between police officers and probation officers, get parents involved in their

children’s probation, and serve notice to other

youth that police and probation officers are serious about their mission.

◆ New Chance Program; Dakota County, MN.

As an alternative to out-of-home placement and

secure detention, juveniles attend an extended

day-treatment program that includes school, life

and communication skills development, health,

substance abuse treatment, recreation, community work service, and tutoring. Evenings are

spent at home under electronic monitoring and

parental supervision.

◆ Belle Glade and Pleasant City Beat Probation;

Palm Beach County, FL. Modeled after problemoriented policing, the juvenile justice program

assigns workers to a specific neighborhood or

community center to assist in solving community

safety problems and supervising structured group

activities such as community service.

Common Problems in Choosing

Community Safety Strategies

◆ Use of Secure Confinement for Juvenile

Offenders, Especially Property or Drug

Offenders, Whose Community Safety Risk Can

Be Managed in the Community. In this scenario,

the level of restriction does not match the level of

risk, incarceration creates the possibility of an

unhealthy peer group, cost is high for the level of

risk, opportunity for repaying the victim and

community is severely reduced, and isolation

from conventional community members is increased. Although incarceration may limit opportunity for offending in the short term, the effects

may increase the risk of future offending.

◆ Use of Strategies That Rely Solely on the

Juvenile Justice System. Safety strategies

based solely on the juvenile justice system limit

the options for a variety of responses, are less

cost effective, and fail to maximize opportunities

to reconnect youth to the community. Additionally, measures that rely solely on the juvenile justice system perpetuate the cycle of community

dependence on the system to solve problems separately from the community, which weakens the

community’s own problem-solving capability.

◆ Failure To Respond Swiftly to Breaches of

Safety Measures. Community perceptions of

safety depend upon confidence in the system to

respond to breaches of safety. If the system fails

to respond swiftly, public trust in the system is

eroded, which often prompts calls for more drastic responses.

◆ A Prevailing Focus by Juvenile Justice Professionals on Case Management Instead of Neighborhood Problem Solving. Traditional case

management strategies place primary responsibility for juvenile offenders on the juvenile justice

system rather than engaging the community in

finding creative solutions to the problem. A focus

on individual cases fails to address larger causes

of crime in the community.
33

◆ Failure of Juvenile Justice Professionals To Be

Involved in the Planning or Implementation of

Prevention Strategies. Juvenile justice professionals are in a position to make a valuable impact

on preventing criminal behavior through restorative practice. Rather than just reacting to crime,

juvenile justice professionals have the ability to

serve as resources and educators to strengthen

community safety and build partnerships with

schools, communities, social service agencies, and

the families and youth in their community.

Recommended Participants for

Implementation

◆ School staff who provide supervision for a large

part of a youth’s day.

◆ Community programs for youth that provide

adult supervision.

◆ Recreation and sports programs with adult

supervision.

◆ Employers.

◆ Individual community members who are willing

to be mentors or community guardians.

◆ Local law enforcement, especially officers assigned to community-based policing efforts.

◆ Family members.

Roles for Juvenile Justice

Professionals

◆ Develop and implement a continuum of sanctions

for supervised juvenile offenders who violate

conditions of compliance on probation or during

aftercare.

◆ Promote youth development and community

problem solving.

◆ Gather information about victim and community

fears and develop strategies to address those

fears.

◆ Work with juvenile offenders, school staff, members of community groups, offenders’ families,

law enforcement, and employers to ensure structured day and night community supervision of

juvenile offenders.

◆ Develop role as a “resource” to schools and community groups for mediation, parent training, and

other conflict resolution efforts.

◆ Work collaboratively with others to address community conditions that contribute to crime.

Expected Outcomes

◆ No further offenses by youth while on supervision.

◆ Reduced levels of fear in the community and for

victims.

◆ Increased community understanding of juvenile

justice.

◆ Increased competency, victim empathy, and internal controls for juvenile offenders who are under

supervision.

◆ Increased connections to conventional community

members.

◆ Increased sense of belonging to the community.

◆ Decreased school violence and increased schooland community-based conflict resolution.

◆ Increased community involvement and ownership

in managing the behavior of all youth in the

community.

Benefits to Juvenile Justice

Professionals

◆ Increased victim and community satisfaction because community safety is seriously addressed.

◆ Increased responsibility for community safety

shared by numerous institutions and individuals,

thereby alleviating the burden of sole responsibility on the juvenile justice professional.

◆ Increased number of adults monitoring the behavior of delinquent youth.
34

◆ Decreased opportunity for delinquent youth to

reoffend while on supervision.

◆ Increased sense of efficacy in addressing community safety issues.

Guiding Questions for Juvenile

Justice Professionals

◆ How do we restrict the opportunities for juvenile

offenders to commit offenses? (How well is the

juvenile offender’s time structured under community supervision, day and night?)

◆ How do we build relationships that inhibit

offending?

◆ How do we involve multiple systems and community members in managing the behavior of the

juvenile offender?

◆ How can we be seen as community resources for

schools and community groups?

◆ How do we promote youth development?

◆ Have we identified members of the community

who are concerned and involved in improving the

community? Have we built relationships with

them?

◆ Are we involved in community problem solving? Do

we know how to listen and work collaboratively

with community members to identify concerns and

engage victims, offenders, and other community

members in addressing the community’s needs?

◆ Have we developed and do we use a continuum of

sanctions other than incarceration for supervising

juvenile offenders who violate their conditions of

probation or aftercare?
35

Putting the Pieces Together

Weaving the Strands of

Accountability, Competency

Development, and Community

Safety

Discussion of the BARJ approach has been divided

into separate components of accountability, competency development, and community safety to describe

and clarify those objectives. In practice, however,

strategies may overlap and contribute to more than

one objective. Interventions that achieve more than

one objective are preferable, because the impact can

be mutually reinforcing and more cost effective.

When applying interventions, it is important to recognize that different techniques may impede or enhance one another. Therefore, a careful analysis of

cost, expected outcomes, and the interactive effect of

possible strategies is critical.

Table 4 on page 37 provides a framework for analyzing the contributions of various strategies to each of

the three objectives of the BARJ mission. A similar

analysis can be done for other strategies that are not

included in this Report.

Balanced and Restorative

Justice in Practice

Coparticipants in a BARJ system are crime victims;

citizens, families, and community groups; juvenile

offenders; and community juvenile justice professionals. Roles associated with each coparticipant

group in the BARJ approach include the following:

◆ Crime victims.

Receive information, support, assistance, compensation, and services.

Are involved and encouraged to provide input

into the BARJ process, particularly into how

juvenile offenders will repair the harm done.

Have the opportunity to meet with juvenile offenders in a safe environment and tell their story

to the offenders and others if they so desire.

Receive restitution and/or other reparation

from the juvenile offenders.

Provide guidance and consultation to juvenile

justice professionals on planning and advisory

groups.

Feel satisfied with the justice process.

◆ Citizens, families, and community groups.

Play an advisory role to courts and community

justice systems and/or play an active role in

disposition through one or more neighborhood

sanctioning processes.

Are involved to the greatest extent possible in

holding juvenile offenders accountable and

providing offender rehabilitation opportunities

and community safety initiatives.

Provide support to victims.

Provide support to juvenile offenders as mentors, employers, and advocates.

Work with juvenile offenders on local community service projects.

Provide work so that juvenile offenders can pay

restitution to victims and create service opportunities that develop skills and also allow juvenile
36

offenders to make meaningful contributions to

the quality of community life.

Assist families in supporting the offender to

fulfill his or her obligation to repair the harm

and increase his or her competencies.

Address social conditions that cause and support crime and violence within communities.

Monitor and supervise juvenile offenders to the

greatest extent possible in the community.

◆ Juvenile offenders.

Face the personal harm caused by their crimes

by participating in victim-offender mediation

or family group conferencing, if the victim is

willing, or through other victim-awareness

processes.

Complete restitution to their victims.

Provide meaningful service to repay the debt to

their communities.

Complete work experience and active and productive tasks that increase skills and improve

the community.

Improve decisionmaking skills and become

involved in prevention efforts.

◆ Community juvenile justice professionals.

Understand and integrate restorative justice

values throughout their work.

Measure program and practice effectiveness by

how well needs of individual victims, other

community members, and juvenile offenders

are addressed.

Develop regular reporting system on criteria

such as restitution and completion of community service, juvenile offender skill development, and coparticipant satisfaction.

Become active members of the community and

work with community groups, families, and

individual citizens to:

– Develop meaningful offender work and service opportunities.

– Recruit community mentors and supervisors

for youth.

– Recruit and train community volunteers and

coordinate victim-offender mediation and

dialogue with them.

Provide consultation and training to schools on

dispute resolution, anger management, critical

thinking skills, and delinquency prevention.

Develop, in partnership with victims, community, and offenders, a continuum of alternatives

to placement in a correctional facility for probation violations.

Creatively develop, with direct input from victims, community members, and offenders, programs that strengthen communities.

The subsection, Balanced and Restorative Justice in Practice, is

adapted from Bazemore, G. 1997 (May). What’s new about the

balanced approach? Juvenile and Family Court Journal. Reprinted

with permission.
37

Table 4. Weaving the Strands Together

Accountability Competency Community

Intervention Benefits Development Benefits Safety Benefits

Community Service

Victim-Offender

Mediation

Small or Large Group

Conferencing (Family

Group Conferencing)

Monitored School

Attendance

Victim Empathy Classes

Residential Placement

Electronic Monitoring

Secure Detention

Drug Testing

Work Experience

Cognitive Skills Classes

Makes amends to the

community

Answers personally to

the one harmed and makes

amends

Makes amends to all

impacted by the offense

Increases understanding of

impact of own behavior

Generates revenue to

pay restitution

Increases understanding

of responsibility for

behavior and the impact

of behavior

Develops skills, including

work skills (experiential)

Develops communication

and conflict resolution

skills and empathy

Develops communication

and conflict resolution

skills and empathy

Builds skills

Increases interpersonal

skills

May address some skills

Teaches work and social

skills

Improves decisionmaking

and critical thinking skills

Structures time, involves

community in supervision

Reduces victim fear in most

cases and increases understanding of crime

Reduces victim fear in most

cases and increases understanding of crime

Structures time, community

supervises

Structures time

Provides high level of

supervision

Restricts movement to reduce

opportunities to offend

Removes youth from

opportunity to offend

Reduces likelihood of

behavior associated with

substance abuse

Structures time under adult

supervision

Structures youth’s time

Source: Pranis, K. 1997.
39

Role Changes in Balanced and Restorative

Justice

New Roles for Victims,

Communities, Juvenile Offenders,

and Juvenile Justice Professionals

Victims, community members, juvenile offenders,

and juvenile justice professionals move from operating in isolation to working together on coordinated,

collaborative activities for planning and implementing policy, programs, and individual interventions.

◆ The victim role shifts from being a witness or

observer to being an active participant in finding

an appropriate response.

◆ The community role shifts from a passive position

to active participation in managing the juvenile’s

behavior and supporting the victim.

◆ The juvenile offender role shifts from passive

avoidance to active taking of responsibility.

◆ The juvenile justice professional role shifts from

attempting to directly manage the juvenile’s behavior to facilitating community processes that

manage the juvenile’s behavior.

In encouraging role changes for juvenile justice professionals, it is important to recognize the multiple

ways in which juvenile justice professionals can apply restorative justice, regardless of job title or traditional area of practice.

For example, victim-offender mediation practice

may be initiated and supervised by probation officers, by prosecutors in a county attorney’s office, or

by victim-assistance advocates within a department

of community safety. Indeed, law enforcement officers are developing family group and large group

conferencing programs in collaboration with local

schools and community resources.

In expanding and changing roles, juvenile justice

professionals need to base their work on restorative

justice values and continually assess how well they

are facilitating community involvement, including

individual victims of crime, and assisting juvenile

offenders in building competencies and becoming a

part of the community. See table 5 on page 41 for

examples of new roles within the BARJ Model.

Changing Decisionmaking Roles:

New Options

Decisionmaking on an appropriate set of obligations

(or sanctions) by which the juvenile offender can

satisfy accountability, competency development, and

community safety objectives can be shaped by:

◆ Direct participation by the victim and juvenile

offender in dispositional decisions through victimoffender dialogue.

◆ Direct participation by the victim, juvenile offender, and their respective communities of care

in dispositional decisions through family group

conferencing or similar community sanctioning

and dispute resolution processes, including peacemaking sentencing.

◆ Direct participation by selected community

members in decisions through community panels

(e.g., Vermont’s reparative boards).

◆ Direct victim and community input through victim and community impact statements to the

court.

◆ Indirect victim and community input through

client satisfaction surveys by juvenile justice

professionals.
40

◆ Indirect victim input through a victim representative who speaks on behalf of the victim in the

decisionmaking process.

◆ Leadership from judges and prosecutors in facilitating restorative alternatives to the traditional

court system, such as circle sentencing and

Vermont’s reparative boards.

Skills and Knowledge Needed by

the Juvenile Justice Professional

◆ Understanding of the victim experience.

◆ Conflict management and mediation skills.

◆ Knowledge of community organizations, leaders,

and processes.

◆ Knowledge of youth development and the competency framework.

◆ Ability to work with multidisciplinary groups and

possession of facilitation skills.

◆ Communication skills.

◆ Knowledge of job opportunities in the

community.

◆ Ability to supervise and support community

members and organizations that work with

juveniles.

◆ Knowledge of program resources in the

community.

◆ Ability to identify extended support networks of

victims and juvenile offenders.

◆ Ability to initiate change and then pass leadership

to others.

Juvenile Justice Professional 

Role-Change Examples

The following promising practices reflect how the

changing roles of juvenile justice professionals in

BARJ practice result in greater community involvement, support, and ownership in the outcomes.

Juvenile Justice Professionals Engaging

the Community

◆ Identifying a Problem. In central Minnesota, a

probation officer became frustrated with the failure of available interventions to change the behavior patterns of offenders from a particular

community. Offenders were in and out of the

system repeatedly, both on new offenses and on

violations of conditions of probation or supervised release. Looking for a solution, the officer

began discussions with a social service provider

who runs a job skills program.

◆ Restorative Justice Planning. The probation

officer (agent) and social service provider decided

to explore restorative justice options. The agent

obtained written material on various restorative

justice program models from the restorative justice planner at the Minnesota Department of Corrections. He then shared and discussed some

restorative justice material with a local judge.

Having engaged the judge’s interest, the agent

identified key leaders in the target community

and key players in the justice system. In conjunction with the social service provider, the agent

organized a seminar to introduce restorative justice and possible program models to the group.

The agent recruited speakers, sent invitations,

made personal contacts to encourage attendance,

and facilitated the meeting.

◆ Facilitating the Community Planning Meeting.

Meeting participants expressed an interest in

further exploring the circle sentencing model.

With the help of the social service provider, the

agent organized and facilitated a series of monthly

meetings that enabled the group to:

Become more knowledgeable about a community process of responding to crime known as

circle sentencing.

Identify a target offender population for the

process.

Identify other interested community members.

Begin planning implementation steps.
41

Table 5. New Roles in the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model

Sanctioning Through Rehabilitation Through Enhancement of

Accountability Competency Development Community Safety

Adapted from Bazemore and Washington. 1995. Charting the future for the juvenile justice system: reinventing mission and management. Spectrum, The

Journal of State Government. 68(2):51–66.

Juvenile Offender

Victim

Community Member

Juvenile Justice

Professional

Must accept responsibility

for behavior and actively

work to restore loss to

victims (if victims wish)

and the community and

face victims or victim

representatives (if victims

wish) and community

members

Actively participates as a

resource in service roles

that improve quality of

life in the community and

provide new experiences,

skills, and self-esteem as a

productive resource for

positive action

Becomes involved in constructive competency building and restorative activities

in a balanced program while

under adult supervision,

develops internal controls

and new peer and organizational commitments, and

helps others escape offending patterns of behavior

Actively participates in all

stages of the restorative

process (if victim wishes

and is able), documents

psychological and financial impact of crime, participates in mediation

voluntarily, and helps

determine sanctions for

juvenile offender

Provides input into the

rehabilitative process,

suggests community service options for juvenile

offenders, and participates

in victim panels or victimawareness training for

staff and juvenile offenders (if victim wishes)

Provides input regarding

continuing safety concerns,

fear, and needed controls on

juvenile offenders and encourages protective support

for other victims

Participates as volunteer

mediator/facilitator and

community panel member,

develops community service and compensated

work opportunities for

juvenile offenders with

reparative obligations, and

assists victims and supports juvenile offenders in

completing obligations

Develops new opportunities for youth to make

productive contributions,

build competency, and

establish a sense of

belonging

Provides “guardianship”

of juvenile offenders,

mentoring, and input to

juvenile justice systems

regarding safety concerns;

addresses underlying community problems that

contribute to delinquency;

and provides “natural

surveillance”

Facilitates mediation,

ensures that restoration

occurs (by providing ways

for juvenile offenders to

earn funds for restitution),

develops creative/restorative community service

options, engages community members in the process, and educates

community on its role

Develops new roles for

young offenders that allow them to practice and

demonstrate competency,

assesses and builds on

youth and community

strengths, and develops

community partnerships

Develops range of incentives and consequences to

ensure juvenile offender

compliance with supervision

objectives, assists school

and family in their efforts to

control and maintain juvenile offenders in the community, and develops

prevention capacity of local

organizations
42

Over the course of these meetings, the agent

gradually eased himself out of the primary leadership role, while remaining vigilant to ensure that

the process did not lose momentum.

◆ Carrying on the Process. The social service provider applied for a grant on behalf of the group to

obtain training in circle sentencing. Community

members committed themselves to participate

and recruit others. (Circle sentencing requires

significant involvement of the community.) The

agent now provides support and encouragement

as the community moves forward in its preparation to conduct circles. The agent also identifies

possible cases for which the circle process might

be effective. Throughout the process, the agent

has facilitated communication among the community, other system players, and State resources.

This example illustrates the role of the justice

professional as a change agent in bringing together available resources, the community, and

the system to develop new solutions to difficult

problems.

Identification and Involvement of

Key Stakeholders

◆ Collaborative Planning. The Faribault County

(MN) Local Coordinating Council includes key

decisionmakers from education, human services,

corrections, private youth service providers, and

law enforcement. The council handles case planning and case management for current juvenile

cases from participating agencies through a process that includes meeting with the juvenile and at

least one parent monthly. The parents and child

are equal players in the process. Cases range from

youth having difficulty in school to youth returning to the community from an out-of-home placement. Relationships with the family that may be

confrontational at first have later developed into

supportive relationships. On occasion, parents

have asked for continuation of the meetings after

the council was prepared to close the case, because it had become a source of support for the

family.

Long-Term Prevention Activities

◆ Community Involvement and Education.

Juvenile justice professionals from CISP’s

Garfield Center in Allegheny County, PA, actively engage the community in crime prevention

and community strengthening. The center offers

many community activities, including family support group meetings, parent effectiveness training, open houses, a violence prevention program,

and a Martin Luther King, Jr., Day celebration.

For example, juvenile justice professionals offer

parent effectiveness training for juvenile offenders under their supervision and for other youth

in the area. Because CISP staff have found that

many offenders are parents of young children

and are in need of parenting education in addition

to safe sex and reproductive health education,

CISP offers its classes to the wider community

as a preventative to possible future violence.

Creation of Partnerships for Prevention

In 1995, an unoccupied new addition to a senior

citizens apartment complex in Dakota County, MN,

was burned to the ground by three males, ages 14,

16, and 18. The three youth were charged with arson. The oldest admitted the charge and spent 6

months in jail. The two juveniles were placed on

probation. All were ordered to apologize in some

way to the community and to pay restitution.

Providing for Restorative Justice Accountability.

The Dakota County, MN (BARJ Model Site),

Victim-Offender Meeting Program contacted the

senior residents and invited them to an informational meeting about the victim-offender meeting

process. Thirty residents attended the meeting,

which was facilitated by the juvenile justice professional who directs the Dakota County program.

Of the residents who attended, 10 expressed interest in meeting face to face with the boys who had

burned their building. The facilitators also met

with each of the boys and explained the process to

them. The juveniles agreed to meet with the seniors

but only if each met with the group alone, without

the other juveniles present.
43

Telling the Impact of the Crime. At the meeting,

the seniors told the boys how their lives had been

changed forever by the fire. They recalled waking

up that March morning to the fierce orange glow

outside their windows. They told of how they had to

leave all their worldly possessions and run out of the

building, some in their nightgowns. The seniors recounted how it felt to experience the heat from the

fire and watch their blinds melt to the window. They

talked about the terror of not knowing if they were

going to escape in time.

Just “Goofing Around.” The seniors heard the boys

explain that they never meant to start a fire. The

boys were just “goofing around” by starting paper

on fire and then putting it out.

At the time of the fire, the eldest of the three was

engaged to be married and was looking forward to

starting a career with the U.S. Marine Corps. Following a 6-month jail term for burglary and arson,

he now works two jobs and attends college. His life

will never be the same.

Repairing the Harm to the Community. The insurance companies paid for most of the financial loss

from the fire, leaving a minimal amount for the boys

to pay. However, the seniors requested that the two

oldest boys go out and teach others about the dangers of “playing with fire.” It was suggested that the

boys might be able speak before groups of young

people about their experience. The juvenile justice

professional agreed to help the boys fulfill that request in order to make amends to the seniors and

the community.

Following Through. After contacting several

schools, the juvenile justice professional found that

a videotape would be the most effective way for the

boys to reach a large number of students. Cable

television stations were willing to provide technical

assistance; however, it was necessary to find a producer who would either donate time or find investors willing to donate a large amount of money for

the project.

The juvenile justice professional enlisted the help of

the St. Paul Companies, a national insurance company based in the area, and the Insurance Federation of Minnesota to produce the video.

The fire marshal from the community where the fire

occurred helped determine the best ages to target for

an arson prevention video. It was decided that the

video would target youth who were similar in age to

those who started the fire. In preparation for the

video, the juvenile justice professional arranged for a

focus group consisting of children and youth to provide input on content. A second focus group of

teachers and school administrators provided input

from an educational perspective. It was decided that

the video would feature one of the boys who started

the fire and that a supplemental written curriculum

would be developed as a teaching aid. In addition, it

was agreed that the youth would participate in the

video project under the condition that his identity

would not be revealed.

Taping included a reenactment of the youth’s arrest

and incarceration. The juvenile justice professional

was present at the video shoot with the youth. The

arresting officer was interviewed, as were seniors

who had participated in the meeting with the boys.

The production and film crew were supplied by the

St. Paul Companies. Five insurance companies financed the production, and copies were distributed

to fire marshals throughout Minnesota. To order this

video, see appendix A (page A–14).

A Change in Countywide Systems

Toward Restorative Justice

Juvenile Justice and Human Services Joint

Effort. During 1996 and 1997, the Dane County,

WI, Department of Human Services and Juvenile

Court have joined forces in enlisting social workers,

law enforcement, human services administrators,

district attorneys, public defenders, and juvenile

court judges to team up to implement the BARJ

Model throughout their county in an effort to reform their juvenile delinquency supervision system.

Areas of development and planning include:

◆ Involving the Community in Preventing and

Responding to Juvenile Delinquency. Dane

County intends to present and discuss BARJ

in a variety of community forums. Community

outreach efforts are being directed at educators,

students, service clubs, policymakers, law
44

enforcement, civic organizations, and other interested citizen groups. Discussions focus on how

BARJ principles can be implemented and on the

roles community members and organizations can

play in preventing and responding to delinquent

behavior.

◆ Developing a Victim-Offender Conferencing

Program. Dane County is developing a juvenile

victim-offender conferencing service program to

provide victims of crime an opportunity to explain directly to offenders, in a safe and facilitated meeting, the impact of the offense and to

ask questions of the offender. Planning, development, and implementation of this service will be

overseen by a group of professionals and citizens

representing a variety of systems and communities. Their goal is to integrate restorative justice

and victim-centered justice into the already successful system of restitution and community service work performed by juvenile offenders in

Dane County.

◆ Designing a Consistent Risk and Strengths

Assessment Process for Youth. Dane County

is conducting research on risk for youth and is

examining factors that contribute to recidivism,

nature of the offense, and characteristics of the

juvenile and family that will impact intervention

strategies. Juvenile justice staff and community

members are also developing “Youth as Resources” projects, which allow young offenders

to demonstrate competency in the community.

◆ Educating County Staff About the Balanced

and Restorative Justice Approach Through

Meetings, Newsletters, and Other Communications. To educate county staff, the juvenile justice

department holds conferences, publishes a newsletter dedicated to the balanced approach, and

involves staff in developing restorative policies

and practices.

◆ Tailoring the Model to the Needs of Their

County. The county plans to include the concept

of family competency in their programming relating to families, including learning to set limits,

interacting with schools, supporting their child’s

successful activities, and other positive parenting

approaches to promote competence in youth.

◆ Reducing Institutionalization. Services for Children Come First (CCF), which serves children

with severe emotional disturbance, include intensive supervision, immediate onsite crisis response,

backup plans for school disruptions, mentoring,

and short-term residential stabilization. Care

planning is based on the balanced approach and is

achieved by intense coordination by a team including school, community, family, and other relevant agencies. Part of the program includes

focusing on juveniles at high risk of correctional

placement, with applications of related intensity

supervision (e.g., home detention, electronic

monitoring, and community supervision).

A Move From Community “Corrections”

to Community “Justice”

Deschutes County, OR, has long been committed to

a BARJ approach to juvenile justice. To support its

shift from a retributive to a more restorative system,

Deschutes County has worked to change how the

community views its juvenile justice department and

how juvenile justice professionals view themselves.

Changing roles reflect changing goals and objectives. The following goals and objectives are now a

part of Deschutes County’s focus on community

justice:

◆ Program Development. With community justice,

the program focus shifts from a corrections emphasis on offenders to a balanced emphasis on the

community, crime victims, and offenders. Thus,

program initiatives reflect this balance. For example, program development is now required to

build an array of community crime prevention

and community restoration programs, victim participation and compensation services, and effective offender control and recidivism-reduction

efforts.

◆ Public Information. At the heart of community

justice is the community. An ill-informed community should not be expected to respond with enthusiasm to the community justice movement.

Therefore, Deschutes County is making a substantial effort to educate the public about the

goals and objectives of community justice. The

most informed public is thought to be an involved
45

public. Therefore, extensive effort is being made

to have community members organized and active

with their public relations strategies. Special efforts are being made to have community members

describe community justice to other residents via

service club presentations, neighborhood gatherings, and religious events.

◆ Staff Development. Many of Deschutes

County’s community corrections officers are

trained probation officers. To serve victims and

join hands with community members in crime

prevention, extensive training is now required to

assist in professional development of the officers

for their new role as community justice officers.

◆ Leadership Development. Deschutes County

has formed a new community safety council that

consists of citizens, judges, law enforcement officials, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors,

corrections officials, victim advocates, human

service professionals, and elected officials. Leadership development training will be focused on

the community safety council, which will henceforth be known as the community justice council.

◆ Research and Evaluation. Studying the effects,

benefits, and shortcomings of a communitycentered focus on crime prevention, intervention, and corrections will aid ongoing program

development. Research and evaluation design

must be tailored to community justice, which

includes outcomes related to community members, victims of crime, and offenders.

◆ Systems Modification. Community justice is a

shift in philosophy and practice. To succeed, the

entire criminal justice system must participate,

with community members playing a leadership

role. The shift to community justice requires a critical analysis of intervention priorities, adoption of

new practices in place of unproductive or counterproductive practices, and a commitment to interdependence by the criminal justice community.

Community Policing: Solving Problems

Shoplifting Program; Milton Keynes, England.

Police have often led in changing their role to create

a more restorative response to crime. This initiative

is exemplified by a police department in a large urban area in England.

For fiscal year 1994–95, a comprehensive audit of

expenditures across criminal justice agencies was

undertaken that revealed how money was spent by

the criminal justice system.

The audit revealed that the criminal justice system

spends the vast majority of resources processing

the cases brought to it and attempting to ensure

due process but little on the prevention of crime

(including the prevention of reoffending and

revictimization) or service to victims, witnesses,

and offenders.

The system spends time consulting with itself and

obtaining information (often from the offender) in

order to make decisions, but not much is done to

address the needs of offenders, victims, or communities. The system seems primarily occupied with

speeding the passage of cases and offenders.

The audit was conducted following the implementation of problem-solving policing in Milton Keynes,

England, after it was recognized that police efforts

were often hampered by the lack of a clearly defined

underlying purpose of the criminal justice system.

The audit was difficult to implement because of the

system’s large number of agencies and its diverse

management and financial information systems. For

the first time, resource allocations have been made

transparent for practitioners and the public alike.

For example, less than 1 percent of the overall budget is used for victim support and less than 1 percent

is spent on intervention for young offenders. These

numbers have provoked considerable debate about

the purpose of the justice system and its current

deployment of resources.

Milton Keynes police discovered that most offenders,

youth and adult, began with shoplifting. It was decided that a problem-solving approach to shoptheft

(shoplifting) offenders was needed to identify the

underlying problems as soon as someone came to the

notice of the police. Traditionally, the police had given

warnings (a police “caution”) and prosecuted in only

the more serious cases. The police also wanted to

experiment with involving retailers (the victims) in
46

handling shoplifting cases so that the offenders

learned the consequences of their behavior on others,

and for themselves. In 1994, the Milton Keynes

Retail Theft Initiative began, in which retailers and

shop thieves are brought face to face by the police.

Subsequent mediation sessions allow the retailers to

express their feelings and concerns, and many offenders are unaware of the impact of their behavior on the

retailers.

The offenders learn that shop theft is an offense that

has implications for their victims, the wider community, and for themselves. At the sessions, offenders

respond to the approach, which enables them to talk

frankly about what is going on in their lives that

may be provoking their behavior.

Aside from mediating between the two parties (with

a parent or guardian present in juvenile cases), the

police try to identify the underlying problem. In

more than 3 years since the initiative was launched,

the police have determined many of the reasons why

offenders steal from shops. For young people, peer

pressure, bullying, and even parental abuse may be

almost daily occurrences. In the case of adults, alcohol and drug abuse, marital problems, and bereavement have surfaced as underlying reasons.

To deal with these issues, the police, in partnership

with other local agencies, have developed a series of

programs that include antibullying programs; “Protective Behaviors,” which teaches young people to

make decisions independently without succumbing

to outside pressure; youth counseling; and a prison

awareness program, which alerts offenders at risk of

reoffending to what life is like inside prison.

The Home Office evaluation of the retail theft initiative showed that recidivism rates were reduced substantially (by well over a third) and the costs of

conducting the mediation sessions and implementing

other programs were easily offset by not prosecuting

cases through the criminal justice system. Victims

reported greater satisfaction with the program and,

after their involvement, began recognizing the needs

of the offenders instead of viewing all as needing

punishment. The shift in perception has helped attract funding for intervention programs. The initiative has stimulated wide interest in the concept of

victim-offender mediation and community policing.
47

Getting Help: Strategies for Involving

Stakeholders

The juvenile justice system cannot succeed in changing the behavior of juvenile offenders or improving

community safety without the active involvement of

the community. The community has tools, resources,

and power that the system does not have. Juvenile

justice system activity must be built around a core of

community activity.

This new relationship between the community and

the juvenile justice system is shaped by several key

ideas:

◆ The community is the source of moral authority

or influence.

◆ The community is the center of decisionmaking

whenever possible.

◆ The community is the center of action.

◆ Formal government is the source of legal authority (as contrasted with the moral authority of the

community).

◆ The government is in a position of broader oversight than the community.

◆ The government is the guardian of individual

concerns (in contrast with community responsibility for collective concerns).

The purpose of the legal authority is to affirm the

community’s authority and provide a mechanism for

responding to offenders’ failure to comply with requirements of the sanction. The community’s moral

authority is central and the State’s legal authority is

secondary and a backup. Legal authority that is not

clearly grounded in the community’s moral authority

as demonstrated by active community involvement

is hollow and ineffective.

In general, communities manage individual behavior

more effectively than governments do. However,

communities need government support and resources and the perspective of an oversight mechanism that is separate from the community.

Because formal government processes have gradually assumed much authority and power, the juvenile

justice system also has a leadership responsibility

in moving from the current approach to one in

which the community is the lead partner. The

system needs to:

◆ Assist in developing the transformed community

role through information, education, and technical assistance.

◆ Link communities with others that have common

interests and goals to share experience and

knowledge.

◆ Lead a process of clarifying the statewide vision

and goals for the juvenile justice process.

◆ Monitor community activities to ensure that values of the State and Nation are honored (e.g.,

fairness and appropriate due process).

Guiding Principles

The following principles should guide efforts to gain

greater commitment to restorative justice values in

the community.

◆ Special outreach efforts to victims groups are

important because victims have historically been

left out of the juvenile justice process. Victims

groups have had to fight the system for nearly

every gain they have achieved. Consequently,

many victims and their advocates are skeptical
48

that an initiative of an agency serving juvenile

offenders can genuinely have victim interests at

its center. An unwavering commitment to involve

victims despite obstacles that may be encountered

is critical to ensure that the outcomes are genuinely restorative.

◆ Victims and community members should be included on advisory boards, councils, and committees for implementing the BARJ Model. (Work

groups that include only juvenile justice and

agency professionals should be avoided.)

◆ Restorative justice should not be mandated in a

top-down authoritarian process.

◆ The work of putting the principles of restorative

justice into practice must be accomplished at the

local level and must involve all stakeholders.

◆ The appropriate role of national, State, or regional

leadership is to articulate the vision, disseminate

information, and provide support and technical

assistance to jurisdictions attempting to evolve into

a more restorative approach. National and State

agencies can also implement pilot programs to

demonstrate application of the principles. The

Federal Government and State governments are

responsible for monitoring outcomes to ensure

fairness, equity, and effectiveness of processes

designed at the local level.

◆ The process of implementing restorative approaches must model the principles themselves

(e.g., victims must have a voice, and the community must be involved).

◆ A clear understanding by practitioners and stakeholders, including the community, of the philosophical underpinnings of the approach is

essential to ensure that changes are substantive

and not merely cosmetic. Program implementation without an explicit understanding of underlying values often leads to undesirable results.

◆ Each juvenile justice professional and community

member has opportunities to contribute to a restorative vision in the community even without

making major system changes.

◆ The community contains natural allies in fields

outside juvenile justice who can bring depth

and credibility to the advocacy of a restorative

approach.

◆ Energy is most effectively expended in working

with individuals who are interested in trying restorative approaches. Seeds sown in fertile soil

produce the most impressive results, which, by

example, will convince skeptics more readily

than direct persuasion.

◆ There is no single roadmap or blueprint for building a restorative system.

◆ A feedback loop between stakeholder and leadership is important.

◆ The juvenile justice system and the community

must be prepared to make mistakes.

◆ Proponents of the BARJ Model do not have answers to all questions raised by the principles of

restorative justice. The process of searching for

answers should involve dialogue with all who

have an interest in the question.

Putting the principles and strategies to work to build

community support and participation requires several basic community organizing skills:

◆ Find Your Natural Allies in the Community.

Talk to individuals interested in violence prevention, underlying causes of crime, social justice, stronger neighborhoods, a sense of

community, and children’s issues. You are

likely to find some who resonate to restorative

justice values and see great potential for addressing some of their own interests through

that framework.

Listen to the interests of others. Ask them how

restorative justice fits with their interests.

Learn to use language that makes connections

for the audience. When speaking to educators,

talk about the connections between restorative

justice and school discipline problems. When

talking to law enforcement, talk about the

natural fit between community-based policing
49

and restorative justice. When speaking to business people, talk about restorative justice in the

language of total quality management or effective government and economics.

Identify the common ground for others—do

not assume that it is obvious to them. Explain

why restorative justice matters to them, based

on their own interests.

Engage people in a discussion of their own

worries, fears, and concerns and identify,

where possible, how a restorative approach

provides a potential solution to that problem.

◆ Avoid Becoming Identified With a Particular

Political Label.

Find community allies on both ends of the political spectrum. Restorative justice is consistent with fiscal conservativism, the call for a

reduced role for government, and an emphasis

on personal accountability. On the other hand,

the reduced emphasis on physical punishment

and the call for community accountability are

consistent with traditional liberal values.

Seek out respected leaders with divergent

points of view as key supporters of restorative

justice.

◆ Listen to Those Who Disagree.

The entire community is a stakeholder in the

issue of community safety, so everyone deserves to be respectfully heard in the process

of deciding the direction of the system. Listen

carefully so that you can understand the objections. Develop an explanation that responds to

the objections for use when speaking to other

groups.

Acknowledge the need to have dialogue and

explore further on issues for which you do not

have answers. Be prepared to learn from the

objections raised. BARJ is an emerging model,

and proponents should be responsive to valid

objections.

Probe beneath surface objections to identify

underlying issues that may be more readily

resolved than is initially apparent. For example, what may appear to be a desire for

retribution is often actually a concern for

public safety. A restorative approach cannot

deliver retribution but can potentially deliver

at least as much community safety as the current system.

◆ Deal With Victim Issues First.

If those raising objections are victims groups or

advocates, then use the above skills over and

over again.

Be willing to engage in dialogue with victims or

victim advocates on their “turf” repeatedly.

Offer to come back to hear their concerns.

Articulate their concerns in your own words to

be sure you understand.

Ask a sympathetic victim supporter to help you

understand the issues being raised. Seek victim

input for any proposed policy and program

change. Learn about victim issues and the experience of victimization.

Listen to victim stories. Use victim stories in

your public speaking. In written materials or

overheads, for example, list items related to

victims before those related to offenders.

◆ Balance Focus With Flexibility.

It is critical to be clear and consistent about the

values and vision of the BARJ approach, but

there are multiple ways to achieve the vision.

Be prepared to modify your approach if it is

not working and other more promising avenues

appear. Success may depend more on being

responsive to opportunity than on detailed

long-range action plans.

◆ Monitor Your Own Assumptions and

Stereotypes.

Promoting a new paradigm requires breaking

out of your own paradigms in many ways. Unexpected sources of support and opportunities

may be missed if you do not become aware of

your own assumptions about others and consciously put those aside.
51

Measuring Outcomes

Desired outcomes are defined by the vision. Actual

outcomes will be determined by the quality of the

process—not just what gets done, but how it is

done. If the process of responding to an offender is

humiliating or demeaning, the outcome is unlikely

to be a respectful attitude by the offender. If the

process of responding to a victim is patronizing or

discounts the victim’s voice, the outcome is unlikely

to be the recovery of personal power. Respectful

process treats each participant as equal in human

dignity and in capacity to contribute to constructive solutions. Respectful process for victims facilitates the recovery of a sense of personal power.

Respectful process for offenders encourages them

to experience responsible use of their personal

power to own their behavior, to make amends, and

to help others.

Measuring outcomes is a way of checking the system—holding the system accountable to the vision.

Paying attention to what gets measured is a powerful strategy for promoting change. Line staff take

their cues about what is really important from what

gets measured and reported.

Guiding Questions for

Measuring Outcomes for

Individual Dispositions

◆ What is the level of victim satisfaction with the

overall disposition?

◆ How much repair was achieved for the victim?

◆ How much repair was achieved for the

community?

◆ What is the level of the juvenile’s understanding

of the impact of the offense on others?

◆ What are the measurable increases in competency

for the juvenile offender?

◆ What bonds among victim, community members,

families, and the juvenile offender have been created or strengthened?

◆ What positive roles in the community were created for the juvenile offender?

◆ Does the disposition structure the juvenile’s time

based on the risk to reoffend?

◆ Has the juvenile fulfilled the requirements of the

disposition?

◆ Has the juvenile refrained from committing any

new offenses?

◆ Did the disposition provide roles for community

members in promoting accountability and community safety?

Guiding Questions for

Measuring Outcomes for

the Juvenile Justice System

◆ What percentage of cases provide for active victim input into the terms of the disposition?

◆ What percentage of cases provide for active community input into the terms of the disposition?

◆ What percentage of cases provide for active

juvenile offender input into the terms of the

disposition?

◆ How many community members participate in

policymaking, case decisionmaking, or implementation of dispositions?
52

◆ What percentage of cases involving financial loss

require payment of restitution by the juvenile?

◆ What percentage of restitution ordered is paid?

◆ What percentage of community work service is

completed?

◆ What percentage of cases are referred to mediation/dialogue? How many mediate? How many

reach agreement? What percentage of agreements

are successfully fulfilled?

◆ What percentage of cases involve other organizations or individuals to assist in monitoring the

juvenile’s activities and behavior (e.g., schools,

family members, recreation programs, and treatment programs)?

◆ What is the level of involvement of juvenile justice staff in community problem-solving efforts

aimed at preventing delinquent behavior?

◆ What percentage of juveniles continue to volunteer at the sites where they completed their community service?

◆ What percentage of community service assignments involve juveniles working side by side with

conventional adult volunteers?

◆ What level of responsibility does the community

feel for addressing the problem of delinquent

youth and community safety?

◆ Does the community have expectations for positive contributions from delinquent youth?

◆ Are the levels of fear in the community abating?

◆ What percentage of juveniles reoffend while on

supervision? Within a 2-year period?

◆ Are resources spent in a way that supports accountability, competency development, and

community safety equally?
53

Balanced and Restorative Justice Practice

Tools

Quality Restorative Justice

Practice

Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of

elevating the role of crime victims and communities

in the process of holding offenders accountable for

their behavior, while offering offenders the opportunity to make amends directly to the people and community they violated.

Financial restitution, community service, victimoffender mediation, and the more recent development

of family group conferencing are widely understood

to illustrate restorative justice practice. The manner in

which these interventions are implemented, however,

is likely to influence the degree to which the interventions are experienced as restorative by victims, communities, and juvenile offenders.

It is overly simplistic to conclude that specific interventions are either totally restorative or not restorative at all, particularly if such an assessment is

based solely upon a program’s description. Instead,

it is more likely that most of these interventions,

and others, can be viewed along a continuum from

having a least restorative to most restorative impact

on crime victims, other community members, and

offenders.

Grounding Interventions in Key

Restorative Justice Values

Unless an intervention is clearly grounded in restorative justice values and its procedures are designed

to maximize the use of those values, it can easily be

compromised to meet primarily traditional, retributive justice system political, bureaucratic, or economic needs, rather than meeting the needs of those

most affected by crime—the victim, victimized community, and juvenile offender.

Cooptation of programs could easily lead to the “fast

food” version of restorative justice practice, which

would provide a “quick fix,” remain offender focused, use victims as “props” rather than active partners, and have little patience to listen to victims’

stories, validate their needs, or invite their participation in the process.

Without adequate community involvement, juvenile

justice professionals could continue to be service

providers instead of facilitators of community justice. A seemingly restorative practice could remain a

primarily punitive exercise that keeps offenders in

passive roles and stigmatizes them rather than respectfully allowing them to take responsibility and

earnestly make amends.

Table 6 illustrates how common restorative justice

interventions might be implemented from “least restorative” to “most restorative.”

Community Justice Officer

Position Description

To realize greater systemic reform toward a balanced and restorative system of juvenile justice, the

Deschutes County, OR, Department of Community

Justice has transformed its probation officer positions into “community justice officer” positions. The

revised position description, which is included as

appendix B, illustrates how juvenile justice professionals can change the way they view their work,

their responsibilities, and their performance goals to

serve victims, community members, and offenders.
54

Table 6. Quality of Restorative Justice Practice Continuum

Intervention Least Restorative Impact Most Restorative Impact

Financial Restitution

Community Service

◆ No phone or in-person contact with

victim to receive his or her input.

◆ Written input only.

◆ Offender makes payment to court

and has no sense of making amends

to the victim.

◆ Restitution viewed as punishment

rather than reparation.

◆ In-person or phone contact to hear the

victim’s story of how the crime affected

him or her and to identify his or her

need for restitution or other concerns

(this could be followed up with written

documentation).

◆ Restitution requirement presented to

offender as way to repair harm.

◆ Restitution used as a way to increase

offender’s understanding of the concrete

nature of victim loss.

◆ Court orders a specific number

of hours of community service

with no victim or community

input.

◆ Service projects are demeaning.

◆ Community service viewed by

the community and offender as

punishment.

◆ In-person or phone contact to hear the

victim’s story of how the crime affected

him or her and to ask if there is a particularly meaningful type of community

service that the victim would like to see

the offender complete.

◆ Involvement of community in identifying projects valued by the community

and the offender.

◆ Projects that involve offenders and community members working side by side.

◆ The contribution of offenders is acknowledged in public.

◆ Service includes a reflection component

that helps community and offender

understand community service as a

process for giving back to the

community.

◆ Service gives opportunity for offender

to gain or enhance meaningful competencies and skills.

(continued)
55

Adapted from Umbreit. 1997. Restorative justice: Interventions’ impact varies; manner of implementation critical. In The Crime Victim Report.

Victim-Offender

Mediation

or

Family Group

Conferencing

Dialogue Driven: Victim Sensitive Focus

◆ Primary focus is on providing an opportunity for victim and offender to talk directly to each other, to allow victims to

express the full impact of the crime upon

their lives and to receive answers to important questions they have, and to allow

offenders to learn the real human impact

of their behavior and to take direct responsibility for making things right.

◆ Restitution is important but secondary to

talking about the impact of the crime.

◆ Victims are continually given choices

throughout the process, such as where to

meet and whom they would like to have

present.

◆ Separate preparation meetings with victim and offender prior to bringing them

together, with emphasis upon listening to

how the crime has affected them, identifying their needs, and preparing them for

the mediation or conference session.

◆ Nondirective style of mediation or facilitation, with mediator not talking most of

the time; high tolerance of silence; and

use of a humanistic or transformative

mediation model.

◆ High tolerance for expression of feelings

and full impact of crime.

◆ Voluntary attendance for victim and offender.

◆ Trained community volunteers serve as

mediators or comediators along with

agency staff.

◆ Dialogue driven and typically about an

hour in length (or longer).

Agreement Driven: Offender Focus

◆ Entire focus is upon determining the

amount of financial restitution to be

paid, with no opportunity to talk directly about the full impact of the

offender’s crime upon the victim and

the community.

◆ No separate preparation meetings with

the victim and offender prior to bringing the parties together to discuss expectations and needs.

◆ No choice given to victims about where

they would feel safest and most comfortable to meet or whom they would

like to be present.

◆ Victims given only written notice to

appear for mediation session at preset

time, with no preparation.

◆ Mediator or facilitator describes the

offense, and offender then speaks, with

the victim simply asking a few questions or responding to questions of the

mediator.

◆ Highly directive style of mediation or

facilitation, with the mediator talking

most of the time, continually asking

both the victim and offender questions,

but little if any direct dialogue between

the involved parties.

◆ Low tolerance of moments of silence or

expression of feelings.

◆ Voluntary for victim but required of

offender regardless of whether he or

she takes responsibility.

◆ Settlement driven and brief (15 to 20

minutes).

Table 6. Quality of Restorative Justice Practice Continuum (continued)

Intervention Least Restorative Impact Most Restorative Impact
56

Sample Disposition

The Deschutes County, OR, Department of Community Justice has developed a balanced and restorative format for developing case dispositions. A

sample disposition of a juvenile offender who admitted to theft of a vehicle parked at a senior citizen

housing project is included as appendix C. The victim agreed to mediation, and the disposition reflects

the victim’s suggestions.

Balanced and Restorative Justice

Case Management Guide

The BARJ Case Management Guide shown in table

7 was modified from one originally developed by the

Deschutes County, OR, Department of Community

Justice for juvenile justice professionals to comprehensively apply BARJ principles to their work with

youthful offenders. The Guide takes the juvenile

justice professional through assessment, planning,

supervision, and outcome-measurement functions,

while considering the three components of the balanced approach— accountability, competency development, and community safety.

Accountability Competency Development Community Safety

(continued)

1. Is the victim identifiable?

2. Can the victim determine loss?

3. Is the loss amount within reasonable limits to be repaid?

4. Is the victim willing to

participate in victim-offender

mediation?

5. Is the offender’s attitude

appropriate for victim-offender

mediation/dialogue?

6. Is victim empathy training

required prior to offender’s

participation in victimoffender mediation/dialogue?

7. What is the level of understanding by the offender of

the harm to the victim and the

community?

8. Does the victim wish to

designate a form of community

service?

1. Is the offender employed?

2. If not, is the offender about to

secure work on his or her own

or does he or she need jobseeking skills?

3. Is a therapeutic program needed

to enable youth or parents to

take part in skills programs?

4. What are the youth’s strengths

and interests that may be further developed?

5. What opportunities exist for the

juvenile to teach others from

the experience?

1. Is the offender a warrantable

risk to remain in his or her

own home?

2. Do the parents have the capability to control the behavior of

the offender?

3. Is there need for supervised

home detention backup?

4. What behavior will prompt the

use of detention?

5. Are there any adults in the

youth’s life who may currently

or potentially have a positive

influence?

6. With what communities does

the youth identify?

7. What portion of the juvenile’s

time is spent in structured

activities?

Assessment

Table 7. Balanced and Restorative Justice Case Management Guide
57

Table 7. Balanced and Restorative Justice Case Management Guide (continued)

Accountability Competency Development Community Safety

1. What level of restitution order

is reasonable?

2. What will be the repayment

schedule?

3. What consequences will be

imposed if the restitution order

is not followed?

4. Is interaction with the victim

advisable or desired by the

victim?

5. Is there a particular community

service activity that is related to

the offense?

6. What community service will

be required and who will

supervise?

7. What strategy will be used to

increase the juvenile’s awareness of the harm of the offense?

1. What specific living, learning,

or working skills programs will

be arranged for the youth?

2. Is there a need for individual

tutoring?

3. What job skills program is

available for the offender?

4. Is there an appropriate

parenting-skills program for the

offender’s parents?

5. Are mentors available to work

with the youth?

6. What community resources will

be used?

7. Can the community service be

designed to provide learning

opportunities or skill building?

8. How can the juvenile be involved in planning, leadership,

and teaching others?

1. What resources can be identified to ensure surveillance and

monitoring of the youth?

2. Are there grandparents or

neighbors who can help supervise the youth?

3. Is there a need to identify

detention backup space if the

home detention efforts fail?

4. What reporting requirements

should be imposed?

5. What should specific responsibilities of the parents be to

ensure compliance with rules?

6. How can the parents access

support from the system when

they have difficulty with compliance by the youth?

7. What community activities

can be used to provide supervision and structure to the

juvenile’s day?

Planning

Supervision

1. Has the restitution contract

schedule been followed?

2. Have community service hours

been performed?

3. If the responsibilities are not

performed, what consequences

should be imposed?

4. Is the offender fulfilling commitments made to the victim?

1. Has the youth followed all

home detention orders?

2. Has the youth demonstrated the

ability to control delinquent

behavior when there has been

free time?

3. What long-term controls can

the family adopt to remedy the

problems?

4. Has the youth developed any

deeper connections with the

community?

5. What adults will supervise or

mentor the youth?

1. Has the youth or family completed the skills programs?

2. What evidence exists that the

competencies are gained?

3. Is there need to enroll the youth

or family in more indepth

programs?

4. Is there need to utilize a therapeutic program to enable the

youth to take part in skills

programs?

(continued)
58

Accountability Competency Development Community Safety

Measures of Success

1. Did the victim express satisfaction with the system’s response

and the youth’s subsequent

behavior?

2. Has the youth made concrete

amends to the victim and the

community?

3. Does the youth express and

demonstrate an understanding

of the link between his or

her offense behavior and

consequences?

1. Is the youth and/or family using

the skills taught to succeed in

home, school, and work?

2. Is the youth replacing his or her

offense-behavior pattern with

competencies and habits that

meet his or her needs?

3. Has the youth developed a

positive relationship with an

adult mentor?

1. Did the youth refrain from a

new offense?

2. Is the family more capable of

providing successful supervision and control of all children

in the family?

3. Does the youth feel connected

or have a greater sense of

belonging to his or her

communities?

4. Are community members

involved in supervision and

control of the youth in the

community?

Table 7. Balanced and Restorative Justice Case Management Guide (continued)
59

Case Studies That Demonstrate Change Toward

a Balanced and Restorative Justice Model

In many ways, the demonstration efforts of the

BARJ Project discussed below have shown that

a great deal of time is needed to implement change

as complex as that prescribed by restorative justice

values. Given the expectations for each site, there

is room for disappointment at how slow progress

has been in completing basic steps of action plans.

Although significant change has occurred in awareness of the values and goals of restorative justice,

even this awareness seems thin once outside the

circle of senior management and those assigned to

special units and programs. There are new programs and small examples of responses to cases

that encompass all principles of restorative justice.

However, on a given day, it might be difficult for a

visitor to observe what is new and different about

implementation of the BARJ Model.

Part of what is new is the enthusiasm about the possibilities of a new type of juvenile justice intervention and revitalized thinking that views increased

victim and community involvement as a needed

shot in the arm. As a site coordinator in one jurisdiction put it, “There is more, and less, here than

meets the eye.” There is, for example, great excitement about plans for the future about BARJ initiatives. Conversely, there is less than meets the eye in

that many of the most innovative efforts are in the

earliest stages of implementation, or only being

talked about. The critical observer would note, for

example, that a list of new programs and policies

does not necessarily characterize the way most

crime victims, offenders, and citizens are treated by

the system at the present time. However, there is

also more than meets the eye in that practitioners in

individual probation units and special programs are

developing innovative, restorative programs that

often go undocumented and unrecognized.

It is impossible, in this document, to adequately

summarize the experience of these jurisdictions in

implementing restorative justice. The case studies

that follow illustrate aspects of the experiences of

Allegheny, Dakota, and Palm Beach Counties in

their journeys toward a more balanced and restorative justice system.

Dakota County Community

Corrections, Dakota County, MN:

Organizational Change

Overview of the Dakota County

Restorative Justice Effort

History. Dakota County’s systemic restorative

justice effort began in 1993. Previously, restorative

justice principles and programming had existed on

a continuum among staff from those who were

committed to those with little or no commitment.

Restorative justice practices were seen in programs

such as victim-offender mediation, restitution, and

the youth repay crew. While these programs were

operating, a large segment of juvenile justice professionals in Dakota County Community Corrections had limited understanding and commitment

to restorative justice principles and practices.

The paradigm shift from a retributive model to a

restorative justice model for Dakota County Community Corrections began under the creative and

visionary leadership of the Dakota County Community Corrections director who, over the past few

years, has led the department on the journey to develop a vision. The resultant vision became the process of implementing restorative justice principles
60

and practices from which a new model of probation

has begun to evolve.

Purpose. The transformation process began with

an assessment of the level of receptivity among staff

for adopting a restorative justice framework. It was

apparent that if the majority of the staff could not

align themselves with this framework, then it would

be futile to proceed with the goal of implementing

restorative justice.

The key for organizational change was collaboration

between staff and management. As a result, early in

the process, staff became involved in reviewing information and selecting a new model for community

justice.

Target Population. Leadership (not limited to management) within the department was the primary

target for change. For BARJ to become the practice, department leadership needed a clear understanding of the model and how it would impact the

organization. In addition to targeting leadership

within the department, it was essential to educate

and continually update the entire department.

Key Element. The key element in this organizational

change was strong influential, creative, passionate,

and visionary leadership, with a commitment to a

long journey and a collaborative process.

Dakota County Within the Context of

the Larger Balanced and Restorative

Justice Effort

On January 5, 1995, the department adopted a new

mission statement that reflects the department’s

commitment to restorative justice. The mission statement, the result of more than 2 years of work, reads

as follows:

We are committed to preventing crime and

repairing harm caused by crime. We promote:

◆ Community safety and crime prevention in the

community.

◆ Accountability and opportunity for positive

change of the offender.

◆ Justice for the victim.

◆ Respectful treatment for all involved.

Overview of Committees. Department progress is

guided by five implementation committees, or

groups. Each committee is at a different stage of

development based on their assigned tasks.

◆ Group One—Assessment and Case Planning.

The assessment and case planning group continues to review appropriate tools to guide practice

and service delivery. Risk/needs assessment and

case planning can impact accountability, competency development, and community safety interventions. An effective risk/needs tool can predict

each offender’s risk to recidivate, identify the

target areas of treatment and interventions, and

assist in holding offenders accountable to the

victim and community.

The completed risk/needs assessment will direct

case planning in each of the areas of restorative

justice.

◆ Group Two—Intake Support. The intake support group launched a pilot project to mainstream

the intake process. Presently, there are two intake

specialists, located in the county’s Apple Valley

office and the Hastings office. Their role is to

provide more efficient service by shortening client

waiting time and eliminating the need to meet

with a probation officer. This process allows the

intake probation officers more time on the most

serious high-risk cases.

◆ Group Three—Community Work Service. The

primary focus of the community work service

implementation committee is the development of

revenue-producing community work service

projects that will support the development of

additional projects that are “good for the soul.”

Such projects will target community needs similar to those addressed by Habitat for Humanity.

In addition to teaching transferable skills, community work service often provides a vehicle for

empathy development by exposing the youth to

work that helps others in need. Projects now

under development include chore services and

woodworking. Obstacles and barriers that must
61

be addressed with revenue-producing community work service include:

Generating enough funds to have the project

become self-sufficient.

Ensuring appropriate supervision as a means

to avoid problems or liabilities.

Eliciting business community “buy-in” to avoid

having the project viewed as a threat to their

own revenue.

Avoiding interference with public/private employment opportunities, either union or nonunion, whether the interference is perceived or

real.

Identifying a worksite/space.

Establishing a relationship with the community

that is strong enough to engender a comfort

level for offender-provided chore services.

Maintaining a group of qualified offenders

large enough to meet the demands of the services being provided.

◆ Group Four—Victim Restoration Unit. The

victim restoration unit is responsible for determining restitution, arranging victim-offender

meetings, and providing information, support,

and referrals to victims. The unit is also tasked

with enhancing the department’s awareness of

victim issues.

◆ Group Five—Restorative Justice Marketing/

Financing Committee. The restorative justice

marketing/financing committee was formed to:

Examine grant funding and the development of

a restorative justice foundation.

Elicit input from staff to identify needed community supports, with the goal of facilitating

the positive adjustment of their clients in the

community.

Explore business partnership with other

community-based agencies.

Plan and implement communications strategies

to keep staff and stakeholders informed about

how BARJ is progressing in Dakota County.

The first edition of the department’s Restorative Justice Reporter was distributed in November 1995. The

purpose of the newsletter is to facilitate the flow of

restorative justice information and to recognize the

work of the department staff.

Organizational Change:

Eliciting Staff Support

The timeline for implementing restorative justice

proceeded through five phases of development:

◆ Phase I: Information. Key staff presented concept (mid-1993 to March 1994).

◆ Phase II: Organization. Action groups were

developed that represent each area of restorative

justice—accountability, competency development,

community safety (January 1994). Mission group

was developed (January 1994).

◆ Phase III: Vision. Key people presented recommendations of each action group (September

1994).

◆ Phase IV: Action. The mission group presented

three possible mission statements at all-staff

meeting (December 1994). Restorative justice

implementation committees were developed

(January 1995).

◆ Phase V: Implementation. Mission was adopted

(October 1995). Restorative justice mission and

logo were developed. Completion of the mission

statement was celebrated (January 1996). Strategies for cognitive behavioral interventions for

competency development were presented (January 1996).

Major Strength of the Organizational Change

Process in Dakota County. The major strength in

this organizational change process was the use of 

all-day training sessions with national consultants

who were credible and knowledgeable and had

made similar departmental changes in regard to

restorative justice principles and practices. In addition, the entire department was encouraged to participate in this collaborative effort. Approximately

80 percent of the department currently supports

restorative justice practices.
62

Plans for Strengthening Weak Areas. The plan

currently is to continue strengthening staff support

of restorative justice through continued education,

training, and support, with a primary focus on competency development. In that area, probation staff

participated in implementing cognitive behavioral

interventions with offenders with the overall goal of

reducing recidivism. To support that process, staff

will continue to participate in skill-development

trainings.

Implications for Other Jurisdictions

Developing and implementing restorative justice is a

challenging task that requires commitment to a long

journey, which allows sufficient time for staff to

process their concerns and offer input. Success depends on clear and specific goals and collaboration

among staff. In addition, it requires the involvement

of other systems that are impacted by changes made

in the correctional department.

Department of Juvenile Justice,

Palm Beach County, FL: Expanding

the Victim Component

Overview of the Palm Beach County

Restorative Justice Effort

Palm Beach County is the third most populated

county in the State of Florida. Between 1980 and

1990, the county grew by nearly 50 percent. The

population age 19 and under is projected to increase

32 percent from 1990 to the year 2000. In 1990, the

population age 19 and under was 75.8 percent Caucasian, 22.5 percent African-American, and 1.6 percent other races. A total of 11.2 percent of this

population was reported to be of Hispanic origin.

Palm Beach County’s involvement in the BARJ

effort began in 1993 with the hiring of a new juvenile justice manager. He brought the BARJ mission

and philosophy to the county’s district IX system.

He began by educating the major stakeholders—

judges, staff, public defenders, case managers, and

the State’s attorney. In 1993, Palm Beach County

was selected as a pilot site for the national BARJ

Project. Since then, district IX has worked to institutionalize a balanced approach to restorative justice

throughout the county’s juvenile justice system. This

effort has required collaboration between case management and residential facility staff, community

activists, the nonprofit sector, law enforcement,

victim-services providers, the court system (i.e.,

judges, public defenders, and State’s attorneys),

local businesses, and other government entities.

Three basic strategies have been used to build the

system’s capacity to actualize the three components

of restorative justice. First, the district IX administration and the BARJ site coordinator have worked

to develop partnerships and system infrastructure

that support the translation of BARJ philosophies

into programmatic activities. Education of key

stakeholders in the district has also required continued dialogue, debate, and forums for continued communication on district activities. Finally, much effort

has been expended on developing resources such as

leadership talent among the staff and new funding

sources to support new restorative initiatives.

Palm Beach County Within the Context

of the Larger Balanced and Restorative

Justice Effort

Accountability. Accountability in juvenile justice

requires balanced attention among victims, communities, and offenders. It also requires that juvenile

offenders be held accountable to the persons who

were directly injured by their delinquent activity

and to communities that suffer when these youthful

offenders do not participate as productive citizens.

Accountability in juvenile justice also includes holding the community accountable to its young people.

The community-at-large is responsible for providing

its youth with structures and opportunities that

teach them how to be productive, successful members of society and how to get what they need without hurting others. Communities must also provide

youth with opportunities to practice the skills they

learned.

Responsiveness to the victims of juvenile crime was

perhaps the most neglected aspect of restorative

justice in the county. Similar to most juvenile justice

systems in this country, juvenile justice in Palm

Beach County allotted relatively little attention to
63

the victims of juvenile crime and, in some cases,

sought to avoid victims altogether. District IX has

worked to address this area of weakness.

Competency Development. In the area of competency development, efforts have been made to move

from traditional types of community service toward

youth development projects. In the past, community

service has involved picking up trash, writing essays, stuffing envelopes, and, in some cases, showing

up with shovels. However, rarely has completion of

community service hours required the youth to show

up with lively and active minds.

District IX is developing its infrastructure to support youth development projects that provide

youth with the opportunity to learn marketable

skills, earn money for restitution, and act as responsible members of their communities. For example, the Loxahatchee project is providing the

opportunity for young men from a residential facility to work in a wildlife refuge and learn about

environmental planning and management. Youth

involved in the project have also earned money to

pay restitution and, where relevant, child support

through a partnership with the U.S. Department of

the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

District IX received two grant awards to support

service projects for first- and second-degree

misdemeanants. The projects are modeled after a

national crime prevention program called “Youth as

Resources,” which involves youth in the

conceptualization, planning, and management of

community service projects. Two community-based

organizations and one civic organization provide

adult supervision for the projects. District IX supports existing organizations that want to work with

the community’s young people.

Community Safety. The Exodus project at Palm

Beach County’s Glades Glen Apartment complex

involves onsite support services. A department of

juvenile justice delinquency counselor has offices at

the apartment complex. Youth under juvenile justice

supervision report for afterschool activities between

3:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Activities include tutorial programs, computer labs, individual and group counseling sessions, employability skills development, and

recreational activities. The project supervisor is also

working with the local private industry council to

provide work opportunities so that restitution is

paid. Certain youth will receive Red Cross training

and certification in child care in order to operate a

babysitting program within the complex.

Other juvenile justice case management units make

regular presentations on crime prevention and the

consequences of crime to the elementary and middle

schools. One case manager provides crisis intervention/anger control training to teachers, parents, and

students at a local school. Counselors, under the

direction of a case management supervisor, visit at

least once per week with local school administrators

to monitor youth on community control and participate in an early warning program designed to identify at-risk young people. A supervisor and project

staff assist school staff on a regular basis during the

lunch period. These efforts represent effective partnerships and mutually beneficial relationships between the educational community and district IX.

Case Study: Expanding the

Victim Component

District IX has worked to open new lines of communication with victims and victim services advocates

and providers. In November 1995, all members of

the Victims Coalition of Palm Beach County were

invited to a roundtable discussion of victim issues.

Victim advocates shared their concerns regarding

victim rights and will continue to provide a victim’s

perspective on policy decisions.

In early December 1995, case management units

and residential facility staff participated in victimawareness training based on the work of the National Organization for Victim Assistance. One goal

of the district administration is to develop an organizational culture that is sensitive and responsive to

victim needs. Case management counselors and all

facility staff are encouraged to be “the voice of victims” when they speak to offenders, not allowing

offenders to depersonalize the victims of their crimes

and educating offenders on the tremendous impact

their actions have on innocent lives.

Two residential facilities participated actively in the

victim-awareness training, and they are working to

update victim-awareness curriculums developed for
64

offenders. Facility staff collect newspaper stories,

educational material, and case scenarios on victimization as the basis for group discussion. District IX

is collaborating with the Giddings State School in

Texas to both update and streamline training material that may be used for juvenile institutions nationally and develop a questionnaire that will help

measure offender improvements in victim sensitivity.

Efforts have built on earlier work by Ohio’s Buckeye Training Program.

In addition, district IX is working with the office of

the State’s attorney, residential facilities, and the

contracted clinical overlay staff of the local parentchild center to institutionalize a victim-dialogue

program. The Palm Beach Youth Center, a maximum security facility for committed juvenile offenders, has independently had crime victims, including

drunk-driving victims, speak at the facility since

1993. The State’s attorney’s office agreed to send

out notification of the program when cases are

closed out, except when deemed not in the best interest of the crime victim. Victims of juvenile crime

are provided the opportunity to tell their stories

through letters and victim impact panels. The clinical staff at the Youth Center are responsible for

screening and preparing participants for the victim

impact panels, in addition to working with facility

staff and offenders to maximize the impact of the

panel presentations. Youth Center staff work to

provide victims with a sense of security and care

when they visit the facilities.

The weak link in these efforts is direct victim involvement. Since early November 1995, notices

have been sent to victims to enlist their involvement,

with little response. As a result, both case management and facility staff have been asked to invite

victims of juvenile crime that they know to participate. By asking only individuals that staff know, it

is hoped that the process will avoid revictimizing

victims. The program also has plans to advertise on

public access television.

Implications for Other Jurisdictions

The following are considerations for incorporating

victim impact panels and victim awareness into facility programs:

◆ Facility staff must be sold on the idea of victim

impact panels, because they will be responsible

for the necessary ongoing work with offenders.

◆ Staff should be trained to spot possible reactions

(e.g., the victim stance (by offender), closed-channel

thinking, and sentimentality). Role-playing is an

appropriate training tool in these cases.

◆ Staff need training on victim issues so that victim

awareness and sensitivity become an organizational norm and part of the organizational culture.

◆ Staff must be provided followup training after

experiencing several victim impact panels to debrief, answer questions, and reinforce key points.

Community Intensive Supervision

Project (CISP), Allegheny County

Juvenile Court Services,

Pittsburgh, PA: Involvement

of the Community

Overview of CISP

CISP began in June 1990 as a component of Allegheny County Juvenile Court Services. CISP

is governed by the court of common pleas, family

division–juvenile section under the direction of the

director of juvenile court services. CISP’s purpose

is to provide an alternative to institutionalization

for youth under court supervision who continue

to commit delinquent acts. A community-based

program, CISP uses highly structured supervision

and scheduling to control behavior.

The program began with three centers in Pittsburgh

neighborhoods. A fourth was added in April 1994,

and a fifth opened in 1996.

Key elements of the program are:

◆ Required school attendance.

◆ Required attendance at the neighborhood CISP

center 7 days a week from 4 p.m. to approximately 9 p.m.

◆ Electronic monitoring.
65

◆ Drug and alcohol testing.

◆ Required community service.

◆ Family counseling and support.

CISP Within the Context of the

Larger Balanced and Restorative

Justice Effort

Although not designed specifically around BARJ

principles, CISP incorporated aspects of the BARJ

approach from its inception, thus making the

program’s transition to becoming a BARJ Model

site relatively smooth. Consistent with BARJ practices, project design emphasized achieving community

safety without using secure custody. The program

uses a comprehensive approach to monitoring and

structuring activities in the community to ensure that

the juveniles involved will not reoffend while in the

program. Also consistent with BARJ practices, the

program was designed with a strong emphasis on

having juveniles maintain ties to their community.

Juveniles at each center are residents of the neighborhood where the center is located, and most staff

are from the same neighborhood.

Although the project included education and treatment from its inception, the conceptualization of

those components has been altered by involvement

in the BARJ Project. For example, BARJ training

and technical assistance helped staff discern potential in the juveniles with whom they worked. They

evolved from thinking of things to do to the youth

(i.e., to “fix” them) to things the youth could do for

themselves and others. Staff began to recognize the

youth’s skills. In the drug and alcohol treatment

component, instead of viewing juveniles as recipients of information needed to make better choices,

staff view youth as potential teachers who can

become involved in wider community prevention

efforts.

The most visible changes have occurred in the area

of accountability to victims. Restitution has become

a much higher priority as a result of involvement in

the BARJ Project. However, more work is needed

to increase victim awareness and involvement in the

process of holding offenders accountable. These are

the areas where CISP is setting new expectations

and priorities to facilitate movement toward a more

balanced and restorative system. Accountability to

communities through community service is well

established at all CISP sites. However, more work is

needed to increase community involvement and a

sense of community ownership in some sites. In general, BARJ has helped CISP expand its objectives

from primarily those focused on community safety

to additional goals that focus on accountability and

competency development to weave all three strands

together.

CISP Strengths Related to the Balanced

and Restorative Justice Approach

◆ Accountability. Every offense causes harm to the

fabric of a community. Therefore, one important

aspect of accountability involves making amends

to the community. Fulfilling that obligation is a

strong component of the program. Each participating juvenile offender is involved in numerous

community service activities that are valued by

the community and that place the juvenile in a

position of making a contribution to the community. Several community service projects in all

five CISP centers are now considered a regular

service to these communities. Projects include

painting homes for low-income, elderly, or disabled community members; recycling old telephone books; tutoring younger children at a local

reading center; removing graffiti from neighborhood walls; cleaning vacant lots; shoveling snow

for neighborhood business residents; registering

voters in a “Get Out To Vote” project; assisting at

the community Christmas party; planting a garden in a once blighted lot; maintaining yards for

elderly persons; and assisting with bulk mailings

for community organizations.

◆ Competency Development. CISP incorporates

strong competency development elements in its

program. CISP youth are required to attend

school, and their progress is monitored. CISP

centers emphasize completing homework each

day and provide support through computers,

tutors, and quiet places to work. Many of the

community service projects build competencies
66

that are valuable for functioning in the community. For example, the gardening project involves

planning and gardening skills and cooperation.

Paint Your Heart Out activities involve painting

and teamwork skills and good work habits. Assistance in organizing and conducting community

events develops planning, organization, and interpersonal relationship skills. CISP’s drug and

alcohol program is enlisting the juveniles as

teachers who can take prevention messages to

the community.

◆ Community Safety. CISP effectively addresses

community safety needs while keeping juveniles

physically in the community through a comprehensive approach to structuring time and monitoring. All juveniles are required to attend school

during the week and are required to attend the

CISP center 7 days a week. During those times,

the youth are under constant adult supervision,

which severely restricts their opportunities to

commit crimes and thus protects the community

from new offenses. The juveniles are also on electronic monitoring at all times. Phone checks are

made at night to ensure that participants are at

home. CISP staff visit schools daily to ensure

attendance at school. Random testing for drugs

and alcohol reinforces the prohibition on use of

chemicals, thus reducing one of the major risk

factors for reoffending.

◆ Other Strengths Related to Restorative Justice Principles. CISP has been extraordinarily

successful at staffing its program with people

who live in the neighborhood served by the

center. Juvenile participants are largely AfricanAmerican, and the staff are nearly all AfricanAmerican. The staff truly understand the youth’s

circumstances of living and are a part of their

familiar world. Therefore, the program is

grounded in a reality base and ties to the community through its staff.

Case Study: Building Links With

Neighborhoods and Community

Residents

One major change implicit in shifting to a more balanced and restorative system is a change in the relationship between the juvenile justice system and the

community. The CISP experience exemplifies both

the potential and the challenges of creating new

links with communities in a new relationship.

In the BARJ Model, community ownership of the

problem of delinquency and community commitment are critical to being a part of the solution. In

most jurisdictions today, communities send youthful

offenders to the juvenile system to get rid of them.

Communities expect the system to “fix” the juveniles

or to keep them away forever. However, the system

cannot “fix” juveniles without reference to the context of community, nor can it simply banish youth

forever.

The CISP sites experience varying degrees of community support and commitment to being part of

the solution. For example, the Garfield Center has

an exemplary relationship with the BloomfieldGarfield Corporation (BGC), a neighborhood-based

community development group that constructs brick

and mortar projects and also actively promotes

youth development. BGC’s director believes that

these young people are part of the community and

a resource to the organization and the neighborhood

and refers to them as “extended staff.” BGC involves

juveniles in multiple activities, including community

service, participation in community events, job

opportunities, and community forums and media

interviews. BGC defends CISP against community

criticism and advocates in the community for the

youth who are involved in the program. BGC consciously incorporates a role for CISP youth in its

proposals. For example, a Get Out To Vote project

included 10 paid positions for CISP youth to do the

canvassing work. A BGC construction proposal

included a component to introduce six youth to the

construction trades through experience with the

contractor. BGC treats CISP youth as an integral

part of the community and actively seeks ways to

involve them in BGC activities.

BGC support is contingent on the program serving

youth from the neighborhood. If the program was

simply located in the neighborhood but served the

entire city, BGC would be much less likely to view

the youth as its responsibility. The strong relationship between the Garfield Center and BGC was
67

initiated by BGC, although with concerns. BGC’s

director had seen a newspaper article about a new

program that was to be placed in the neighborhood

and wondered why BGC had not been involved or

informed. The director immediately contacted all

whose names were in the article and asked questions

about the program. After extensive research, she

concluded that not only could BGC support the

program, but working with CISP would fit BGC’s

mission.

Although the initial interaction between BGC and

CISP held the potential to be adversarial, CISP

responded cooperatively, provided information, and

listened to concerns. That response opened the door

to a long-term positive relationship. The Garfield

Center’s supervisor serves on BGC’s board of directors. Further, based on that positive experience, the

Garfield Center developed mutually beneficial relationships with other community organizations.

Nevertheless, at other CISP centers it has been

more difficult to establish the program as an integral

part of the community. However, the Hill Center

took advantage of an opportunity provided by a

resident who offered to help the juveniles develop a

garden on a vacant lot. That project has provided a

foundation for positive membership in the community by the program.

Implications for Other Jurisdictions

Critical lessons learned from the CISP experience:

◆ Neighborhood programs that serve neighborhood

juveniles have a much better chance of gaining

support than programs serving juveniles from

other neighborhoods.

◆ Neighborhood relationships are strengthened by

drawing staff from the neighborhood.

◆ It is important to involve key neighborhood

groups or individuals at the program’s earliest

planning stages to develop ownership.

◆ Respectful responses to initial adversity can

transform relationships into positive ones.

◆ Opportunities to build relationships in the community may come in a variety of forms. It is

important to remain flexible and able to respond

to overtures from community members.

◆ Community organizations can be the source of

creative opportunities for the juveniles.

◆ Community organizations can begin to view these

juveniles as assets to the community.

◆ Community service projects provide a way to

build credibility with the community. The first

step in that process is asking the community for

input.

Bumps in the Road:

Issues and Challenges

Each pilot site has experienced significant change as

it carves a path toward a more balanced and restorative system. Progress along the path raises new

issues and challenges.

In CISP, difficult questions have arisen regarding exit

from the program.

Although CISP has been successful at managing the

behavior of the juveniles; keeping them in school,

scheduled, and off drugs and alcohol; and giving

them constructive roles in the community through

community service, the juvenile and his or her parents may have come to rely on the program to control the juvenile’s behavior. How does that control

get transferred back to the parent? Who can the

juvenile turn to in the community for support? Staff

report that some parents dread the program’s conclusion because the structure and control have been

beneficial, and the parents may feel unable to provide these essential ingredients themselves. Can the

community be engaged in the program in a way that

continues after the juvenile leaves the program?

At the Dakota County site, there is tension between

the sense that things are moving too slowly and the

sense that they are moving much too quickly.

The value-driven nature of the BARJ approach

engages some people at a deep emotional level. It

may connect with a person’s spirituality in a way

that energizes and motivates that person to want to

move quickly to the vision. Others may not share
68

that passion and wish to move cautiously, easing into

new practices and behavior. Some staff may feel

frustrated by the slow pace while others may feel

unable to get their bearings because the change is so

rapid. Can an organization maintain the energy of

the enthusiastic staff without alienating the more

cautious staff?

The Palm Beach site has succeeded in increasing

awareness of victim issues within juvenile justice practice. Will that effort continue?

Staff have embraced the goal of increasing offender

awareness of victim impact through the victim impact

panels. Through working with victim advocates, the

staff began to notify victims of the possibility of participating on these panels but were disappointed by

the lack of response from victims. Enormous patience

is required in implementing new approaches involving victims. Past experience with the justice system

often prompts great wariness among victims. The

length of time since the offense may discourage victim

involvement. Many victims may simply never wish to

interact with juvenile offenders. All of these complicate the process of involving victims. Will juvenile

justice practitioners be willing to persist in finding

solutions to these barriers and to build relationships

over a long period of time with victims and victim

advocates? To address this barrier, the Palm Beach

site is encouraging staff to invite known victims, including staff members who have been victimized

themselves, to participate on victim impact panels.

Comprehensive involvement of victims in planning

and implementation has not yet been accomplished

in the BARJ sites. Inertia, longstanding habits, uncertainty about how to involve victims, and a lack of

knowledge about victimization are all challenges to

overcome. Although awareness is growing, much

remains to be done to achieve the full participation

called for in the Balanced and Restorative Justice

Model.

For more information about the Balanced and

Restorative Justice pilot sites, contact:

Mark Carey, Director

Dakota County Community Corrections

Judicial Center

1560 West Highway 55

Hastings, MN 55033

612–438–8290

612–438–8340 (Fax)

Greg Johnson, Juvenile Justice Manager

Department of Juvenile Justice

111 Georgia Avenue, Room 309

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

407–837–5135

407–837–5141 (Fax)

George Kinder, CISP Program Coordinator

519 Pennsylvania Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15221

412–243–6886

412–243–6590 (Fax)
A–1

Appendix A: For More Information

Organizations

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project

A joint project of the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, School of Social Work, University

of Minnesota, and the Community Justice Institute, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Florida

Atlantic University, funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice, Grant 95–JN–FX–0024.

Center for Restorative Justice &

Mediation

University of Minnesota, School of Social Work

386 McNeal Hall

1985 Buford Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108–6144

612–624–4923

612–625–8224 (Fax)

E-Mail: ctr4rjm@che2.che.umn.edu

Internet: ssw.che.umn.edu/ctr4rjm

Newsletter: Balanced and Restorative Justice

Project Update

National Restorative Justice Training Institute

Contact: Mark Umbreit, Director

Community Justice Institute

Florida Atlantic University

College of Urban and Public Affairs

University Tower, Room 612C

220 East Second Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

954–762–5668

954–762–5693 (Fax)

E-Mail: bazemor@acc.fau.edu

Contact: Gordon Bazemore, Director

American Probation and Parole

Association

P.O. Box 11910

Lexington, KY 40578

606–244–8203

E-Mail: appa@csg.org

Internet: www.appa-net.org

Journal: Perspectives

American Youth Policy Forum

1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 719

Washington, DC 20036–5541

202–775–9731

E-Mail: aypf@aypf

Internet: www.aypf.org
A–2

Campaign for Equity-Restorative Justice

111 High Street

Brattleboro, VT 05301

802–254–2826

E-Mail: jwlmrdng@sover.net

Internet: www.cerj.org

Center for Peacemaking and

Conflict Studies

Fresno Pacific University

1717 South Chestnut Avenue

Fresno, CA 93702

209–453–2064

209–252–4800 (Fax)

Internet: www.fresno.edu/pacs

Center for Youth Development and

Policy Research

Academy for Educational Development

1875 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20009

202–862–1267

E-Mail: cyd@aed.org

Internet: www.aed.org

Church Council on Justice & Corrections

507 Bank Street

Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1Z5

Canada

613–563–1688

Coalition for Juvenile Justice

1211 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 414

Washington, DC 20036

202–467–0864

202–887–0738 (Fax)

E-Mail: JuvJustice@aol.com

Internet: www.nassembly.org/html/mcm_cjj.html

Newsletter: Juvenile Justice Monitor

Community Policing Consortium

1726 M Street NW., Suite 801

Washington, DC 20036

800–833–3085

202–530–0639 (Publications)

202–833–9295 (Fax)

E-Mail: nsapubs@communitypolicing.org

Internet: www.communitypolicing.org

Newsletter: Community Policing Exchange

Conflict Transformation Program

Eastern Mennonite University

1200 Park Road

Harrisonburg, VA 22802–2462

540–432–4490

E-Mail: ctprogram@emu.edu

Internet: www.emu.edu/units/ctp/highligh.htm

Correctional Options

103 South Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05671–1001

802–241–2796

E-Mail: mdooley@doc.state.vt.us

Family and Corrections Network

32 Oak Grove Road

Palmyra, VA 22963

804–589–3036

804–589–6520 (Fax)

E-Mail: fcn@cstone.net

Internet: www.fcnetwork.org

Newsletter: Family and Corrections Network Report

Genesee Justice Program/Victim

Assistance Program

Genesee County Sheriff’s Department

County Building 1

Batavia, NY 14020

716–344–2550, ext. 2216
A–3

Institute for Economic &

Restorative Justice

P.O. Box 262

Voorheesville, NY 12186

518–765–2468

E-Mail: gzellig@global2000.net

Justice Fellowship

P.O. Box 16069

Washington, DC 20041–6069

703–904–7312

Newsletter: Justice Report

Mennonite Central Committee, Canada

Victim Offender Ministries

P.O. Box 2038

Clearbrook, British Columbia V2T 3T8

Canada

604–850–6639

604–850–8734 (Fax)

E-Mail: mccbcvom@web.apc.org

Newsletter: Accord

Mennonite Central Committee, U.S.

Office of Community Justice

P.O. Box 500

21 South 12th Street

Akron, PA 17501

717–859–3889

E-Mail: mailbox@mcc.org

Internet: www.mennonitecc.ca/mcc/

Journal: Conciliation Quarterly

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

P.O. Box 541688

Dallas, TX 75354–1688

800–GET–MADD (800–438–6233)

E-Mail: info@madd.org

Internet: www.madd.org

Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation

P.O. Box 208

Atlantic, VA 23303–0208

757–824–0948

Internet: members.aol.com/fcadp/archives/mvfr.htm

National Center for Conflict Resolution

Education

110 West Main Street

Urbana, IL 61801

800–308–9419

217–384–4322 (Fax)

E-Mail: info@nccre.org

Internet: www.nccre.org

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

or

Third Floor

1041 North Virginia Street

Reno, NV 89557

702–784–6012

Internet: www.ncjfcj.unr.edu

Journal: Juvenile and Family Court Judges Journal

National Service Learning Clearinghouse

University of Minnesota

Department of Work, Community, and Family

1954 Buford Avenue, Room R–460

St. Paul, MN 55108

800–808–SERV (800–808–7378)

612–625–6277 (Fax)

E-Mail: serve@tc.umn.edu

Internet: www.nicsl.coled.umn.edu
A–4

National Institute of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–307–2942

Journal: National Institute of Justice Journal

Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

For NIJ journal and catalog, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS)

NCJRS User Services

Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Internet: www.ncjrs.org/

National Organization for Victim

Assistance (NOVA)

1757 Park Road NW.

Washington, DC 20010

800–TRY–NOVA (800–879–6682)

202–232–NOVA (202–232–6682)

202–462–2255 (Fax)

E-Mail: nova@try-nova.org

Internet: www.try-nova.org

Newsletter: NOVA Newsletter

National Resource Center for

Youth Mediation

The New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution

800 Park Avenue SW.

Albuquerque, NM 87102–3017

800–24YOUTH (800–249–6884)

505–247–0571

505–242–5966 (Fax)

E-Mail: nmcdr@igc.apc.org

Newsletter: Dispute Resolution News

National Resource Center for

Youth Services

College of Continuing Education

University of Oklahoma

202 West Eighth Street

Tulsa, OK 74119–1419

800–274–2687 (Information Center)

E-Mail:hlock@ou.edu

Internet: www.nrcys.ou.edu/

National Victim Center

2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201

703–276–2880

Info-link: 800–FYI–CALL (800–394–2255)

(Information Line)

E-Mail: nvc@mail.nvc.org

Internet: www.nvc.org

Newsletter: NetWorks

National Youth As Resources Network

National Crime Prevention Council

1700 K Street NW., Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20006–3817

202–466–6272

202–296–1356 (Fax)

E-Mail: farmbry@ncpc.org

Internet: www.ncpc.org

Contact: Maria T. Nagorski, Deputy Director

National Youth Leadership Council

1910 West Country Road B

St. Paul, MN 55113

800–FON–NYLC (800–366–6952)

651–631–3672

651–631–2955 (Fax)

E-Mail: nylcusa@aol.com

Internet: www.nylc.org

Neighbors Who Care

P.O. Box 16079

Washington, DC 20041

703–904–7311

E-Mail: Llampman@neighborswhocare.org

Internet: www.neighborswhocare.org
A–5

The Network: Interaction for

Conflict Resolution

Conrad Grebel College

Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G6

Canada

519–885–0880

519–885–0806 (Fax)

E-Mail: nicr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca

Newsletter: Interaction

Internet: watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~nicr/

Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)

810 Seventh Street NW., Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–6573 or 202–307–5983

800–627–6872 (Clearinghouse)

Newsletter: OVC Advocate: Advocating for the

Fair Treatment of Crime Victims

Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–307–0751

800–638–8736 (Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse)

301–251–5212 (Fax)

800–638–8736 (Fax-on-Demand: Select 1 for

automated ordering, select 2 for fax-on-demand

instructions.)

Internet: www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

Journal: Juvenile Justice

Listserv: JUVJUST

To subscribe to JUVJUST:

e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

leave the subject line blank

type subscribe juvjust your name

or write:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Internet: www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

Presbyterian Criminal Justice Program

100 Witherspoon Street

Louisville, KY 40202–1396

502–569–5810

E-Mail: parti@pcusa.org

Contact: Kathy Lancaster

(Contact for “Restoring Justice” videotape.)

Newsletter: Justice Jottings

Public/Private Ventures

399 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

215–592–9099

Newsletter: Public/Private Ventures News

REALJUSTICE

P.O. Box 229

Bethlehem, PA 18016

610–807–9221

E-Mail: usa@realjustice.org

Internet: www.realjustice.org

Newsletter: REALJUSTICE Forum: A family group

conferencing newsletter

Restorative Justice Association

Oregon Council on Crime & Delinquency

2530 Fairmount Boulevard

Eugene, OR 97403

541–484–2468

541–484–0729 (Fax)

Restorative Justice Initiative

Minnesota Department of Corrections

1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200

St. Paul, MN 55108–5219

651–642–0329

651–642–0457 (Fax)

Internet: www.corr.state.mn.us/

Newsletter: Restorative Justice Newsletter
A–6

Restorative Justice Institute

P.O. Box 16301

Washington, DC 20041–6301

703–404–1246

703–404–4213 (Fax)

E-Mail: grichardjd@aol.com

Newsletter: Full Circle

Restorative Justice Project

Fresno Pacific University

1717 South Chestnut Avenue

Fresno, CA 93702

209–453–2064

209–252–4800 (Fax)

E-Mail: pacs@fresno.edu

Internet: www.fresno.edu/pacs/rjp.html

Search Institute

Thresher Square West, Suite 210

700 South Third Street

Minneapolis, MN 55415-1138

800–888–7828

E-Mail: si@search-institute.org

Internet: www.search-institute.org

Magazine: Assets

Victim Offender Mediation Association

(VOMA)

c/o Restorative Justice Institute

P.O. Box 16301

Washington, DC 20041–6301

703–404–1246

703–404–4213 (Fax)

E-Mail: voma@voma.org

Internet: www.voma.org

Newsletter: VOMA Quarterly

Victim Offender Reconciliation Program

(VORP) Information and Resource Center

19813 Northeast 13th Street

Camas, WA 98607–7612

360–260–1551

360–260–1563 (Fax)

E-Mail: martyprice@vorp.com

Internet: www.vorp.com

YouthBuild USA

58 Day Street

P.O. Box 40322

Somerville, MA 02144

617–623–9900

E-Mail: webmaster@youthbuild.org

Internet: www.youthbuild.org

Newsletter: The YouthBuild Bulletin

Books and Publications

Book Chapters, Journal Articles

Bazemore, G. 1991. New concepts and alternative

practice in community supervision of juvenile

offenders: Rediscovering work experience and

competency development. Journal of Crime and

Justice 14(2):27–52.

Bazemore, G. 1994. Developing a victim orientation

for community corrections: A restorative justice

paradigm and a balanced mission. Perspectives:

Special Issue 18(3):19–24.

Bazemore, G. 1997 (Winter). What’s new about the

balanced approach? Juvenile and Family Court Journal 48(1):1–22.

Bazemore, G. 1997. Circles, boards, conferences

and mediation: Scouting the new wave in community justice decisionmaking. Federal Probation

61(2):25–37.

Bazemore, G., and Maloney, D. 1994. Rehabilitating

community service: Toward restorative service

in a balanced justice system. Federal Probation

58:24–35.

Bazemore, G., and Quinn, T. 1996. Boot camps or

work camps? A restorative justice approach to

residential programming. In Juvenile and Adult

Bootcamps. American Correctional Association.

Bazemore, G., and Schiff, M. 1996. Community

justice/restorative justice: Prospects for a new

social ecology for community corrections. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal

Justice 20(2):311–335.
A–7

Bazemore, G., and Senjo, S. 1997. Police encounters

with juveniles revisited: An exploratory study of

themes and styles in community policing. Policing:

An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 20(1):60–82.

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M.S. 1995. Rethinking

the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime.

Crime and Delinquency 41(3):296–316.

Brown, M., and Polk, K. 1996. Taking fear of crime

seriously: The Tasmanian approach to community

crime prevention. Crime and Delinquency 42

(3):398–420.

Guarino-Ghezzi, S. 1994. Reintegrative police surveillance of juvenile offenders: Forging an urban

model. Crime and Delinquency 40(2):131–153.

Guarino-Ghezzi, S., and Klein, A. 1997. Protecting

community: The public safety role in restorative

juvenile justice. In Restoring Juvenile Justice, edited

by G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Harris, M.K. 1987. Moving into the new millennium: Toward a feminist vision of justice. The

Prison Journal 67(2):27–38.

Immarigeon, R. 1997. The impact of restorative

justice sanctions on crime victims. In Restoring

Juvenile Justice, edited by G. Bazemore and L.

Walgrave. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Klein, A. 1989. The curse of caseload management.

Perspectives 13(1):27–28.

Klein, A. 1991. Restitution and community work

service: Promising core ingredients for effective

intensive supervision programming. In Intensive

Interventions With High-Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole, edited by

T. Armstrong. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice

Press.

Maloney, D., and Bazemore, G. 1994. Making a

difference: Community service helps heal

troubled youths. Corrections Today (December):75–76, 78–79, 82–84, 149.

Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. 1988.

Juvenile probation: The balanced approach. Juvenile

Family Court Journal 39(3):1–57. (Also reprinted in

1989 as part of Juvenile Justice Textbook Series.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, P.O. Box 8970, Reno, NV 89507).

Maloney, D., and Umbreit, M. 1995. Managing

change: Toward a balanced and restorative justice

model. Perspectives (Spring):43–46.

McShane, M.D., and Williams, F.P. 1992. Radical

victimology: A critique of the concept of victim in

traditional victimology. Crime and Delinquency

32(2):258–272.

Moore, D.B. 1996. Criminal action-official reaction:

affect theory, criminology, and criminal justice. In

Knowing Feeling, edited by D.L. Nathanson. New

York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Neimeyer, M., and Shichor, D. 1996. A preliminary

study of a large victim offender reconciliation

program. Federal Probation 60(3):30–34.

Nugent, W.R., and Paddock, J.B. 1995. The effect

of victim-offender mediation on severity of

reoffense. Mediation Quarterly 12(4):353–367.

Pranis, K. 1997. Communities and the justice system: Turning the relationship upside down.

VOMA Quarterly. Washington, DC: The Restorative Justice Institute.

Pranis, K. 1997. The Minnesota restorative justice

initiative: A model experience. The Crime Victim

Report 1(2). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research

Institute.

Quinn, T.J. 1996. Restoring Justice in America’s

Counties. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Justice.

Quinn, T.J. 1997. Restorative justice addresses

overall goal of justice. The Crime Victim Report

1(2). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Reske, H.J. 1995. Victim-offender mediation catching on. ABA Journal (February):14–15.
A–8

Rubin, T.H. 1997. Restitution helps victims and

offenders but needs review. The Crime Victim Report 1(1). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Schiff, M. 1997. Effects of restorative justice interventions on offenders. In Restoring Juvenile Justice,

edited by G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave. Monsey,

NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Schneider, A.L. 1986. Restitution and recidivism

rates of juvenile offenders: Results from four experimental studies. Criminology 23(3):533–552.

Schneider, A.L., and Schneider, P.R. 1984. Comparison of programmatic and ‘ad hoc’ restitution. Justice Quarterly 1:259–547.

Schneider, P.R. 1983. Juvenile restitution as a sole

sanction or condition of probation: An empirical

analysis. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency

19(1):47–65.

Schneider, P.R., and Bazemore, G. 1985. Research

on restitution: A guide to rational decision making. In The Guide to Juvenile Restitution, edited by

A.L. Schneider. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Stuart, B.D. 1996. Circle sentencing in Canada: A

partnership of the community and the criminal

justice system. International Journal of Comparative

and Applied Criminal Justice 20(2).

Umbreit, M.S. 1994. Victim empowerment through

mediation: The impact of victim-offender mediation in four cities. Perspectives 18(3):25–28.

Umbreit, M.S. 1995. The development and impact

of victim-offender mediation in the United States.

Mediation Quarterly 12(3):263–276.

Umbreit, M.S. 1995. Holding juvenile offenders

accountable: A restorative justice perspective.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal (Spring):31–42.

Umbreit, M.S. 1997. Restorative justice: Interventions’ impact varies, manner of implementation

critical. The Crime Victim Report 1(2). Kingston,

NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Umbreit, M.S., and Carey, M. 1995. Restorative

justice: Implications for organizational change.

Federal Probation 59(1):47–54.

Umbreit, M.S., and Coates, R.B. 1993. Cross-site

analysis of victim-offender mediation in four

states. Crime & Delinquency 39(4):565–585.

Umbreit, M.S., and Niemeyer, M. 1996. Victim offender mediation: From the margins toward the

mainstream. Perspectives (Summer):28–30.

Umbreit, M.S. and Stacey, S.L. 1996. Family group

conferencing comes to the U.S.: A comparison

with victim-offender mediation. Juvenile & Family

Court Journal 47(2):29–38.

Umbreit, M.S., and Zehr, H. 1996. Restorative family group conferences: differing models and guidelines for practice Federal Probation 60(3):24–29.

Books and Monographs

Adler, C., and Wundersitz, J., eds. 1994. Family

Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or

Misplaced Optimism? Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Barajas, E., ed. 1996. Community Justice: Striving for

Safe, Secure, and Just Communities. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

Bard, M., and Sangrey, D. 1986. The Crime Victim’s

Book. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.

Bazemore, G., Pranis, K., and Umbreit, M. 1997.

Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A

Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century.

Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation. St.

Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. 1994. Balanced and

Restorative Justice. Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Bazemore, G., and Walgrave, L. 1997. Restoring Juvenile Justice. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
A–9

Boles, A.B., and Patterson, J.C. 1997. Improving

Community Response to Crime Victims: An Eight-Step

Model for Developing Protocol. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Braithewaite, J. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Burnside, J., and Baker, N. 1994. Relational Justice:

Repairing the Breach. Winchester, England: Waterside Press.

Butts, J.A., and Snyder, H.N. 1991. Restitution and

Juvenile Recidivism. Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenile Justice.

Communities: Mobilizing against crime. Making

partnerships work. 1996 (August). National Institute of Justice Journal. (Contact NCJRS, listed

above, for a copy of this issue.)

Davis, R.C., Lurigio, A.J., and Skogan, W.G. 1997.

Victims of Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Finn, P., and Lee, B. 1987. Serving Crime Victims and

Witnesses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

Galaway, B., and Hudson, J., eds. 1990. Criminal

Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Galaway, B., and Hudson, J., eds. 1996. Restorative

Justice: An International Perspective. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Gilligan, J. 1996. Violence. New York, NY: G.P.

Putnam’s Sons.

Hudson, J., Morris, A., Maxwell, G., and Galaway,

B., eds. 1996. Family Group Conferences: Perspectives

on Policy & Practice. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice

Press.

Immarigeon, R. 1994. Reconciliation Between Victims

and Imprisoned Offenders: Program Models and Issues.

Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee, U.S.

Klein, A. 1996. Alternative Sentencing: A Practitioner’s

Guide. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing

Company.

Lampman, L., ed. 1996. Helping a Neighbor in Crisis.

Washington, DC: Neighbors Who Care.

McKnight, J. 1995. The Careless Society: Community

and Its Counterfeits. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Messmer, H., and Otto, H-U., eds. 1992. Restorative

Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of VictimOffender Mediation—International Research Perspectives. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. 1996. Victim

Empowerment: Bridging the Systems of Mental Health

and Victim Service Providers. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.

Schneider, A.L. 1985. Guide to Juvenile Restitution.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Schneider, A.L. 1990. Deterrence and Juvenile Crime:

Results From a National Policy Experiment. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Spungen, D. 1997. Homicide: The Hidden Victims, a

Guide for Professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Stoneman, D., and Calvert, J. 1990. Youthbuild: A

Manual for the Implementation of the Housing-Related

Enhanced Work Experience Program. New York, NY:

The Coalition for Twenty Million Dollars.

Umbreit, M.S. 1994. Victim Meets Offender: The Impact

of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, M.S. 1995. Mediating Interpersonal Conflicts:

A Pathway to Peace. West Concord, MN: CPI

Publishing.

Umbreit, M.S., and Greenwood, J. 1997. Guidelines

for Victim Sensitive Victim Offender Mediation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.

Van Ness, D.W. 1986. Crime and Its Victims. Downers

Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
A–10

Van Ness, D.W., and Strong, K. 1997. Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Viano, E.C. 1990. The Victimology Handbook. New

York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Wright, M. 1996. Justice for Victims and Offenders: A

Restorative Response to Crime, 2d ed. Winchester,

England: Waterside Press.

Wright, M., and Galaway, B. 1989. Mediation and

Criminal Justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press.

Young, M. 1995. Restorative Community Justice: A Call

to Action. Washington, DC: National Organization

for Victim Assistance.

Zehr, H. 1985. Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice.

Elkhart, IN: Mennonite Central Committee, U.S.,

Office of Criminal Justice.

Zehr, H. 1990. Changing Lenses. Scottsdale, PA:

Herald Press.

Zehr, H., Van Ness, D., and Harris, M.K. 1989.

Justice: The Restorative Vision. Elkhart, IN: Mennonite Central Committee, U.S., Office of Criminal

Justice.

Other Journals and Newsletters

Community Corrections Report

Civic Research Institute, Inc.

P.O. Box 585

4490 Route 27

Kingston, NJ 08528

Crime Victim Report

Civic Research Institute, Inc.

P.O. Box 585

4490 Route 27

Kingston, NJ 08528

Juvenile Justice Update

Civic Research Institute, Inc.

P.O. Box 585

4490 Route 27

Kingston, NJ 08528

Mediation Quarterly

(Sponsored by the Academy of Family Mediators)

To order, contact:

Customer Service

Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers

San Francisco, CA 94104

415–433–1767

Overcrowded Times: Solving the Prison Problem

(Periodical)

Castine Research Corporation

P.O. Box 110

Castine, ME 04421

207–326–9521

Standards of Mediation/Dialogue Practice

American Bar Association Endorsement of: VictimOffender Mediation/Dialogue Programs (Approved

by the ABA House of Delegates, August 1994.)

National Association of Social Workers. 1993.

Standards of practice for social work mediators.

NASW, 1–8.

Training Manuals

Claasen, R., and Zehr, H. 1989. VORP Organizing: A

Foundation in the Church. Elkhart, IN: Mennonite

Central Committee, U.S., Office of Criminal

Justice.

McLeod, C. 1997. Conferencing: Victim Offender, Small

and Large Group. Washington County Community

Justice Project, P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, MN

55082, 612–430–6900.

Quill, D., and Wynne, J. 1993. Victim & Offender

Mediation Handbook. London, England: Save the

Children. (Available at Center for Restorative Justice

& Mediation.)

REALJUSTICE (family group conferencing), P.O. Box

229, Bethlehem, PA 18016, 610–807–9221,

E-Mail: realjust@aol.com (Training manuals,

videos, resources).
A–11

Stuart, B. 1997. Building Community Justice Partnerships: Community Peacemaking Circles. Available

from: Aboriginal Justice Section, Department of

Justice of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Canada, 613–941–4105. Ottawa, Ontario: © 1997

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Umbreit, M.S. 1996. Advanced Victim Sensitive Mediation in Crimes of Severe Violence: Training Manual.

St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice &

Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Umbreit, M.S., and Greenwood, J. 1997. Guidelines

for Victim Sensitive Victim Offender Mediation.

St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice &

Mediation, University of Minnesota.

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

1996. Introductory Training: Victim Offender Mediation and Dialogue (In Property Crimes and Minor Assaults). St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative

Justice & Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Victim Offender Mediation Training Package. Community Justice Initiatives Association, 101–20678

Eastleigh Crescent, Langley, British Columbia,

V3A 4C4, 604–534–5515.

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project Selected Readings

Packet. Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation, University of Minnesota, School of Social

Work, 386 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue,

St. Paul, MN 55108–6142.

Bazemore, G. 1992. Program Brief: Accountability in

Dispositions for Juvenile Drug Offenders. Monograph.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Assistance. NCJ 134224.

Training Resources

RESTTA (Restitution Education, Specialized

Training, and Technical Assistance Program)

publications are available through the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse, 800–638–8736, at no

charge, unless otherwise noted:

Guide to Juvenile Restitution—NCJ 098466,

$15.00

Juvenile Restitution Management Audit—NCJ

115215

Liability and Legal Issues in Juvenile Restitution—

NCJ 115405

National Directory of Juvenile Restitution Programming—NCJ 105188

National Trends in Juvenile Restitution Programming—NCJ 115214

Accountability in Disposition for Juvenile Drug

Offenders—NCJ 134224

Restitution and Juvenile Recidivism—NCJ 137774,

Out of Print

The Restitution Experience in Youth Employment:

A Monograph and Training Guide to Jobs Components—NCJ 115404

Restitution Improvement Curriculum: A Guidebook

for Juvenile Restitution Workshop Planners—

NCJ 110007, Out of Print

Victim-Offender Mediation in the Juvenile Justice

System—NCJ 120976
A–12

Bazemore, G., and Schneider, P.R. 1985. Research

on Restitution: A guide to rational decision making. In The Guide to Juvenile Restitution: A Training

Manual for Restitution Program Managers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Bazemore, G., et al. 1988. Restitution by Juveniles:

Information and Operating Guide for Restitution Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Assistance.

Beers, S. 1994. Overcoming Loss: The Other Victims of

Homicide. 509 North Seventh Street, Allentown, PA:

18102 Crime Victims Council of the LeHigh Valley.

Lord, J.H. 1990. Victim Impact Panels: A Creative Sentencing Opportunity. Ft. Worth, TX: Mothers

Against Drunk Driving.

Mackey, V. 1990. Restorative Justice: Toward Nonviolence. Louisville, KY: Presbyterian Justice Program, Presbyterian Church U.S.A.

Monsey, B., Owen, G., Zierman, C., Lambert, L.,

and Hyman, V. 1995. What Works in Preventing

Rural Violence: Strategies, Risk Factors, and Assessment Tools. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder

Foundation Publishing Center.

Satisfying Justice: A Compendium of Initiatives, Programs

and Legislative Measures. 1996. Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada: Church Council on Justice and Corrections. Order for $30 U.S. from Church Council on Justice

and Corrections, 507 Bank St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

K2P 1Z5, 613–563–1668; 613–237–6129 (Fax).

Silcox, H. 1995. A How-to Guide to Reflection: Adding

Cognitive Learning to Community Service Programs.

Holland, PA: Brighton Press, Inc., 64 Lempa

Road, Holland, PA 18966, 215–357–5861.

Umbreit, M.S. 1993. How to Increase Referrals to

Victim-Offender Mediation Programs. Winnipeg,

Manitoba, Canada: Fund for Dispute Resolution.

Umbreit, M.S. 1995. 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., and Coates, R.B. 1992. Victim

Offender Mediation: An Analysis of Programs in

Four States of the U.S. St. Paul, MN: Center for

Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of

Minnesota.

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

Young, M. 1993. Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals. Washington, DC: National Organization for Victim Assistance.

Videotapes

The following video resources, except where noted,

are available for sale through:

Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation

University of Minnesota, School of Social Work

386 McNeal Hall

1985 Buford Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108–6144

612–624–4923; 612–625–4288 (Fax)

E-Mail: ctr4rjm@che2.che.umn.edu

Dakota County Victim Offender Meeting Program

The victim-offender mediation process used by the

Victim Offender Meeting Program at Dakota

County (MN) Community Corrections Department,

which uses trained community volunteers as mediators, is presented. Role-plays of premediation meetings with the offender and victim are presented,

along with the actual mediation session.

Model of Entire Victim-Offender Mediation Process

Dr. Mark Umbreit models the entire victim-offender

mediation process, including calling and meeting

the offender, calling and meeting the victim, and

conducting a followup victim-offender meeting. Excellent core training tape for role-playing the entire

process. (80 minutes.)
A–13

Restorative Justice: A Victim Awareness Resource, “The

Importance of Listening to Crime Victims”

Features the personal stories of three victims/survivors

of crime that reveal how crime affects victims and their

families. Stories are told by survivors of a home burglary, a car theft, and violent assault. Dr. Marlene A.

Young, Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, shares her thoughts on the

importance of listening to victims of crime. Excellent

resource for victim-offender dialogue and victim

awareness training. (32 minutes.)

Restorative Justice: For Victims, Communities &

Offenders*

Edited, shortened version of the Presbyterian

Church USA’s video Restoring Justice, which includes a new, brief presentation of what we have

learned about the impact of restorative justice on

victims, communities, and offenders. Specific program models are presented. Excellent resource

for illustrating how restorative justice values and

practices benefit crime victims, communities, and

offenders. (25 minutes.)

Restorative Justice: Victim Empowerment Through

Mediation & Dialogue*

Victim-offender mediation is briefly described, with

an emphasis on the benefits for those victims who

voluntarily choose to meet the offender. Comments

by a diverse group of victims who have participated

in mediation are presented, including their initial

needs, what occurred in the mediation session, and

their description of the benefits. Several key research findings are briefly highlighted. Excellent

resource for gaining support from individual victims

and victim advocates.

Victim-Offender Mediation Overview

A 6-minute video format explaining the victimoffender mediation concept and process. Produced

by The Center for Victim-Offender Mediation of the

Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime and Justice.

Written by Dr. Mark Umbreit, the video follows a

burglary case through the victim-offender mediation

process and places local program efforts in the context of the growing network of victim-offender pro-

*Available through University College, 315 Pillsbury Drive

SE., 314 Nolte Center, Minneapolis, MN 55455–0139,

612–625–1855, 612–624–5891 (Fax).

Community Intensive Supervision Project

(CISP)

CISP Video

This video highlights the features of a nonresidential supervision and treatment program for

serious juvenile offenders. Family support and

the building of personal relationships are discussed, along with a strong treatment program,

educational achievement, and community restoration. (21 minutes.)

Project Success (CISP Community Garden)

CISP youth filmed this video, which documents

a creative community service project—a community garden. The garden was planned and

developed by youth at the CISP Project and the

Hill District Community in Pittsburgh, PA.

Through this project, youth developed key competencies while giving back to their community.

For information on these two videos, contact:

George Kinder, CISP Program Coordinator

CISP Project

519 Penn Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15221

412–243–6886

412–243–6590 (Fax)

grams throughout the country. A basic resource for

public presentations. (6 minutes.)

Victim-Offender Mediation Simulation

Simulation of a mediation session with an emphasis

on modeling an empowering (nondirective) style of

mediation. This tape is effective for presentations to

groups or funding sources interested in learning

more about victim-offender mediation. (28 minutes.)
A–14

The Balanced Approach

Filmed and produced by juveniles who participated

in the South Florida Youth Environment Service at

the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge. This video describes the principles of balanced and restorative

justice and illustrates positive competency development. For a copy, send a blank tape and return

mailer, including postage, with a request for a copy

of The Balanced Approach to:

Daryll Olson

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

District 9

111 South Sapodillo Avenue, Suite 207

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

The Balanced Approach to Restorative Justice

The South Dakota Unified Judicial System presents

its commitment to a more balanced and restorative

approach to juvenile justice. This tape provides a

very good overview of the BARJ model, with several examples of programs. To order, contact:

Video Production Services

325 East Dakota Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501

Circle Sentencing, Yukon Justice Experiment

Documentary on circle sentencing practiced in the

Yukon, Canada. Judge Barry Stuart leads the application of circle sentencing practice based on the

traditions of the native people (First Nation) of

Canada. For a copy, please contact:

Northern Native Broadcasting, Yukon

4228A Fourth Avenue

Whitehorse, Yukon

Canada Y1A1K1

403–668–6332

Glimmer of Hope

This video presents the journey toward healing of

the family of a young girl who was brutally kidnaped, raped, and killed. Produced by the National

Film Board of Canada, this documentary about a

family in Minnesota portrays many expressions of

restorative justice, including mediated dialogue sessions with the involved offenders. Excellent resource

to show how restorative justice principles were applied in one of the most serious crimes imaginable.

(51 minutes.)

Films for the Humanities and Sciences

P.O. Box 2053

Princeton, NJ 08543–2053

800–257–5126

609–275–3767 (Fax)

E-Mail: custserve@films.com

Internet: www.films.com

Marked By Fire

Video and discussion guide, produced as a result of a

mediated agreement between the survivors of an

arson and the juveniles who set the fire. Also includes footage on the story of a young survivor of a

different fire. Example of a productive outcome

from victim-offender mediation and dialogue. Cost is

$14.00, including shipping and handling. To order,

contact:

Marked By Fire

Insurance Federation of Minnesota

55 East Fifth Street, Suite 750

St. Paul, MN 55101

612–292–1099

612–228–7369 (Fax)

Deschutes County, OR, Programs

Save Our Streets

A segment of FOX Television’s “Save Our

Streets” depicting the Deschutes County Juvenile Justice Program. Deschutes County,

Bend, OR.

Deschutes National Forest

Deschutes County Adult Corrections Work Team

Program

Video footage depicts activities in which work

teams conduct restorative community work

service.

For information on these three videos, contact:

Deborah Brockman

Department of Corrections

1128 NW. Harriman

Bend, OR 97701

541–385–1723
A–15

Portrait of a Reconciliation

Victim-offender training video. (55 minutes.) $35

U.S. plus $5 shipping. Series of manuals and training package also available from:

Community Justice Initiatives Association

20678 Eastleigh Crescent, Suite 101

Langley, British Columbia V3A 4C4 Canada

604–534–5515 or 534–6773

604–534–6989 (Fax)

E-Mail: cjibc@axionet.com

Restoring Justice

Produced in 1996 by the National Council of

Churches for broadcast on national television,

Restoring Justice is one of the best videos available

for explaining what restorative justice is and what

it can mean for victims, community, and offenders.

Program examples are excellent. Tape runs 50 minutes without commercial breaks. Available from:

Presbyterian Criminal Justice Program

100 Witherspoon Street

Louisville, KY 40202–1396

502–569–5810

Contact: Kathy Lancaster

Tough Justice—Family Group Conferencing,

New Zealand

Video and resource kit available. (The resource kit

includes the video.) To order contact:

Publications Coordinator

P.O. Box 24–005

Wellington, New Zealand

64–184–499–2928

Victim Impact Panel Program

Presents the concept of the victim impact panel in

cases of drunk-driving crashes. Provides good material on how the panels work, how to set them up,

and the effect on those experiencing them. (13 minutes.) Available from:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

P.O. Box 541688

Dallas, TX 75354–1688

800–GET–MADD

Pamphlets

Justice: The Restorative Vision, by Howard Zehr, Dan

Van Ness, and M. Kay Harris (1989).

Mediating the Victim Offender Conflict, by Howard Zehr

(1982).

Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice, by Howard Zehr

(1985).

VORP Organizing: A Foundation in the Church, by Ron

Claassen and Howard Zehr with Duane RuthHeffelbower (1989).

These pamphlets are available through:

Mennonite Central Committee

Office of Community Justice

P.O. Box 500

21 South 12th Street

Akron, PA 17501

717–859–3889

Bibliographic Resources

McCold, P. 1997. Restorative Justice: An Annotated

Bibliography. Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Working Party on

Restorative Justice. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Available through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service, 800–851–3420:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 1996.

Restorative/Community Justice: A Theoretical Perspective (Topical Search). #TS011686. 30 bibliographic

citations from the NCJRS Abstract Database.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 1996.

Restorative/Community Justice: A Programmatic

Perspective (Topical Bibliography). #TB010629.

Up to 200 citations from the NCJRS Abstract

Database.
B–1

Appendix B: Deschutes County Department of

Community Justice Position Description

Position: Community Justice Officer

Reports To: Manager, Juvenile Division

Department: Community Justice

Summary

The community justice officer shall work to restore

crime victims, promote safe and secure communities,

and supervise and rehabilitate juvenile offenders.

Work is performed within the framework of community/balanced and restorative justice, that is, addressing needs of juveniles and their families within

the three primary areas of accountability, competency development, and public safety.

Nature and Scope

This is senior-level professional work that requires

the application of specialized knowledge in the areas

of dynamics of victimization, community organizing

and development, and juvenile corrections. Work

may be performed in stressful situations, occasionally during odd hours (e.g., evenings and weekends). Incumbents are expected to apply extensive

knowledge of Federal, State, and local laws and

regulations that apply to situations involving juveniles and their families. Tasks are governed by established policies, procedures, statutes, regulations, and

general managerial direction. Incumbents exercise

independent judgment when applying policies and

procedures in vaguely defined situations. Decisions

on search and seizure and detainment may require

supervisory approval. Incumbents work under the

supervision of the Manager, Juvenile Division. Errors in judgment may have significant impact on

behavioral change and the legal aspects of the situation, violation of a juvenile’s civil rights, public

safety, and community relations. Judgmental errors

may also expose the incumbent to potential physical

harm from offenders.

Distinguishing Characteristics

The community justice officer is a professional counseling position associated with restoring crime victims, promoting safe and secure communities, and

supervising and rehabilitating juvenile offenders.

Supervision and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders

incorporates community/balanced and restorative

justice principles of accountability, competency development, and public safety.

Essential Responsibilities (May

Include Any or All of the

Following)

Responsibility to Victims

◆ Assess needs of victim to assist in determining

victim-support services necessary for restoration.

◆ Receive and evaluate new referrals and refer appropriate cases to victim-offender mediation.

◆ Enforce compliance with and fulfillment of

the Victim Offender Mediation Program

requirements.

◆ Followup contact with victim to determine level

of satisfaction with the department of community

justice.

◆ Assist in holding offenders accountable to victims/

community by supervising work teams of juvenile

offenders performing restorative community

work service.
B–2

Responsibility to Community

◆ Serve as a role model for youth in the community.

◆ Initiate, participate in, and support youth development and prevention activities that prevent

crime and delinquency.

◆ Lead a work team of juvenile offenders assigned

to restorative community work service. Ensure

that community service projects are completed by

overseeing and monitoring overall productivity

and quality of work.

◆ Assist in conducting remote tracking of clients

and documentation of client files.

◆ Prepare reports as required by the supervisor,

including performance observations and behavior

evaluations. May be required to testify on youth

behavior in court proceedings.

◆ Provide client data to the Deschutes County

Commission on Children and Families to assist in

development of early intervention and prevention

programs.

◆ Provide data to the Deschutes County Commission on Children and Families and participate in

the planning process for the commission’s comprehensive plan.

◆ Establish and maintain contacts with social service agencies and community organizations that

may be able to provide assistance and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders.

◆ Whenever possible, refer younger siblings of juvenile offenders to community early intervention

and prevention resources.

◆ Prepare and recommend the disposition of each

case within established department priorities

(i.e., victim-offender mediation, restorative community work service, and competency development program recommendations). If necessary,

present to the court for official action.

◆ Propose and initiate restorative community work

service projects and sites that enhance a sense of

community.

◆ Provide advice and training for law enforcement

agencies on matters pertaining to juveniles, determination of charges, and the appropriate method

of dealing with each case.

◆ Perform other related duties as necessary to carry

out the objectives of the position.

Responsibility to Offenders

◆ Ensure the safe work habits of offenders.

◆ Prioritize and organize the daily work schedule

for a work team of juvenile offenders.

◆ Discipline youth according to established policy.

◆ Provide group supervision to youth in work and

recreational activities.

◆ Transport offenders to work, recreation, or other

locations.

◆ Conduct indepth assessment interviews with

the juvenile and family to determine circumstances of the offense and to obtain information

on matters such as financial status, employment

history, and prior arrest records. Counsel juveniles on a one-on-one basis. Encourage family

members to participate in the offender’s rehabilitation and adjustment process. Maintain

chronological records of the counseling and

supervising sessions.

◆ Investigate the facts of each case and conduct

personal interviews with juveniles, family members, schools, attorneys, social agencies, and other

authorities as needed.

◆ Prepare documents and reports of findings for

contested juvenile court hearings. Secure judicial

time, consult with the district attorney, participate

in pretrial conferences with defense attorneys,

summon and interview witnesses, and make arrangements for presentation of evidence. Participate in the presentation of these cases as needed.

◆ Facilitate participation of juveniles and families

(where appropriate) in programs that lead to the

development of internal discipline to interrupt

criminal behavior patterns (public safety).
B–3

◆ Facilitate participation of juveniles and families

in victim-offender mediation (where appropriate) to ensure the highest level of accountability

to victims. Initiate victim-support services if

needed. Provide mediation outcome to the court

when appropriate. Utilize restorative community

work service sites and projects to ensure the

highest level of accountability to the community

(accountability).

◆ Facilitate participation of juveniles in programs

that prepare them to become responsible citizens.

Programs should address issues of education, job

skill development and training, victim empathy,

community-service commitment, and the establishment and practice of standards of acceptable

behavior within the community (competency

development).

◆ Refer juveniles to treatment programs, such as

foster care, youth care centers, and institutions.

Monitor progress of juveniles placed in these

programs.

Qualifications

Knowledge and Skills

Position requires thorough understanding of the

dynamics of victimization and the ability to communicate empathetically with crime victims. Requires

thorough knowledge of community organizing and

development. Requires thorough knowledge of delinquent behavior and family problems of juveniles.

Working knowledge of the judicial system relating

to Oregon’s juvenile case law and the special requirements for working with other legal and social

services agencies. Well-developed human relations,

interviewing, counseling, and writing skills. Working command of the English language sufficient to

prepare clear and meaningful reports, document

work activities, and communicate effectively with

work teams. Must have completed level 1 first aid

and CPR training (which is specific to Deschutes

County).

Experience and Training

Incumbents typically have a bachelor’s degree in

social work, sociology, criminology, corrections,

or psychology and have 5 to 8 years of progressively

responsible experience in delivering counseling

services.

Abilities

Requires the ability to perform the various aspects

of the job, including the following: ability to communicate effectively; ability to organize community

activities that prevent crime and delinquency; ability

to facilitate a counseling session and to prepare a

disposition report; ability to teach interviewing and

counseling skills; ability to work on call, possess a

valid driver’s license, and transport clients; and ability to render level 1 first aid and CPR.
C–1

Appendix C: Sample Disposition

Deschutes County

Department of Community Justice

Case Summary

Juvenile Name: John Smith Juvenile Case No.: 96–999

DOB: 01–01–80 Juvenile Counselor: Bob LaCombe

Offense Description: Mr. Smith admits to illegally entering Mrs. Jones’s vehicle and dismantling the ignition

lock to start the car. Mr. Smith then drove the stolen car to a friend’s home. The parents of Mr. Smith’s friend

telephoned the police, who apprehended Mr. Smith, without incident, as he attempted to leave the premises of

his friend.

Disposition: The court hereby orders Mr. John Smith to complete the following conditions of probation: The

court recognizes and greatly appreciates the input of Mrs. Jones, the victim of this crime. The term of probation is to be 18 months from this date. The court will entertain a motion to terminate this order from the department of community justice in the event Mr. Smith satisfactorily completes conditions prior to the

completion of this probationary period.

Goal Requirements

Community Safety

1. Mr. Smith will complete a term of 30-days house arrest with exceptions granted only for school, approved

skill groups, and work to earn restitution payments.

2. Mr. Smith will refrain from any law violations for a period of at least 90 concurrent days.

3. Mr. Smith will complete a 10-week theft talk class without absence.

4. Mr. Smith will meet with a neighborhood mentor once a week to discuss his schedule, activities, and

progress on his plan.
C–2

Accountability

1. Restitution: Mr. Smith will pay Mrs. Jones $250 to reimburse her for the cost of repairing her vehicle ignition. He will also pay her $150 for the cost of replacing her car keys and replacing and rekeying her home

door locks. These payments will be made at the rate of $25 per week. Upon completion of the payments,

Mr. Smith will send a letter to Mrs. Jones describing what he has learned from this experience.

2. Community Service: Mr. Smith will work to earn the money to pay for five club antitheft devices. These

devices will then be raffled at the senior citizen housing unit’s annual holiday party. Mr. Smith will attend

the party and present the devices to the winning seniors.

3. Understanding the Harm: Mr. Smith will attend and complete, without absence, the department of community justice victim empathy class.

Competency

1. Mr. Smith will enroll in the school district’s career planning class and report to the court his plan, in writing, to pursue a career following high school completion.

2. Mr. Smith will lead a focus group discussion of juveniles who have committed auto theft to explore the

motivations for auto theft and report the results at the annual crime-prevention coordinators meeting.
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—

Fact Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports,

and the Juvenile Justice journal—along with

videotapes, including broadcasts from the juvenile justice telecommunications initiative.

Through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), these publications and other resources are as close as your phone, fax,

computer, or mailbox.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7:00 p.m. ET)

Fax:

301–519–5212

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

E-Mail:

puborder@ncjrs.org (to order materials)

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through Fax-on-Demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1, select option 2,

and listen for instructions

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

leave the subject line blank

type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the

repository for tens of thousands of criminal and

juvenile justice publications and resources from

around the world. They are abstracted and

made available through a data base, which is

searchable online (www.ncjrs.org/

database.htm). You are also welcome to submit

materials to JJC for inclusion in the data base.

The following list highlights popular and recently published OJJDP documents and videotapes, grouped by topical areas.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Brochure (1996, NCJ 144527 (23

pp.)) offers more information about the agency.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

OJJDP sponsors a teleconference initiative,

and a flyer (LT 116) offers a complete list of

videos available from these broadcasts.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998,

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. 1997,

NCJ 164258 (42 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1996. 1997, NCJ 167578

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1995. 1998,

NCJ 170607 (112 pp.).

Courts

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1995. 1997,

NCJ 167885 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution

and Community Service Programs. 1998,

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Delinquency Prevention

1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 1998, NCJ 170605 (71 pp.).

Allegheny County, PA: Mobilizing To Reduce

Juvenile Crime. 1997, NCJ 165693 (12 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary). 1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency Prevention

Strategy. 1997, NCJ 164834 (8 pp.).

Mentoring for Youth in Schools and Communities Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 166376

(120 min.), $17.00

Mobilizing Communities To Prevent Juvenile

Crime. 1997, NCJ 165928 (8 pp.).

Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education

Mainstream. 1997, NCJ 163920 (12 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth:

The MST Approach. 1997, NCJ 165151 (8 pp.).

The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under

Age 15. 1997, NCJ 165256 (12 pp.).

Gangs

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior. 1997,

NCJ 165154 (6 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.00.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998,

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.00.

Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive

and Delinquent Behavior. 1997, NCJ 165692

(20 pp.).

Exciting Internships: Work Today for a Better

Tomorrow. 1998, NCJ 171696 (6 pp.).

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998,

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 165925 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume IV, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 166823 (28 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume V, Number 1. 1998,

NCJ 170025 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States

1994–1996. 1997, NCJ 165697 (81 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update

on Violence. 1997, NCJ 165703 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National

Report. 1995, NCJ 153569 (188 pp.).

Keeping Young People in School: Community

Programs That Work. 1997, NCJ 162783

(12 pp.).

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act and

Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.

1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Court Appointed Special Advocates: A Voice

for Abused and Neglected Children in Court.

1997, NCJ 164512 (4 pp.).

Federal Resources on Missing and Exploited

Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and

Other Public and Private Agencies. 1997,

NCJ 168962 (156 pp.).

In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment. 1997,

NCJ 165257 (16 pp.).

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse:

An Overview. 1997, NCJ 165153 (8 pp.).

Protecting Children Online Teleconference

(Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $17.00.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.).

Substance Abuse

Beyond the Bench: How Judges Can Help Reduce Juvenile DUI and Alcohol and Other Drug

Violations (Video and discussion guide). 1996,

NCJ 162357 (16 min.), $17.00.

Capacity Building for Juvenile Substance

Abuse Treatment. 1997, NCJ 167251 (12 pp.).

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Drug Treatment:

Promising Approaches Teleconference (Video).

1997, NCJ 168617 (120 min.), $17.00.

Preventing Drug Abuse Among Youth Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 165583 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Violence and Victimization

Child Development–Community Policing:

Partnership in a Climate of Violence. 1997,

NCJ 164380 (8 pp.).

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.).

Epidemiology of Serious Violence. 1997,

NCJ 165152 (12 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681

(255 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min.),

$17.00.

State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile

Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172835

(16 pp.).

White House Conference on School Safety:

Causes and Prevention of Youth Violence

Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 173399

(240 min.), $17.00.

Youth in Action

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention

Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.).