Introduction

F

or years, the juvenile justice system

has focused one dimensionally on

the needs and risks of offenders. As

a result, the criminal justice system does

not currently offer victims a “level playing

field.” Today, most juvenile justice systems need to give first and primary attention to increasing their responsiveness to

the needs of crime victims. One way to

accomplish this is for juvenile justice systems to adopt and apply the principles of

restorative justice, which recognizes three

stakeholders (or coparticipants) in any

“justice” process—the victim, the offender, and the community.

The Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court

Reform Through Restorative Justice project was funded by the Office for Victims

of Crime with the overall goal of improving the juvenile court response to crime

victims. Four focus groups were held during the spring and summer of 1997,

bringing together a total of 20 juvenile

court judges and 18 crime victims to hear

Message From

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

OCTOBER 2000

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile

Court Reform Through

Restorative Justice

each other’s perspectives about problems

in juvenile court. In addition, participants

engaged in a structured dialogue about

the source of the problems and potential

solutions, especially those that might be

developed in accordance with restorative

justice principles.

Project Objectives

S

pecific project objectives included

the following:

■ Provide crime victims with greater

understanding of juvenile court

policies and procedures, including

rationales for due process, confidentiality, and determination of

restitution amounts.

■ Provide judges with insight into the

victim experience in juvenile court

and ideas for improving juvenile

court responsiveness to victims’

needs and opportunities for

involvement.

the Director

While a number of states have recently passed legislation to increase the

rights of victims in juvenile courts, there

is still a huge discrepancy between victims’ rights in juvenile courts and adult

courts.The great majority of victims of

juvenile offenders feel excluded from

the workings of the juvenile court.After

their victimization, they typically learn

little about what happens with their

case.This can magnify their sense of

powerlessness and fear of revictimization. In an effort to understand why this

exclusion occurs and how it can be

corrected, the Office for Victims of

Crime (OVC) funded a project that

conducted four focus groups of juvenile

court judges and victims of juvenile offenders.Their activities and findings

were documented for this publication,

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform

Through Restorative Justice.

OVC believes that all victims, regardless 

of the age of their offenders, should be 

afforded basic rights and services by the

courts, including notification of key

events in their case, information about

the offender’s status, court-ordered

restitution and protection, and referrals

to victim assistance services and compensation.Additionally, it is critically important for all victims to be treated

with dignity and respect.

Continued on page 2
■ Recommend solutions to issues 

such as confidentiality in juvenile

cases, inconsistency in restitution

orders, and lack of information

about case status.

■ Provide a rich source of information

about opportunities for victim

advocacy at both local and national

levels.

■ Identify sources of support for and

resistance to restorative justice practices, including obstacles to implementation by judges and victims.

Background

The abuses and virtual exclusion

of crime victims and their perspective in the decision-making

process of many juvenile courts

are widely acknowledged and well

documented.

To a large extent, judges have

been left to defend the treatment

ethic of the juvenile court in the

face of an onslaught by policymakers and new statutes that

have usurped much of the court’s

traditional discretion over delinquent youth and have mandated a

much more punitive dispositional

focus.

—Focus Group comments

OVC Bulletin

2

The focus groups afforded crime 

victims and juvenile court judges an

opportunity to exchange experiences

and views on victim issues in juvenile

court. Using restorative justice principles as a framework for developing a

fairer distribution of rights and responsibilities, the victims and judges explored a range of actions and strategies

to improve the responses toward crime

victims by courts and the entire juvenile

justice system.

Focus group participants expressed 

appreciation for the helpful dialogue 

afforded by the focus group format.

OVC hopes to make this format available to other jurisdictions so they, too,

can conduct expanded and continuous

dialogue among crime victims, their advocates, the community, and juvenile

justice professionals. Many participants

planned to use this format on a continuing basis at the local level.

OVC anticipates that juvenile court

personnel, juvenile probation agencies,

state Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) victim assistance administrators, and victim

service organizations will all find this

publication helpful as it gathers and

makes available to the field the perceptions of victims of the juvenile justice

system and the perceptions of juvenile

court judges regarding the roles and

rights of victims in the juvenile justice

system.We at OVC encourage an 

ongoing dialogue that can only improve

the treatment of crime victims by the

juvenile courts.

Kathryn M. Turman

Director

Continued from page 1

■ Encourage collaboration and

dialogue among judges to analyze

system constraints and identify 

solutions to achieve effective 

victim involvement.

criminal courts (Feld, B., 1990, 1993).

Although expansion in punishment and

formalized procedures has moved juvenile

courts away from the exclusive focus on

the “best interests of the child” (young

offenders) (Lemov, P., 1994), it did not

move the courts toward “the best interests of the victim.” Only very recently

have some juvenile justice professionals

begun to pay attention to victims’ needs. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, victims’

rights were expanded in criminal courts.

In stark contrast, victims in the juvenile

justice system continued to have few

rights. Recently, this lack of victims’

rights in juvenile courts came to the attention of policymakers and professionals.

The American Correctional Association

Victims Committee published the Report

and Recommendations on Victims of

Juvenile Offenders (Seymour, A., and S.

English, 1994) stating, “Victims should

not be discriminated against solely due to

the age of their offender.” 

The recent developments highlighted

below provide promise for changing the

role of victims in juvenile justice systems

and for changing how juvenile courts

view victim involvement in court 

proceedings:

■ Twenty-nine states have passed constitutional amendments for victims’

rights, including notification, input,

restitution, and protection. Many of

these amendments extend expanded

rights to victims of juveniles and to

victims of adult offenders.

■ In many states, the traditional 

cloak of secrecy that once covered

juvenile courts is being lifted by new

statutes. Crime victims and their allies are serving as the key proponents of this movement to increase

victim involvement in and knowledge about juvenile court 

proceedings.

For the past century, America’s juvenile court system has focused on its mandate to act in “the best interest of the

child” when dealing with young offenders. However, the past two decades have

seen a move toward more punitive approaches and procedures in juvenile

courts and justice systems that now make

it difficult to distinguish them from
Restorative justice is a new way of

thinking about and responding to

crime. It emphasizes one fundamental fact: Crime damages people,

communities, and relationships. If crime

is about harm, then the justice process

should emphasize repairing the harm.

As a vision for systemic juvenile justice

reform, restorative justice suggests that

the response to youth crime must strike

a balance among the needs of victims,

offenders, and communities, encouraging each to be actively involved to the

greatest extent possible in the justice

process. Restorative justice builds on

traditional positive community values

and on some of the most effective sanctioning practices, including victimoffender mediation, various community

decisionmaking and conferencing

processes (for example, reparative

boards, family group conferencing, and

circle sentencing), restorative community service, restitution, victim and

community impact statements, and victim awareness panels.

The most new and important ideas in

restorative justice are expressed in 

a set of principles that redefines the 

way justice systems address public 

safety, sanctioning, and rehabilitative

objectives. Specifically, when crime is

understood as harm and justice is understood as repair and/or healing, and

when the importance of active participation by victims and community members in response to crime is emphasized,

basic community needs are understood

and addressed in a different way.

Today, when a crime is committed, most

juvenile justice professionals are primarily concerned with three questions:

Who did it? What laws were broken?

What should be done to punish or treat

the offender? Although questions of

guilt, lawbreaking, and appropriate intervention are certainly vital to prosecutors, these questions alone may lead to a

limited range of interventions based

solely on treatment and punishment,

which cannot meet the complex needs

of the community, victim, offender, 

and family.

Viewed through the restorative lens,

crime is understood in a broader context

than what is suggested by the questions

of guilt and how to punish or treat the

offender. Howard Zehr (1990) argues

that in restorative justice three very different questions receive primary emphasis: What is the nature of the harm

resulting from the crime? What needs to

be done to “make it right” or repair the

harm? Who is responsible for the repair?

Defining the harm and determining

what should be done to repair it are best

accomplished with input from crime

victims, citizens, and offenders in a decisionmaking process that maximizes their

participation. The decision about who is

responsible for the repair focuses attention on the future rather than the past

and also sets up a different configuration

of obligations in response to the crime. 

No longer simply the object of punishment, the offender is now primarily 

responsible for repairing the harm caused

by his or her crime. A restorative juvenile court and justice system would, in

turn, be responsible for ensuring that

the offender is held accountable for the

damage and suffering caused both to

victims and victimized communities 

by supporting, facilitating, and enforcing reparative agreements. But, most

important, crime victims and the 

community play critical roles in setting

the terms of accountability and monitoring and supporting completion of

obligations.

If crime victims and the community are

to become fully engaged as active participants in the response to youth crime,

juvenile justice professionals must begin

to think about these stakeholders in different ways. To move forward with this

new agenda, it is very important to understand the potential role of crime victims as key stakeholders in the response

to youth crime. In addition, the role of

the professional and the mandate of the

juvenile justice system are likely to

change.

Bazemore, G., and M. Umbreit,

Conferences, Circles, Boards, and

Mediations: Restorative Justice and 

Citizen Involvement in the Response to

Youth Crime, Washington, DC: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, Balanced 

and Restorative Justice Project, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1999. 

What Is Restorative Justice?

3

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through Restorative Justice
OVC Bulletin

4

■ By summer 1997, a total of 30 states

and many local jurisdictions had

adopted legislation or policies based

on the Balanced and Restorative

Justice model (O’Brien, S., 1999).

Providing a new mission and framework for juvenile justice, this model

incorporates the needs and interests

of the victim, the community, and

the youthful offender. This restorative justice trend is potentially one

of the most significant factors driving

change in the role of crime victims

in America’s juvenile courts.

Although changes in juvenile probation

and corrections programs are already

under way to involve victims and better

address their needs (Seymour, A., 1997;

Wilkinson, R., 1997), meaningful change

in the juvenile court process is impossible

without the support of judges as juvenile

court leaders. Although most judges are

not insensitive to the needs of crime victims (Leip, L., and G. Bazemore, in press),

it is important to reflect upon two key factors that seem to determine the success or

failure of most judges in responding sensitively to crime victims. First, does the

judge make changes in his or her court

that might improve services for victims of

juvenile crime? And, second, does the

judge provide for victims’ meaningful involvement and input into the juvenile

justice process?

With regard to the first factor, too few juvenile court judges have been engaged in

training, dialogue, and initiatives to improve juvenile court responsiveness to victims. Too often, crime victims and their

advocates speak only to each other, to researchers, and to policy and program development professionals. Judges seldom

have opportunities to be educated about

and explore alternatives to policies, 

procedures, and administrative protocols

that contribute to victim frustration.

Previous forums and research studies have

effectively identified problems in juvenile

courts from a crime victim’s perspective,

including problems in court culture and

the behavior of individual juvenile court

judges (Young, M., 1995). However, there

have been few opportunities to hear from

judges on these issues and little chance to

conduct joint dialogue, consensus building, strategic planning, and mutual problem solving between judges and crime

victims.

With regard to the second factor, until recently judges have had few incentives to

implement changes to make their courts

more responsive to victim concerns. In

general, juvenile courts have been slow to

develop policies to mandate, authorize, or

encourage judges to devote greater attention to the needs of crime victims or to invite increased victim involvement into

the court process. Furthermore, little persuasive logic has been offered by the judiciary, criminal justice researchers, or

victim advocates to link the victims’ agenda either to the traditional individual

treatment and best interests mandates of

juvenile courts or to the new retributive

juvenile justice agenda. While more victims’ rights legislation and policies are

clearly on the horizon for juvenile courts

in many states, most juvenile courts and

juvenile justice systems responding to

these new mandates must do so in the absence of a mission or a model policy or a

philosophical framework (Bazemore, G.,

and M. Umbreit, 1995). This lack of guidance will make it difficult for these juvenile courts and justice systems to integrate

crime victims’ needs and concerns with

other rationales for justifying the existence

of a distinctive court and justice system for

juveniles.

O ne sign of hope for linking 

victims’ needs and involvement 

to a revitalized juvenile justice

mission has been the rise in interest in

restorative justice and the “balanced approach” (Bazemore, G., and M. Umbreit,

1995; Bazemore, G., and S. Day, 1996).

Restorative justice provides a new “lens”

for viewing the problem of crime and a

new paradigm for thinking about the 

justice response to criminal behavior.

Rather than the question of guilt and

what should be done to punish or treat

the offender, restorative justice suggests

that the most important fact about crime

is that it causes harm to individuals and

communities. “Justice” should, therefore,

focus on the repair of this harm 

(Zehr, H., 1990).

The view of restorative justice and the

balanced approach is that justice is best

served, both practically and conceptually,

when the needs of the victim, the community, and the offender are all met and

each is involved in the process to the

greatest extent possible.

The balanced approach was developed to

serve as a guide for implementing a

restorative vision in juvenile justice systems. The balanced approach provides a

road map to help administrators achieve

the following:

■ Attain balance in efforts to meet

community needs for safety.

■ Repair victim harm, set tolerance

limits, and provide consequences for

crime (impose sanctions to hold offenders accountable).

Balancing Client

Needs: Restorative

Juvenile Justice
5

T

he purpose of this project was

to gain meaningful input from

judges and crime victims about

the following:

■ How the court responds to viewing

the victim as a “client” of the juvenile court.

■ How to remove obstacles to increasing victim involvement.

■ How to improve services and 

responsiveness to victims.

■ How to solve problems in meeting

the needs of victims.

In addition, the project provided a

demonstration of the value of structured,

honest, and meaningful dialogue among

juvenile court judges, crime victims, and

community members. As a result of the

project, such structured dialogue is already being replicated in followup focus

groups in several jurisdictions.

The project’s strategy was to build upon

existing state and local support for

restorative justice initiatives and victim

empowerment through guided focus

group discussions. Local court jurisdictions in four participating states were

chosen because the state had recently

adopted, or was in the process of developing, new victims’ rights legislation relevant to victims of juvenile offenders, 

and the state had recently adopted new

policies and/or statutes based upon the

balanced approach and restorative justice. The four focus group sites were

Harrisburg, PA, St. Paul, MN, West Palm

Beach, FL, and Sacramento, CA.

Victim participants in 1 state were selected from a random pool derived from a list

of 30 cases identified by the court. Since

this approach was not viable in the remaining three states, victim advocates

generated a list of potential participants.

The 18 victim participants selected included 9 victims of violent crimes and 9

victims of property crimes. Judge participants were identified through lists provided by judicial training organizations 

in each regional circuit. A total of 20

judges participated in the 4 focus groups.

Diversity of gender, age, ethnicity, and

political philosophy was achieved in both

the victim and judge groups.

Project Purpose and

Methodology

■ Provide rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into the community (Maloney, D., D. Romig, and T.

Armstrong, 1988; Bazemore, 

G., and S. Day, 1996).

The restorative justice view is that true

balance is achieved only when the needs

of victims, offenders, and the community

are considered in each case and within

the system as a whole.

Restorative justice elevates the role of

the victim in the juvenile justice process

by giving high priority to victim involvement and reparation (Bazemore, G., and

M. Umbreit, 1995). For years, juvenile

justice systems focused only on the needs

and risks of offenders, leaving victims

with a lot of catching up to do. Most juvenile justice systems will need to give

primary attention to increasing their responsiveness to the needs of crime 

victims. While advocating for the rights

of victims and their involvement in the

system, restorative justice also concerns

itself with the needs of offenders and

communities. In fact, restorative justice

recognizes three stakeholders or coparticipants in any “justice” process—the victim, the offender, and the community

(Zehr, H., 1990; Van Ness, D., 1993).

Each forum began with an overview of

the project goals, a brief review of state

and national changes in victims’ rights

legislation affecting juvenile courts, and

a short presentation of restorative justice

principles and practices. The protocol 

for each focus group process included the

following:

■ Consideration of a series of questions designed to elicit responses

about victims’ roles and needs

throughout the juvenile justice

process.

■ Discussion of what a “continuum of

services” for victims within the juvenile court should include.

■ Identification of barriers to victim

services within the juvenile court

setting and discussion of how to

overcome them.

■ Development of recommendations

for improving juvenile court and

the juvenile justice system.

Two detailed discussion guides containing the questions were developed by the

project staff. Judges, victims, and victim

advocates were divided into separate

groups and asked identical questions.

Opportunities were provided for the

groups to share ideas with the entire

group and for discussion among the combined group of victims, victim advocates,

and judges. Individual worksheets asked

participants to rank the importance of

the barriers to victim involvement and

application of restorative justice practices. This stimulated the expression of

opinions, even among the less outgoing 

participants.

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through Restorative Justice
Several victims described a “domino effect” of the juvenile’s action

upon their families and friends. 

Some of the judges equated victim

involvement with the disruptive

presence of victims in court 

proceedings.

—Focus Group comments

The findings of the project were 

interesting. The opinions and insights

of the victims in all four focus groups

were nearly unanimous. Conversely, the 

perspectives of the judges in all four 

states varied as much as the victims’ 

responses were similar.

Victims’ Observations 

■ Virtually all victim participants 

found the juvenile court and justice

system experience predominately

negative. Victim participants were

also nearly unanimous in their dissatisfaction with the court process.

■ Victims felt there was often a lack 

of respect for their dignity as 

human beings.

■ Most victims felt they had received

little acknowledgment as victims.

■ All victim participants felt that 

crime victims should be considered and treated as “clients” of 

the juvenile court.

■ Many victims reported that juvenile

court professionals lacked understanding about the victimization 

experience and demonstrated a 

generally insensitive attitude.

■ Most victims reported they lacked

general understanding of the court

process and had received little information about their own cases.

■ Most victims were less interested in

punishment for its own sake than in

seeing that juvenile justice professionals followed through with their 

commitment to hold offenders 

accountable, especially for 

restitution.

■ A number of victims expressed 

strong interest in offender rehabilitation; several became personally

involved in offender treatment 

programs.

■ Victims agreed unanimously that information about their cases was very

important to them but typically inadequate. Equally critical to victims

was an opportunity to be heard and

to have input into the offender’s

disposition.

■ Victims were very open to the use

of restorative justice practices as

long as participation remained voluntary. A few victims had participated in mediation and other processes.

The victims generally believed 

that more restorative alternatives 

to traditional court processes are

needed.

Judges’ Observations

In restorative justice, the crime victim,

the community, and the offender are all

viewed as critical stakeholders in the response to crime. As presented here and

discussed in restorative justice literature

(Dooley, M., 1995; Bazemore, G., and C.

Washington, 1995), the crime victim is

referred to as the “client,” which is defined in two parts.

In restorative justice, when an agency

views an individual crime victim as a 

legitimate recipient of the agency’s services, the agency refers to that individual

as a “client.” Prior to the introduction of

restorative justice ideas and principles,

the concept of victim as client was not a

part of the traditional ideology and mission of juvenile courts. In earlier times,

crime victims and judges considered several questions to determine the status of

the victim, such as “Is the victim indeed

a client?” and “If so, what does this mean

in terms of expectations for the court?”

The second part of the definition of

client comes from the literature of total

quality management and reinventing

government (Osborne, D., and T.

Gaebler, 1992), which defines a client

as an active customer expected to be involved in the decisionmaking processes of

an agency (Pennsylvania Juvenile Court

Judges Commission, 1997). In this sense,

judges and victims were asked a number

of questions about the role of victims as

participants in various parts of the court

process.

In the focus group findings of this project,

the general consensus among the participating judges was that a victim is indeed

a client of the juvenile justice system and

has some role in juvenile court. All the

judges were more comfortable with the

notion of the victim as a client of the

whole system rather than of only the court

in the narrow sense of the term. The distinction between the system and the court

is a very important one because the court,

varying by jurisdiction, may include numerous agencies and staff, including the

judge, clerical support staff, probation and

parole staff, victim services staff, and a

range of special programs and staff.

The variations in the judges’ views of victims as “clients” focused on several

themes, including the following:

OVC Bulletin

6

Focus Group Findings
■ Judges were nearly unanimous in

their agreement about the importance of victim access to reliable

information about their cases.

Judges generally wanted to increase

the openness of the court process.

However, in one state, judges were

strongly opposed to victims receiving information about the offender’s

background.

■ Judges generally agreed that 

improvements are needed in

processes involving victim 

notification, victim participation,

victim impact statements, and 

restitution to victims.

■ While nearly unanimous in their

support for improving restitution

and restorative community service,

judges indicated more mixed support

for restorative processes, such as

victim-offender mediation, circle

sentencing, and other forms of

restorative conferencing that seek to

give victims and other citizens an

empowered role in dispositional and

diversion decisions.

Victims as Involved

Stakeholders

The most victim-sensitive judges

also reported that they valued the

input of “live victims” and felt

that this input via direct allocution

was far too rare. 

. . . crime victims aren’t interested in “gossip” about juveniles 

and their families, but they do

want access to information such

as prior records, how decisions

are being made, and what might

have motivated the offender to

harm them.

—Focus Group comments

7

■ The status of the victims relative to

the offenders, families, and others.

■ The differences between property

and violent crime victims.

■ The point in the process at which a

victim becomes a client.

■ The apparent motivation of victims

to participate.

■ Limits on what kind of information should be available to victims.

■ Judges’ perceptions regarding the

value of alternative, informal dispositional options designed to actively

include victims in decisionmaking.

■ Judges’ perceptions regarding the

challenges to judicial impartiality

presented by victim involvement in

the court process.

■ Judges’ expressed feelings of helplessness in responding to victims’

needs, due largely to lack of coordination among the court, the

prosecutor’s office, and probation

services.

■ Judges’ near unanimous report of

low rates of victim participation in

the court process. Judges were divided on whether the lack of victim involvement in the process is due to

the victims’ lack of motivation or

the unfriendliness of the court.

■ A few judges felt that victims are

often emotionally incapable of 

rationally participating in the court

process. Many judges felt that victims are often inadequately prepared

for their juvenile court experience.

Some judges viewed court process

and management, rather than 

victim attitude and behavior, as 

the primary cause of victim 

dissatisfaction.

Crime Victims’ Perspectives

Victims in all four focus groups unanimously agreed that victims have an

important role in the juvenile justice

process. Interestingly, their concept 

of “role” at times equated directly to

victims’ rights, with a significant emphasis on the rights to information and 

participation. As one victim noted:

When every situation starts, you

have rights . . . (the) right to go to

court. I was not informed, nor did I

have the right to be heard. They

did not have time for me and I was

not heard. I think if you are a victim that you should be properly notified of all hearings . . . if a deal is

going to be cut, the victim is the

one who should be able to cut the

deal—not somebody else. You have

$50,000 (in losses), and the prosecutor says the restitution is $1,000.

I think it’s hard to take.

Several victims pointed out the need for

their roles to be defined by agency policy,

in addition to state law. The lack of consistency in victims’ roles is directly linked

to the lack of consistency among jurisdictions within states and the absence of a

“unified system.” As it is now, both juvenile justice processes and related victims’

rights vary greatly depending upon the

jurisdiction. The need for consistent policies is emphasized by a victim advocate

who said:

We need some clear-cut guidelines

so that we know what the victims’

rights are. In each county, it is different, and the rights of the victims

change. It makes it hard on victim

services to tell the victims what

their rights might be. There is

nothing clear-cut across the line.

One victim emphasized that “the victim’s

role should be his or her choice.” This

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through Restorative Justice
OVC Bulletin

8

statement mirrors the longstanding position of most victim advocates that victims should be given power and control 

over issues that affect their lives in the aftermath of a crime. This position is based

on the premise that victims do not choose

to be victims, and they have little or no

control over the crime or delinquent act

that resulted in their victimization. 

While the victims’ role is often limited to

that of witness to the crime, participating

victims agreed that they had much more

to offer in the way of relevant information that needed to be heard in court. As

one victim advocate noted:

We would like to see that there is

an opportunity for victims to meet

with judges or court personnel.

[One survivor] thought there were

things she could have said to the

judge at some point in time about

her son. There was a lot of information that was given in the courtroom about the offender. There

ought to be personal information

about the life of the homicide victim.

Judges’ Perspectives

Some of the most vocal judges in one

state expressed general opposition to victim input at any stage other than disposition, at which time they approved only

victim impact statements. However, the

judges generally agreed that crime victims

could play meaningful roles throughout

the juvenile justice process. Variation was

centered on the desirability of victim

input, the most efficient ways to obtain

input, the nature of this input, and the

relative appropriateness and usefulness of

input at different stages of the process.

A majority of judges seemed open, if not

favorably inclined, toward victim input

into diversion decisions. Judges in every

state expressed the view that victims

should have, as one judge noted, “input

but not discretion” in this front-end decision. Judges were asked about whether

and how victims’ voices might be given

consideration in the plea agreement

process. With the exception of the aforementioned state, where this option for

victim involvement was not discussed,

judges in the other groups agreed that

plea-bargaining was a critical stage for

victims’ input. Judges agreed that “respectful input” should be sought at this

stage, although one judge noted that

“people (i.e., professionals) in the system

must have the most significant input.” One

judge speculated that it was in those cases

in which victims have input into the plea

bargain, and then appear for a dispositional hearing, that their presence and involvement “provides the magic” that can

come from meaningful involvement in

the court process.

How to promote such meaningful involvement was a more difficult issue.

Should the victim’s advocate make it a

point to get involved in the plea agreement meeting and would that be feasible?

Would it be enough for police to provide

an accurate pamphlet explaining the

court process, including plea agreements?

According to some judges (and some

members of the victims’ groups), victims

who become informed figure out that the

plea-bargaining process is the point at

which a critical decision will be made, so

they find ways to voice their preferences

and concerns—generally through the

prosecutor. Even judges who were most

favorable toward input at this stage saw

many practical difficulties in making this

happen. Some suggested that input at

plea bargaining be encouraged but carried

out on a case-by-case basis.

With very little disagreement among the

judges that victims should have some role

at disposition, the discussions at this

point revolved around who was responsible for notification and how the process

could be improved, given the generally

low rate of victim participation in these

jurisdictions. A secondary issue for some

judges was that victims should be prepared (“lowered expectations” was a term

used more than once) for the possible

outcomes in a dispositional hearing.

Notification is a tremendous problem in

those courts in which arraignment hearings are used to accomplish a number of

other court objectives, including much of

the work of adjudication and disposition.

Time between such preliminary decisions

and dispositional rulings creates windows

of opportunity for notification that are

often very narrow.

An issue that assumed much greater importance than expected generally, and in

disposition discussions specifically, was

the victim impact statement. Somewhat

surprisingly, judges almost unanimously

reported reading these statements quite

carefully and relying on them for their information about harm done to victims. To

place this in context, the judges most

sensitive to victims also reported that

they valued the input of “actual victims”

and felt that this input was far too rare.

One judge exclaimed that he had grown

tired of hearing that there is no time for

verbal statements by victims and stated

the following:

There is time if we just build in

opportunities for it . . . often it

only takes two or three minutes . . .

and it’s worth it because the 

victim needs to ventilate whether

or not the judge needs the extra 

information.

According to another judge, the victim’s

verbal statement is also of vital importance to the offender and to others in the

courtroom. Judges also valued good written victim impact statements as a key to

dispositional decisionmaking. In two

states, however, judges reported that
9

written statements lacked the impact

they might have. One judge noted:

Impact statements have become 

so routine that sometimes they

seem canned . . . they seem too

clean and homogenized, so that

they don’t really have the “impact”

we think they should have.

Surprisingly, the issue of confidentiality in

dispositional proceedings received limited

discussion among judges. Only two states

raised it as a concern. Judges in one state

expressed concern that some information

was sensitive but agreed that judges’ instructions to victims and other hearing

participants to keep these materials 

confidential were enough to ensure the

protection of offenders and families.

Similarly, when the most “pro-victim”

judges considered confidentiality, the 

discussion focused on how judges could

use their discretion to get around 

prohibitions against openness at the 

dispositional phase.

Exception to this general support for

openness and accessibility came from

judges in one state who believed that information likely to be presented in a dispositional hearing might be embarrassing

to offenders and their families, perhaps

even ultimately harmful. When the moderator in a general group dialogue in this

state raised the general issue of how much

victim participation was needed at dispositions, a judge raised the issue of the

need to prohibit victims from hearing

certain information about the offender’s

background:

There is another important factor

that you have in juvenile court,

that of confidentiality. And the

problem with victim input when

we are talking about a juvenile who

may have been sexually abused,

chemical dependency, psychiatric 

evaluations . . . it cannot be the

same as adult court because that 

information is confidential, and 

no victim is entitled to know.

Especially in the nonpublic hearing, and even in public hearings,

we get to kick the public out when

we get to (the point of) speaking

about psychological evaluations

during hearings . . . and no 

statute has taken away that 

confidentiality.

Following the objections to this statement by several victim participants, a

participating prosecutor informed them

that they were “not entitled to this personal information.” This was seconded by

a judge who argued that “these families

were ashamed, and they didn’t want victims to hear everything.” In response, a

victim observed that the juveniles who

burglarized her home “found out everything about me and my family.” Others

commented that crime victims weren’t

interested in “gossip” about juveniles and

their families, but did want access to information such as prior records, how decisions were made, and what might have

motivated the offender to choose to harm

them. Another judge concluded this

rather lively interchange by saying that

no matter how much he and his colleagues tried to protect confidentiality,

“in [this state], we’re going to open it

[confidentiality] up—we’re just crazy

enough to open it up.”

The Viability of

Restorative Justice

Practices

A

ll participants were provided with

brief overviews of 10 restorative

justice practices:

■ Community reparation boards.

■ Community/neighborhood impact

statements.

■ Family group conferencing.

■ Victim-offender mediation.

■ Restitution to crime victims.

■ Restorative community service.

■ Victim awareness education 

programs.

■ Victim impact panels.

■ Victim impact statements.

■ Victim notification of the youthful

offender’s status.

In order of ranking, the following are 

the most highly rated restorative justice

practices among victims in all four 

focus groups:

■ Victim notification.

■ Victim impact statements.

■ Victim restitution.

From victim participants in all four states,

the following recurring themes relating to

restorative justice practices emerged:

■ The focus of restorative justice on

offender accountability was lauded 

and appreciated.

■ Many victims expressed interest in

participating in restorative justice

processes to help youthful offenders

and hopefully prevent them from

victimizing others in the future.

■ Generally, victims appreciated the

opportunities afforded by restorative

justice to obtain more information

and to confront their offenders in a

manner that could be beneficial to 

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through Restorative Justice
OVC Bulletin

10

both. However, group discussion emphasized that the victim’s choice to

voluntarily participate in these options was crucial to successful

restorative justice processes.

On the whole, judges and victims’ groups

agreed about the paramount importance

of notification and input. Relative to victims’ groups, judges gave higher priority

to restitution. Consistent with the high

value placed on restitution as a means of

holding offenders accountable to victims

and the community, judges also responded favorably to paid public service programs that ensured earning opportunities

for offenders who owed restitution. Judges

were also strongly supportive of restorative community service—especially when

this involved input from victims and/or

allowed juveniles to work on meaningful

civic improvement projects with neighborhood adults. Victim-offender mediation and newer practices such as

community reparation boards, family

group conferencing, and neighborhood

impact panels received more equivocal

support, partly because judges were less

familiar with them.

Meeting Victims’

Needs: Role of the

Juvenile Court and

Justice System

Victims’ Views

Regardless of whether victim participants had experienced violent or property

crimes, they agreed on what victims need

from the juvenile court and justice system. Participants were asked to describe

the ideal continuum of victim services

throughout the juvenile justice process.

Their responses, provided below, identified victims’ needs as well as what can

and should be done to meet such needs.

Victims want law enforcement to

■ Treat victims with respect.

■ Provide support and assistance.

■ Provide some form of victim 

services.

■ Not blame the victim for the crime.

■ Provide information to victims.

■ Provide information that victims’ 

insurance companies need for 

reimbursement of losses.

■ Promptly return property.

■ Offer consistency in victim services.

■ Receive death notification training

to increase sensitivity.

■ Notify victims about options of 

community-based diversion.

■ Seek training from victims who

want to help improve the system.

■ Participate in cross-training with

other professionals in the juvenile

justice system.

Victims want the prosecution to

■ Go beyond “code.” Understand the

human element of the case.

■ Reduce charges against the offender

only with proper notification of, 

explanation to, and input from 

victims.

■ Provide information to the victims.

■ Monitor and support enforcement 

of sanctions and conditions of the

sanctions.

■ Pay more attention to the juvenile

offender’s prior record.

■ In serious cases, talk to the victim

before the hearing.

■ Talk to the victim before a plea

agreement.

■ After adjudication, talk to the

victim. Explain reasons for actions.

Listen to the victims’ concerns.

■ Provide a brochure that explains

juvenile justice system terminology.

■ Provide referrals for victim 

assistance.

■ Provide victim services such as

counseling, separate waiting areas,

babysitting for witnesses.

■ Always ask the prosecutor to ask the

court for restitution.

■ Attend sensitivity training.

Victims want judges to

■ Acknowledge victims. Saying “I’m

sorry” is okay.

■ Have full knowledge of the 

case—both victim and offender 

perspectives.

■ Seek cross-agency collaboration.

■ Ask whether the victim is present

before the hearing starts.

■ Make quicker dispositions.

■ Monitor and enforce dispositions.

■ Ensure that the reoffender is seen 

by the same judge on each court appearance by using an alphabetized

case management system or some

other method.

■ Promote more parental accountability and involvement.
11

■ Require the probation office to

promptly inform the court of 

violations of court orders.

■ Issue clear restitution orders with

precise dollar amounts and payment

schedules.

■ Order restitution if the victim wants

it, and make it payable to whom the

victim chooses—either to the victim

or to a worthy group identified by

the victim.

■ Be leaders in applying balanced and

restorative justice principles.

■ Pay attention to each case. Don’t

play cards in court.

■ Explain various aspects of the 

court process. 

■ Meet victims’ needs; treat them 

with sensitivity and respect.

■ Understand that the primary source

of juvenile court problems is how

victims are treated by court personnel and processes rather than what

judges perceive to be the victims’

lack of education.

Victims want probation to

■ Work hand in hand with victims.

■ Provide all information necessary 

to the judge to make informed 

decisions.

■ Let victims know about compliance

and violations.

■ Collect and disburse restitution.

■ Provide offenders with youth training, rehabilitation, counseling, and

treatment.

■ Hold offenders accountable for their

actions by enforcing court orders.

■ Collect information from victims

about the impact of the crime.

■ Provide protection for the community and the victims by keeping dangerous juveniles off the streets.

Victims want juvenile corrections to

■ Provide status or progress reports.

■ Notify the victim about the offender’s release.

■ Provide victim awareness programming for offenders.

■ Provide opportunities for victim

restitution (including restitution

from inmate trust accounts).

■ Continue to pursue collection of

restitution for victims.

Victims want juvenile parole/aftercare to

■ Notify victims of relevant hearings.

■ Accept victim impact statements.

■ Provide victims with emergency

transportation to hearings.

■ Provide victims with supportive accompaniment at hearings.

■ Provide protective measures to 

victims as special conditions of parole/aftercare.

■ Share information about victims 

and offenders with juvenile justice

agencies.

Victims want the overall system to

■ Validate victims’ personal 

experiences.

■ Share case information.

■ Provide victim advocates or “victim

liaisons” at every point in the 

system.

■ Offer a centralized system for monitoring, collecting, and disbursing

restitution.

■ Encourage more dialogue between

the system and victims; incorporate

victim participation in the system.

Judges’ Views

Judges in each focus group were asked

to consider what they viewed as the most 

important needs of crime victims. As

leaders in the juvenile court, judges have

the power to prioritize services and modify processes to impact victim satisfaction.

Judges’ beliefs about what victims want

and need, and the role and responsibility

of the court in meeting these needs, are

of great importance.

In general, judges in all focus groups

ranked several key victims’ needs as high.

The need for information was ranked

high by each group, including notification about hearings and court processes,

restitution, and safety issues. Other victims’ needs were less consistently mentioned by judges, such as being treated

with dignity and respect and being allowed maximum input into court proceedings. In contrast, these latter needs

had been a primary focus of discussion in

victims’ groups.

Finally, some judges expressed the belief

that victims have motivations in addition

to those listed by participating crime victims, such as a need for vengeance, a

need to use the court process for “therapy

or catharsis,” a need for reconciliation,

and a need to control, rather than simply

to have input into, the court’s dispositional process. At times, the judges’ perception of victims’ needs suggested a 

Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through Restorative Justice
OVC Bulletin

12

paternalistic, if not pejorative, view of

juvenile crime victims (Viano, E., 1996).

A theme addressed extensively in two

judges’ groups was the lack of education

given to victims about the court process.

This problem, which was said to lead victims to unrealistic expectations about the

court process, appeared to be viewed as

the dominant problem in some groups.

Participating victims agreed that much

about the court process was a mystery to

them. In fact, in two groups, victims expressed appreciation to participating

judges for explaining various aspects of

the court process. However, victims were

more likely to conclude that the failure of

the court to meet their needs and treat

victims with sensitivity and respect,

rather than victims’ perceived lack of education, were the primary sources of

juvenile court problems.

Perhaps because it has been a visible

component of juvenile court dispositions

for almost 20 years and is the most tangible response to crime victims, the need

for restitution was discussed most often in

the judges’ groups. Generally, judges acknowledged court responsibility for ensuring restitution to victims, although they

often faulted probation or other court

staff for failing to ensure restitution 

collection.

Judges offered the following solutions on

how juvenile courts could best meet 

victims’ needs:

■ Continue dialogue with victims and

their advocates in forums similar to

the focus groups in this project.

■ Conduct a complete court and system audit of victim notification

processes to determine where breakdowns occur and where opportunities for victim verbal and written

input exist.

■ Institute ongoing meetings among

restorative justice practitioners,

judges, and court administration

personnel to further understand and

strengthen working relationships.

■ Train judges to ensure active monitoring of juvenile courts and the juvenile justice system, focusing on

victims’ interests and needs, use of

victim impact statements, improving

the approach to restitution, and case

flow management.

■ Hold presentations about restorative

justice at judicial conferences.

■ Demonstrate judicial leadership in

engaging the community as an

active partner in affecting juvenile

court purposes, juvenile justice system achievements, and restorative

justice practices.

■ Provide judicial support and advocacy for expanding public and private

funding of practices that assist victims and help meet victims’ needs.

■ Provide judicial leadership to enable

funding of paid public service work

programs for juveniles who owe

restitution.

■ Provide judicial leadership to encourage use of mediation and additional alternative dispute resolution

approaches to contest case hearings.

■ Expand court management practices

that reduce victims’ time in court

waiting rooms, promote case disposition promptness, and provide management information system data

that judges and court managers can

use to discern causes for delays in

court processing.

A final overarching recommendation was

for judges to exercise leadership with 

policymakers and the local community on

behalf of crime victims. Specifically,

judges should work to ensure that restorative justice objectives are added to purpose clauses of juvenile court codes. At a

more concrete level, judges can promote

restorative justice principles by using

their ability to directly change court administrative standards (Edwards, L., 1993;

Rubin, T., 1988, 1997).

Summary and

Conclusion

Overall, judges and victim participants explored a range of actionsand strategies to improve the responses of courts and the juvenile justice

system to crime victims. The discussions

included system audits; more extensive

and strategic use of victim advocates;

expanded citizen involvement; and improvements in victim notification, impact

statements, and restitution collection and

monitoring. In addition, judges and

victims learned more about restorative

justice, giving careful consideration to

effective application of restorative

principles and practices as part of a

comprehensive strategy for improving

court and juvenile justice system 

responses to crime victims.

As an additional project objective, the

focus groups demonstrated that they were

an effective process for jurisdictions to use

to achieve expanded and continuous dialogue among crime victims, their advocates, and juvenile justice professionals.

Group participants expressed appreciation

for the helpful dialogue generated in the

focus group discussions. Many participants stated that they hoped this format

could be used on a continuing basis at the

local level. Perhaps the most significant

outcome of the project is that similar

focus groups have been held or are being
Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through Restorative Justice

13

planned in each jurisdiction that participated in this meeting.

For Further

Information

Office for Victims of Crime

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW., Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

Phone: 202–307–5983 

Fax: 202–514–6383

Word Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/

Office for Victims of Crime Resource

Center (OVCRC)

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Phone: 1– 800–627–6872 or 

301–519–5500

E-mail for print publication orders: 

puborder@ncjrs.org

E-mail for questions: askovc@ncjrs.org

Community Justice Institute

Florida Atlantic University

220 SE. Second Avenue, Room 612C

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301–1905

Phone: 954–762–5668 

Fax: 954–762–5626

E-mail: Bazemor@fau.edu

U.S. Department of Justice 

Response Center

Phone: 1–800–421–6770 or 

202–307–1480

Response Center staff are available

Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

eastern time.

Bibliography

Bazemore, G., and S. Day. Restoring the

Balance in the Response to Youth Crime:

Juvenile Justice and Community Justice.

Juvenile Justice 3:1:3–14, Dec. 1996. 

Bazemore, G., and M. Umbreit. Balanced

and Restorative Justice for Juveniles.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice, 1995. 

Bazemore, G., and C. Washington.

Charting the Future of the Juvenile

Justice System: Reinventing Mission and

Management. Spectrum: The Journal of

State Government 682:51–66, 1995.

Bazemore, G., and M. Umbreit.

Conferences, Circles, Boards and

Mediations: Restorative Justice and Citizen

Involvement in the Response to Youth Crime.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project,

U.S. Department of Justice, 1999.

Dooley, M. Reparative Probation Program.

Burlington, VT: Vermont Department of

Corrections, 1995.

Edwards, L. The Juvenile Court and the

Role of the Juvenile Court Judge. Juvenile

& Family Court Journal 432:1–45, 1993. 

Feld, B. The Criminal Court Alternative

to Perpetuating Juvenile Injustice. The

Juvenile Court: Dynamic, Dysfunctional, or

Dead? Philadelphia, PA: Center for the

Study of Youth Policy, School of Social

Work, University of Pennsylvania, pp.

3–13, 1993.

Feld, B. The Punitive Juvenile Court 

and the Quality of Procedural Justice:

Distinctions Between Rhetoric and

Reality. Crime & Delinquency 36:4, 1990.

Leip, L., and G. Bazemore. Victim Needs,

Restorative Justice and the Juvenile

Court: An Exploratory Study of U.S.

Judges. Juvenile Justice and Detention

(In press).

Lemov, P. The Assault on Juvenile

Justice. Governing December:26–31, 1994.

Maloney, D., D. Romig, and T.

Armstrong. Juvenile Probation: The

Balanced Approach. Reno, NV: National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, 1988.

O’Brien, S. Restorative Justice in the States:

A National Survey of Policy and Practices.

Orlando, FL: Academy for Criminal

Justice Sciences, 1999.

Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler. Reinventing

Government. Reading, MA: Addison

Wesley, 1992.

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges

Commission. Balanced and Restorative

Justice in Pennsylvania: A New Mission and

Changing Roles Within the Juvenile Justice

System. Harrisburg, PA: Juvenile Court

Judges’ Commission, 1997.

Rubin, T. Fulfilling Juvenile Restitution Requirements in Community

Correctional Programs. Federal Probation

53:32–42, 1988.

Rubin, T. Dakota County, Minnesota:

Repairing Harm and Holding Juveniles

Accountable. Juvenile Justice Update

August/September:3–11, 1997.

Seymour, A., Looking Back, Moving

Forward—Crime Victims & Restorative

Justice. The ICCA Journal 81:13–17,

1997.

Seymour, A., and S. English, eds. Report

and Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile

Offenders. Laurel, MD: American

Correctional Association Victims’

Committee, 1994.

Van Ness, D. New Wine and Old

Wineskins: Four Challenges of

Restorative Justice. Criminal Law 

Forum 42:251–276, 1993.

Viano, E. Stereotyping and Prejudice:

Crime Victims and the Criminal Justice
Additional Resources

Bazemore, G., and L. Feder. Judges in the

Punitive Juvenile Court: Organizational,

Career, and Ideological Influences on

Sanctioning Orientation. Justice

Quarterly 41:87–114, 1997.

Stewart, D., and P. Shasmdai. Focus

Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and

Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, 1994.

System. Studies on Crime and Crime

Prevention 5:2:182–203. Oslo, Norway:

Scandinavian University Press, 1996. 

Wilkinson, R. Back to Basics. Corrections

Today 59(7):6, 1997.

Young, M. Restorative Community Justice:

A Call to Action. Washington, DC:

National Organization for Victim

Assistance, 1995.

Zehr, H. Changing Lenses: A New Focus

for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, PA:

Herald Press, 1990.

OVC Bulletin

14

Acknowledgments

OVC gratefully acknowledges the

Community Justice Institute at Florida

Atlantic University for its fine efforts

in managing this project. OVC also

gratefully acknowledges the project’s

principal investigators and writers:

Gordon Bazemore, Ph.D., Principal

This document was prepared by the

Community Justice Institute at Florida

Atlantic University under grant number

97–VF–GX–K013, awarded by the Office

for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.The

opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department

of Justice.

The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

NCJ 179383

Investigator, College of Urban and

Public Affairs; Anne Seymour, Coprincipal Investigator, Victim Advocate;

Susan Day, Ph.D., Project Manager;

and Ted Rubin, Senior Research

Associate.
ORDER FORM

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

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

Please send the collection to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or fax it to 410–792–4358.

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

in your community? Would you like to contact other victim-offender programs and obtain information on what other programs are doing? Do you need information on how to

effectively serve victims in a cross-cultural mediation forum?

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

resource series that provides guidance on establishing victim-sensitive restorative 

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

judicial agencies, religious groups, victim service organizations, community-based organizations, or others interested in a restorative conflict resolution process.

The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection includes the following documents:

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

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

Through Dialogue

■ Multicultural Implications of Restorative Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers

■ Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

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

The RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

and MEDIATION COLLECTION
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OVC

PERMIT NO. G–91