Guidelines for

Victim-Sensitive

Victim-Offender

Mediation:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

Restorative

Justice Through

Dialogue

Center for

Restorative Justice

& Peacemaking

University of Minnesota

April 2000

Advocating for the Fair 

 Treatment of Crime Victims

Office for Victims of Crime
This document was prepared by the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking

(formerly the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation) under grant number

96–VF–GX–K006, awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Kathryn M. Turman

Director, Office for Victims of Crime

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Office for Victims of Crime 

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

OVC Resource Center

1–800–627–6872

OVC Resource Center Home Page

www.ncjrs.org

The Office for Victims of Crime 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 of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

NCJ 176346
Guidelines for

Victim-Sensitive

Victim-Offender

Mediation:

Restorative 

Justice Through

Dialogue

Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director 

Jean Greenwood, M.Div., Former Training Coordinator

Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking 

(formerly Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation)

School of Social Work

University of Minnesota

St. Paul, Minnesota

April 2000

NCJ 176346

Advocating for the Fair 

 Treatment of Crime Victims

Office for Victims of Crime
Cover images © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.
iii

Message From the Director

This collection of six documents covers a number of important issues related to restorative

justice. Four of the documents focus on victim-offender mediation, which is a major programmatic intervention that fully embraces the concepts of restorative justice. The first

of these documents is the Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation:

Restorative Justice Through Dialogue, which assists administrators in developing or

enhancing their restorative justice programs. It provides practical guidance for mediators

to facilitate balanced and fair mediation, which will ensure the safety and integrity of all

the participants. The National Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United

States contains information about the characteristics of the various victim-offender mediation programs operating nationwide and the major issues facing them in their day-to-day

operations. The Survey describes the actual functioning of the programs, while the

Guidelines sets standards for the practice of victim-offender mediation. Next, the Directory

of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States lists all identified victimoffender mediation programs in the country and provides their addresses, phone numbers,

and contact and other basic information. The purpose of the Directory is to provide easy

access for persons who would like to contact a given program. The Family Group

Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims document discusses a related form of restorative justice dialogue that originated in New Zealand and Australia and has been replicated

in some communities in the United States. The Multicultural Implications of Restorative

Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers document informs practitioners about concerns

regarding the implementation of such frameworks when working with persons of crosscultural perspectives. The sixth document, entitled Victim-Offender Mediation and

Dialogue in Crimes of Severe Violence, will be added to the collection late FY 2000. It

will provide case study evidence suggesting that many of the principles of restorative justice can be applied to crimes of severe violence, including murder. In addition, this document includes a discussion about the need for advanced training for persons working with

victims of severe violence.

The Office for Victims of Crime does not insist that every victim participate in victimoffender mediation, family group conferencing, or other restorative justice intervention.

Such participation is a personal decision that each victim must make for herself or himself.

We strongly advocate, however, that all restorative justice programs be extremely sensitive

to the needs and concerns of the victims who would like to meet with their offenders. No

pressure should be placed on victims to participate, for participation must be strictly voluntary. Victims should be granted a choice in the location, timing, and structure of the session

and a right to end their participation at any stage in the process. These protections for victims do not mean that offenders can be treated insensitively. Both victim and offender must

be dealt with respectfully.

We sincerely hope that restorative justice programs already in operation in probation or

parole agencies, judicial agencies, religious groups, victim service organizations, communitybased organizations, or elsewhere study these documents and embrace the victim-sensitive 

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
iv

guidelines that are relevant to their particular type of intervention. Restorative justice programs can only be strengthened by operating with heightened awareness of the needs of

crime victims. 

Kathryn M. Turman

Director

Office for Victims of Crime
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

v

Acknowledgments

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) would like to offer special thanks to authors Mark

S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director, and Jean Greenwood, M.Div., former Training Coordinator, of

the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking (formerly the Center for Restorative

Justice & Mediation), School of Social Work, University of Minnesota. We would also like

to acknowledge the valuable contributions of review and commentary made by Carolyn

McLeod, Coordinator of Victim-Offender Conferencing for Washington County Court

Services in Minnesota; Marlene Young, Executive Director of the National Organization

for Victim Assistance; and Ann Warner Roberts in her dual role as both the Community

Outreach Director of the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of

Minnesota School of Social Work, and a member of the Board of Directors of the VictimOffender Mediation Association (VOMA).

We recognize the valuable contribution of other members of the Board of Directors of

VOMA who played a critical role in providing input and the VOMA mailing list that was

the foundation of the national survey of programs and the guidelines presented in this document. We also thank the many staff who took the time to participate in the Center’s phone

interviews about victim-offender mediation program and practices. In addition, we would

like to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by Robert Schug, Administrative Aide

at the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, who spent many hours preparing the

document and responding to numerous requests for draft copies.

This project also benefited greatly from the contributions, guidance, and support of Susan

Laurence, the Project Manager at OVC. This Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection

is the result of the efforts of many individuals in the field who generously shared their

materials and experiences with the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking so that

victims may be provided with additional options in the process of healing.
vii

Contents

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................ix

I. Victim-Offender Mediation: A National Perspective ......................................................1

What Is It?..................................................................................................................1

When Are Cases Referred?........................................................................................2

How Is It Different From Other Kinds of Mediation? ..............................................2

Are Crime Victims Interested? ..................................................................................4

How Many Programs Exist? ......................................................................................4

What Have We Learned From Research?..................................................................5

II. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation and Dialogue With Offenders......................7

Purpose of Victim-Offender Mediation ....................................................................7

Underlying Principles of Victim-Offender Mediation ..............................................7

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation ..............................................................8

III. Recommendations for Program Development ..............................................................17

Program Recommendations ....................................................................................17

Training Recommendations ....................................................................................21

IV. Summary ........................................................................................................................25

Appendix A. Results of Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs 

in the United States ......................................................................................27

Appendix B. What Is Humanistic Mediation?....................................................................39

Appendix C. Profiles of Programs......................................................................................43

Appendix D. Promising Practices ......................................................................................53

Bibliography..........................................................................................................................61

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

ix

Executive Summary

The process of allowing interested crime victims to meet offenders in the presence of

trained mediators now occurs in nearly 300 communities in the United States and more

than 700 communities in Europe. When victim-offender mediation originated in Canada in

1974 and in the United States in 1978, there were only a handful of programs. With the

growing interest in restorative justice and the rapid expansion of victim-offender mediation

programs, it is important to gain a clear understanding of how the field is developing and

becoming highly responsive and sensitive to the needs of crime victims. Every effort must

be made to ensure that victims are not used simply as tools for offender rehabilitation, as

they are in the dominant offender-driven juvenile and criminal justice systems. At the same

time, the needs of offenders must also be considered.

This monograph presents specific criteria and recommendations to enhance the overall

quality of victim-offender mediation programs and promote far more victim-sensitive practices in the field. The material presented is grounded in a yearlong assessment of the most

current practices in the field, based on a nationwide survey. The material focuses on the

practice of victim-offender mediation and dialogue regarding property crimes and minor

assaults, the kinds of offenses typically addressed through mediation. A small but growing

number of victims of severe violence are requesting to meet with their offenders. This is,

however, an intensive and lengthy process that requires advanced training for the mediator.

Fully addressing the multitude of issues related to working with severely violent victimizations such as sexual assault, attempted homicide, or murder is beyond the scope of this

monograph.

The growing interest in victim-offender mediation arises from its capability to facilitate a

real and understandable sense of justice for those most directly affected by crime: victims,

victimized communities, and offenders. Victim-offender mediation breathes life into the

emerging concept of restorative justice by asking, who was harmed, how can the harm be

addressed, and who is held accountable for what happened. It seeks more balanced and

effective juvenile and criminal justice systems that recognize the need to involve and serve

victims and victimized communities. At the same time, it seeks to hold offenders more directly accountable to those they have harmed without overreliance upon costly incarceration.

Along with identifying specific recommendations for program development, the monograph

sets forth guidelines for victim-sensitive victim-offender mediation. The guidelines address

victim safety, screening of cases, the victim’s and offender’s choices, the mediator’s obligations and responsibilities, victim and offender support, the use of victim-sensitive language, and training for mediators in victim sensitivity.
1

I. Victim-Offender

Mediation: 

A National

Perspective

An increasing number of crime victims

are choosing to meet face-to-face with

the persons who victimized them. They

are able to let the offenders know how

the crime affected their lives, to receive

answers to many lingering questions, and

to be directly involved in holding offenders accountable for the harm they caused.

Victim-offender mediation is recognized

as a viable alternative to more traditional

retributive response for serving victims’

needs by probation, prosecuting attorneys, courts, correctional facilities, and

communities. As the field of victimoffender mediation has grown extensively

over the past 25 years, it has become

increasingly important to conduct the

process in a highly victim-sensitive 

manner while considering the needs 

of offenders.

Before addressing the underlying principles and guidelines of victim-offender

mediation, a description of the mediation

process follows.

What Is It?

Victim-offender mediation (VOM) is a

process that provides interested victims

(primarily those of property crimes and

minor assaults) the opportunity to meet

their offenders in a safe and structured

setting. The goal is to hold offenders

directly accountable while providing

important support and assistance to victims. With the assistance of trained mediators, the victims are able to let the

offenders know how the crime affected

them, receive answers to their questions,

and be directly involved in developing a

restitution plan that holds the offenders

financially accountable for the losses

they caused. The offenders are directly

responsible for their behavior and therefore must learn the full impact of what

they did and develop a plan for making

amends, to the degree possible, to the

persons they violated. Offenders’ failure

to complete the restitution agreement

results in further court-imposed consequences. Some VOM programs are called

“victim-offender meetings,” “victimoffender reconciliation,” or “victimoffender conferences.”

Victim-offender mediation is one of the

clearest expressions of restorative justice,

a movement that is receiving a great deal

of attention throughout North America

and Europe. Current juvenile and criminal

justice systems are primarily offenderdriven, with a retributive “trail ’em, nail

’em, and jail ’em” perspective that views

crime as an offense against the State and

offers little help to crime victims. 

Restorative justice, however, provides 

a very different framework for understanding and responding to crime and

victimization. Moving beyond the

offender-driven focus, restorative justice

identifies three clients: individual victims,

victimized communities, and offenders.

Crime is understood primarily as an

offense against people within communities, as opposed to the more abstract legal

definition of crime as a violation against

the State. Those most directly affected by

crime are allowed to play an active role in

restoring peace between individuals and

within communities. Restoration of the

emotional and material losses resulting

from crime is far more important than

imposing ever-increasing levels of costly

punishment on the offender. The debt

owed by offenders is concrete. Rather

than passively “taking their punishment,”

offenders are encouraged to actively

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
2

divorce and child custody cases, community disputes, commercial disputes, and

other civil court-related conflicts. In such

settings, the parties are called “disputants,”

and the assumption made is that both are

contributing to the conflict and therefore

both need to compromise to reach a settlement. Often, mediation in these cases

focuses heavily upon reaching a settlement, with less emphasis upon discussing

the full impact of the conflict on the disputants’ lives.

In victim-offender mediation, the

involved parties are not “disputants.”

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

doing so, whereas the other has clearly

been victimized. Therefore, the issue of

guilt or innocence is not mediated. Nor

is there an expectation that crime victims

compromise or request less than what

they need to restore their losses.

Although many other types of mediation

are largely “settlement-driven,” victimoffender mediation is primarily “dialoguedriven,” with emphasis upon victim

empowerment, offender accountability,

and restoration of losses. Most VOM sessions (more than 95 percent) result in a

signed restitution agreement. This agreement, however, is secondary to the importance of the initial dialogue between

the parties. This dialogue addresses

emotional and informational needs of

victims that are central to both the

empowerment of the victims and the

development of victim empathy in the

offenders, which can help to prevent

criminal behavior in the future. Research

has consistently found that the restitution

agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to express their

feelings about the offense directly to the

offenders (Schneider, 1986). Restorative

impact is strongly related to the creation

of a safe place for dialogue between the

crime victim and the offender.

restore losses, to the degree possible, to

victims and communities. The use of dialogue and negotiation among victims,

victimized communities, and offenders is

emphasized. In truth, the essence of what

is being called restorative justice is deeply

rooted in the traditional practices of

many indigenous people throughout the

world, such as American Indians, Pacific

Islanders, the Maori in New Zealand, and

First Nation people in Canada. 

When Are Cases Referred?

In some programs, cases are primarily

referred to victim-offender mediation as

a diversion from prosecution, assuming

the mediation agreement is successfully

completed. In other programs, cases are

referred primarily after a formal admission of guilt has been accepted by the

court, with the mediation being a condition of probation (if the victim is interested). Some programs receive case

referrals at both the diversion and postadjudication levels. Most cases are

referred by officials involved in the juvenile justice system, although some programs also receive referrals from the

adult criminal justice system. Judges,

probation officers, victim advocates,

prosecutors, defense attorneys, or police

can make referrals to VOM programs.

The national survey of VOM programs

that was conducted as part of this project

found that, of the 116 programs that were

interviewed (out of a total of 289 identified), 34 percent indicated that their primary referral was at a diversion level;

28 percent, at a post-adjudication but predisposition level; and 28 percent, at a postdisposition level of referral (appendix A).

How Is It Different From

Other Kinds of Mediation?

Mediation is being used in an increasing

number of conflict situations, such as
3

Table 1 identifies key characteristics of

victim-offender mediation that are likely

to result in the least and the most restorative impact.

• 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 crime upon the

victims, the community, and the offenders.

• No separate preparation meetings are conducted

with the victims and offenders prior to bringing them

together.

• Victims are not given a choice of where they would

feel the most comfortable and safe to meet or of

whom they would like to have present.

• Victims are given only written notice to appear for

a mediation session at a preset time, with no 

preparation.

• The mediators or facilitators describe the offense and

then the offenders speak, with the victims simply asking a few questions or responding to questions from

the mediator.

• A highly directive style of facilitation is conducted

with mediators talking most of the time, continually

asking both victims and offenders questions, with 

little if any direct dialogue between the involved

parties. 

• The session is marked by low tolerance of moments

of silence or expressions of feelings.

• The mediation session is voluntary for victims but

required of offenders whether or not they take

responsibility.

• The mediation is settlement-driven and very brief

(10–15 minutes). 

• Primary points of focus are to provide an opportunity for victims and offenders to talk directly to each

other; to allow victims to express the full impact of

the crime upon their lives and receive answers to

important questions they have; and to allow offenders to understand the real human impact of their

behavior and take direct responsibility for seeking to

make things right.

• Restitution is important but secondary to the dialogue about the impact of the crime.

• Victims are continually given choices throughout 

the process: where to meet, who should be 

present, etc.

• Separate preparation meetings are conducted 

with victims and offenders 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.

• A nondirective style of facilitation is fostered with

the parties talking most of the time. The mediation

incorporates a high tolerance of silence and the use

of a humanistic or transforming mediation model

(see appendix B).

• The mediation is marked by high tolerance for

expressions of feelings and of the full impact of

crime.

• Mediation is voluntary for both victims and

offenders.

• Trained community volunteers serve as mediators or

comediators along with agency staff.

• The mediation session is dialogue-driven and typically about an hour (or longer) in length.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

Table 1: Victim-Offender Mediation Continuum: From Least to Most

Restorative Impact

LEAST RESTORATIVE IMPACT MOST RESTORATIVE IMPACT

Agreement-Driven: Offender Focus Dialogue-Driven: Victim Sensitive
4

9 programs (9 percent) work only with

adult offenders and their victims, and 48

programs (46 percent) work with both.

The vast majority of cases handled by

the programs are property offenses and

minor assaults. A number of the more

experienced programs, however, periodically work with more violent cases.

After 20 years of development and many

thousands of cases (primarily property

crimes and minor assaults) in more than

1,000 communities throughout North

America (more than 300) and Europe

(more than 700), victim-offender mediation is finally beginning to move toward

the center of criminal and juvenile justice

systems (table 2). Some programs are still

small, with a very limited number of case

referrals. Many other programs are receiving several hundred referrals per year. A

few programs have recently been asked to

divert 1,000 or more cases each year from

the court system, and county governments

have provided hundreds of thousands of

dollars to fund these VOM programs.

It is clear that the field of VOM has grown

extensively since the first Victim-Offender

Reconciliation Project was initiated in

Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, in 1974, and

replicated in the United States in Elkart,

Indiana, in 1978. Perhaps the clearest

expression of how the field has continued

to develop is the recognition it received in

1994 when the American Bar Association

(ABA) endorsed the practice of victimoffender mediation. After many years of

supporting civil court mediation, with limited interest in criminal mediation, the

ABA now endorses the process and recommends the use of “victim-offender

mediation and dialogue” in courts throughout the United States. Similarly, a recent

statewide survey of victim service

providers in Minnesota found that 91 percent believed that victim-offender mediation should be available in every judicial

district since it represents an important

service option for crime victims.

Are Crime Victims

Interested?

Interest in victim-offender mediation

spread in the late 1970s, and local funding began supporting the development

of new programs across the country. A

recent statewide public opinion poll in

Minnesota found that 82 percent of a random sample of citizens throughout the

State would consider participating in a

VOM program if they were victims of

property crimes. Interviews with 280 victims who participated in VOM programs

in 4 States found that 91 percent felt

their participation was totally voluntary.

For those victims in the comparison

group for this study—namely, those who

did not participate in mediation—70 percent would have preferred to meet the

offender had they been given the choice.

Victim-offender mediation is not appropriate for all crimes. In all cases, it must

be presented as a choice to the victim.

How Many Programs Exist?

A national survey of the field found 289

VOM programs throughout the United

States as of 1998. Today, a more accurate

estimation would be in excess of 300.

Telephone interviews with 116 of the

programs revealed that 42 percent of the

programs were run by community-based

agencies, 23 percent were church-based

programs, 17 percent were sponsored by

probation and correctional departments,

3 percent were based in victim services

agencies, 4 percent were operated by

prosecuting attorney’s offices, and 11

percent were managed by other types of

agencies. Programs most frequently identified their primary source of funding as

local, State, or Federal Government.

Foundations were the fourth most frequent source of funding. Of those programs answering the question, 46

programs (45 percent) work only with

juvenile offenders and their victims,
5

1989, 1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1994b,

1995a, 1995b; Umbreit and Coates,

1993; and Wright and Galaway, 1989).

Some studies found higher restitution

completion rates (Umbreit, 1994a and

1994b), reduced fear among victims

(Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and Umbreit,

1994a and 1994b), and reduced further

criminal behavior (Nugent and Paddock,

1995; Schneider, 1986; and Umbreit,

1994a and 1994b). Multisite studies in

England (Marshall and Merry, 1990; and

Umbreit and Roberts, 1996), the United

States (Coates and Gehm, 1989; and

Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), and Canada

(Umbreit, 1995a and 1995b) have confirmed most of these findings. A large

multisite study in the United States

(Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b) found that

victims of crime who meet with their

offenders are far more likely to be satisfied with the criminal justice system

response to their cases than victims of

similar offenses who go through the conventional criminal court process.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the

victim-offender mediation process can

serve to humanize the criminal justice

experience for both the victim and the

offender. It holds offenders directly

accountable to the people they have victimized, allows for more active involvement of crime victims and community

members (as volunteer mediators and

support persons) in the justice process,

and reduces further criminal behavior of

offenders. During the early 1980s, many

questioned whether crime victims would

want to meet face-to-face with their

offender. Today it is clear, from empirical

data and experience, that the majority of

crime victims who are presented with the

opportunity for mediation and dialogue

choose to engage in the process, with

victim participation rates in many programs ranging from 60 to 70 percent.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

Table 2: International

Development of VictimOffender Mediation Programs

Country Number

Australia 5

Austria 17 

Belgium 31

Canada 26

Denmark 5

England 43

Finland 130

France 73

Germany 348

Italy 4

New Zealand Available in all jurisdictions

Norway 44

Scotland 2

South Africa 1

Sweden 10

United States 289

What Have We Learned From

Research?

While a continuing need for more

research in this field remains, far more

empirical data exist on this option than

one might find on many other correctional justice interventions. During the past

several years, a small but growing body

of empirical data has emerged from multisite assessments in Canada, England,

and the United States. Studies conducted

over the past 12 years throughout Europe

and North America report high levels of

satisfaction with the mediation process

and outcome on the part of victims and

offenders (Coates and Gehm, 1989;

Collins, 1984; Dignan, 1990; Fischer and

Jeune, 1987; Galaway, 1988; Galaway

and Hudson, 1996; Gehm, 1990;

Marshall and Merry, 1990; Perry,

Lajeunesse, and Woods, 1987; Umbreit,
7

II. Guidelines for

Victim-Sensitive

Mediation and

Dialogue With

Offenders

As the field of victim-offender mediation

continues to develop throughout the

United States, it becomes increasingly

important that the mediation process be

conducted in the most victim-sensitive

manner possible while addressing important needs of the offender. This section

offers a number of very specific guidelines and recommendations to strengthen

victim-sensitive mediation practices.

Purpose of Victim-Offender

Mediation

The purpose of victim-offender mediation and dialogue is to provide a restorative conflict resolution process that

actively involves victims and offenders

in repairing (to the degree possible) the

emotional and material harm caused by

the crime; an opportunity for both victims and offenders to discuss offenses

and express their feelings and for victims

to get answers to their questions; and an

opportunity for victims and offenders to

develop mutually acceptable restitution

plans that address the harm caused by the

crime.

Underlying Principles of

Victim-Offender Mediation

1. Human beings possess inner

resources that, under the right circumstances, can be accessed and

used to address issues and resolve

problems of importance to them.

2. Appropriate structure (including a

neutral third-party facilitator, procedural guidelines, and a seating plan)

can neutralize differences in status

and power and provide an environment conducive to meaningful dialogue, even in emotionally intense

contexts.

3. The use of specific techniques and

strategies by the mediator must serve

the larger goal of creating a safe,

comfortable environment in which a

mediated dialogue can occur.

4. The “personal” element is powerful:

stories of individual experience can

evoke empathy, insight, and understanding. Telling and hearing these

stories can be empowering, validating, and transforming for both the

speaker and the listener.

5. The mediator’s presence plays an

important role in facilitating an open

dialogue in which the parties are

actively engaged and doing most of

the talking. This “presence” is established through the mediator’s verbal

and nonverbal communication, tone

of voice, straightforwardness, expression of empathy, and genuine

concern for each party.

6. Presenting choices to the parties

whenever possible (when to meet,

where to meet, etc.) maximizes

opportunities for them to feel

empowered by the process.

7. The mediator’s role is critical in a

successful mediation. It is important

for mediators “to get out of the way”

and encourage conversation between

victims and offenders. Mediators

should be cautious about intervening

too frequently.

8. The mediation process may be

adapted to meet the needs of the 

participating parties so that they feel

safe and comfortable to engage in an

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
8

addition, the victim may find it reassuring to have input on the arrangement of

the room and the seating of the parties

and to have the freedom to be introduced

in the manner he or she chooses, such as

using only first names.

An important safeguard for victims is

knowing that the VOM program has credibility. That credibility needs to be reinforced in writing, with an informative

letter of introduction and a program

brochure. Victims may also need reassurance that the program is not focused on

the offender. In programs using volunteers, victims need to be assured that staff

work closely with volunteers, that victims

may contact staff if they have questions or

concerns, and that referrals are screened

by staff with safety issues in mind.

Programs should consider having a victim

advisory council consisting of crime victims and service providers to give guidance in policy and program development

and implementation and to serve as a liaison to the victim-serving community.

2. Careful Screening of Cases

Each mediation program should have its

own criteria for case selection, such as

type of offense, age of offender (juvenile

or adult), first-time offense, or multiple

offenses. In addition to program criteria,

staff or mediators or both should exercise

discretion as each case is developed and

at each step in the process, asking themselves if this case is suited for and should

proceed to mediation.

For mediation to be meaningful, offenders

must take responsibility for their participation in the crime and proceed willingly.

If a mediator has any doubts about moving ahead with the process, he or she

should talk with the victim to explain the

situation, share information about the

offender (with the offender’s permission),

and inquire about the victim’s desire to

proceed. A victim may choose to proceed

open dialogue. Continual attention

must be paid to differences in communication style that can distort

meaning. 

9. Discovering underlying needs and

interests can enhance a collaborative

effort and provide more satisfying

results.

10. Well-written agreements guide and

focus behavior, thereby enhancing

results. A written agreement, however, is secondary in importance to the

dialogue between the victim and the

offender about the crime itself and

its impact on their lives. Some mediated dialogue sessions may satisfy

the needs of the parties without

resulting in a written agreement.

Guidelines for VictimSensitive Mediation

1. Victim Safety

A fundamental guideline for VOM programs is protecting the safety of the victim. The mediator must do everything

possible to ensure that the victim will not

be harmed. At every point in the mediation process, the mediator must ask,

“Does this pose a threat to the safety and

well-being of the victim?” It is essential

that the mediator maintain rapport, study

verbal and nonverbal communication,

and request feedback from the victim as

the process unfolds. If the victim feels

unsafe, the mediator must be prepared to

act immediately, to provide options, to

terminate a mediation session, and to

provide an escort for the victim leaving

mediation. 

To ensure the safety of the victim, the

mediation should be conducted in a location that the victim considers safe, and

the victim should be encouraged to bring

along a support person or two. The mediator may also wish to bring in another

mediator to comediate the session. In
9

even if the offender is inarticulate or less

than remorseful—simply because he or

she wishes to be heard—or a victim may

decide not to participate in mediation in

such a situation. 

It is also important that mediators consider the readiness of both parties to participate in mediation, noting in particular

victims’ ability to represent their own

interests and express their needs.

3. Meeting First With the Offender

A mediator usually meets first with the

offender, prior to contacting the victim.

Then, if the offender is willing to participate in mediation, the victim can be contacted and a meeting can be arranged. If

the mediator meets first with a victim,

gains his or her consent to participate in

mediation, and later discovers that the

offender will not participate, the victim

may feel revictimized—having raised

hopes for some resolution to the crime,

only to be denied that opportunity. If,

however, contacting the offender results

in a significant delay of mediation, the

mediator needs to talk to the victim about

the situation, explaining the importance

of voluntary participation on the part of

the offender.

4. Offender’s Choice To Participate

It is important that offenders participate

voluntarily in all stages of the mediation

process. Even when the court system

pressures them to participate, offenders

must understand that they may, in fact,

decline. If offenders are forced to mediate, victims may experience the mediation as unsatisfactory and even harmful.

The offender’s unwillingness or insincerity may constitute an additional offense

in the eyes of the victim. 

5. Victim’s Choices

Following a crime, a victim often feels

vulnerable and powerless. Added to that

is the victim’s experiences with the criminal or juvenile justice system, which

focuses on the offender. The victim is

excluded from the process, rarely being

offered an opportunity to tell his or her

experiences, define the resulting harm, or

express needs. It is not surprising that in

the wake of a crime, a victim often

expresses a lack of control in his or her

life that can intensify fears and anxieties.

The presence of choices and options for

the victim in the mediation process can

contribute to a sense of power. Empowerment is conducive to healing, the ability

to move beyond difficult and painful

experiences or integrate them into one’s

life. The mediator provides information

and support for the victim engaged in

decisionmaking but is careful not to

apply pressure or impose expectations on

the victim. The victim must be given sufficient time to make decisions, without

the pressure of arbitrary time constraints.

Choices should continually be presented

to the victim throughout the mediation

process as several decisions need to be

made, including the following:

Participation. The victim must always

have the right to say “no” to mediation,

to refuse to participate, and to have that

decision honored and respected. The 

victim did not choose to be a victim of 

a crime. It is crucial then that the victim

experiences the power of choice about

participating in the mediation process.

The victim must always be invited to participate and must be educated about this

option, but never pressured. The mediator

should give accurate information about

mediation, describing the process itself,

the range of responses from victims who

have participated in mediation, and

research findings on client satisfaction.

The mediator then should encourage the

victim to consider the possible benefits

and risks of mediation before deciding to

proceed. The victim may also wish to

consult with a trusted friend, relative,

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
10

while support persons sit off to the side 

of each party. This arrangement, or a 

variation of it, is generally thought to be

effective. If, however, the victim finds it

uncomfortable, his or her wishes should

be given serious consideration. Occasionally, a victim chooses to sit closest to the

door or at a greater distance from the offender or request that support persons sit

on the other side of the table, thus making

them more visible to the victim. Various

cultural traditions may also suggest a different arrangement. Whatever the seating,

it should be conducive to dialogue and

comfortable for all parties. A victim’s

sense of security should be a priority in

determining the seating arrangement.

First speaker. The victim should have the

opportunity to choose whether to speak

first during the initial narrative portion of

the mediation session or whether to speak

last. This choice is given out of deference

to his or her position as the victim of

crime—a position the criminal and juvenile justice systems frequently ignore

once the complaint has been filed. Often

a victim finds it empowering to begin by

defining the harm—telling the offender

first what was experienced and how it

has affected him or her. At times, however, a victim feels “put on the spot” and

requests that the offender speak first,

initiating the session and accepting

responsibility for the crime. A victim

sometimes finds it validating, and often

healing, to hear an offender offer words

of regret or remorse that have not been

elicited by the victim’s story. The mediator must make sure, however, that whatever the order, both parties’ complete

stories are heard—that, for example, the

victim’s emotional content is not compromised by any remorse the offender

may express, and that the offender, particularly if the offender is a juvenile,

does not retreat into silence in the face of

the victim’s emotional intensity.

clergy person, or victim advocate before

making a final decision. It is essential that

the victim’s participation is based on

“informed consent.”

Support. Another important option for

the victim is the choice of support persons

to accompany him or her to the mediation

session. The presence of a friend or relative can enhance the victim’s sense of

comfort and safety, even though the support person typically has little or no

speaking role. It is helpful for the mediator to meet or telephone support persons

to prepare them for the mediation session.

Schedule for mediation session. The

mediation session should be scheduled at

a time that is convenient for the victim.

The victim’s schedule needs to be a priority so that the victim can feel a sense

of control in the situation and find comfort in the deference extended. At the

same time the needs of others should not

be ignored.

Mediation site. Site selection is an important aspect of the mediation process. The

victim needs to know the locations available (e.g., private room in a community

center, library, religious building, office

building, city hall) and be asked which he

or she prefers. Which setting would feel

safe, neutral, comfortable, and convenient? Occasionally, a victim chooses a

more personal setting, for example, a

home or an institution such as the detention center at which the offender is being

held. The victim should consider the

advantages and disadvantages of particular settings. The final decision, however,

should be the victim’s.

Seating. Generally, the parties are seated

across from each other, allowing them to

establish direct eye contact as their dialogue develops. The use of a table may

increase the victim’s sense of safety and

maintain decorum. Mediators then are

typically seated at the ends of the table,
11

In selecting who should speak first, the

mediator may have to decide based on

the ages, needs, and communication

styles of both parties. When the mediator

chooses who will initiate the conversation in a particular case, it is important

that he or she discuss the decision and

the rationale privately with both parties

prior to the mediation session. Creating a

safe place where both parties feel comfortable enough to engage in an open dialogue to the extent of their ability is

ultimately the most important principle,

regardless of who speaks first.

Termination of session. An extension of

the victim’s choice to participate in mediation is the right to end the process at

any point. The victim should be informed

that mediation remains a voluntary

process to the end. If the victim feels

uncomfortable or unsafe, the mediator

should consult first with both parties and

then conclude the mediation session temporarily or terminate the process entirely.

Restitution. A victim has the right to

select the restitution option that best

meets his or her needs. In addition to

reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses,

a victim may request that the offender

undertake community service (a public

service of the victim’s choice), perform

personal service for the victim, write a

letter of apology, participate in treatment

or other programs to improve his or her

competence, or complete some other creative assignment. Although the final

restitution plan will be negotiated with

the offender, the victim must understand

that he or she can request a particular

compensation, within legal limits. 

6. Mediator’s Obligations During

the In-Person Premediation Session

With the Victim

The mediator visits face-to-face with the

victim at a convenient time and place.

The mediator usually offers to come to

the victim’s home or to an alternative

location if the victim prefers another setting. The purpose of the visit is to establish credibility and rapport with the

victim and to accomplish the following

tasks: to listen to the victim’s stories, to

provide information and answer questions, and to assist the victim in considering mediation as an option. During the

initial visit, the mediator should ask

whether the victim would rather begin by

telling his or her story or whether he or

she would prefer to learn first about the

mediation program.

Listen. A critical task for the mediator is

to attend to the victim, listening carefully, patiently, and sympathetically out of a

genuine desire to hear about the victim’s

experience. Effective listening by the

mediator gives the victim a chance to

vent and validate his or her feelings. The

mediator’s attentive listening encourages

the victim’s trust and lets the victim know

that he or she is a priority. Occasional

informal paraphrasing or summarizing by

the mediator assures the victim that the

mediator is indeed paying attention and

values what is being said.

Provide information and answer 

questions about—

The mediation program: The

mediator needs to give the victim

thorough and accurate information

about the program itself (both orally

and in writing) including its goals,

history, the population it serves, and

any costs for participants who might

be involved. (Note: It should always

be free for victims.)

Oneself as mediator: Mediators

should offer a few brief words about

their mediation training and experience and about themselves personally, as appropriate. Giving information

about oneself helps to build rapport

and trust with the victim.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
12

7. Mediator’s Responsibilities for

Carefully Preparing the Victim

After a victim has decided to proceed

with mediation, the mediator needs to

prepare the victim for what lies ahead.

This can be done in the initial meeting or

in additional sessions. It is important that

the mediation session not be scheduled

until the victim feels ready for it. It is also

important that the mediator try to accommodate any special needs, such as the

need for interpreters or needs related to

physical handicaps or mental limitations.

Ensure victim’s expectations are 

realistic. A victim may develop inflated

expectations of the mediation process

(e.g., reconciliation with the offender,

complete healing or peace of mind, rehabilitation of the offender, or total repair

of the damage done). Although very positive outcomes are generally experienced

by both the victim and the offender, they

cannot be guaranteed. The mediator needs

to be realistic with the victim, providing

accurate information about possible outcomes and the kinds of results that are

most typical, with strong caution that

each mediation is unique (just as each

victim is unique) and cannot be predicted.

Assess losses and needs. Victims may

appreciate assistance in identifying losses

experienced in the crime and current

needs related to the crime. These can

include material and out-of-pocket 

monetary losses as well as less tangible

losses affecting their sense of safety

and feelings of connection with their

community.

Estimate restitution possibilities. A

mediator should engage the victim in preliminary brainstorming about the ways

losses and needs might be addressed—

what it would take to repair the harm

done. This process is intended to spark

the victim’s ideas about possibilities 

for restitution that may or may not be

The mediation process and its

purpose: The victim also needs to

know, in some detail, what happens

in the mediation process, the role of

participants, and its overall purposes.

The judicial system: Victims typically want to know what has happened so far to the offenders and

what might occur if they proceed

with mediation or if they decline.

The limitations of the judicial system should also be addressed. A

mediator needs to be attentive to

questions that may arise, even after

the mediation session. 

Victim’s rights: A victim should be

given a summary of the rights granted

to victims in that State. Summaries

are available from most of the thousands of system and communitybased victim service organizations in

large and small communities across

America.

Available resources: A mediator

must be attentive to the victim’s

needs and should contact staff, offer

resources, or make referrals as

requested to local, State, and national

organizations or agencies. A mediator should check out the agencies to

which referrals are made or make

personal followup calls to ensure 

that the victim’s needs are met.

The offender: As a victim begins to

consider mediation, he or she may

find it helpful to know something

about the offender’s state of mind

and circumstances. Mediators must

get the offender’s permission before

sharing this kind of information.

Discuss risks and benefits and assist

victims in decisionmaking. After providing the essential information about

victim-offender mediation, the mediator

needs to assist the victim in considering

the risks and benefits of mediation in his

or her particular situation.
13

monetary. This groundwork must be laid

before the mediation so that, during the

actual negotiation process, the victim has

a solid base of ideas to draw from to

make the most suitable proposal. Victims,

primarily those of violent crimes, should

also be informed of State victim compensation, assistance, or other public funds

dedicated to reimbursing victim losses.

8. Offender Support

An offender may choose to have a friend

or relative accompany him or her to the

mediation session. The presence of support persons can reinforce the seriousness

of the mediation process. In addition,

these supporters may in the future serve

as reminders to the offender of the commitments made and as “coaches” who can

encourage the offender to fulfill the agreement. Creating a comfortable environment

for the offender also makes for a better

mediation that benefits the victim, offender, community, and the justice system.

9. Mediator’s Obligation During the

In-Person Premediation Session

With the Offender

In the initial meeting with the offender,

the mediator seeks to establish credibility

and rapport. To accomplish these tasks,

the mediator needs to hear the offender’s

experiences, offer information and

answer questions about the process, and

assist the offender in considering mediation as an option. As described in guideline number 6, the mediator, as attentive

listener, gains an understanding of the

offender’s experiences and feelings relative to the crime, provides information,

and responds to the offender’s questions.

The offender needs to know about the

mediation program and the mediator, the

process itself and its relationship to the

judicial system, his or her rights, and

available resources. The offender may

also have questions about the victim.

The mediator must have the victim’s 

permission before reporting what he or

she has said. Using all available relevant

information, the mediator assists the

offender in deciding whether to participate in mediation. It is important that

each offender considers the risks and

benefits of the process in his or her particular situation. Having a well-informed,

willing offender increases the chances

that the mediation session will be beneficial for all parties involved.

10. Mediator’s Responsibilities for

Carefully Preparing the Offender

After the offender has decided to participate in mediation, the mediator needs to

prepare him or her for the session. The

offender must feel ready to proceed

before the mediation session is scheduled. He or she needs a chance to reflect

on the crime and feelings about it, as

well as an opportunity to organize what

he or she wishes to say to the victim. To

help the offender try to understand the

victim’s experience, the mediator may

invite the offender to recall experiences

of being victimized and then ask him or

her to consider what the actual victim

might be feeling or might want. These

reflections should be within the context

that any past victimization the offender

may have experienced in no way excuses

the choices he or she later made to hurt

another person. The mediator may ask

the offender what he or she would like to

do for the victim. It is also important that

the mediator try to accommodate interpreters or any special needs related to

physical disabilities or mental limitations. 

Ensure offender’s expectations are

realistic. Offenders may need assistance

in maintaining realistic expectations of

mediation. An offender may expect that

an apology automatically diffuses the

intensity of the victim’s emotions or that

one mediation session erases the harm

caused by the crime. The offender’s disappointment if such expectations are not

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
14

pressure and prescribe behavior for victims. In addition, mediators should try to

avoid raising expectations that cannot be

fulfilled in a particular case. For example, using words such as “healing,” “restoration,” and “being made whole” to

describe possible outcomes for mediation

may elevate victims’ hopes unrealistically. In the case of “reconciliation,” many

victims find this word hurtful because it

implies there was a conciliatory relationship in the first place. Some victims may

experience a degree of reconciliation, but

this must occur spontaneously, without a

directive from the mediator. In fact, it is

more likely to occur if the mediator

avoids directives. Forgiveness also may

be expressed during the mediation session, but the mediator’s use of the word

“forgiveness” may be destructive to the

victim. Victims may, for example, feel

guilty if they fail to feel forgiving. They

may resent the suggestion and shut down

to the point that they miss the opportunity to truly express how the crime has

affected them, which is typically a component of healing.

12. Use of Humanistic/DialogueDriven Model of Mediation

The mediation session itself is guided by

a humanistic approach that is “dialoguedriven” rather than “settlement-driven,”

which includes the following topics 

(see appendix B, What Is Humanistic

Mediation?):

Perspective of the mediator. Through a

nonjudgmental attitude and a positive,

hopeful demeanor, the mediator conveys

his or her trustworthiness and sensitivity

to the needs of both parties.

Relaxed, positive atmosphere. The

mediator needs to put the parties as much

at ease as possible, renew the connections developed in previous separate

meetings, and establish an informal yet

dignified atmosphere that is conducive

met can be detrimental to the victim,

who may experience guilt or anger as a

result. In any case, an apology has no

meaning without true remorse.

Assess victim’s losses and restitution

possibilities and offender’s ability to

fulfill agreements. Mediators should

assist offenders in thinking about the

needs and the losses victims might have

experienced, both tangible and intangible, and then engage offenders in preliminary brainstorming about the ways those

needs and losses might be addressed,

such as what it would take to repair the

harm done. Mediators should discuss

with offenders what resources might be

used in addressing the losses, including

present income, income that can be generated by taking additional jobs, and the

types of services that he or she can offer

to the victim. Offenders should be

encouraged to continue thinking of restitution ideas and resources in preparation

for the mediation session.

11. Use of Victim-Sensitive

Language

Mediators must be careful in their use of

language. Certain words and phrases can

imply judgment or convey expectation.

For example, if a mediator says or

implies “you should” to either party,

then neutrality is lost, rapport and credibility may be damaged, and a victim may

feel pressured and experience a diminished sense of control. The mediator

must provide information, present the

options, and encourage the victim to

make the best decision. Most people are

accustomed to seeing professionals or

trained volunteers as experts with

answers; in contrast, mediators must be

vigilant in guarding the choices—and

thus the autonomy—of both parties.

It is also important that mediators avoid

the use of words such as “forgiveness”

or “reconciliation.” Again, such words
15

to dialogue and constructive problem

solving and is of mutual benefit. The

mediator should present a calm, centered

manner and should not dominate the

conversation.

Dialogue between victim and offender.

As the mediation session proceeds, time

must be allowed for interaction between

victim and offender and for personal narratives. Silence must be honored. Time

pressures or a focus on reaching agreement can detract from the benefits of dialogue, questions, and answers.

Procedural guidelines. During the initial

meeting with each participant and at the

beginning of the mediation session, the

mediator must discuss the procedural

guidelines that shape the process. These

guidelines help to establish a safe, structured setting, encourage respectful conversation that acknowledges concerns of

each party, and elicit the strengths of the

participants. Each party is assured the

opportunity to speak without interruption. The mediator, who assumes a

nondirective role, guards the process.

Feedback from participants. The mediator needs to maintain attentiveness to

the parties, watching for nonverbal cues

and perceiving unacknowledged feelings,

as well as directly requesting feedback

and consulting in private with each party

as needed to get further information. The

mediator should talk with each party

before and after the mediation session to

maximize feedback.

Option of followup session. The mediator needs to mention the possibility of an

additional session. Some parties find

it useful to meet again, for example, to

conclude the conversation, allowing for

additional thoughts, feelings, or questions

to arise; to negotiate further details

regarding restitution; or to acknowledge

fulfillment of the agreement. 

13. Followup After the Mediation

Session

It is vital that the mediator follow through

on commitments and questions raised in

the mediation session. The dependability

of the mediator is of utmost importance

to victims and offenders. 

Completion of agreement. The agreement that is the product of the mediation

session needs to be carefully monitored.

The mediator should check with the

offender periodically to reinforce what

was accomplished in the mediation session and to assist with any problems that

may interfere with the offender fulfilling

the agreement.

Notification of victim regarding status

of the agreement. The victim should

be notified when the agreement has

been fulfilled or if circumstances have

changed that may suggest alterations in

the agreement.

Scheduling additional sessions if 

needed. If another meeting is desired 

by either the victim or the offender, the

mediator should contact the parties and

negotiate an additional session.

Telephone contact with parties. The

mediator should maintain telephone contact with both parties for a period of time

following the mediation session, whether

the agreement has already been completed or not. A brief check-in may be all

that is required. The mediator can serve

as a continuing source of information and

referral. If the case is not mediated, it

may be beneficial, nonetheless, for the

mediator or victim support staff to maintain telephone contact with the victim for

a period of up to 6 months. Some mediators have found that monthly written

progress reports are more meaningful to

victims than telephone calls.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
16

Evaluation. VOM programs should

establish procedures for evaluation of all

mediations. Victims and offenders need

to be surveyed to ascertain their satisfaction with the mediation process and its

outcome.

14. Training for Mediators in Victim

Sensitivity 

The initial training and continuing education of mediators should include information on the experiences of victims of

crime, referral sources, appropriate communication skills for mediators, victim’s

and offender’s rights, and guidelines for

victim-sensitive mediation. Trainees need

to hear from victim advocates and victims themselves.
17

III. Recommendations

for Program

Development

Program Recommendations

1. Create an Advisory Board

An advisory board can contribute significantly to the effectiveness of a victimoffender mediation program. Its role may

be consultative, without decisionmaking

authority. The board can assist in developing the program, maintaining quality

in program procedures and practices,

fundraising, and building support for the

program within the judicial system and

local community.

The composition of the advisory board

may vary, depending on the context and

the needs of the program. The board may

include the following members:

◆ A victim who has participated in

victim-offender mediation.

◆ An offender who has participated in

victim-offender mediation.

◆ Youth from the community.

◆ Representatives from the judiciary or

court administration.

◆ Representatives from probation or

parole.

◆ Police officers or diversion workers.

◆ Representatives from victim 

services.

◆ Social workers or counselors.

◆ Health care workers. 

◆ Other community representatives

from the media, schools, and religious groups.

2. Ensure Quality Control Through

Program Evaluation

Procedures for program evaluation need

to be established from the outset to

ensure quality control. Evaluations provide the program staff with general feedback relative to the mediation process

itself and the effectiveness of program

procedures. Evaluations also offer information about specific cases and the competence of specific mediators. As a result,

staff may suggest further training or consultation for specific mediators or followup work with the participants in a

particular case. Evaluations should be

gathered from participants, mediator,

and probation officer or victim service

personnel.

Participants. In general, evaluations

should be anonymous to encourage honest responses. A coding system can be

used, so that staff can identify the particular case and mediator involved.

One model for participant evaluation has

two phases. During the first phase, information is gathered at the time of the

mediation session. A simple evaluation

form is distributed to all participants,

including parents of juvenile offenders

who might be present, with a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. The participants are asked to complete the

evaluation as soon as possible and mail

it back, or they may complete the form

onsite at the end of the mediation session, if they prefer.

The second phase of this evaluation

process occurs at a later time, between 3

and 6 months after the mediation session.

The evaluation may be conducted in several ways to gather information:

◆ An instrument may be mailed out to

all participants with a self-addressed,

stamped envelope.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
18

of the case and the status of the parties,

and probation officers who may follow

up with offenders. Establishing these

relationships is vital to the continuous

flow of appropriate referrals and the

overall success of the program.

VOM can be used as a diversion from

prosecution or after a formal admission

of guilt has been accepted by the court,

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

Because mediation represents a serious

departure from the traditional handling of

offenders, a concerted effort needs to be

made to educate court-related personnel

on the VOM process. They need information about the benefits and risks of mediation, the types of cases suitable for

referral, specific outcomes of cases,

research findings about the short- and

long-term impact of mediation, safeguards and quality control procedures,

and evaluation processes. Stakeholders

will also want assurance about the credibility of the program itself and the training and competence of the mediators.

In addition to providing information to

stakeholders, program staff may seek to

strengthen the partnership by exploring

avenues for collaboration. The training

of mediators is a natural opportunity for

collaboration. Victim service providers

can present a training segment on the

experience of victims. Portions of the

training can be held in the office of victim services. Probation officers can provide a parallel segment on the experience

of offenders. A judge can describe what

happens to victims and offenders in the

courtroom and offer information about

what typically happens to a case that is

not mediated. The presence of representatives of the judicial system also informs

trainees that the system appreciates and

supports mediation and values their contribution as volunteer mediators. Service

providers may take the roles of victims

◆ A telephone survey may be 

conducted.

◆ A face-to-face interview may be

conducted.

The survey or interview may be conducted by a volunteer or a staff member, but

should not be conducted by the person

who actually mediated the case.

An additional method for gathering information from victims is to sponsor focus

groups composed of victims who are

willing to discuss their experiences in

mediation and offer input about the program and its practices.

Mediator. The mediator also needs to

evaluate the mediation. A feedback

instrument can be completed by the

mediator immediately following the

mediation session. Completing a selfevaluation helps the mediator develop

observation, analysis, and self-reflection

skills. The mediator’s evaluation can also

alert program staff to any issues or problems that may need further attention or

suggest revisions in program procedures.

Probation officer or victim service personnel. Feedback needs to be gathered

from probation officers or victim service

personnel who work with the parties

before, during, and after mediation. This

may be accomplished through formal

evaluation or informal feedback.

3. Develop and Maintain an

Extensive and Effective Network

A crucial component of any victimoffender mediation program is the cultivation of connections with stakeholders

in the community. Stakeholders include

judges and court referees who may make

referrals to the program, victim service

personnel who may refer cases or work

with clients prior to or after mediation,

prosecuting attorneys and public defenders who have an interest in the outcome
19

and offenders to demonstrate how a case

progresses through the system from

beginning to end. Such collaboration not

only provides trainees with needed information but also builds relationships within the system that can help ensure the

success of a mediation program.

Seeking support for victims and offenders throughout the VOM process provides

another opportunity for collaboration. For

example, a victim service provider may

provide support to a victim throughout

the entire mediation process and beyond,

even attending the mediation session

with the victim, if requested, in the role

of a support person rather than as an

active participant. Such support may help

the victim understand and articulate his

or her experiences and needs. Similarly, a

social worker or probation officer may be

helpful to an offender by encouraging the

development of understanding and empathy for the victim and helping the offender prepare for dialogue with the victim. 

Building connections within the larger

community is also essential, because the

community is a stakeholder in the VOM

process. Crime has an impact that reaches into the community far beyond the

immediate parties involved. Consequently,

the community needs to be invested in

the VOM process. The community can be

a potential source of financial support for

a mediation program. Many programs are

also dependent on the community as a

source of volunteers to serve as mediators. When the public is educated about

VOM and becomes invested in it, victims, offenders, and their support persons

may be more willing to participate in the

process, and other community members

may be more likely to volunteer to be

mediators. In addition to general public

education about mediation, specific connections should be made with community

agencies, places of worship and religious

organizations, business organizations,

and local and State governments, including those organizations that influence and

determine legislation and public policy.

Program leadership, in particular, needs

to have a thorough understanding of the

community’s structure and resources.

Volunteer mediators may serve as a

bridge to the wider community in promoting victim-offender mediation both in

the community and in the court system.

Also, they can bring diverse cultural perspectives to a program. Volunteers may

at times be more effective spokespersons

than program staff. Community members

who serve as volunteer mediators, for

instance, may speak enthusiastically

about their experiences with the process,

and victims and offenders who have

found the mediation experience to be

useful can serve as eloquent promoters

of the program.

It is also critical for VOM programs to

maintain close ties with other VOM programs and agencies providing mediation

services to the community. These connections can offer much-needed ongoing

support, resources, and consultation. In

addition, staff from these programs may

wish to share materials and trainers and

to collaborate in areas of common concern, such as legislative initiatives.

4. Maintain High-Quality Standards

for Mediators

Screen applicants seeking training as

a mediator. The first step in creating a

team of effective, competent mediators

is a comprehensive application process.

Prospective mediators should complete a

form that requires submission of, among

other things, professional and volunteer

histories, reasons for choosing to become

a mediator, and input about their personal

style and value system. Applicants should

be asked specific questions about any

past victimization experiences they may 

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
20

have had. It is important to assess applicants’ feelings about victimization and

whether their personal experiences might

lead to behavior or attitudes that are predisposed to being judgmental or blaming. 

Upon completion of the form, an interview may be conducted to screen further

for appropriate applicants. Because attitude and perspective are vital to effectiveness as a mediator, the interview

serves as a natural tool for assessing 

suitability.

Use mediation training as an additional tool for screening mediators.

Program staff must observe trainees during role plays. The nature of their skills

and their styles as mediators will often

surface during this training. Program

staff should follow up on any concerns

that arise during training by comediating

cases with trainees and discussing pertinent issues. Trainees should also solicit

input from coaches.

Maintain quality control through a

meaningful program staff-mediator

relationship. In addition to the quality of

mediator training, program staff should

maintain close contact with mediators

actively involved in cases. Procedures

need to be established that provide for

this supervisory and supportive relationship. Relatively inexperienced mediators,

in particular, may be expected to contact

staff after each client contact and to meet

with staff both prior to and immediately

following the mediation session. 

Staff also need to be available for consultation on any case, as requested by the

mediator. With more complex cases,

brainstorming/consultation sessions

involving the mediator, program staff,

and, perhaps, other experienced mediators should be arranged at the outset.

To provide adequate supervision and 

support, program staff should comediate

a case annually with each mediator.

In the interest of quality, training sessions should be limited to a group of 9 to

12 participants. This ensures that trainees

receive individual attention and that

trainers have the opportunity to respond

to the learning process of each individual. Trainees should be provided with

ample opportunities for apprenticeship—

namely, comediating with experienced

mediators and staff. After such an

apprenticeship, trainees can best learn by

having frequent opportunities to mediate

cases. Much that is gained through training and apprenticeship can be lost if not

reinforced by repeated experience with

actual cases. Also, mediators who are not

called upon may lose interest in the program. Generally, the best strategy is to

train a small number of mediators, use

them frequently, maintain close contact

with them, and provide them with all the

resources they need. In addition, trainees

should expect to communicate and collaborate with staff; complete evaluations;

follow reporting requirements and timely

case management and quality procedures; keep updated through continuing

education; and make a time commitment

(cases done carefully may take up to 15

hours or more). Some programs find that

a smaller group of mediators working

with more cases shows more commitment to the success of the program than

a larger group of mediators working with

fewer cases.

Establish regular continuing education

as a mechanism for strengthening

skills. Continuing education for mediators should be built around issues in the

field, advanced skill development, needs

expressed by mediators, and staff assessments. Case review can be a vital component in skill development and quality

control. For example, mediators may

meet quarterly with program staff to
21

present case scenarios that raise questions and concerns that have emerged

from real cases.

5. Explore Opportunities for

Broadening the Scope of Services

Develop a skills-training course for

juvenile offenders and their parents.

Develop a course for juvenile offenders

and their parents covering topics such as

conflict management skills, empathy

development, competence development,

communication and life skills, esteembuilding, anger management, and skills

for building peer support.

Improve mediators’ ability to serve

victims and offenders more effectively.

Train mediators to maintain a connection

with victims and/or offenders for a specific period of time following the mediation, provide support for the victim, and

serve as a mentor to the offender.

Mediators may monitor agreements,

accompany offenders on job search

excursions, and offer encouragement and

reminders about restitution obligations.

Coordinate between the community

and the offender to perform community service. Establish a public works

program that can serve as an arena for

community service responsibilities and

provide opportunities for staff to develop

relationships with offenders and to monitor restitution efforts.

Provide offender rehabilitation opportunities. Provide offenders with job

search assistance and actual job training.

Establish a work-study program for

offenders.

Help offenders develop empathy for

victims. Develop victim impact panels

and victim awareness classes to help

offenders whose victims choose not to

participate in mediation.

Use mediation to foster positive family

relationships when the offender leaves

corrections. Offer mediation to parents

and children as juvenile offenders leave a

correctional facility to return home.

Training Recommendations

1. Maximize Experiential Learning

by Enhancing Role Playing

Demonstrate a realistically performed

role play. Trainees need to visualize

what is expected of them. The trainer

may play the mediator role and experienced mediators or actual victims and

offenders may play the other roles. The

scenario should be planned out in terms

of basic information and perhaps an issue

or two that could arise, but it should not

be scripted. Role players should seek

authenticity and spontaneity.

Arrange the role-play schedule so that

each trainee experiences each of the

roles. Of course, it is critical that trainees

try out the mediator role. They may,

however, learn just as much by playing

the victim and offender roles, which

allow them to reflect on mediator techniques and strategies from the perspective of the participants.

Coach trainees on how to play the

roles. The full value of the role-play

exercise may be lost if trainees overplay

or overdramatize the roles so that the

experience bears no resemblance to reality. Instruct trainees to use what they have

learned about the victim and offender

experiences to play the roles; instructors

might tell trainees to try to take on the

actual feelings of the character they are

playing—to feel what it is like to be a

victim and how the victim would

respond—and to play the role spontaneously without a script.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
22

in the mediator role to be quite useful.

Videotapes may be studied by participants to observe and reflect upon their

own actions. Videotapes may also be

used in a one-on-one coaching situation.

In addition, clips of exemplary practices

by trainees may be shown to the entire

training group.

Design role plays to address specific

problem areas. As trainees advance

toward more complex role-play scenarios, issues known to challenge many

mediators—such as intercultural tensions, agreements deemed unfair or unrealistic by the mediator, controlling or

out-of-control parents, and other elements that may lead to impasse—can be

built into the scenario.

Use input from victims and offenders

in creating role plays. Use actual victimoffender mediation participants to critique role-play scenarios or ask a victim

or offender to create a role play. A juvenile offender’s input may add realistic

issues of adolescent culture to a scenario.

Use actual current cases as the basis for

role plays. Trainers should consider

designing individualized role plays that

portray the actual case a trainee will unknowingly receive as his or her first case.

Role play atypical portions of the

mediation process. For a change of

pace, trainees may be invited into the

hallway one by one to role play greeting

the participants as they arrive for the

mediation session.

2. Use a Multidimensional Format

To Enhance Learning

Incorporate into training the personal

experiences, perspectives, and knowledge of trainees. Trainers should always

seek to build into training a number of

opportunities for interaction. Trainees

should be asked what they know about

Guide trainees in debriefing the role

play. Trainers can encourage peer review

by structuring the debriefing after the

role play. They can allow the trainee

playing the mediator to begin by commenting first on what worked, what did

not work, and what questions arose.

Then, trainees in the victim or offender

role can comment next on aspects that

worked for them and others that did not

and give the mediator feedback on the

amount and kind of interventions used

and their impact. The observing trainees

should also provide feedback. The victim

and offender role players can answer

questions from the other trainees such as:

◆ Did you think that you were listened

to? Did you have the chance to tell

the full story?

◆ Did you feel respected?

◆ Did you feel that you had the power

to make decisions?

Use experienced mediators to coach

role players. An experienced mediator

can act as a coach and provide a useful

perspective on the victim-offender mediation process. If necessary, the coach can

rotate between two groups. Clear instructions should be given regarding the

coach’s role. In general, it is best if

coaches do not intervene unless requested

to do so by the trainees—at a moment of

impasse, for example. Following the role

play, effective coaches seek to elicit information from participants by asking questions and, if necessary, frame their

comments in terms of positive tips and

possibilities for other ways of proceeding,

rather than point out right and wrong

methods. The participants learn more if

they reflect on the process and its effects

and brainstorm possibilities than if they

are told explicitly what should have been

done.

Videotape role plays involving trainees.

Trainees may find videotapes of themselves
23

the judicial system and what they might

do differently if they were designing a

system. Self-reflection about personal

responses to conflict should be encouraged. Trainees need to consider their

experiences of victimization: how they

felt, what responses of others they found

helpful, and what they needed to do to

move on with their lives. Similarly,

trainees should reflect on their experiences of having offended or caused pain

to others.

Consider onsite observations by

trainees. Trainees should be given the

opportunity to observe the court process,

including the roles of victims and offenders in that setting. Also, trainees should

witness actual mediations before they

attend training, in the middle of training

(thus splitting the training into two segments), or immediately following training. A visit to a jail or a correctional

facility may also be relevant. 

Make training as realistic as possible.

Trainers should invite actual victims and

offenders who have participated in mediation to speak to trainees. Representatives of victim services, probation, and

the judiciary can add important and accurate information to the training. A panel

of adolescents can educate trainees in

adolescent culture and strategies for

working with youth. Trainers should

illustrate important points by describing

actual cases and use material for exercises drawn directly from real cases.

Vary the training format. For each skill

or process segment addressed, trainers

should present the material briefly;

demonstrate the skill or process; distribute a worksheet, if relevant; allow for

individual, paired, or group practice; role

play; debrief as a group and with a

coach; and have interaction between the

trainer and trainees. Use stories, written

exercises, case studies, guest speakers,

individual reflection, onsite observations,

modeling, videotapes, overheads, charts,

and other learning aids.

Vary the pace of training. Alternate

quiet reflective modules with interactive

or active modules. Provide generous

opportunities for questions at certain

points in the schedule and, at other

times, make it clear that a move to the

next topic is necessary.

Incorporate experiential learning

whenever possible. In addition to role

plays and practice exercises targeting

specific skills, trainers should allow

trainees to experience other dimensions

of the mediation process. For example,

trainees may pair up to experiment with

“zingers”—inappropriate, hurtful

responses—discovering for themselves

how it feels to be ignored, interrupted,

and judged. A brief demonstration or

role play scripted to be mishandled can

prove to be a useful tool for trainees to

experience the impact of destructive

practices. Trainees may also explore

“quick decisions” (e.g., what to do if

the offender’s parent threatens to leave,

if the offender will not talk, if the victim is willing to forgo any monetary 

restitution).

Make the training manual user friendly. The manual can be developed with

handouts that are distributed in conjunction with each topic, so that trainees are

not overwhelmed with material. Manuals

should be accessible and helpful to

trainees.

Be current and creative, be fresh and

interesting, be engaging. Trainings

should be dynamic rather than static.

Program staff need to be alert to repetitious patterns that become tedious for the

trainer. Material needs to excite and

challenge the trainer. Trainees need to

know the trainer’s journey with mediation and the impact of this work on his

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
24

evoked and to prepare them for these

responses should they arise during mediation. It may be useful, in advance of the

mediation session, for mediators to provide offenders with questions typically

asked by victims or actual questions

raised by victims in each particular case,

so that the offenders can be prepared to

address the needs of the victims.

Guide trainees in how to help offenders and victims determine their goals.

It is helpful if the parties are directly

asked to consider what they would like to

occur during the mediation session. A

walk-through or a role play of the session

may be useful in preparing trainees to

help participants establish personal goals

for the mediation.

or her life. The trainer needs to take time

to “check the pulse” of the audience

members throughout the training program: Are their needs being met? Is their

attention being held? Does the trainer

need to “switch gears”? New material

infuses new life into the training. For

example, movie clips or newspaper articles portraying conflict scenarios can be

used to develop conflict skills.

3. Assist Trainees in Enhancing the

Potential of the Preparation Phase

Encourage trainees to consider the use

of outside support persons to help prepare the participants for mediation. A

victim service provider may help victims

determine issues of concern to them. A

probation officer may help the offender

try to understand the victim’s perspective

and prepare a tentative script reflecting

ideas the offender may wish to express.

Develop materials that trainers can use

when preparing for mediation. Some

materials or activities that offenders and

victims may find helpful as they prepare

for mediation include a videotape

describing the mediation process; a selfguided workbook for use by victims and

offenders that helps them think about

their experiences and the impact of those

experiences on themselves and others;

and a questionnaire that helps victims

organize their thoughts about what they

wish to express or accomplish during the

mediation session.

Explore with trainees methods for

seeking to increase victim and offender

participation and interaction. Victims

and offenders need to be encouraged to

discover and sort out thoughts, feelings,

and questions that arise in conjunction

with the mediation process. Mediators

may offer to role play with victims or

offenders to help them understand reactions, needs, and ideas that may be
25

IV. Summary

The guidelines offered in this monograph

are grounded in more than 20 years of

practical experience in the field of victimoffender mediation in North America,

numerous conversations with individual

victim advocates and staff members of

victim advocacy organizations, and the

results of the recently completed national

survey of victim-offender mediation programs in the United States (appendix A).

The number of VOM programs is increasing in communities throughout the country, and these guidelines will help lead to

the development of the highest quality 

victim-sensitive mediation services possible. Considerable room, however, remains

for continued experimentation in this

emerging field. 

These guidelines are flexible and should

be adjusted to fit the cultural context of

each community and the specific needs

of the participating victims, offenders,

and support people. The development of

programs must offer a safe place for dialogue between the victim and offender

that can lead to a sense of accountability

and restoration for all involved.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
27

Appendix A. Results of Survey of VictimOffender Mediation Programs in the

United States

1. Person completing survey: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2. Position of person completing survey: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3. Date of survey completion: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4. Name of your agency: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5. Type of agency: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Agency Number of Programs* Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=115)

a. Probation 10 9

b. Victim services 4 3

c. Private community-based 49 42

d. Prosecuting attorney 5 4

e. Police 2 2

f. Residential treatment facility 2 2

g. Correctional facility 9 8

h. Church-based 26 23

i. Other

State/county 4 3

Court services 2 2

Juvenile offender services 2 2

* Not all respondents answered this question, so total number of responses (115) does not equal total number of respondents

(116).

6. What is the primary source of funding for the VOM program?

Source Number of Responses* Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=160)

a. Local government 43 27

b. State government 39 24

c. Federal Government 10 6

d. Foundations 20 12

e. Individual contributions 15 9

f. Churches 16 10

g. Other

Fundraising/grants 4 3

United Way 9 6

Miscellaneous fees 4 3

* Respondents could indicate more than 1 source, so total number of responses (160) is greater than total number of 

respondents (116).

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
Please complete the following information based upon information from the most recent

year. Please indicate if the data are not available.

7. How many full-time employees does your VOM program have?

Mean: 2.3 employees Range: 1–13 employees

8. How many mediators participate in your VOM program?

Mean Range

Staff 2 1–14

Volunteers 37 1–1,000

9. What is the current annual budget of the VOM program?

Mean: $55,077 Range: $1–$413,671

10. How many cases were referred to victim-offender mediation during the most recent

year?

N=116

Juvenile cases Mean: 136 Range: 1–900

Adult cases Mean: 74 Range: 1–1,672

11. What percentage of referrals are felonies?

N=116

Mean: 33 percent Range: 1–100 percent

What percentage of referrals are misdemeanors?

N=116

Mean: 67 percent Range: 1–100 percent

12. Who is the primary referral source of cases?

Referral Source Number of Responses* Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=148)

a. Probation officers 43 29

b. Judges 34 23

c. Police officers 15 10

d. Prosecutors 23 15

e. Defense attorneys 10 7

f. Victim advocates 1 1

g. Community members 3 2

h. Juvenile diversion 19 13

* Respondents could indicate more than 1 referral source, so total number of responses (148) is greater than total number of

respondents (116).

28
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

29

13. Is offender participation in the mediation program voluntary?

a. Yes Number: 82 Percentage: 78.8

b. No Number: 22 Percentage: 21.2

14. Can offenders back out of the mediation program at any time?

a. Yes Number: 87 Percentage: 82.1

b. No Number: 19 Percentage: 17.9

15. Is victim participation in the mediation program voluntary?

a. Yes Number: 106 Percentage: 100

b. No Number: 0 Percentage: 0

16. Can victims back out of the mediation program at any time?

a. Yes Number: 105 Percentage: 99.1

b. No Number: 1 Percentage: 0.9

17. At what point(s) in the justice process is victim-offender mediation done?

Point in Justice Process Number of Responses* Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=207)

a. Diversion 71 34

b. Post-adjudication but pre-disposition 57 28

c. Post-disposition 57 28

d. Other

At various points 5 2

At any point 10 5

Prior to court 7 3

* Respondents could indicate more than 1 point, so total number of responses (207) is greater than total number of respondents (116).

18. How many of the referred/closed cases during the year were actually mediated? 

N=116

Mean: 106 cases Range: 1–771 cases

19. How many mediations resulted in written agreements?

N=116

Mean: 92 mediations Range: 1–720 mediations

20. How many of the above agreements were successfully completed?

Mean: 91 agreements Range: 1–720 agreements

21. What are the three most common offenses that are referred to victim-offender mediation (please list the most common first)?

a. ____________________ b. ____________________ c. ____________________
30

22. Do you ever conduct mediations for any of the following severely violent crimes?

Offense Number of Responses* Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=141)

a. Assault with a deadly weapon 25 18

b. Assault with bodily injury 47 33

c. Sexual assault by stranger 8 6

d. Sexual assault within family 10 7

e. Domestic violence 12 8

f. Negligent homicide 15 11

g. Attempted murder 5 3

h. Murder 8 6

i. Other 11 8

* Respondents could indicate more than 1 option, so total number of responses (141) is greater than total number of respondents (116).

23. What are the three most important tasks of the mediator(s) during the mediation 

session?

Task Number of Responses* Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=320)

a. Providing leadership 12 4

b. Making the parties feel comfortable 75 23

and safe

c. Actively paraphrasing the 6 2

comments made by the parties

d. Actively listening to both parties 36 11

e. Reframing the statements of 14 4

the parties

f. Actively and efficiently moving 19 6

the parties toward a written agreement

g. Facilitating a dialogue between 90 28

the victim and offender

h. Assisting the parties in negotiating a 39 12

mutually acceptable plan for restitution

i. Controlling the amount of feelings 1 1

and emotions that are expressed

j. Getting out of the way so the parties 20 6

can talk directly to each other

k. Other 8 3

* Respondents could indicate more than 1 task, so total number of responses (320) is greater than total number of 

respondents (116).

Mediator Training Information

24. How many hours of classroom training do mediators initially receive?

Mean: 31 hours Range: 1–89 hours
31

25. In how many cases, if any, are trainees required to participate with an experienced

mediator, as a period of apprenticeship, prior to completing their initial training? 

Mean: 4 cases Range: 1–24 cases

26. Does your training include a specific component on understanding the experience and

needs of crime victims?

a. Yes Number: 93 Percentage: 79.5

b. No Number: 23 Percentage: 20.5

27. If yes, how much time do you spend on the topic of crime victims?

Mean: 3.7 hours Range: 1–40 hours

28. If yes, does this include specific information about the crisis response of victims and

possible trauma?

a. Yes Number: 78 Percentage: 76.5

b. No Number: 24 Percentage: 23.5

29. If yes, does this include specific information about crisis intervention techniques and

local referral sources?

a. Yes Number: 70 Percentage: 68.0

b. No Number: 33 Percentage: 32.0

30. If yes, does this include specific information about the rights of crime victims in your

State?

a. Yes Number: 57 Percentage: 56.4

b. No Number: 44 Percentage: 43.6

31. Does your training of mediators include a guest speaker from a local victim assistance

program or agency? 

a. Yes Number: 45 Percentage: 38.5

b. No Number: 71 Percentage: 61.5

Name of the program/agency: _____________________________

32. Do you invite crime victims to tell their story during the training session for mediators?

a. Yes Number: 29 Percentage: 25.0

b. No Number: 87 Percentage: 75.0

33. If yes, are these victims ever former clients who went through mediation?

a. Yes Number: 19 Percentage: 59.4

b. No Number: 13 Percentage: 40.6

34. Does your training include a specific component on understanding the experience and

needs of offenders?

a. Yes Number: 87 Percentage: 75.0

b. No Number: 29 Percentage: 25.0

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue
32

35. If yes, how much time do you spend on the topic of understanding offenders? 

Mean: 3 hours Range: 1–12 hours

36. Does your training of mediators include a guest speaker from a local program or

agency that works with offenders? 

a. Yes Number: 93 Percentage: 79.5

b. No Number: 23 Percentage: 20.5

Name of program/agency: ______________________

37. Are one or more offenders ever invited to tell their story during the training session

for mediators?

a. Yes Number: 20 Percentage: 18.0

b. No Number: 91 Percentage: 82.0

38. If yes, are these offenders ever former clients who went through mediation?

a. Yes Number: 15 Percentage: 75.0

b. No Number: 5 Percentage: 25.0

What other topics are addressed during training?

Topic Number Percentage of

Answering Yes Programs 

(N=116) That

Include This

Topic

39. Y N Restorative justice 103 88

40. Y N History of victim-offender mediation 100 86

41. Y N Victim-offender mediation concept and process 113 97

42. Y N Understanding conflict 111 95

43. Y N Communication skills 114 98

44. Y N Preparation for mediation skills 110 94

45. Y N Mediation skills 114 98

46. Y N Followup VOM meetings 69 59

47. Y N Risks and benefits of victim-offender mediation 110 94

48. Y N VOM research 70 60

49. Y N Culture and gender issues in mediation 95 81

50. Y N Case assessment skills 83 71

51. Y N Followup support for victims and offenders 59 50

52. Y N Referral sources for victims and offenders 78 67

53. Y N Other 64 55

54. Approximately how many hours of role playing do you do in training?

Mean: 11 hours Range: 1–35 hours
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

33

55. What parts of the process do you role play in training?

Process Element Number of Responses* Percentage of 

Programs (N=116)

a. Calling the offender 57 49

b. Meeting the offender in a 61 53

pre-mediation session

c. Calling the victim 58 50

d. Meeting the victim in a 63 54

pre-mediation session

e. Mediation session 107 92

f. Followup mediation session 10 9

g. Other 8 7

*Respondents could indicate more than 1 source, so total number of responses (364) is greater than total number of respondents (116).

56. Are your mediators trained in comediation?

a. Yes Number: 91 Percentage: 78.5

b. No Number: 25 Percentage: 21.4

57a. If yes, why do you use comediators? What are the benefits?

57b. If no, why don’t you use comediators?

58. What do you find to be the most helpful training techniques? Please be very specific.

59. What do you find to be the least helpful training techniques? Please be very specific.

60. Are there specific handouts, manuals, or videotapes that you have found particularly

helpful in training? Please be specific.

61. Do you believe that your victim-offender mediation training is sufficiently sensitive to

understanding the experience and needs of crime victims?

a. Yes Number: 74 Percentage: 69.8

b. No Number: 32 Percentage: 30.2

62. Do you believe that your victim-offender mediation training is sufficiently sensitive to

understanding the experience and needs of offenders?

a. Yes Number: 82 Percentage: 76.6

b. No Number: 25 Percentage: 23.4

63. Do you think victim-offender mediators should be required to receive certification of

completion of a legislatively mandated number of hours of VOM training?

a. Yes Number: 40 Percentage: 38.8

b. No Number: 63 Percentage: 61.2
34

64. If yes, how many hours of training should be required?

Mean: 35 hours Range: 1–197 hours

65. If no, how many hours of training would be considered appropriate?

66. Do you think that advanced training should be required before mediators work with

cases of severe violence such as sexual assault, attempted homicide, murder?

a. Yes Number: 112 Percentage: 100

b. No Number: 0 Percentage: 0

Case Preparation Information

67. Does someone call the victim and offender prior to the mediation?

a. Yes Number: 114 Percentage: 99.1

b. No Number: 1 Percentage: 0.9

68. If yes, who does this?

Mediator Number: 55 Percentage: 49.1

Intake staff Number: 59 Percentage: 50.9

69. Does someone meet with the victim and offender separately prior to the mediation?

a. Yes Number: 88 Percentage: 77.9

b. No Number: 25 Percentage: 22.1

70. If yes, who does this?

Mediator Number: 72 Percentage: 82

Intake staff Number: 16 Percentage: 18

Mediation Process Information

71. Where are mediations typically held?

Location Number of Responses* Percentage of 

Programs (N=116)

a. Program office 83 72

b. Conference room in library 49 42

c. Neighborhood/community center 51 44

d. Home of victim 20 17

e. Courtroom 21 18

f. Church/synagogue/temple 45 39

g. Other 55 47

* Respondents could indicate more than 1 location, so total number of responses (324) is greater than total number of respondents (116).
35

72. Who chooses where the mediation will be held?

Number of Responses Percentage of 

Programs (N=116)

a. Victim 13 11

b. Offender 0 0

c. Mediator 18 16

d. Collaboratively 47 40

e. Other 38 33

73. If you use comediators, how often?

Number of Responses Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=115)

a. Routinely 81 70

b. Occasionally 26 23

c. Never 8 7

74. Do the victim and offender sit across from each other during the mediation, allowing

for direct eye contact?

a. Yes Number: 97 Percentage: 94.2

b. No Number: 6 Percentage: 5.8

If no, what type of seating arrangement do you use? _______________________

75. After the opening statement by the mediator, who typically begins telling his or her

story first?

Number of Responses Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=114)

a. Victim 60 53

b. Offender 38 33

c. Varies/depends 16 14

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

35
36

76. Who decides which party begins?

Number of Responses Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=116)

a. Victim 14 12

b. Offender 0 0

c. Mediator 62 53

d. Program 23 20

e. Victim and offender 8 7

f. Varies 9 8

Mediation Outcome Information

77. What is the primary goal of your victim-offender mediation program?

78. What are the three most important outcomes of the mediation session for the involved

parties?

a. ________________________________________________________

b. ________________________________________________________

c. ________________________________________________________

Comments: _________________________________________________

79. Has your program been evaluated at some level? 

a. Yes Number: 87 Percentage: 75.7

b. No Number: 28 Percentage: 24.3

If yes, please enclose either a copy of the full evaluation or a summary of it.

80. In what ways do you feel your program is sensitive to the needs of victims?

80a. What could be done to make your program more sensitive to the needs of victims?

81. In what ways do you feel your program is sensitive to the needs of offenders?

81a. Do you have ideas of things that could be done to make your program more sensitive

to the needs of offenders?

82. Is there anything else you would like to say about your program, the training of mediators, mediation outcomes, etc.?

83. Do you know of any other victim-offender mediation programs that might not be listed

in the national VOMA Directory, particularly newer programs?
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

37

84. Are offenders required to admit their guilt prior to participation? 

a. Yes Number: 75 Percentage: 65.2

b. No Number: 40 Percentage: 34.8

85. Are parents of the juvenile offenders present during the mediation session?

Number of Responses Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=116)

a. Always 60 52

b. Sometimes 32 27

c. Occasionally 15 13

d. Never 9 8

86. Are other participants present during the mediation session?

Number of Responses Percentage of Total 

Responses (N=116)

a. Always 60 52

b. Sometimes 32 27

c. Occasionally 15 13

d. Never 9 8

Who are the other participants?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this survey!

Please enclose a copy of your (1) mediator training agenda; (2) recent annual

report; (3) program flyer; (4) newsletter; (5) evaluation reports. 

The survey and other program materials should be mailed to:

Jean Greenwood, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking

School of Social Work, University of Minnesota

105 Peters Hall, 1404 Gortner Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

612–624–4923
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

39

Appendix B. What Is Humanistic

Mediation?

“Creating a Safe, if not Sacred, Place for Dialogue”

Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D.

Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking

Humanistic mediation represents a “dialogue-driven” rather than a “settlement-driven” form

of conflict resolution. It focuses on the importance of meeting with the parties individually

and in-person prior to the joint mediation session to listen to their story, build rapport,

explain the process, and prepare them for engagement in a mediated dialogue. It is a nondirective style of mediation in which the parties are primarily speaking to each other with

minimal intervention by the mediator. The mediator maintains an attitude of unconditional

positive regard and concern for all parties while remaining impartial (i.e., not taking sides).

The mediator works to create a safe, if not sacred, place to foster direct dialogue among the

parties about the emotional and material impacts of the conflict. Written settlement agreements often result from, but are not central to, the process. Humanistic mediation is a specific practice application of the broader theory of transformative mediation. Humanistic

mediation emphasizes healing and peacemaking over problem solving and resolution. The

telling and hearing of each other’s stories about the conflict, the opportunity for maximum

direct communication with each other, and the importance of honoring silence and the

innate wisdom and strength of the participants are all central to humanistic mediation practice. Humanistic mediation has been applied in many settings including community mediation, victim-offender mediation, workplace mediation, family mediation, and peer

mediation in schools.

Key Elements of Humanistic Mediation

1. Continual centering of the mediator.

Being fully present—separating biases from the mediation process.

2. Deep compassionate listening—importance of storytelling.

“Just listen.”

3. Separate, in-person, premediation meetings.

4. Connecting with parties, but remaining impartial.

5. Creation of safe, if not sacred, space.

6. Dialogue-driven meeting.

7. Nondirective style of mediation.

8. Mediator “gets out of the way.”

Key Elements of Creating a Safe, if not Sacred, Place for Dialogue

1. Nonjudgmental attitude:

—Demonstrating unconditional positive regard for all parties.
40

2. Preparation of the parties:

—Listening to their stories and needs.

—Explaining the process so there are no surprises.

—Preparing for the dialogue.

—Acting as a guardian of the process.

3. Presentation of choices:

—Deciding when to meet. 

—Selecting where to meet.

—Determining who should be present.

4. Centering of mediator:

—Deep belly breathing, meditation, or prayer.

—Separating “our stuff” from “their stuff.”

—Caring deeply for all but remaining impartial.

5. Setting the tone:

—Eliminating distractions.

—Playing soothing background music as people gather.

—Beginning with a moment of silence or prayer (if meaningful to all parties).

Potential Blocks (for Some Victims and Offenders) to Creating a Safe Place 

for Dialogue

1. Touch:

—Holding hands.

—Touch in any form.

—Hugging.

2. Religious ritual:

—Using a specific religious ritual or prayer from a dominant religion.

—Using a specific religious ritual or prayer from an indigenous or non-Western

tradition.

3. Language:

—Reference to spirituality and religion.

—“Spiritual” as synonymous with “religious.”

—Language that communicates judgment.

4. Assumptions:

—“My understanding of spirituality or religion is shared by those present.”

—“What makes me feel centered or safe works for others.”

For More Information

School of Social Work, University of Minnesota

105 Peters Hall, 1404 Gortner Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108–6160

612–624–4923

ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

41

Resources

Umbreit, M.S. (1997) “Beyond Settlement-Driven Mediation: A Humanistic Model of

Peace-Making.” Canadian Mediation Interaction Network Journal (Spring): 16–17.

Umbreit, M.S. (1997) “Humanistic Mediation: A Transformative Journey of PeaceMaking.” Mediation Quarterly 14(3): 201–213.

Umbreit, M.S. (1995) Mediating Interpersonal Conflicts: A Pathway to Peace. West

Concord, MN: CPI Publishing.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

43

Appendix C. Profiles of Programs

The following seven programs were selected as representative of established programs,

large and small, operating in a variety of settings. In addition to basic program information,

the descriptions include special program features. Additional information was drawn from

responses to the following telephone interview questions: “In what ways do you think your

program is currently sensitive to the needs of victims?” and “What are your ideas of things

that could be done to make your program more sensitive to the needs of victims?”

Fresno, California

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) of the Central Valley, Inc.

Ron Claassen, Program Director

1717 South Chestnut Avenue

Fresno, CA 93702

209–251–1549

Overview

The Fresno program conducted its first victim-offender meeting in 1983. Mediations are

conducted at several points in the justice process—diversion, post-adjudication but predisposition, and post-disposition—as part of the informal probation diversion and at postadjudication as part of disposition. The New Community Justice Conference Process

replaces arraignment, adjudication, and disposition (except for acceptance of agreement as

a restorative justice sentence). Of the cases referred in 1996, 55 percent were mediated, and

agreements were written in 95 percent of those cases.

Type of Agency: A church-based 501C–3 with board members representing a wide range

of communities and churches.

Primary Sources of Funding: Churches, businesses, and individual contributions.

Staff: 6.

Volunteers: 250.

Current Annual Budget: $100,000.

Juvenile Cases Referred in 1996: 598.

Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 30.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 25.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 75.

Primary Source of Referrals: Probation officers.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Vandalism, theft, battery.

Serious Offenses Mediated: Assault with a deadly weapon, assault with bodily injury,

involuntary manslaughter, rape.

Special Features

◆ Continuing education training of mediators includes victim service providers and

crime victims who have participated in mediations as guest speakers.

◆ Experienced volunteer mediators are used in training to coach role-play groups and to

assist them in debriefing after the process.
44

◆ Mediators work with juvenile offenders to help them understand the mediation experience, supporting them through a process that they typically find much more difficult

than treatment or incarceration. Offenders comment, “I get it now—it made me think

about the victim. [Previously] I didn’t think about the victim’s wants—I just thought

about me.”

◆ When possible, the program helps offenders find jobs to earn money to pay restitution.

◆ The mediation session includes recognizing the injustice (victims and offenders are

invited to restate or summarize what the other party has said); restoring equity (restitution of many forms); and clarifying future intentions (preferably including family

members who can encourage the offender and hold him or her accountable).

◆ Additional participants may be present during the mediation session, such as representatives of the school system, the community, and the faith community.

◆ The VORP community justice conference includes the offender; the offender’s immediate and extended family, teacher, and faith community representative; the victim; the

victim’s support persons and faith community representative; the probation officer; the

police officer; and the VORP mediator as leader.

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity

◆ Devote time as needed to listening to the victims.

◆ On the first visit with victims, let them know that they are being heard and understood

and validate their experience.

◆ Ensure that the entire mediation process allows the victims to be heard and validated.

◆ Consult first with victims regarding the site for mediation.

◆ Conduct followup meetings as needed to complete the agreement.

Orange, California

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program

Institute for Conflict Management

Scott Mather, Director

2525 North Grand, Suite N

Santa Ana, CA 92705

Overview

The Orange County Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program began in 1989. Mediations

are conducted at several points in the judicial process: prefiling from local law enforcement, diversion, and post-adjudication but pre-disposition. In 1996, approximately 50 percent of the referred cases were mediated. Of those cases mediated, 60 percent resulted in

written agreements, and 95 percent of the agreements were completed successfully.

Type of Agency: Private community-based.

Primary Source of Funding: Local government.

Staff: 9.

Volunteers: 150.

Current Annual Budget: $265,000.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

45

Juvenile Cases Referred in 1996: 900.

Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 100.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 0.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 100.

Primary Sources of Referrals: Probation officers, police officers, prosecutors, defense 

attorneys, victim advocates, community members.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Assault and battery, vandalism, petty theft.

Special Features

◆ Mediators receive 25 hours of classroom training, after which they observe two cases

facilitated by an advanced mediator. They then are observed by an advanced mediator

while comediating cases.

◆ Actual case experiences are presented during the training of mediators.

◆ Occasionally volunteer mediators use their own professional offices as sites for the

mediation sessions.

◆ Intake staff contact the victim first to confirm basic data before the mediator calls.

◆ Plans are being made for volunteers to conduct face-to-face followup interviews with

participants 4 to 6 weeks after the mediation.

◆ Staff members work closely with a lobbyist to secure legislation that supports victimoffender mediation.

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity to Victims 

◆ Meet the offender first, before contacting victims.

◆ Provide victims with some degree of control over the process.

◆ Offer victims the opportunity to speak first in the mediation session and to ask

questions.

◆ Make sure the process addresses victims’ needs.

Elkhart, Indiana

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program

Center for Community Justice

Trysha Miller, Coordinator

Jolene VonGunten, Coordinator

121 South Third Street

Elkhart, IN 46516

219–295–6149

Overview

The Elkhart Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program was established in 1978 as the first

U.S. replication of a model developed in Kitchener, Ontario, in 1974. Mediations are conducted at the following stages in the justice process: diversion, post-adjudication but predisposition, and post-disposition. Of the cases referred in 1996, 26 percent were mediated.

Written agreements were reached in 100 percent of those cases, and 95 percent of the

agreements were successfully completed.
46

Type of Agency: Private community-based.

Primary Sources of Funding: Local government, foundations.

Staff: 2.

Volunteers: 15.

Current Annual Budget: $110,000.

Juvenile Cases Referred in 1996: 330.

Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 50.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 70.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 30.

Primary Sources of Referrals: Probation officers, judges, prosecutors.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Theft, burglary, auto theft.

Serious Offenses Mediated: Assault with a deadly weapon, assault with bodily injury.

Special Features

◆ The victim assistance Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program makes initial contact

with the victim before mediation is explored as an option.

◆ Guest speakers for training sessions include judges, probation officers, and representatives of the program.

◆ Assumptions about victims are discussed during training; stereotypes of vindictiveness

of victims are challenged by sharing actual victim stories.

◆ In the training of mediators, emphasis is placed on the ways that victim-offender 

mediation differs from classical forms of mediation.

◆ Mediations are typically held in the program office to ensure safety, privacy, and 

confidentiality.

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity to Victims

◆ Take time with each victim.

◆ Discuss various options with the victim.

◆ Inform the victim of his or her rights.

◆ Assist the victim in getting questions answered.

◆ Encourage offenders to consider what they might say to the victim—if they were the

victim, what might they want to hear?

Des Moines, Iowa

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program

Restorative Justice Center

Polk County Attorney 

Teri Gillenwater, Program Coordinator

206 Sixth Avenue, Suite E

Des Moines, IA 50309

515–286–3737
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

47

Overview

The Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of Polk County has been in operation since

1992. Mediations are conducted at diversion, post-adjudication but pre-disposition, and

post-disposition stages in the justice process. 

Type of Agency: Prosecuting attorney.

Primary Source of Funding: Local government.

Staff: 5.

Volunteers: 9.

Current Annual Budget: $356,649 (includes community mediation program).

Juvenile Cases Referred in 1996: 20.

Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 1,300.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 20.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 80.

Primary Sources of Referrals: Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Theft, assault, drunk driving, criminal mischief.

Serious Offenses Mediated: Assault with a deadly weapon, assault with bodily injury,

negligent homicide.

Special Features

◆ Mediators, known as “facilitators,” are trained in victim sensitivity by Polk County

Victim Services personnel and by crime victims who make up a victim impact panel.

Trainees occasionally visit a local prison.

◆ Training consists of 30 hours of basic mediation training, followed by 10 hours specific to victim-offender mediation. Mediators then observe cases for 2 to 3 months before

they are prepared to conduct the sessions themselves.

◆ Before mediators are considered for victim-offender mediation training, they must

have 6 to 12 months of intensive experience conducting community mediations.

◆ All mediators are paid a modest stipend.

◆ If intake staff become aware of additional issues or needs of participants, they may

offer to contact victim services, probation, or other agencies to obtain immediate assistance for the parties.

◆ During the final evaluations, probation officers ask offenders what they believe will

most help them avoid reoffending. Offenders who have experienced mediation often

respond, “The one thing that helped me see what crime really does, was meeting the

victim; I had no idea I hurt an individual.”

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity to Victims

◆ Provide victims of all crimes with an advocate who offers support through the victimoffender mediation process and is present at the mediation session.

◆ Prepare victims thoroughly for the victim-offender mediation process.

◆ Work closely with victim services.

◆ Provide the safest place possible for the mediation, making sure it is secure.
48

◆ Additional ideas to enhance victim sensitivity: spend ample time with victims before

the mediation; develop educational videotapes to describe the program; provide community education using victim impact panels; spend time with judges and county attorneys and have them observe a mediation.

Caledonia, Minnesota

Houston County Mediation and Victim Services

Houston County Courthouse

Julie Thompson, Director

Houston County Courthouse, Room 210

304 South Marshall Street

Caledonia, MN 55921

507–724–5831

Overview

The victim-offender mediation program in Houston County has been in operation since

1994. In this program, mediations are done as diversions, at pre-disposition, and at postdisposition. Approximately 45 percent of the cases referred in 1996 were mediated. Of

those mediated, 95 percent resulted in a written agreement, and 100 percent of those agreements were successfully completed.

Type of Agency: Victim services.

Primary Source of Funding: State government.

Staff: 3.

Volunteers: 10.

Current Annual Budget: $30,000.

Juvenile and Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 122.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 1.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 99.

Primary Source of Referrals: Prosecutors.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Criminal damage to property, theft, tampering with a

motor vehicle.

Special Features

◆ Mediators receive 40 hours of classroom training followed by observation and then

comediate at least five sessions.

◆ Victim advocates and crime victims are invited to speak during the training sessions

for mediators.

◆ Because the program is used by the county court system, parties are occasionally sent

directly from the courthouse and mediation is done at that time.

◆ The program has added a family group conferencing component that is used when a

case involves a significant impact on a neighborhood and on the community.

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity to Victims

◆ Explore victims’ questions.

◆ Never try to talk a victim into participating in mediation.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

49

◆ When it is helpful, reframe what the victim is saying.

◆ Learn by listening.

◆ Encourage victims to be empowered. “As victim advocates, we have learned through

this process that having someone in your corner (who takes over for the victim) is not

always the best for the victim. How do victims heal? By taking their power back, by

claiming some control. Victims face their fear and tremendous sense of loss. If you can

put a face to it and can process it, this helps victims come to terms with the fear, so

that it doesn’t own them” (Program Director).

Stillwater, Minnesota

Victim-Offender Conferencing Program

Community Justice Program

Washington County Court Services

Carolyn McLeod, Coordinator

14900 61st Street, Fifth Floor

P.O. Box 6

Stillwater, MN 55082–0006

612–430–6948

Overview

The Washington County Community Justice Program is a relatively new program, begun in

1995. The Victim-Offender Conferencing Program conducts conferences at both diversion

and post-disposition stages in the justice process. Approximately 70 percent of the cases

referred in 1996 were mediated. Of those mediated, 99 percent resulted in written agreements, and 99 percent of the agreements were successfully completed.

Type of Agency: Probation.

Primary Source of Funding: Local government.

Staff: 1.

Volunteers: 52 (43 community volunteers, 9 probation officers).

Current Annual Budget: $66,000.

Juvenile Cases Referred in 1996: 175.

Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 25.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 60.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 40.

Primary Sources of Referrals: Probation officers, judges, prosecutors, victim advocates.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Burglary/theft, assault, harassment, damage to property.

Serious Offenses Mediated: Assault with bodily injury, negligent homicide, vehicular 

homicide.

Special Features

◆ Mediators are given 24–30 hours of classroom training, which includes drills and role

plays, followed by apprenticeship on as many as three cases. During training, participants are given a folder with information on a mock case that they use in role playing.

Mediators are also trained to facilitate small group and large group conferences.
50

◆ Training of mediators includes guest speakers from the Victim-Witness Advocate

Program, Probation Department, and the Youth Services Bureau. In addition, criminal

justice and law enforcement professionals participate in a play depicting the experiences of victims and offenders in the current justice system.

◆ Additional ongoing training is provided for mediators on communication skills, community resources, diversity training, and victim sensitivity.

◆ Probation officers team with community volunteers to comediate cases beyond their

caseloads. Juvenile probation officers mediate adult cases, and officers working with

adult probation mediate in juvenile cases. Probation officers do not mediate cases in

their own communities.

◆ In addition to victim-offender conferencing between individual parties, small group

conferences are also conducted. These conferences may include siblings, interested

parties, and primary and secondary victims as participants. Large group conferences

offer a restorative process to large numbers of participants—even entire communities.

Self-selected panels represent the entire group, and attendees have the opportunity to

provide written input.

◆ The Community Justice Program sponsors community forums on restorative justice

and other issues of concern to specific neighborhoods and facilitates dialogue within

schools to deal with issues such as racial and ethnic tensions.

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity to Victims

◆ Meet with victims at their request and convenience.

◆ Listen.

◆ Provide structure and a safe environment.

◆ Assist with referrals for other kinds of help participants may want.

◆ Follow up on agreements and notify victims of their completion.

◆ Provide training and ongoing education on victim sensitivity.

◆ Additional ideas that would enhance victim sensitivity: make 1-week and 2-month followup telephone contacts with victims.

Eugene, Oregon

Lane County Restorative Justice Program

Community Mediation Services

Beverly Moore, Program Manager

44 West Broadway, Suite 202

Eugene, OR 97401

541–344–5366

Overview

The Lane County Restorative Justice Program has been in operation since 1994, but dispute

resolution services have been provided by the center since 1981. Victim-offender mediations are done as a diversion from the justice process. Of the cases referred to the program

in 1996, 74 percent were mediated. Of those mediated, 100 percent resulted in written

agreements that were successfully completed in 80 percent of the cases.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

51

Type of Agency: Nonprofit community.

Primary Source of Funding: County government.

Staff: 2.

Volunteers: 15.

Current Annual Budget: $26,000.

Juvenile Cases Referred in 1996: 146.

Adult Cases Referred in 1996: 0.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Felonies: 25–40.

Percentage of Referrals That Are Misdemeanors: 60–75.

Primary Source of Referrals: Juvenile intake counselors.

Most Common Offenses Referred: Burglary I, criminal mischief, unauthorized use of a

motor vehicle.

Special Features 

◆ Training of mediators involves 30 hours of basic mediation training and 15 hours in

the Restorative Justice Program. Following classroom work, trainees complete two

observations with a supervisor/mediator, after which they comediate sessions if the

supervisor assesses they are ready.

◆ Guest speakers during training include juvenile counselors from the Department of

Youth Services and victims and offenders who have participated in the program.

◆ Classroom training of mediators includes a component on communicating with victims—what to say and what not to say.

◆ In cases when the victim does not wish to mediate, the program explores the possibility that the offender could meet with a victim panel instead. In addition, mediators may

work with the offender to construct a plan (“offender-only restitution agreement”) or

conduct shuttle negotiations between the parties.

◆ Evaluations are conducted by volunteers from the Department of Youth Services.

Practices To Heighten Sensitivity to Victims

◆ Listen to victims.

◆ Provide input into the criminal justice process.

◆ Encourage victims to tell their story first, if they so choose.

◆ Offer the opportunity to process victims’ experiences with staff to desensitize or

debrief the victim on what has happened.

◆ Additional ideas to enhance victim sensitivity: training on victimology. 
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

53

Appendix D. Promising Practices

Program Innovations

Placer Dispute Resolution Service, Lincoln, California

◆ The goals of mediation are included in the agreement: recognition of injustice, some

kind of restitution, and plans for the future, such as how the parties will treat each

other.

◆ As part of the sentence, the offender pays $40 for mediation.

Oakland Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Oakland, California

◆ If the initial introductory letter does not reach the parties, intake staff try to locate the

parties by telephoning or driving to their homes.

◆ Approximately 25–40 hours of volunteer time are devoted to each case, with mediators

spending 2–3 hours with each party separately and meeting with the comediator for an

hour before and after the mediation session. In tough cases, mediators meet with staff

to brainstorm ideas and then debrief with staff following the mediation.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, San Luis Obispo, California

◆ A 36-hour course is being developed for offenders and their parents that covers the following topics: conflict management, empathy, communication, self-esteem building,

and skills development for peer support.

Larimer County Youth Service Bureau/Victim-Offender Mediation Program, Fort

Collins, Colorado

◆ In addition to mediation, a broad spectrum of services is provided for offenders,

including jail screening, host homes, electronic home monitoring, public works programs, training in conflict resolution skills, and recreation.

Woodford County Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Eureka, Illinois 

◆ Mediations are occasionally held near the site where the crime was committed to

enhance realism and impact.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Bloomington, Indiana

◆ Offenders are given the victim’s questions in advance to assist them in preparing for

the mediation.

◆ Conflict resolution training is conducted in a local detention center using a juvenile exoffender as cotrainer.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Lafayette, Indiana

◆ Mediators are trained to avoid using the word “don’t” in their ground rules because the

effect may be demeaning to the parties. Instead, mediators model respect and frame

the goals carefully, affirming the parties’ choice to speak honestly and work together to
54

see what can be done about the situation. If the conversation becomes disrespectful,

the mediator, without judgment, stops the process and asks the parties how they feel

and offers feedback if they have a personal reaction to what is happening, such as

“That would make it hard for me to listen.”

Center for Creative Justice, Ames, Iowa

◆ If the victim chooses not to participate, the offender sends a letter of apology.

◆ The offender pays a fee to participate in mediation.

Victim-Offender Mediation Program, Davenport, Iowa

◆ Important qualifications for mediators include a certain attitude and perspective.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Hutchinson, Kansas

◆ Victims are notified by telephone as soon as the restitution agreement is fulfilled.

Offender-Victim Ministries, Newton, Kansas

◆ Teenage offenders are provided with information about drugs, mental health issues,

and so on.

◆ In response to a high volume of shoplifting in the area, this program developed a

“mini-VORP” to be used with shoplifters. The juvenile offender develops a relationship with a mentor and writes and delivers a letter of apology as part of the program.

Mid-Michigan Dispute Resolution Center, Saginaw, Michigan

◆ When offenders are young and somewhat inarticulate, probation officers work with

them before mediation to develop a tentative script of what they might wish to express.

Dakota County Community Corrections, Apple Valley, Minnesota

◆ The program uses the term “meeting” instead of “mediation” to avoid the possible

impression that the parties are involved in a dispute rather than a crime.

Victim-Offender Interactive Conferences, Rochester, Minnesota

◆ Mediators offer to role play the mediation session with offenders to help them prepare

for the kinds of questions victims often ask.

Monroe County Community Mediation Program, Rochester, New York

◆ Mediations are conducted at the program office, where staff are available to draft an

agreement on the spot and provide copies of the completed agreement.

Orange County Dispute Settlement Center, Carrboro, North Carolina

◆ The goals of mediation are framed as “gaining understanding” and “being able to

move on,” which are considered more realistic than “making things right.”

◆ An advisory council, assisting the board of directors in its work, is composed of victims, offenders, and youth workers.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

55

One Step Further, Greensboro, North Carolina

◆ Offenders are given job training and attend a life-skills class. The program also plans

to provide a work-study program following the mediation process.

Crime Victim Services, Lima, Ohio

◆ Mediations are held at the site of the crime whenever possible to make it more real to

the parties and “help victims take their power back.”

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of Linn County, Albany, Oregon

◆ A program on victimization is provided for juvenile offenders and their parents. Victim

impact panels are used for cases in which victims choose not to mediate. Offenders

also attend assault class, which teaches them effective ways to deal with anger.

Lancaster Area Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Lancaster,

Pennsylvania

◆ A desired outcome of mediation is that the parties achieve a “sense of understanding.”

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

◆ One of the goals of mediation, as it is framed in this program, is to assist the victim in

finding “some measure of peace.”

Mediation and Restitution Reconciliation Services, Memphis, Tennessee

◆ Mediation is part of a three-phase program for youthful offenders that includes recreational activities, relationship-building with adults through program-supervised community service, and ultimately housing facilities.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of Anderson County, Oak Ridge,

Tennessee

◆ Victims’ names are added to the program’s mailing list. Some victims have sent in

contributions to support the operating expenses of the program.

Travis County Juvenile Court, Austin, Texas

◆ Juvenile offenders, averaging 15 years of age, are trained as mediators and cofacilitate

cases.

Dispute Mediation Services, Dallas, Texas

◆ Volunteers are used to promote the program by speaking to juvenile court personnel

about their experiences as mediators in the process.

◆ Mediation programs are funded through a $10 surcharge on civil court filing fees.

◆ Victims and offenders are given self-guided workbooks that assist them in preparing

for the mediation session. The workbook invites participants to reflect on their experiences and the impact of the crime and to consider thoughts they would like to share

and questions they would like to ask. 
56

Northwest Institute for Restorative Justice, Victim-Offender Mediation

Program, Seattle, Washington

◆ Victims and offenders determine the goals of the mediation session.

◆ Mediations are conducted in schools in cases where there is ambiguity about whether

the parties are victims or offenders. The cases are initiated prior to any charges being

filed or an admission of guilt being recorded, and the labels “victim” and “offender”

are dropped to assist the peacemaking effort.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, LaCrosse, Wisconsin

◆ An advisory board for the program consists of representatives from court administration, health care, the media, victim/witness services, probation and parole, diversion,

and the police. The program was developed by this advisory board.

◆ Volunteer mediators keep office hours at the program office.

◆ The program has found that by reducing the number of volunteers and providing them

with more cases, the level of commitment on the part of volunteer mediators has

increased and cases are completed more promptly.

Victim-Offender Mediation Program, Manitowoc, Wisconsin

◆ Advocacy and support services are provided for victims, even when they choose not to

participate in mediation.

◆ Mediators follow up with juvenile offenders by monitoring restitution efforts, taking

offenders on job search excursions, encouraging and reminding them to fulfill their

agreements, and meeting with them when they bring restitution payments into the

office.

Youth and Family Project, Port Washington, Wisconsin

◆ Forums are conducted with victims to get their input about the process and their 

experiences.

Mediation Center of Waukesha County, Waukesha, Wisconsin

◆ In the mediation session, parents of the offender are seated by the mediator to avoid

having “too many eyes staring at the victim.”

◆ In discussing possible outcomes of mediation with the parties, mediators are careful

not to “oversell” the process, for example, by pretending that there will be closure.

Training Ideas

Victim-Offender Mediation Project, Anchorage, Alaska

◆ Mediators are trained to know the community’s resources and structure and to understand how the program and the use of volunteers relate to community building.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, Arizona

◆ Training is designed as follows: short lecture on a small segment of the process, group

practice, and role play.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

57

Placer Dispute Resolution Service, Lincoln, California

◆ Local high school freshmen who are committed to helping their peers find a better way

to settle disputes are trained as mediators and serve on a panel of three, facilitating

mediations.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, San Luis Obispo, California

◆ Training explores systemic and societal inequities that underlie anger.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Alamosa, Colorado

◆ An offender helps with role plays by playing the part of the offender.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of Boulder County, Boulder, Colorado

◆ To help mediators understand their own responses to conflict, the training explores

with trainees how conflict was handled at home when they were growing up.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of McLean County, Inc., Bloomington,

Illinois

◆ One component of mediator training seeks to help mediators recognize their own

needs and their own style of communication.

Victim-Offender Mediation Program of Davenport, Iowa

◆ Each skill taught in training is reinforced through use of worksheets, verbal practice,

interaction with the trainer, and role play.

Offender-Victim Ministries, Newton, Kansas

◆ Trainees are invited to reflect on their own experiences of victimization and what others have said that was helpful or less than helpful. They also reflect on their experiences of offending.

Dakota County Community Corrections, Apple Valley, Minnesota

◆ During mediation training, a probation officer and a judge participate in a skit illustrating the offender’s movement through the system.

Victim-Offender Mediation Program, Coon Rapids, Minnesota

◆ Efforts have been made over a period of years to cultivate a healthy working relationship with the county’s victim services program, including suggestions that joint training be conducted and that portions of the mediation training be held in the offices of

the victim services unit.

◆ Training of mediators includes a segment on juvenile culture.

Restorative Justice Program, Woodbury, Minnesota

◆ To enhance the effectiveness of role playing, participants are shown how to be realistic

in their portrayal of victim and offender behavior.
58

Orange County Dispute Settlement Center, Carrboro, North Carolina

◆ Experienced mediators attend training sessions to discuss their mediation experiences.

Community Dispute Resolution Center, Ashland, Oregon

◆ A panel of young people speaks during mediation training to educate mediators about

adolescent issues and perspectives.

Lancaster Area Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, Lancaster,

Pennsylvania

◆ Role plays are designed with “kinks” that elicit discussion about particular issues

mediators find challenging. Examples would be scenarios in which a youthful offender

chooses not to participate in mediation, but the parents insist; a restitution amount is

deemed unrealistic or unfair by the mediator; or cultural tensions are present.

◆ Mediators are trained and encouraged through supervision to provide timely contact

with the parties and followup on court proceedings and referrals that is efficient,

dependable, and accurate.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of Southeast South Dakota, Sioux

Falls, South Dakota

◆ The trainer participates in the role plays to “level the playing field” between trainer

and trainee and to give the trainer a better sense of where mediators might have 

difficulties.

Mediation and Restitution Reconciliation Services, Memphis, Tennessee

◆ During mediation training, participants unknowingly receive the actual case for role

playing that they will be given to mediate.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program of Anderson County, Oak Ridge,

Tennessee

◆ During training each participant is videotaped as mediator in a role play. The tapes are

then available to be checked out for viewing.

◆ Community members are brought in to play the roles of victim, offender, and parent in

the role plays.

◆ Trainees are given information about the victim experience and then urged not to prejudge what might be important to a particular victim.

Dispute Mediation Service, Dallas, Texas

◆ Excerpts from movies and newspapers are used in training to explore the nature of

conflict and what could be done differently in a given scenario.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

59

Victim-Offender Mediation Programs for Victims and Offenders, Seattle,

Washington

◆ Speakers from the judiciary are included in mediation training so that trainees realize

that the system appreciates and supports mediation.

◆ Trainees are given the opportunity to participate in an exercise that simulates greeting

the victim and offender in the hallway prior to the mediation session.

Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, LaCrosse, Wisconsin

◆ As part of the training, mediators attend court proceedings to observe victims and

offenders in the actual court process.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

61

Bibliography

Bradshaw, W., and M.S. Umbreit. (1998) “Crime Victims Meet Juvenile Offenders:

Contributing Factors to Victim Satisfaction with Mediated Dialogue in Minneapolis.”

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 49(3): 17–25.

Coates, R.B., and J. Gehm. (1989) “An Empirical Assessment.” In M. Wright and B.

Galaway (eds.), Mediation and Criminal Justice. London, England: Sage Publications,

251–263.

Collins, J.P. (1984) Evaluation Report: Grande Prairie Reconciliation Project for Young

Offenders. Prairies, Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada,

Consultation Centre.

Dignan, J. (1990) Repairing the Damage. Sheffield, England: Centre for Criminological

and Legal Research, University of Sheffield.

Fischer, D.G., and R. Jeune. (1987) “Juvenile Diversion: A Process Analysis.” Canadian

Psychology 28: 60–70.

Galaway, B. (1988) “Crime Victim and Offender Mediation as a Social Work Strategy.”

Social Service Review 62(4): 668–683.

Galaway, B., and J. Hudson. (1996) Restorative Justice: An International Perspective.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Gehm, J. (1990) “Mediated Victim-Offender Restitution Agreements: An Exploratory

Analysis of Factors Related to Victim Participation.” In B. Galaway and J. Hudson (eds.),

Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press,

177–182.

Marshall, T.F., and S. Merry. (1990) Crime and Accountability. London, England: Home

Office.

Nugent, W.R., and J.B. Paddock. (1995) “The Effect of Victim-Offender Mediation on

Severity of Reoffense.” Mediation Quarterly 12(4): 353–367.

Nugent, W.R., M.S. Umbreit, L. Winamaki, and J. Paddock. (In press) “Participation in

Victim-Offender Mediation and Re-Offense: Successful Replications?” Journal of Research

on Social Work Practice.

Perry, L., T. Lajeunesse, and A. Woods. (1987) Mediation Services: An Evaluation.

Manitoba, Canada: Research, Planning, and Evaluation Office of the Attorney General. 

Schneider, A.L. (1986) “Restitution and Recidivism Rates of Juvenile Offenders: Results

from Four Experimental Studies.” Criminology 24(3): 533–553.
62

Umbreit, M.S. (1999a) “Avoiding the Marginalization and ‘McDonaldization’ of VictimOffender Mediation: A Case Study in Moving Toward the Mainstream.” In G. Bazemore

and L. Walgrave (eds.), Restorative Juvenile Justice. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

———. (1999b) “Victim-Offender Mediation in Canada: The Impact of an Emerging

Social Work Intervention.” International Journal of Social Work 42(2): 215–227.

———. (1998) “Restorative Justice Through Victim-Offender Mediation: A Multi-Site

Assessment.” Western Criminology Review 1(1): 1–29.

———. (1997) “Humanistic Mediation: A Transformative Journey of Peace-Making.”

Mediation Quarterly 14(3): 201–213.

———. (1996) “Restorative Justice Through Mediation: The Impact of Offenders Facing

Their Victims in Oakland.” The Journal of Law and Social Work 5(1): 1–13.

———. (1995a) “The Development and Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation in the U.S.”

Mediation Quarterly 12(3): 263–276.

———. (1995b) Mediation of Criminal Conflict: An Assessment of Programs in Four

Canadian Provinces. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation,

University of Minnesota.

———. (1994a) “Crime Victims Confront Their Offenders: The Impact of a Minneapolis

Mediation Program.” Journal of Research on Social Work Practice 4(4): 436–447.

______. (1994b) Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

———. (1993a) “Crime Victims and Offenders in Mediation: An Emerging Area of Social

Work Practice.” Social Work 38(1): 69–73.

———. (1993b) “Juvenile Offenders Meet Their Victims: The Impact of Mediation in

Albuquerque, New Mexico.” Family and Conciliation Courts Review 31(1): 90–100.

———. (August 1991) “Minnesota Mediation Center Gets Positive Results.” Corrections

Today Journal: 194–197.

———. (September 1989) “Victims Seeking Fairness Not Revenge: Toward Restorative

Justice.” Federal Probation 53(3): 52–57.

Umbreit, M.S., and R.B. Coates. (1993) “Cross-Site Analysis of Victim Offender Mediation

in Four States.” Crime and Delinquency 39(4): 565–585.

Umbreit, M.S., and A.W. Roberts. (1996) Mediation of Criminal Conflict in England: An

Assessment of Services in Coventry and Leeds. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice

and Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Van Ness, D., and K. Strong. (1997) Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson

Publishing Company.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

63

Wright, M. (1996) Justice for Victims and Offenders. Philadelphia, PA: Open University

Press.

Wright, M., and B. Galaway. (1989) Mediation and Criminal Justice. London, England:

Sage Publications.

Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, PA:

Herald Press.
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive 

Victim-Offender Mediation:

Restorative Justice Through Dialogue

For copies of this document and/or additional information, please contact:

Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center (OVCRC)

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Telephone: 1–800–627–6872 or 301–519–5500

E-mail orders for print publications to puborder@ncjrs.org

E-mail questions to askovc@ncjrs.org

Send your feedback on this service to tellncjrs@ncjrs.org

Refer to publication number: NCJ 176346
NCJ 176346