Advocating for the Fair 

 Treatment of Crime Victims

Office for Victims of Crime

Family Group

Conferencing:

Implications for

Crime

Victims

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

Center for

Restorative

Justice &

Peacemaking

University of Minnesota

April 2000
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 author 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 176347
Family Group

Conferencing:

Implications for

Crime Victims

Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director

Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking

(formerly Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation)

School of Social Work

University of Minnesota

St. Paul, Minnesota

April 2000

NCJ 176347

Office for Victims of Crime

Advocating for the Fair 

 Treatment of Crime Victims
This document draws upon a previous article by Mark Umbreit and Howard Zehr (1996),

and the guidelines in the conclusion are based upon a consensus that emerged from a group

of individuals who participated in the Family Group Conference training provided by the

REAL JUSTICE organization in Pennsylvania in 1995.

Cover images © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.
iii

Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

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 
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
Acknowledgments

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

Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director, of the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking

(formerly the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation), School of Social Work,

University of Minnesota, for this document. We would also like to acknowledge the

valuable contributions made by Howard Zehr, Ph.D., Conflict Transformation Program

at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia, and a working group of practitioners in

Minnesota trained in family group conferencing and convened by the Center for Restorative

Justice & Peacemaking. In addition, we thank Robert Schug, Administrative Aide at the

Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, who prepared the document and responded

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 additional options in the process of healing.

Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

v
Contents

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

Family Group Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

The History of Family Group Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Similarities and Differences Between Family Group Conferencing 

and Victim-Offender Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Potential Dangers of Family Group Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Guidelines for Restorative Family Group Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

vii
1

Introduction

During the past several years, family

group conferencing (FGC) models used

in New Zealand and Australia have

received considerable attention in North

America. Representatives from both

countries have lectured and provided

training workshops throughout the United

States and Canada. Audiences have

ranged from those in the victim-offender

mediation (VOM) and restorative justice

movements to many law enforcement

officers, school officials, and a growing

number of victim advocates.

What Is Restorative Justice?

By Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking

University of Minnesota School of Social Work

Restorative justice is a victim-centered response to crime that allows the victim, the

offender, their families, and representatives of the community to address the harm

caused by the crime. Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for more active involvement in the process of offering support and assistance to

crime victims; holding offenders directly accountable to the people and communities

they have violated; restoring the emotional and material losses of victims (to the degree

possible); providing a range of opportunities for dialogue and problem solving to interested crime victims, offenders, families, and other support persons; offering offenders

opportunities for competency development and reintegration into productive community life; and strengthening public safety through community building.

Restorative justice policies and programs are developing in more than 45 States, including a growing number of State and county justice systems that are undergoing major 

systemic changes. Restorative justice is also developing in many other parts of the world,

including numerous European countries, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The

principles of restorative justice draw upon the wisdom of many cultures throughout the

world, most notably American-Indian cultures within the United States and aboriginal

cultures within Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. 

Specific examples of restorative justice initiatives include crime repair crews, victim intervention programs, family group conferencing, victim-offender mediation and dialogue,

peacemaking circles, victim panels that address offenders, sentencing circles, community

reparative boards before which offenders appear, offender competency development

programs, victim empathy classes for offenders, victim-directed and citizen-involved

community service by the offender, community-based support groups for crime victims,

and community-based support groups for offenders. As the oldest and most widely

developed expression of restorative justice, having been in use more than 25 years and

the subject of numerous studies in North America and Europe, victim-offender mediation and dialogue programs currently work with thousands of cases annually through

more than 300 programs in the United States and more than 700 in Europe.

Research has found that restorative justice programs provide higher levels of victim and

offender satisfaction with the process and outcome and a greater likelihood of successful restitution completion by the offender than traditional justice programs. Research has

also shown that restorative justice programs have reduced fear among victims and

decreased the frequency and severity of further criminal behavior among offenders.

Family Group Conferencing: 

Implications for Crime Victims
This attention has resulted in the introduction of a number of pilot projects and

new program initiatives that incorporate

some form of the FGC approach. One

Pennsylvania-based organization, REAL

JUSTICE, is vigorously promoting a 

specific police- and school-based model

that originated in Wagga Wagga,

Australia. REAL JUSTICE has trained

hundreds of police officers and school

staff members and is working to replicate

this Australian model in a number of

sites. The Minnesota Legislature funded

the development of FGC pilot projects

using the REAL JUSTICE model in nine

communities in the First Judicial

District. 

Rarely has a new criminal justice idea

received such extensive exposure to and

interest from audiences as widespread as

activists, professionals, and the general

public in such a short period of time. No

other restorative justice approach has so

quickly brought such large numbers of

law enforcement officials to the table as

active stakeholders in the restorative justice movement.

Family Group Conferencing

FGC involves the community of people

most affected by the crime—the victim

and the offender and the family, friends,

and key supporters of both—in deciding

the resolution of a criminal or delinquent

act. The facilitator contacts the victim

and offender to explain the process and

invite them to the conference; the facilitator also asks them to identify key

members of their support systems who

will be invited to participate as well.

Participation by all involved is voluntary.

The offender must admit to the offense

to participate. The parties affected are

brought together by a trained facilitator

to discuss how they and others have been

harmed by the offense and how that

harm might be repaired. 

The conference typically begins with the

offender describing the incident, followed by each participant describing the

impact of the incident on his or her life.

Through these narrations, the offender is

faced with the human impact of his or

her behavior on the victim, on those

close to the victim, and on the offender’s

own family and friends. The victim has

the opportunity to express feelings and

ask questions about the offense. After a

thorough discussion of the impact of the

offense on those present, the victim is

asked to identify desired outcomes from

the conference and thus helps to shape

the obligations that will be placed on the

offender. All participants may contribute

to the process of determining how the

offender might best repair the harm he or

she has caused. The session ends with

participants signing an agreement outlining their expectations and commitments.

FGC is intuitively appealing to most

restorative justice advocates in North

America. The mediation process, which

involves a wide range of people affected

by the crime, appears to expand the rich

20-year history of VOM. FGC primarily

works with juvenile offenders and uses

police or probation officers or school

officials, rather than trained volunteers,

as facilitators.

Despite its appeal, a number of unresolved issues and potential dangers

remain in adapting the FGC model to

North American justice systems with

their strong commitment to retributive,

offender-driven principles. The purpose

of this overview is to encourage a serious

discussion of the opportunities and

potential pitfalls presented by the FGC

process, particularly from the perspective

of its impact on crime victims.

2
Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

3

The History of Family 

Group Conferencing

FGC originated in New Zealand as a way

to address the failures of traditional juvenile justice and to incorporate indigenous

Maori values that emphasize the role of

family and community in addressing

wrongdoing. Institutionalized into law 

in 1989, FGC is now the standard way to

process juvenile cases in New Zealand.

Australia subsequently adopted the idea

and has implemented a number of FGC

models in various communities. Like

VOM in North America, Australian

implementation of FGC has been piecemeal, and the model used varies with the

community.

All juvenile cases in New Zealand,

with a few exceptions such as homicide, are diverted by courts to FGC. 

Consequently, judges report drops in

caseloads of up to 80 percent. These

conferences are then organized and

facilitated by a youth justice worker

employed not by the criminal justice

system but by the welfare/social service

sector. The conferences attempt to be

inclusive. In addition to involving the

offender, a major effort is made to

include as many of his or her family

members as possible, including extended

family members. Victims and their supporters are invited as are any professional caregivers who have been involved

with the parties. A lawyer/advocate for

the offender is invited, and a representative of the police department, who serves

as the prosecutor, is present. Facilitator

roles are broadly and loosely defined and

include mediation. The entire group,

which includes participants usually considered adversaries, is expected to come

to a consensus on the outcome for the

case, not just on a restitution agreement.

Goals of the conference include accountability, prevention of future misconduct,

and victim empowerment.

FGC is clearly grounded in the theory of

“reintegrative shaming” of offenders,

which was developed by Australian criminologist Dr. John Braithwaite (1989), as

well as Silvan Tomkins’ affect theory

(1992). By themselves, these theories

were not sufficient in addressing the

importance of engaging crime victims in

the process. Restorative justice theory

did not play a large part in the origin of

FGC, but was used later to help fine-tune

the approach, resulting, for example, in a

greater appreciation of the centrality of

victims’ roles. Now, New Zealand Judge

F.W.M. McElrea calls the approach the

first truly restorative system institutionalized within a Western legal system.

FGC was adopted in Australia in a variety of forms, but the model most often

promoted in North America was developed in the Wagga Wagga Police

Department. It differs from the New

Zealand model in that it uses police officers, usually in uniform, or school officials to set up and facilitate meetings.

Developments in Australia were considerably influenced by Braithwaite and his

work on reintegrative shaming, with its

emphasis on changing offender behavior.

Similarities and Differences

Between Family Group

Conferencing and VictimOffender Mediation 

FGC is strengthened by its similarities

with and differences from VOM. FGC

seems to be a natural expansion of the

dominant model of VOM currently used

by most of the more than 300 programs

in North America and an even larger

number of programs in Europe. Like

VOM, FGC provides victims an opportunity to express the full impact of the

crime upon their lives, to receive answers

to any lingering questions about the incident, and to participate in holding the
4

Family Group Conferencing:

Comparison of New Zealand and Australia (Wagga Wagga) Models

New Zealand Australia (Wagga Wagga)

Family Group Conferencing Family Group Conferencing

Convened by: New Zealand Children & Young Persons Law enforcement officers,

Services—Youth Justice Coordinator. school personnel.

Participants: Youth Justice Coordinator, offender, FGC Coordinator, offender, offender’s

offender’s counsel, offender’s family family and support system, victim,

and support system, victim, victim’s victim’s family and support system, 

family and support system, social investigating officer.

services, police.

Purpose: Clarify facts of incident, express a Reveal effects of incident on all present,

plea (“Yes, I did it.” or “No, I did express emotional impact, determine

not.”), reveal effects of incident on measures to make amends.

all present, determine measures to 

make amends, make decisions relating 

to other penalties.

Selection of Youth Justice Coordinator and family Coordinator identifies key people to be

community members: of offender identify key people to be involved; victim identifies his or her

involved; victim identifies his or her support system.

support system.

Decisionmaking: Consensus. Consensus.

Victim role: Chooses participants for support, Chooses participants for support, 

expresses feelings about the crime, expresses feelings about the crime,

describes impact on self, approves describes impact on self, provides input

plan to make amends that is submitted to plan to make amends.

by offender’s family. 

Time in operation: Legislatively mandated in 1989. Since 1991.

Targeted offenders: All juvenile offenders except murder Juvenile offenders with property offenses

and manslaughter offenders. and assaults.

Size of group Typically 12–15; can be 40–50. Typically 12–15; can be 40–50.

in conference:

Preparation of Face-to-face visit with offender and Phone contacts (as the norm) with all

participants: family before meeting, phone contact participants to explain the process.

to explain process to victim and other Occasional personal visits, if determined

participants, personal visit to victim to be necessary.

if needed.

Gatekeeper/access Statutes that provide a family group Discretionary judgment of law enforcement

to program: conference as a right for victims or school officials. 

of all juvenile offenses other than 

murder and manslaughter and 

require offender participation.

Conceptual framework: Clearly based on restorative justice Clearly grounded in the theory of 

principles with explicit reference to reintegrative shaming by John Braithwaite, 

the long experience of victim-offender as well as Silvan Tomkins’ affect theory.

reconciliation and mediation programs. Not explicitly grounded in restorative justice principles and not explicitly drawing 

upon the experience of victim-offender 

reconciliation and mediation programs.
Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

5

offender accountable for his or her

actions. Offenders can tell their story of

why the crime occurred and how it has

affected their lives. They are given an

opportunity to make things right with the

victim—to the degree possible—through

some form of compensation. FGC primarily works with juvenile offenders who

have committed property crimes, but it

has also been used with violent juvenile

offenders and adult offenders. This is

consistent with the experience of VOM in

North America over the past 20 years.

Unlike VOM, FGC uses public officials

(police officers, probation officers,

school officials) rather than trained 

volunteers as facilitators. Although their

roles include mediation, they are more

broadly defined, combining mediation

with other methods of interaction and

allowing for more directed facilitation.

The FGC process also casts a much

wider circle of participants than VOM.

This approach has some potential advantages over current VOM practice:

◆ FGC contributes to the empowerment and healing of the community

as a whole because it involves more

community members in the meeting

called to discuss the offense, its

effects, and how to remedy the

harm. By involving a broader range

of people affected by the crime, far

more citizens become direct stakeholders in the criminal and juvenile

justice processes.

◆ A wider circle of people is recognized as being victimized by the

offense, and FGC explores the

effects on these people: the primary

victim, people connected to the victim, the offender’s family members,

and others connected to the offender.

The full impact of victimization is

more likely to be addressed in FGC

because both primary and secondary

victims are invited to participate.

◆ Citizen volunteers are more likely

to offer followup support for both

the victim and the offender because

a wider range of participants is

potentially involved in assisting with

the reintegration of the offender into

the community and the empowerment of the victim. 

◆ The important role of the family in a

juvenile offender’s life is acknowledged and emphasized. Family

dynamics play a major role in juvenile delinquency, and far too few

programs effectively address these

issues. FGC offers a restorative justice intervention with great potential

for strengthening accountability that

can actively involve both the offender’s family and the victim’s family.

Potential Dangers of Family

Group Conferencing

The FGC model has tremendous potential for enhancing the practice of restorative justice in North America by

providing opportunities for crime victims

to participate in holding offenders

accountable and investing new stakeholders in the process (police personnel,

school officials, and probation officers).

However, a number of potential dangers

could result in unintended consequences.

There are at least five potential dangers

in the current FGC approach, particularly

with the Australian form:

1. Inadequate Preparation

Preparation of the primary parties prior

to the joint conference is crucial to the

process of building rapport and trust with

the involved parties, preparing them for

participation in a dialogue in which the

facilitator/mediator does not dominate

the conversation, assessing their

needs/expectations, and understanding

the full human context of the crime that

occurred. Meeting in person with the
parties prior to a joint meeting has long

been recognized by most VOM programs

as the preferred process. Although the

New Zealand FGC model always

involves prior meetings with the offender

and family, it does not routinely involve

prior in-person meetings with the victim

and family. The Australia FGC model

routinely contacts the parties by phone

and only occasionally conducts in-person

meetings. Eliminating in-person meetings

prior to FGC may significantly limit the

impact of FGC, as the parties may not

feel safe and prepared to attend and participate freely in a genuine dialogue.

2. Victim Insensitivity and Coercion

The FGC model emphasizes the importance of involving and serving victims.

However, several aspects of the model

may inadvertently mirror the dominant,

offender-driven criminal justice system

and its use of victims as “props”: the

offender’s group is usually seated first,

which limits the choices presented to

victims (such as where they would feel

the safest or most comfortable in the

meeting room or whether they would

prefer to begin the conference with their

story); the meeting routinely begins with

the offender’s story; and separate meetings are not scheduled with the victim

prior to facing the offender. If the FGC

model is perceived as not being sensitive

to the emotional, informational, and participatory needs of victims, it defeats one

of its main purposes—to serve victims’

needs—and is likely to trigger needless

but understandable resistance from the

larger victims’ rights constituency.

3. Young Offenders Feeling

Intimidated by Adults

The presence of so many adults, including a police officer in uniform, may be

so intimidating to young offenders that

they may not feel safe or comfortable 

enough to express and share their feelings and thoughts. It has long been recognized in the VOM movement that the

presence of parents in some cases, not to

mention additional adults, can interfere

with the process of the juvenile offender

truly admitting to his or her delinquent

behavior and feeling comfortable enough

to speak openly. As the FGC model is

adapted for use in the United States, it is

important to ensure that the process truly

creates an environment in which the

young person feels safe enough to actively participate, express feelings, and

respond to questions posed by the victim. Otherwise, the conference could be

dominated by adults talking at or about

the offender, with the offender tailoring

responses to suit the adults. Coercing

offenders to say what adults want to hear

is very different from a more genuine

expression of their feelings about what

happened.

4. Lack of Neutrality—Shaming 

of Offenders

Police officers, probation officers, and/or

school officials play a particularly critical role in the FGC model, especially in

the Australian form, as “coordinators” of

the actual sessions (a role that is actually

quite similar to facilitators or even mediators). Because of this, these public officials must be trained in conflict

resolution and mediation skills so that

they can put aside their usual authoritarian role as a public official. The inability

of public officials (such as police or probation officers) to serve in a neutral

(unbiased in the sense of not taking

sides, even though the parties are not

truly equal) and facilitative role can be a

problem and needs to be closely monitored as FGC programs begin developing

in more communities throughout the

United States, especially given the retributive climate of American criminal

justice. If conference coordinators fall

6
Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

7

into authoritarian leadership and communication patterns, the process could lead

to the offender experiencing the conference as a “shaming and blaming”

encounter. The process could be one of

“breaking down the juvenile offenders

and then trying to build them up,” rather

than the preferred “reintegrative shaming” in which the criminal behavior is

denounced but offenders are treated with

respect and feel safe enough in the presence of adults to express themselves.

5. Inflexibility and Assumed

Cultural Neutrality of the Process

While the New Zealand model of FGC

appears to allow for a great deal of flexibility in the process, the Australia model,

which is being widely promoted in the

United States, appears to be a very prescriptive, script-driven process. In many

training manuals, coordinators are

encouraged not to worry about whether

the process should be adapted to different cultural needs and preferences within

a community. Trainers emphasize that

the FGC model (based on the Wagga

Wagga experience in Australia) is

remarkably resilient and beneficial if the

coordinator adheres to the script and if

the participants trust the coordinator.

Many victim advocates, however, would

be concerned about issues of power and

control for the victim when the emphasis

is primarily on trusting the coordinator.

The inflexibility of the Australia model

may present a serious obstacle to its

being considered a truly restorative

process that is victim-sensitive, particularly in diverse and multicultural 

communities.

Guidelines for Restorative

Family Group Conferencing

As FGC begins to develop more extensively throughout North America in the

coming years, the following recommendations can serve as initial guiding principles to maximize the likelihood of it

truly being a restorative intervention 

for victims, offenders, families, and 

communities. The following guiding

principles are based on a consensus that

emerged from a group of individuals

who participated in FGC training, which

is offered throughout the country. This

group included representatives from education, law enforcement, VOM programs,

and communities in Minnesota. It was

convened by the Center for Restorative

Justice & Peacemaking (formerly Center

for Restorative Justice & Mediation) at

the University of Minnesota School of

Social Work in 1995. 

1. The process should be clearly and

explicitly grounded in restorative 

justice values.

2. If public agencies such as police or

probation are initiating FGC, the

actual sessions should be cofacilitated

by a trained community member.

3. If a local VOM program exists, a new

FGC program should be developed as

a collaborative effort, including the

use of VOM volunteer mediators as

cofacilitators.

4. FGC coordinators/facilitators should

be trained in mediation and conflict

resolution skills and the effects of

victimization and needs of crime 

victims.

5. FGC coordinators/facilitators should

be trained in understanding the experiences and needs of offenders.

6. The FGC process should be conducted in the most victim-sensitive manner possible, including providing

victims with a choice of when and

where to meet and allowing them to

present their story first. When asked

to consider the process, victims
should be informed of both the potential benefits and the potential risks,

and they should not be pressured into

a conference or told just to trust the

coordinator’s judgment.

7. In-person preparation of the primary

participants in a conference (the victim, the victim’s immediate family,

the offender, and the offender’s

immediate family) should occur to

connect with the parties, build rapport

and trust, provide information,

encourage participation, and prepare

them for the conference should they

choose family group conferencing.

This can help them to feel safe

enough to participate in an open dialogue with one another, with the

coordinators/facilitators being as

nondirective as possible.

8. FGC coordinators/facilitators should

be trained in cultural and ethical

issues that are likely to affect the conference process and participants.

Conclusion

Family group conferences are an exciting

development in the field of restorative

justice. They open up new opportunities

for crime victims to become directly

involved in imposing sanctions on the

offender. As with all innovations, however, potential pitfalls must be considered.

Good ideas and programs may have

unintended consequences. Particularly 

as a new program concept or model is

being widely promoted, there is a danger of falling into a “one size fits all”

perspective. Victim-offender dialogue,

whether through victim-offender mediation or family group conferencing, has

the potential for both benefits and risks.

The intervention must be adapted to the

specific context and needs of the individuals involved. Some cases might warrant

family group conferencing rather than 

involve a much smaller group of people

through victim-offender mediation. Other

needs expressed by crime victims may

suggest that victim-offender mediation is

more appropriate. Some more serious

cases may even require both: first the

smaller mediation session and then, later,

the larger conferencing session. It is

hoped that those involved in victim advocacy, family group conferencing, and

victim-offender mediation will continue

the dialogue as new opportunities are

sought for restorative justice in our communities and the available options and

services for crime victims are expanded.

8
Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

9

Bibliography

Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

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

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

Fercello, C., and M. Umbreit. (1998) Client Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing in

12 Sites in the First Judicial District of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative

Justice & Mediation.

Maxwell, G., and A. Morris. (1993) Family, Victims and Culture: Youth Justice in New

Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology,

Victoria University of Wellington.

McCord, P., and B. Wachtel. (1998) Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem

Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community

Service Foundation.

McDonald, J., D. Moore, T. O’Connel, and M. Thorsborne. (1995) REAL JUSTICE

Training Manual: Coordinating Family Group Conferences. Pipersville, PA: The Piper’s

Press.

Moore, D., and L. Forsythe. (1995) “The Effect of Victim-Offender Mediation on Severity

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

Tomkins, S. (1992) Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness. Series of four books. New York,

NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Umbreit, M.S. (In press) “Factors That Contribute to Victim Satisfaction With Mediated

Offender Dialogue in Winnipeg: An Emerging Area of Social Work Practice.” The Journal

of Law and Social Work.

———. (1999a) “Avoiding the Marginalization and ‘McDonaldization’ of Victim-Offender

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.

———. (1998a) “A Comparison of Adult and Juvenile Victim-Offender Mediation.” Crime

Victim Report 2(4): 51–52.

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

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

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

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Umbreit, M.S., and W. Bradshaw. (1997) “Crime Victim Experience with Mediation: A

Comparison of Mediation with Adult vs. Juvenile Offenders.” Federal Probation 61(4):

33–39.

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 C. Fercello. (1997) “Family Group Conferencing Program Results in

Client Satisfaction.” Juvenile Justice Update Journal 3(6): 3–13.

Umbreit, M.S., and J. Greenwood. (1999) “National Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation

Programs in the United States.” Mediation Quarterly 16(3): 235–251.

Umbreit, M.S., and S. Stacey. (1996) “Family Group Conferencing Comes to the U.S.:

A Comparison with Victim-Offender Mediation.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 47

(2):29–38.

Umbreit, M.S., and H. Zehr. (1996) “Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing

Models and Guidelines for Practice.” Federal Probation 60(3): 24–29.

Umbreit, M.S., R.B. Coates, and A. Roberts. (1998) “Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation

in Canada, England, and the United States.” Crime Victim Report 1(6): 83, 90–92.

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

Publishing Company.

Wactel, T. (1994) “Family Group Conferencing: Restorative Justice in Practice.” Juvenile

Justice Update 1(4): 1–14.

Wright, M. (1991) Justice for Victims and Offenders. Philadelphia, PA: Open University

Press.

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

Sage Publications.

Wundersitz, J., and S. Hetzel. (1996) “Family Conferencing for Young Offenders: The

South Australian Experience.” In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, and B. Galaway

(eds.), Family Group Conferences. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

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

Herald Press.

10
Family Group Conferencing: 

Implications for Crime Victims

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 176347
NCJ 176347