U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

Reconciling the needs of victims and

offenders with the needs of the

community is the underlying goal of

restorative justice. Unlike retributive

justice, which is primarily concerned

with punishing crime, restorative

justice focuses on repairing the injury

that crime inflicts.

As a means to that end, restorative

conferencing brings together victims,

offenders, and other members of the

community to hold offenders accountable not only for their crimes but for

the harm they cause to victims.

This Bulletin features four models of

restorative conferencing:

◆ Victim-offender mediation.

◆ Community reparative boards.

◆ Family group conferencing.

◆ Circle sentencing.

These models are compared and

contrasted in administration, process,

community involvement, and other

dimensions, and several related

issues and concerns are addressed.

If restorative justice is to succeed

in contributing to the systematic

reform of our juvenile justice system,

it must embody new values that

reflect the needs of victims,

offenders, and communities. The

models described in this Bulletin

embody these values and provide

tools for communities engaged in

implementing restorative justice.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

February 2001

A Comparison of Four

Restorative Conferencing

Models

Restorative justice is a framework for juvenile justice reform that seeks to engage

victims, offenders and their families,

other citizens, and community groups

both as clients of juvenile justice services

and as resources in an effective response

to youth crime. Traditionally, when a

crime is committed, juvenile justice systems have been primarily concerned with

three questions: Who did it? What laws

were broken? What should be done to

punish or treat the offender? As noted by

Howard Zehr (1990), restorative justice

emphasizes three very different questions: What is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be

done to “make it right” or repair the

harm? Who is responsible for this repair?

Restorative justice also suggests that the

response to youth crime must strike a

balance among the needs of victims, offenders, and communities and that each

should be actively involved in the justice

process to the greatest extent possible.

The term “restorative conferencing” is

used in this Bulletin to encompass a

range of strategies for bringing together

victims, offenders, and community members in nonadversarial community-based

processes aimed at responding to crime

by holding offenders accountable and repairing the harm caused to victims and

communities. Such strategies, now being

implemented in North America, Australia,

New Zealand, and parts of Europe, are

one component of a new movement in the

1990’s concerned with making criminal

and juvenile justice processes less formal,

bringing the processes into neighborhoods, and involving community members in planning and implementation

(Barajas, 1995; Bazemore and Schiff, 1996;

Griffiths and Hamilton, 1996; Travis, 1996).

This Bulletin focuses on four restorative

conferencing models: victim-offender mediation, community reparative boards,

family group conferencing, and circle sentencing. Although these four models by no

means exhaust the possibilities for community involvement in decisions about

how to respond to youth crime, the models do illustrate both the diversity and

common themes apparent in what appears

to be a new philosophy of citizen participation in sanctioning processes.

The Bulletin first describes each of the

four restorative conferencing models,1

presenting information on background

and concept, procedures and goals, considerations in implementation, lessons

learned from research, and sources of

additional information. The Bulletin then

compares and contrasts the models on

the following dimensions: origins and

1 Information on the four models is adapted from

Regional Symposium Training Manual, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997.

Gordon Bazemore and Mark Umbreit
2

current applications; administrative and

procedural aspects (eligibility, point of

referral, staffing, setting, process and

protocols, and management of dialog);

and community involvement and other

dimensions (participants, victim role,

gatekeepers, relationship to the formal

justice system, preparation, enforcement,

monitoring, and primary outcomes sought).

Next the Bulletin discusses a number of

issues and concerns to be addressed in the

development and implementation of restorative conferencing approaches. The Bulletin

also offers guidelines for clearly grounding

interventions in restorative justice principles and includes a test for determining

whether an intervention strengthens the

community response to youth crime and

creates new roles for citizens and community groups.

In an evolving movement in which innovations are emerging rapidly, it is important

to identify common principles that can be

replicated by local juvenile courts and

communities and that can serve to guide

decisionmakers in choosing models best

suited to local community needs. Toward

this end, this Bulletin provides a general

framework within which the myriad alternative interventions currently being characterized as restorative justice can be categorized and objectively analyzed and

evaluated. Comparative discussions of new

approaches at this relatively early stage of

development are important because they

serve to highlight similarities and differences across emerging models. In considering the four models discussed in the

Bulletin, however, it is important to avoid

confusing the vision of prototypes with the

realities of implementation and also to remember that the philosophy and practices

of any given restorative conferencing program may deviate substantially from the

prototypes presented here.

Victim-Offender

Mediation

Background and Concept

Although still unfamiliar to many mainstream juvenile and criminal justice audiences and marginal to the court process in

some jurisdictions where they do operate,

victim-offender mediation programs—

referred to in some communities as “victimoffender reconciliation programs” and,

increasingly, as “victim-offender dialog

programs”—have a respectable 20-year

track record in the United States, Canada,

and Europe. Currently, there are approximately

320 victim-offender mediation programs in

the United States and Canada and more

than 700 in Europe. Several programs in

North America currently receive nearly

1,000 case referrals annually from local

courts. Although the greatest proportion

of cases involve less serious property

crimes committed by young people, the

process is used increasingly in response to

serious and violent crimes committed by

both juveniles and adults (Umbreit, 1997).

The victim-offender mediation process

offers victims an opportunity to meet

offenders in a safe, structured setting and

engage in a mediated discussion of the

crime.2

 With the assistance of a trained

mediator, the victim is able to tell the

offender about the crime’s physical, emotional, and financial impact; receive answers to lingering questions about the

crime and the offender; and be directly

involved in developing a restitution plan

for the offender to pay back any financial

debt to the victim. The process is different from mediation as practiced in civil or

commercial disputes, because the involved parties are in agreement about

their respective roles in the crime. Also,

the process should not be primarily focused on reaching a settlement, although

most sessions do, in fact, result in a

signed restitution agreement.3

 Because of

these fundamental differences, the terms

“victim-offender meeting,” “conferencing,”

and “dialog” are becoming increasingly

popular to describe variations from standard mediation practices (Umbreit, 1997).

Procedures and Goals

Cases may be referred to victim-offender

mediation programs by judges, probation

officers, victim advocates, prosecutors,

defense attorneys, and law enforcement.

In some programs, cases are primarily

referred as a diversion from prosecution

(assuming that any agreement reached

during the mediation session is successfully completed). In other programs,

cases are usually referred after a formal

admission of guilt has been accepted by

the court, with mediation being a condition of probation or other disposition

(if the victim has volunteered to participate). Some programs receive case referrals at both stages.

During mediation sessions, victims explain

how the crime affected them and are given

the opportunity to ask questions about

the incident and help develop a plan for

restoring losses. Offenders are given the

opportunity to tell their stories and take

direct responsibility through making

amends in some form (Umbreit, 1994).

The goals of victim-offender mediation

include the following:

◆ Supporting the healing process of victims by providing a safe, controlled setting for them to meet and speak with

offenders on a strictly voluntary basis.

An Example of a Victim-Offender Mediation Session

The victim was a middle-aged woman. The offender, a 14-year-old neighbor of the

victim, had broken into the victim’s home and stolen a VCR. The mediation session

took place in the basement of the victim’s church.

In the presence of a mediator, the victim and offender talked for 2 hours. At times,

their conversation was heated and emotional. When they finished, the mediator felt

that they had heard each other’s stories and learned something important about

the impact of the crime and about each other.

The participants agreed that the offender would pay $200 in restitution to cover

the cost of damages to the victim’s home resulting from the break-in and would

also reimburse the victim for the cost of the stolen VCR (estimated at $150). They

also worked out a payment schedule.

During the session, the offender made several apologies to the victim and agreed

to complete community service hours working in a food bank sponsored by the

victim’s church. The victim said that she felt less angry and fearful after learning

more about the offender and the details of the crime. She also thanked the

mediator for allowing the session to be held at her church.

2 In some programs, parents of the offender are also

often part of the mediation session. 3 Not all mediation sessions lead to financial

restitution.
3

◆ Allowing offenders to learn about the

impact of their crimes on the victims

and take direct responsibility for their

behavior.

◆ Providing an opportunity for the victim

and offender to develop a mutually acceptable plan that addresses the harm

caused by the crime.

Considerations in

Implementation

In implementing any victim-offender mediation program, it is critically important

to maintain sensitivity to the needs of the

victim. First and foremost, the mediator

must do everything possible to ensure

that the victim will not be harmed in any

way. Additionally, the victim’s participation must be completely voluntary. The

offender’s participation should also be

voluntary. Offenders are typically given

the option of participating in mediation

or dialog as one of several dispositional

choices. Although offenders almost never

have absolute choice (e.g., the option of

no juvenile justice intervention), they

should never be coerced into meetings

with victims. The victim should also be

given choices, whenever possible, about

procedures, such as when and where the

mediation session will take place, who

will be present, and who will speak first.

Cases should be carefully screened regarding the readiness of both victim and

offender to participate. The mediator

should conduct in-person premediation

sessions with both parties to clarify the

issues to be resolved. The mediator

should also make followup contacts and

monitor any agreement reached.

Lessons Learned

A large multisite study of victim-offender

mediation programs with juvenile offenders (Umbreit, 1994) found the following:

◆ In cases referred to the four study-site

programs during a 2-year period, 95

percent of mediation sessions resulted

in a successfully negotiated restitution

agreement to restore the victim’s financial losses.

◆ Victims who met with offenders in the

presence of a trained mediator were

more likely to be satisfied with the justice system than were similar victims

who went through the standard court

process (79 percent versus 57 percent).

◆ After meeting offenders, victims were

significantly less fearful of being

revictimized.

◆ Offenders who met with victims were

far more likely to successfully complete their restitution obligation than

were similar offenders who did not

participate in mediation (81 percent

versus 58 percent).

◆ Recidivism rates were lower among

offenders who participated in mediation than among offenders who did not

participate (18 percent versus 27 percent); furthermore, participating

offenders’ subsequent crimes tended

to be less serious.4

Multisite studies (Coates and Gehm, 1989;

Umbreit, 1994) also found that although

restitution was an important motivator

for victim participation in mediation sessions, victims consistently viewed actual

receipt of restitution as secondary to the

opportunity to talk about the impact of

the crime, meet the offender, and learn

the offender’s circumstances. The studies

also found that offenders appreciated the

opportunity to talk to the victim and felt

better after doing so.

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 because it represents an

important victim service. The American

Bar Association recently endorsed victimoffender mediation and recommends its

use throughout the United States. As of

1997, victim-offender mediation programs

have been identified in nearly every State

(Umbreit and Schug, 1997).

For More Information

For more information on victim-offender

mediation, contact:

◆ Dr. Mark Umbreit, Director, Center for

Restorative Justice and Peacemaking,

University of Minnesota, School of

Social Work, 105 Peters Hall, 1404

Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108–

6160, 612–624–4923 (phone), 612–625–

3744 (fax), rjp@tlcmail.che.umn.edu

(e-mail), ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp

(Internet).

◆ Victim Offender Mediation Association

(VOMA), c/o William T. Preston, Administrator, 143 Canal Street, New Smyrna

Beach, FL 32168, 904–424–1591 (phone),

904–423–8099 (fax), voma@voma.org 

(e-mail), www.voma.org (Internet).

Community Reparative

Boards

Background and Concept

The community reparative board is a recent version of a much older and more

widespread community sanctioning response to youth crime, generally known by

such terms as youth panels, neighborhood

boards, or community diversion boards.

These panels or boards have been in use in

the United States since the 1920’s, and their

contemporary counterparts, reparative

boards, have been in use since the mid1990’s, principally in Vermont. There, the

boards are primarily used with adult offenders convicted of nonviolent and minor

offenses; more recently, the boards have

also been used with juvenile offenders.5

Reparative boards typically are composed

of a small group of citizens, prepared for

their function by intensive training, who

conduct public, face-to-face meetings with

offenders ordered by the court to participate

4 In the absence of pure control groups, selection bias

cannot be ruled out for the comparisons drawn in this

study.

5 Reparative boards are highly localized models, and

information on them is sketchy. This Bulletin uses the

Vermont reparative boards as a prototype and case

study. As noted above, Vermont has used the boards

primarily with adult offenders but more recently has

begun to use them with juvenile offenders too. Substantial information is available on the operating procedures of the Vermont boards, and the Vermont

model can serve as a new prototype for the board/

panel-based approach to youth crime.
4

in the process. The boards develop sanction agreements with offenders, monitor

compliance, and submit compliance reports to the court.

Procedures and Goals

During reparative board meetings, board

members discuss with the offender the

nature of the offense and its negative consequences. Then board members develop

a set of proposed sanctions, which they

discuss with the offender until an agreement is reached on the specific actions

the offender will take within a given time

period to make reparation for the crime.

Subsequently, the offender must document

his or her progress in fulfilling the terms of

the agreement. After the stipulated period

of time has passed, the board submits a

report to the court on the offender’s compliance with the agreed-upon sanctions.

At this point, the board’s involvement with

the offender ends.

The goals of community reparative

boards include the following:

◆ Promoting citizens’ ownership of the

criminal and juvenile justice systems

by involving them directly in the justice process.

◆ Providing an opportunity for victims

and community members to confront

offenders in a constructive manner

about their behavior.

◆ Providing opportunities for offenders to

take personal responsibility and be held

directly accountable for the harm they

caused to victims and communities.

◆ Generating meaningful communitydriven consequences for criminal and

delinquent actions, thereby reducing

costly reliance on formal justice system processing.

Considerations in

Implementation

The Vermont Department of Corrections

implemented its Reparative Probation

Program in 1995, in response to a 1994

public opinion survey (conducted by

John Doble and Associates) in which citizens indicated broad support for programs with a reparative emphasis and

active community involvement. The

program’s reparative boards are part of

a mandated separation of probation into

community corrections service units (designed to provide supervision for more

serious cases) and court and reparative

service units (which coordinate and provide

administrative support to reparative

boards).

Based on Vermont’s experience, the following factors have been identified by the

Vermont Department of Corrections as

important in implementing communitydriven reparative board programs:

◆ Marketing the program effectively to

the justice system (to judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys).

◆ Having a committed, well-trained staff.

◆ Working with victim organizations and

ensuring that victims are represented

and provided adequate opportunity to

participate.6

◆ Processing cases expeditiously and in

a manner that is easy for community

members to understand.

◆ Facilitating a positive experience for

the board members.

◆ Providing quality training for the

boards.

◆ Supporting the program with adequate

resources (e.g., space, time, and staff).

◆ Striving for successful outcomes for

offenders, victims, and community participants in the board’s initial cases.

◆ Getting support from judges in limiting

the time the offender is in the program

and on probation.

Lessons Learned

Only limited quantitative data have been

collected on the effectiveness of community reparative boards. There is growing

concern that evaluations of reparative

board programs should consider measures beyond the standard offenderfocused measure of recidivism. Additional

measures should include responsiveness

to victim and community needs, victim

and community satisfaction, and impact

on the community (including physical

improvements resulting from boardimposed community work sanctions and

indicators of healthy relationships among

citizens). At this point, experiential and

anecdotal information indicates that reparative boards show much promise

as an effective response to nonviolent

crime.

For More Information

For more information on reparative

boards, contact:

◆ David Peebles, Director of Restorative

Services, Vermont Department of Corrections, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671, 802–241–2261 (phone).

◆ The National Institute of Corrections

Information Center, 1860 Industrial

Circle, Suite A, Longmont, CO 80501,

800–877–1461 (phone).

Also, see Restoring Hope Through Community Partnerships (American Probation and

Parole Association, 1996), available from

the American Probation and Parole Association, c/o Council of State Governments,

6 As noted earlier, reparative boards are intended to

provide an opportunity for victims and community

members to confront offenders in a constructive manner. In practice thus far, however, these opportunities

have proved better suited to community input than

victim involvement. Because of this relatively weak

involvement of victims, some suggest that reparative

boards are not pure examples of restorative justice.

See additional discussion on p. 8, under “Comparing

and Contrasting the Four Models: Community Involvement and Other Dimensions.”

An Example of a Community Reparative Board Session

The reparative board convened to consider the case of a 17-year-old who had

been caught driving with an open can of beer in his father’s pickup truck. The

youth had been sentenced by a judge to reparative probation, and it was the

board’s responsibility to decide what form the probation should take. For about

30 minutes, the citizen members of the board asked the youth several simple,

straightforward questions. The board members then went to another room to

deliberate on an appropriate sanction for the youth. The youth awaited the board’s

decision nervously, because he did not know whether to expect something tougher

or much easier than regular probation.

When the board returned, the chairperson explained the four conditions of the

offender’s probation contract: (1) begin work to pay off his traffic tickets, (2) complete a State police defensive driving course, (3) undergo an alcohol assessment,

and (4) write a three-page paper on how alcohol had negatively affected his life.

The youth signed the contract, and the chairperson adjourned the meeting.
5

P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578–1910,

859–244–8203 (phone); and Community

Reparative Boards: Theory and Practice

(Karp and Walther, 2001).

Family Group

Conferencing

Background and Concept

Family group conferencing is based on

centuries-old sanctioning and dispute

resolution traditions of the Maori of New

Zealand. In its modern form, the model

was adopted into national legislation in

New Zealand in 1989, making it the most

systemically institutionalized of any of

the four models. In South Australia, family

conferencing is now widely used in modified form as a police-initiated diversion

approach known as the Wagga Wagga

model. (Developed by the Wagga Wagga

Police Department, this model uses police

officers or school officials to set up and

facilitate family conferencing meetings.)

Conferencing is also being used in U.S.

cities in Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and several other States

and in parts of Canada. (The Wagga

Wagga model is the primary approach

that has taken hold in North America.)

A variety of offenses have been resolved

through family group conferencing, including theft, arson, minor assaults, drug

offenses, vandalism, and, in a number of

States, child maltreatment cases. In New

Zealand, conferencing is used in the disposition of all but the most violent and

serious delinquency cases (Alder and

on the offender. All participants contribute

to the problem-solving process of determining how the offender might best repair

the harm he or she has caused. The session ends with participants signing an

agreement that outlines their expectations

and commitments.

Goals of family group conferencing include

the following:

◆ Providing an opportunity for the victim

to be directly involved in the discussion of the offense and in decisions

regarding appropriate sanctions to be

placed on the offender.

◆ Increasing the offender’s awareness of

the human impact of his or her behavior

and providing the offender an opportunity to take full responsibility for it.

◆ Engaging the collective responsibility

of the offender’s support system for

making amends and shaping the

offender’s future behavior.

An Example of a Family

Group Conferencing

Session

A family conferencing group convened

in a local school to consider a case

in which a student had injured a

teacher and broken the teacher’s

glasses in an altercation. Group

members included the offender, his

mother and grandfather, the victim,

the police officer who made the arrest,

and about 10 other interested parties

(including 2 of the offender’s teachers

and 2 friends of the victim).

The conferencing process began with

comments by the offender, his mother

and grandfather, the victim, and the

arresting officer. Each spoke about

the offense and its impact. The youth

justice coordinator next asked for

input from the other group members

and then asked all participants what

they thought the offender should do to

pay back the victim and the community for the damage caused by his

crime. In the remaining 30 minutes of

the hour-long conference, the group

suggested that the offender should

make restitution to the victim for his

medical expenses and the cost of

new glasses and that the offender

should also perform community

service work on the school grounds.

Wundersitz, 1994; Maxwell and Morris,

1993; McElrea, 1993).

Family group conferencing involves the

community of people most affected by

the crime—the victim, the offender, and

the family, friends, and key supporters of

both—in deciding the resolution of a

criminal or delinquent incident. The affected parties are brought together by a

trained facilitator to discuss how they

and others have been harmed by the

offense and how that harm might be

repaired.

Procedures and Goals

The conference facilitator contacts the victim and offender to explain the process

and invite them to the conference. The facilitator also asks the victim and offender

to identify key members of their support

systems, who also will be invited to participate. The conference typically begins with

the offender describing the incident. The

other participants then describe the impact of the incident on their lives. Some

argue that it is preferable to allow the victim to start the discussion, if he or she

wishes to do so (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996).

Through these narrations, the offender is

faced with the impact of his or her behavior on the victim, on those close to the victim, and on the offender’s own family and

friends, and the victim has the opportunity

to express feelings and ask questions

about the incident. After a thorough discussion of impacts, the victim is asked to

identify desired outcomes from the conference; in this way, the victim can help to

shape the obligations that will be placed
6

◆ Allowing both offender and victim to

reconnect to key community support

systems.

Considerations in

Implementation

The family group conferencing process

has been implemented in schools, police

departments, probation offices, residential programs, community mediation

programs, and neighborhood groups.

Conferencing is most often used as diversion from the court process for juveniles

but can also be used after adjudication

and disposition to address unresolved

issues or determine specific terms of

restitution. Conferencing programs have

been implemented within single agencies

and developed collaboratively among several agencies. After completing a training

course, either volunteers or paid employees can serve as conference facilitators.

Participation by all involved in conferences is voluntary. In addition to the

victim and offender and their family members, a conference might involve teachers, other relatives, peers, special adult

friends, and community resource people.

Lessons Learned

To date, two studies have been conducted

to assess the impact of family group conferencing with young offenders. One study

(Maxwell and Morris, 1993) assessed the

impact of New Zealand’s law mandating

the widespread use of conferencing. It

found that families of offenders in conferencing programs are more frequently and

actively involved in the justice process

than are families of offenders whose cases

are handled by standard procedures. It

also found that offenders, victims, and

their families described the conference

process as helpful. Preliminary evaluations

of conferencing programs in the United

States also indicate high levels of victim

satisfaction with the conference process

and high rates of offender compliance with

agreements reached during conferences

(Fercello and Umbreit, 1999; McCold and

Wachtel, 1998).

Practitioners involved in family group

conferencing programs observe a reduction in fear for many victims. When used

as a diversion from court, conferencing

can provide a much speedier and more

satisfying resolution of incidents than

would otherwise be the case. Family

group conferencing also builds community skills in conflict resolution and participatory decisionmaking.

For More Information

For more information about family group

conferencing, contact:

◆ David Hines, Woodbury Police Department, 2100 Radio Drive, Woodbury, MN

55125–9528, 651–714–3600 (phone).

◆ Kay Pranis or Sue Stacey, Minnesota

Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul,

MN 55108, 651–642–0329 or 651–642–

0338 (phone).

◆ Real Justice, P.O. Box 229, Bethlehem,

PA 18016, 610–807–9221 (phone).

Circle Sentencing

Background and Concept

Circle sentencing is an updated version

of the traditional sanctioning and healing

practices of aboriginal peoples in Canada

and American Indians in the United States

(Stuart, 1995; Melton, 1995). Sentencing

circles—sometimes called peacemaking

circles—were resurrected in 1991 by

judges and community justice committees

in the Yukon Territory and other northern

Canadian communities. Circle sentencing

has been developed most extensively in

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon

and has been used occasionally in several

other communities. Its use spread to the

United States in 1996, when a pilot project

was initiated in Minnesota. Circle sentencing has been used for adult and juvenile

offenders, for a variety of offenses, and in

both rural and urban settings.

Circle sentencing is a holistic reintegrative strategy designed not only to address

the criminal and delinquent behavior of

offenders but also to consider the needs

of victims, families, and communities.

Within the “circle,” crime victims, offenders, family and friends of both, justice and

social service personnel, and interested

community residents speak from the

heart in a shared search for an understanding of the event. Together they identify the steps necessary to assist in healing all affected parties and prevent

future crimes. The significance of the

circle is more than symbolic: all circle

members—police officers, lawyers,

judges, victims, offenders, and community residents—participate in deliberations to arrive at a consensus for

a sentencing plan that addresses the

concerns of all interested parties.

Procedures and Goals

Circle sentencing typically involves a multistep procedure that includes (1) application by the offender to participate in the

circle process, (2) a healing circle for

the victim, (3) a healing circle for the offender, (4) a sentencing circle to develop

consensus on the elements of a sentencing

plan, and (5) followup circles to monitor

the progress of the offender. In addition to

commitments by the offender, the sentencing plan may incorporate commitments by

the justice system, community, and family

members. Specifics of the circle process

vary from community to community and

are designed locally to fit community

needs and culture.

Goals of circle sentencing include the

following:

◆ Promoting healing for all affected

parties.

◆ Providing an opportunity for the offender to make amends.

◆ Empowering victims, community members, families, and offenders by giving

them a voice and a shared responsibility in finding constructive resolutions.

◆ Addressing the underlying causes of

criminal behavior.

◆ Building a sense of community and its

capacity for resolving conflict.

◆ Promoting and sharing community

values.

Considerations in

Implementation

The success of the circle sentencing process depends to a large extent on a healthy

partnership between the formal juvenile

justice system and the community. Participants from both need training and skill

building in the circle process and in peacemaking and consensus building. It is critically important that the community’s planning process allow sufficient time for

strong relationships to develop between

justice professionals and community members. Implementation procedures should

be highly flexible, because the circle process will evolve over time based on the

community’s knowledge and experience.

As it gains experience, the community can

customize the circle process to fit local

resources and culture.

In many communities that have implemented the circle sentencing concept,

direction and leadership have come from

a community justice committee that

decides which cases to accept, develops
7

support groups for the victim and offender, and helps to conduct the circles.

In most communities, circles are facilitated by a trained community member,

who is often called a keeper.

Although circles have been used as a response to serious and violent crimes,

circle sentencing is not an appropriate response to all offenses. Key factors in determining whether a case is appropriate for

the circle process include the offender’s

character and personality, sincerity, and

connection to the community; the victim’s

input; and the dedication of the offender’s

and victim’s support groups. Moreover,

circles are often labor intensive and require a substantial investment of citizen

time and effort; circles should not, therefore, be used extensively as a response to

first offenders and minor crime.

The capacity of the circle to advance solutions capable of improving the lives of participants and the overall well-being of the

community depends on the effectiveness of

the participating volunteers. To ensure a

cadre of capable volunteers, the program

should support a paid community-based

volunteer coordinator to supply logistical

support, establish linkages with other

agencies and community representatives,

and provide appropriate training for all

staff.

Lessons Learned

Very little research has been conducted to

date on the effectiveness of circle sentencing. One study conducted by Judge Barry

Stuart in Canada in 1996 indicated that recidivism was less likely among offenders

who had participated in circles than among

offenders who were processed traditionally

(Stuart, 1996). Those who have been involved with circles report that circles empower participants to resolve conflict in a

manner that promotes sharing of responsibility for outcomes, generates constructive

relationships, enhances respect and understanding among all involved, and fosters

enduring, innovative solutions.

For More Information

For more information on circle sentencing, see Building Community Justice

Partnerships: Community Peacemaking

Circles, by Barry Stuart. The publication

is available from Aboriginal Justice Section, Department of Justice of Canada,

Ottawa, ON, Canada K1AOH8, Attention:

Learning Network, 613–954–0119

(phone), 613–957–4697 (fax).

Comparing and

Contrasting the Four

Models: Administration

and Process

Table 1 describes the origins and current applications of the four restorative

conferencing models and summarizes administrative and procedural similarities

and differences among them. Although

the four models share a nonadversarial,

community-based sanctioning focus on

cases in which offenders either admit

guilt or have been found guilty of crimes

or delinquent acts, the models vary along

several administrative and procedural

dimensions. This discussion highlights

selected dimensions in table 1 that vary

significantly from model to model.

The models differ in point of referral and

in structural relationship to formal court

and correctional systems. The models also

differ in eligibility, which ranges from minor first offenders to quite serious repeat

offenders (in the case of circle sentencing).

With the exception of most community

reparative boards, decisionmaking is by

consensus. Specific processes and protocols, however, vary substantially, ranging

from circle sentencing’s ancient ritual of

passing a stick or feather as a “talking

piece” (Stuart, 1995) to the more formal

deliberation process followed by reparative boards (Dooley, 1995).

The process of managing dialog varies significantly among the four models. In reparative board hearings, a chairperson guides

members through their questioning of the

offender and their discussions with hearing

participants. In family group conferences, a

coordinator manages the discussion by

encouraging all participants to speak. In

victim-offender mediation sessions, the

mediator manages the dialog by encouraging victim and offender to take primary responsibility for expressing their feelings

and concerns directly to each other, by ensuring that each participant respects the

other’s right to speak, and by occasionally

probing to keep the discussion flowing. In

circle sentencing, participants rely primarily

on the process itself, which requires that

only one person speak at a time and only

when handed the talking piece. Each circle

has a “keeper,” but the keeper’s role is not

to manage the dialog but simply to initiate

it, ensure the process is followed, and occasionally summarize progress.

An Example of a Circle Sentencing Session

The victim was a middle-aged man whose parked car had been badly damaged

when the offender, a 16-year-old, crashed into it while joyriding in another vehicle.

The offender had also damaged a police vehicle.

In the circle, the victim talked about the emotional shock of seeing what had

happened to his car and his costs to repair it (he was uninsured). Then, an elder

leader of the First Nations community where the circle sentencing session was

being held (and an uncle of the offender) expressed his disappointment and anger

with the boy. The elder observed that this incident, along with several prior offenses by the boy, had brought shame to his family. The elder also noted that in

the old days, the boy would have been required to pay the victim’s family substantial compensation as a result of such behavior. After the elder finished, a feather

(the “talking piece”) was passed to the next person in the circle, a young man who

spoke about the contributions the offender had made to the community, the

kindness he had shown toward elders, and his willingness to help others with

home repairs.

Having heard all this, the judge asked the Crown Council (Canadian prosecutor)

and the public defender, who were also sitting in the circle, to make statements and

then asked if anyone else in the circle wanted to speak. The Royal Canadian

Mounted Police officer, whose vehicle had also been damaged, then took the

feather and spoke on the offender’s behalf. The officer proposed to the judge that in

lieu of statutorily required jail time for the offense, the offender be allowed to meet

with him on a regular basis for counseling and community service. After asking the

victim and the prosecutor if either had any objections, the judge accepted this

proposal. The judge also ordered restitution to the victim and asked the young adult

who had spoken on the offender’s behalf to serve as a mentor for the offender.

After a prayer in which the entire group held hands, the circle disbanded and

everyone retreated to the kitchen area of the community center for refreshments.
8

Table 1: Restorative Conferencing Models: Administration and Process

Victim-Offender Family Group

Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing

Origin

Current

applications

Referral point in

system

Eligibility and

target group

New Zealand, 1989;

Australia, 1991.

Australia; New Zealand;

United States (since

1990’s), in cities and

towns in Montana,

Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and other States.

New Zealand: throughout juvenile justice

system. Australian

Wagga Wagga model:

police diversion. United

States: mostly diversion, some use in

schools and postadjudication.

New Zealand: all

juvenile offenders

eligible except those

charged with murder

and manslaughter.

Australian Wagga Wagga

model: determined by

police discretion or

diversion criteria.

Since 1995 (similar

youth panels: since

1920).

Vermont; selected

jurisdictions and

neighborhoods in

other States.

One of several

probation options

(youth panels: almost

exclusively diversion).

Target group is

nonviolent offenders;

eligibility limited to

offenders given

probation and assigned to the boards.

Since mid-1970’s.

Throughout North

America and Europe.

Mostly diversion and

probation option.

Some use in residential facilities for

more serious cases.

Varies. Primarily diversion cases and property

offenders. In some

locations, used with

serious and violent

offenders (at victim’s

request).

victim-offender dyad.7 In circle sentencing, on the other hand, the community

is conceptualized much more broadly

as all residents of a local neighborhood,

village, or aboriginal band; for purposes

of implementing the circle process, the

community may be defined as anyone

with a stake in the resolution of a crime

who chooses to participate in the circle.

The remainder of this section focuses on

two particularly important additional dimensions of the restorative conferencing

models: victim role and preparation/

followup.

Victim Role

The formal justice system directs its

attention primarily toward the offender,

first with regard to guilt or innocence and second with regard to appropriate punishment,

treatment, or monitoring. The community

is often an abstract and distant concern

(Barajas, 1995; Clear, 1996). Because victims have been so neglected as stakeholders in both formal and community justice

approaches, it is important to give special

attention to their role in each restorative

conferencing process.

Victim-offender mediation. Mediation

programs offer victims an opportunity to

tell offenders how the crime has affected

them, give victims maximum input into

plans for holding offenders responsible,

and ensure that victims are compensated

for their losses to the greatest extent possible. The programs also provide victims

with referrals for needed services and

assistance.

Victims frequently are given the opportunity to speak first in mediation sessions,

which helps them feel empowered or at

least not overwhelmed or abused by the

Comparing and

Contrasting the Four

Models: Community

Involvement and

Other Dimensions

Table 2 summarizes aspects of community involvement for each of the four restorative conferencing models. Table 2

also addresses several other dimensions

that provide useful points of comparison

among the models, including victim role

and preparation/followup.

The way “community” is defined and

involved in restorative conferencing

models is a critical factor affecting the

nature and extent of citizen participation

in and ownership of the conferencing

process. As table 2 suggests, victimoffender mediation, for example, in

effect defines the community as the

7 Some feel that the community (volunteer) mediator

also is part of the community definition.

Since approximately

1992.

Primarily the Yukon,

sporadically in other

parts of Canada.

Minnesota, Colorado,

and Massachusetts.

Various stages. May

be diversion or

alternative to formal

court hearings and

corrections process for

indictable offenses.

Offenders who admit

guilt and express

willingness to change.

Entire range of offenses

and offenders eligible;

chronic offenders

targeted.
9

Table 1—Continued

Victim-Offender Family Group

Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing

Staffing

Setting

Process and

protocols

Managing dialog

Community justice

coordinator.

Community center,

school, other public

building, church.

Keeper opens session

and allows for comments from judge.

Prosecutors and

defense present legal

facts of case (for more

serious crimes). All

participants allowed to

speak when “talking

piece” (feather or

stick) is passed to

them. Consensus

decisionmaking.

After keeper initiates,

dialog managed by

process of passing

talking piece.

Community justice

coordinator.

Social welfare office,

school, community

building, police facility

(occasionally).

Australian Wagga

Wagga model: coordinator follows script in

which offender speaks

first, then victim and

others. New Zealand:

model not scripted,

allows consensus

decisionmaking after

private meeting of

family members.

Coordinator manages.

Reparative coordinator (probation staff).

Public building or

community center.

Mostly private deliberation by board after

questioning offender

and hearing statements. Some variation

emerging in local

boards (youth panel

members generally

deliberate).

Board chairperson

manages. Participants

speak when asked.

Mediator. Other positions vary.

Neutral setting (meeting

room in library, church,

community center);

victim’s home (occasionally, if all parties approve).

Victim speaks first.

Mediator facilitates but

encourages victim and

offender to speak, does

not adhere to script.

Mediator manages.

process. Mediation programs give the

needs of victims and offenders priority

over the needs of other participants in

the process (e.g., parents and other relatives), but victims receive extra attention

to ensure that they are not revictimized

by the process itself. Victim participation

in the mediation process is voluntary.

Most programs also are voluntary for

offenders and attempt to engage their

participation in the least coercive manner possible (Umbreit and Greenwood,

1998); in some jurisdictions, however,

offenders are often less-than-willing participants (Belgrave, 1995).

Increasingly, mediation programs seek to

offer their services in a victim-sensitive

manner (Umbreit, 1994; Umbreit and

Greenwood, 1998). In contrast to other

models, most research studies report that

victim satisfaction with victim-offender

mediation has been uniformly high

(Belgrave, 1995; Umbreit and Coates, 1993).

Reparative boards. The design of Vermont’s reparative boards was shaped to

a large extent by restorative justice concepts (Dooley, 1995; and Dooley, Vermont

Department of Corrections, personal communication, 1996), and State officials who

developed and now monitor the boards

strongly encourage an emphasis on victim

participation. Nevertheless, in the early

months of operation, victim involvement in

most local boards was minimal (Dooley,

personal communication). Some boards

appear to have increased victim involvement, but it remains to be seen to what extent citizen board members will want

to take on the demanding task of contacting crime victims and engaging their participation in the justice process (Karp and

Walther, 2001). Some boards have demonstrated a strong commitment to making

certain that offenders repay victims; ultimately, this commitment might motivate

increased involvement of victims as the

value of all forms of victim-offender dialog

in improving restitution completion rates

becomes clearer (Umbreit and Coates,

1993). State administrators have also encouraged boards to refer victims and offenders to victim-offender mediation or

family group conferencing programs, if such

programs are available in the community and

if victims agree to participate (Dooley,

1996).

Family group conferencing. The dimensions of victim protection and empowerment are more complex in models that move

beyond the small group or dyad to the larger community. Family group conferencing

is perhaps the strongest of all the models in

its potential for educating offenders about

the harm their behavior causes to others.

Concerns have been expressed, however,

about the role of victims in this model.

Among these concerns are the following:

◆ Emphasis on offender education may

cause victim needs to be overshadowed or trivialized (Belgrave, 1995;

Umbreit and Zehr, 1996), as appears

to have been the case when conferences have been held with little or no

victim input or involvement (Alder and

Wundersitz, 1994; Maxwell and Morris, 1993).

◆ Standard protocol for family group conferences requires that offenders speak

first (McDonald et al., 1995), which may
10

Table 2: Restorative Conferencing Models: Community Involvement and Other Dimensions

Victim-Offender Family Group

Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing

Who participates?

(the community)

Victim role

Gatekeepers

Relationship to

formal system

Judge, prosecutor,

defense counsel participate in serious cases.

Victim(s), offender(s),

service providers,

support group present.

Open to entire community. Justice committee

ensures participation

of key residents.

Participates in circle and

decisionmaking; gives

input into eligibility of

offender, chooses

support group, and may

participate in a healing

conference.

Community justice

committee.

Judge, prosecution,

court officials share

power with community,

i.e., selection, sanctioning, followup. Presently

minimal impact on court

caseloads.

Coordinator identifies

key participants.

Close kin of victim

and offender invited.

Police, social services,

or other support

persons also invited.

Broader community

not encouraged to

participate.

Expresses feelings

about crime, gives

input into reparative

plan.

New Zealand: court

and community justice

coordinator. Australia

and United States:

police and school

officials.

New Zealand: primary

process of hearing

juvenile cases, required

ceding of disposition

power, major impact

on court caseloads.

Australia (Wagga

Wagga) and United

States: police-driven

process, variable impact

on caseloads, concern

regarding net-widening;

in United States, used

for very minor cases

(most commonly

shoplifting).

Reparative coordinator (probation

employee), community reparative board,

offender and supporters, victim (on a

limited basis). Youth

panels (a related

approach) use

diversion staff.

Input into plan sought

by some boards.

Inclusion of victims

rare but currently

encouraged; more

active role being

considered.

Judge.

One of several

probation options

for eligible low-risk

offenders with

minimal service

needs. Plans to

expand. Some

impact on caseloads anticipated.

Mediator, victim,

offender are standard

participants. Parents

often involved. Others

occasionally involved.

Expresses feelings

regarding crime and

impact. Has major role

in decision regarding

offender obligation

and content of reparative plan. Has

ultimate right of

refusal; consent is

essential.

Courts and other

entities make referrals.

Varies on continuum

from core process in

diversion and disposition to marginal

programs with

minimal impact on

court caseloads.

affect victims’ participation in the

discussion.

◆ Some interpretations of family group

conferencing place primary emphasis

on getting offenders to experience

shame (Alder and Wundersitz, 1994;

Strang, 1995). In such interpretations,

victim benefits are limited to an apology and perhaps material restitution.

Either or both of these benefits may

meet the main needs of many victims,

but other needs may be neglected.

Moreover, if forgiveness is a primary

goal, the process may be slanted toward eliciting apologies from offenders,

victims may feel pressured to offer

forgiveness and resentful of the implication that they should do so, and resentment may cause some victims to

refuse to participate (Umbreit and

Stacy, 1996).

◆ Other criticisms of victim treatment in

the family group conferencing model

cite a lack of concern with victim empowerment, lack of protection against

abuse or retaliation, and use of victims

to serve as “props” or to meet offender

needs (Umbreit and Zehr, 1996).
11

Table 2—Continued

Victim-Offender Family Group

Mediation Reparative Boards Conferencing Circle Sentencing

Preparation

Followup

(enforcement and

monitoring)

Primary

outcome(s)

sought

Extensive work with

offender and victim

prior to circle. Explain

process and rules of

circle.

Community justice

committee. Judge may

hold jail sentence as

incentive for offender

to comply with plan.

Increase community

strength and capacity

to resolve disputes and

prevent crime; develop

reparative and rehabilitative plan; address

victim concerns and

public safety issues;

assign victim and

offender support group

responsibilities and

identify resources.

Phone contact with all

parties to encourage

participation and

explain process.

New Zealand model

requires face-to-face

visits with offender,

offender’s family, and

victim.

Unclear. Australia

(Wagga Wagga):

police. New Zealand:

coordinator. United

States and Canada:

others.

Clarify facts of case.

Denounce crime while

affirming and supporting offender; restore

victim loss; encourage

offender reintegration. Focus on “deed

not need” (i.e., on

offense and harm

done, not offender’s

needs). Some emphasis on collective

accountability.

Preservice training

provided to board

members. No advance

preparation for

individual hearings.

Condition of probation. Coordinator

monitors and brings

petition of revocation

to board, if necessary.

Engage and involve

citizens in decisionmaking process;

decide appropriate

reparative plan for

offender; require

victim awareness,

education, and other

activities that address

ways to avoid reoffending in future.

Typically, face-to-face

preparation with victim

and offender to explain

process. Some programs use phone

contact.

Varies. Mediator may

follow up. Probation

and/or other program

staff may be responsible.

Allow victim to relay

impact of crime to

offender, express

feelings and needs;

victim satisfied with

process; offender has

increased awareness

of harm, gains empathy

with victim; agreement

on reparative plan.

Victim participation and satisfaction were

indeed significant problems during the

early development of family group conferencing in New Zealand (Maxwell and

Morris, 1993), but it is wrong to conclude

that most advocates of the conferencing

model are not concerned with victims’

needs (Moore and O’Connell, 1994;

Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994). Recent

studies of family group conferencing

programs in Minnesota (Fercello and

Umbreit, 1999; Umbreit and Fercello,

1997), Pennsylvania (McCold and

Wachtel, 1998), and South Australia

(Daly, 2000) have found higher rates of

victim participation and satisfaction

than when the model was first introduced in New Zealand (Morris and Maxwell, 2001).

Such criticism of victim treatment in family group conferencing (or in any alternative model) should have as its context

the extent to which the current formal

system does or does not provide for

victim reparation, empowerment, and

support (Stuart, 1996). Nevertheless,

as family group conferencing models

evolve, it will be important to keep

in mind that emphasis on offender

shaming and reintegration may limit

the model’s capacity to meet the

needs of crime victims.

Circle sentencing. Proponents of circle

sentencing are concerned with protecting

victims, providing them with support, and

hearing their stories. Circle organizers

avoid an unbalanced focus on offenders’

issues, which may cause victims to withdraw or react by challenging offenders

(Stuart, 1996). Victims’ telling of their stories is viewed as important not only for

victims, offenders, and their supporters,

but also for the community as a whole. If

a victim is unwilling to participate in a

circle, the organizer may encourage a

friend or relative to speak on the victim’s

behalf; however, organizers emphasize

the value of community residents hearing

victims’ stories firsthand whenever possible (Stuart, 1996).

Because the circle sentencing process is

so open and community driven, a potential

concern is that the importance given to

victims’ needs may vary widely. The seriousness of offenders’ needs may slant the

focus of some circles toward offender rehabilitation, service, and support and

away from victims’ needs, as also appears

to occur in some family group conferences

(Maxwell and Morris, 1993; Umbreit and

Stacey, 1996). In addition, because the

circle sentencing model requires extensive

preparation on the offender’s part before

the circle convenes (see discussion in the

following section), some circles become

“stacked” with offender supporters who

have little relationship to victims.

Initially unique to the circle sentencing

model of conferencing is the concept

of victim support groups (Stuart, 1996).

Support groups are formed by community
12

justice committees, which are responsible

for achieving an appropriate balance

among victim, offender, and community

needs and representation. Usually a support group is formed at the time an offender petitions for admission to the

circle, but the group may expand at any

time (including during the circle ceremony itself).

Preparation/Followup

The presession preparation stage of any

restorative conferencing process offers

perhaps the greatest opportunity to engage citizens in the restorative justice

process and ensure their meaningful participation (Stuart, 1995; Umbreit, 1994).

Followup activities—monitoring and enforcement of sanctioning plans and agreements that result from decisionmaking

sessions—provide critical linkage between court dispositions and correctional

intervention. Followup has been particularly at issue among some critics of restorative conferencing models (Alder

and Wundersitz, 1994). Thus, the extent

to which preparation and followup are

viewed as vital to success is one of the

most interesting and important differences among the four restorative

conferencing models.

Victim-offender mediation. Mediation programs stress the importance of extensive

victim and offender preparation prior to

the mediation session. The most widely

accepted model encourages mediators to

hold at least one separate, face-to-face discussion with the offender and the victim.

During these discussions, the mediator

listens to each person describe how the

crime affected him or her, gives an overview of the mediation process, identifies

its potential benefits, and invites each person to participate. If the offender and victim agree to participate, the mediator introduces them to the process in a way that

minimizes anxiety and maximizes the likelihood that the two parties will engage in

direct dialog with minimal intervention by

the mediator (Umbreit, 1994, 1997). Many

practitioners argue that upfront preparation is often more important than the session itself in bringing about a successful

result (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996).

Victim-offender mediation programs vary

in their approach to monitoring and enforcement. In many programs, mediators

usually help session participants devise

a reparation schedule and may even ask

them to agree to a followup meeting to review progress (Umbreit, 1994). In some

programs, followup may be the responsibility of probation or diversion staff (depending on the offender’s court status),

other paid staff, community volunteers, or

student interns; in others, victim-offender

mediation may be one part of a larger restitution program responsible for development and enforcement of reparation agreements (Belgrave, 1995; Schneider, 1985).

Reparative boards. In Vermont’s reparative board programs, case preparation

usually is limited to brief intake interviews with offenders to gather information about the offense for the board hearings. Boards can obtain basic information

about victim losses from police, court, or

probation records. Nevertheless, some

board programs increasingly are attempting to contact victims prior to hearings.

Monitoring and enforcement policies and

procedures are more formally developed

in reparative boards than in other models. Board members themselves have enforcement responsibilities (i.e., recommending revocation or termination of

offender contracts as necessary), although they do not make final enforcement decisions. A reparative coordinator, who is a State corrections employee,

is responsible for monitoring offender

contract compliance (Reparative Probation Program, 1995). If offenders do not

meet contract conditions, the coordinator may recommend that they be

charged with violation of probation or

conditions of the diversion agreement

and/or that the court take additional

corrective action (Dooley, 1996).

Family group conferencing. In New

Zealand, preparation is viewed as critical

for the success of family group conferences. Preconference face-to-face meetings generally are held with offenders

and their families, and victims are contacted by phone (Hakiaha, 1995). The

Australian Wagga Wagga model places

much less emphasis on preparation,

apparently in the belief that spontaneity

is important. Some coordinators, for example, argue that hearing victims’ and

offenders’ stories prior to the conference

may even diminish the impact and focus

of the stories (Umbreit and Stacy, 1996).

Recently, however, some proponents of

the Wagga Wagga model are placing

greater emphasis on the need to ensure

accuracy of facts, check with participants, develop plans, and ensure that

key participants and their support

groups attend conference sessions

(McDonald et al., 1995).

Family group conferencing programs

generally have often left responsibility for

compliance to the offender (Moore and

O’Connell, 1994), although the New Zealand

model does provide for reconvening conferences in the event of noncompliance (Maxwell and Morris, 1993). Conferencing programs generally do not make monitoring

and enforcement responsibilities explicit,

although Australia’s Wagga Wagga model

anticipates that police officers are ultimately responsible for enforcement and

that juvenile justice staff may also play

a role (Alder and Wundersitz, 1994). In

the United States, the enforcement function

is evolving and varies from jurisdiction to

jurisdiction. Although preferred practice

calls for encouraging voluntary compliance

and assigning monitoring roles to conference participants, final enforcement authority rests primarily with the police agencies

that convene the conferences; however, the

extent of actual followup varies.

Circle sentencing. Perhaps because its

community empowerment and healing

goals are most ambitious, the circle sentencing model demands the most extensive presession preparation. As a condition of admission to a circle, offenders are

required to petition the community justice

committee, visit an elder or other respected community member for a conference, begin work on a reparative plan

that may involve some restitution to the

victim and community service, and identify a community support group (Stuart,

1996). This presession process serves as

a screening device and an indicator that

offenders are serious about personal

change. It is not uncommon for circles

to be canceled or postponed if offenders

fail to complete the preliminary steps

(Stuart, 1996). When the screening process works well and offenders meet the

presession obligations, however, a circle

can actually be less a hearing about disposition requirements than a celebration of

the offender’s progress and an opportunity

for victim and offender to tell their stories.

Followup should be as intensive as

preparation in the circle sentencing

model. Circle participants are expected

to take responsibility for monitoring

and enforcing the conditions of the

circle sentence, which often include an

extensive list of reparative responsibilities, treatment requirements, and (in

aboriginal communities) traditional

healing and community-building rituals.

Support groups for offenders and victims, which are formed through community justice committees, also monitor
13

Dimensions of Restorative Justice and Decisionmaking

Efforts to increase community participation in the dispositional decisionmaking

process are nothing new. In the late 1970’s, the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice supported neighborhood justice

centers (also known as dispute resolution centers) in several cities (Garafalo and

Connelly, 1980; McGillis and Mullen, 1977). More recently, a variety of initiatives

have placed prosecution and defense services, and even entire courts, in neighborhoods and have adapted services to provide a better fit with the needs of local

citizens (National Institute of Justice, 1996b). Federal and State juvenile justice

agencies have been especially concerned with promoting a less formal, more

accessible neighborhood focus for intervention and in recent years have supported youth courts, juvenile drug courts, and mentoring programs.

These efforts often have been effective in making justice services more

geographically accessible to citizens, increasing flexibility of service delivery

(e.g., more convenient hours, more diversity), and encouraging informality in

the decisionmaking process by relying whenever possible on dispute resolution, negotiation, and mediation practices rather than legal rules and procedures (Harrington and Merry, 1988; Rottman, 1996). However, when facilities

and services are merely placed in neighborhoods without the involvement of

local residents, the result is an isolated program or process that may be said to

be in, but not of, the community (Byrne, 1989; Clear, 1996). Similarly, increasing flexibility and breaking down formal barriers may increase citizens’ willingness to seek and receive assistance but will not necessarily increase their

involvement as participants in the justice process or even allow them to

determine what services they would like in their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, emphasis on developing programs and increasing accessibility of

services has contributed to a one-dimensional definition of restorative justice.

Ultimately, neither new programs nor increased access alone will change the role

of neighborhood residents from service recipients to decisionmakers with a stake

in (and sense of ownership of) the process for determining what services are

provided and how they are delivered. By defining new and distinctive roles for

citizens, the four conferencing models examined in this Bulletin add an important

dimension to earlier and ongoing restorative justice initiatives (McGillis and

Mullen, 1977; National Institute of Justice, 1996a).

What is the relevance of these apparently esoteric models to juvenile justice

professionals, victim advocates, treatment providers, and other intervention

professionals? Notably, an increasing number of State departments of juvenile

courts, probation departments, parole agencies, and corrections systems are

adopting one or more aspects of restorative justice policy (e.g., Bazemore and

Griffiths, 1997; Dooley, 1995; Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission,

1997; Pranis, 1995). What appear on the surface to be simply informal alternatives

to courts actually have relevance to the objectives of all components of the

juvenile justice system.

The larger promise of the evolving approaches is a new avenue for achieving a

wider and deeper level of citizen involvement in the rehabilitative, sanctioning, and

public safety missions of juvenile justice than has been possible through offenderfocused intervention alone. Prospects for increasing community involvement, the

nature of the process of engaging citizens, and the roles assigned to the community

(including crime victims) are therefore the most crucial dimensions for comparing

and contrasting the four conferencing models that are the focus of this Bulletin.

offenders and act as victim advocates

to ensure that agreements made within

the circle are carried out. Sentencing

circle agreements are subject to review

by a judge, who asks for routine reports

from the justice committee and support

groups. At the conclusion of a circle,

the judge may assign further monitoring

responsibilities to members of the community and may withhold a final decision

about detention terms or other sanctions

pending the offender’s completion of obligations as verified at a followup hearing.

Comparing and

Contrasting the Four

Models: Summary

In comparing these four models, it must

be remembered that, as noted earlier in

the Bulletin, the philosophy and practice

of any given restorative conferencing program may deviate substantially from the

prototypes presented here. Indeed, the

evolution of the restorative justice movement is producing significant changes as

practitioners think more carefully about

the implications of restorative principles

for their practice. For example, reparative

boards and victim-offender mediation

have been influenced by family group conferencing models, and some family group

conferencing programs have recently

adopted components of circle sentencing.

The most important conclusion to be

drawn from this comparison of the four

models is that there is no one best approach for every community or for every

case within a community. For example,

circle sentencing is perhaps the most holistic of the models. Yet circles also demand the greatest time commitment from

participants and thus are not wisely used

on minor or less complex cases.

Some have suggested that the future may

bring a single hybrid model. More practically, however, jurisdictions can consider

developing a “menu” of conferencing alternatives to respond to diverse case

needs and to make the most efficient use

of scarce resources. For example, a brief

encounter with a reparative board may be

the most appropriate and cost-effective

response to a property offender with few

prior incidents and no other complications

requiring more intensive intervention,

whereas circle sentencing may be more

appropriate for serious and chronic offenders involved in dysfunctional relationships.

Each of the four models has its strengths

and weaknesses in a variety of dimensions in addition to those considered

here. Although much remains to be

learned and there is much room for

improvement, each model has demonstrated its unique value to juvenile justice

systems and communities that are trying

to develop more meaningful sanctioning

responses to youth crime.
14

Issues and Concerns

Restorative justice is assuming an ever

higher profile, and its new decisionmaking structures and processes are

bound to come under close scrutiny. It

is therefore important to address critical

issues and concerns related to evaluating

the success of new restorative justice approaches, gauging progress in their development, and meeting the challenges of

balancing and sharing power.

Evaluating Success and

Gauging Progress

Despite the proliferation of restorative

justice programs, there is a significant

lack of evaluation research to provide an

empirical basis for determining whether

new initiatives are achieving their stated

objectives. The exception is victimoffender mediation, which has been the

subject of numerous studies in North

America and Europe (Coates and Gehm,

1989; Dignan, 1990; Marshal and Merry,

1990; Umbreit, 1994, 1995; Umbreit and

Coates, 1993; Umbreit, Coates, and Roberts, 1997; Umbreit and Roberts, 1997).

Perhaps the most critical concern for

evaluators and juvenile justice professionals is that many of the new restorative

justice initiatives have objectives that are

far more holistic than those of traditional

crime control responses. Whereas traditional crime control efforts typically have

used recidivism rates as a primary outcome measure, an evaluative framework

for these new approaches needs to include criteria for measuring outcomes of

community empowerment and solidarity,

victim interests, and crime prevention.

The framework should also take into account intermediate and process outcomes

such as community and victim involvement, reintegrative shaming, reparation

to victims, dispute resolution, and healing. As new and more appropriate standards emerge for evaluating restorative

justice models, it is essential that the basis for comparison be the reality of the

current system rather than an idealized

version of its performance. It is also essential that any comparisons between

restorative justice models and the current

system use similar indicators to measure

performance.

Another important consideration for any

new restorative justice process is its integrity, i.e., its consistency with restorative justice principles. With 25 years of

experience to draw upon, victim-offender

mediation offers the following basic

guidelines that can serve to inform any

new restorative conferencing initiative

and its implementation:

◆ If public agencies such as police or

probation initiate a restorative conferencing process, actual sessions should

be cofacilitated by trained community

volunteers. This increases citizen participation and reduces the likelihood of

an imbalance of power among parties

involved in the sessions. Community

involvement and volunteer participation are essential to the success of restorative conferencing but do not preclude the need for public support (e.g.,

funding to cover the costs of systems

development, referrals, training, etc.)

to sustain high-quality programs.

◆ If a local victim-offender mediation or

dialog program already exists, other

restorative conferencing initiatives

should be developed in collaboration

with the existing program. For example, volunteer mediators could also

serve as cofacilitators.

◆ Session facilitators should be trained

in mediation and conflict resolution

skills, approaches to understanding

the experiences and needs of crime

victims and young offenders, and

cultural and ethical issues that are

likely to affect the process and

participants.

◆ Victims should be able to make informed decisions about their participation. They should be told about potential benefits and risks and should never

be pressured to participate or told to

“just trust” the facilitator’s judgment.

Victims should also be allowed to

choose when and where the session is

held and should have the opportunity

to present their story first if they wish.

◆ In-person preparation of primary participants (victims, offenders, and their

immediate families) should take place

whenever possible. It is important for

facilitators to connect with the parties,

provide information, encourage participation, and build rapport, trust, and a

sense of safety.

Regardless of what model or combination

of models a local community or juvenile

court might choose, ongoing monitoring

Field-Initiated Program

In 1996, the Hudson Institute, a public policy research organization located in

Indianapolis, IN, began to work with the local police department, sheriff’s department, juvenile court, prosecutor’s office, and mayor on a project to use Australianstyle restorative justice conferences as an alternative response to juvenile offending. The project, which is ongoing, focuses on young (under age 15), first-time

offenders in Marion County, IN.

Later that year, the Institute applied for and received a grant from OJJDP through

its field-initiated research and evaluation program. These funds were used to

conduct an evaluation of the impact of these restorative justice conferences on the

recidivism rate of young offenders and other outcomes. To date, more than 400

youth have participated in the experimental design used for this evaluation.

The findings are very encouraging. They indicate that restorative justice conferences can be successfully implemented in an urban setting in the United States.

More than 80 percent of youth referred to a conference are attending the conference and successfully completing the terms of the reparation agreement. For

Indianapolis, this compares very favorably with other court-related diversion programs. In addition, trained observers report that conferences are being implemented according to restorative justice principles such as inclusion of affected

parties, respect, and problem solving. Victims receive apologies, and other mutually agreed-to actions are included in the agreements. These characteristics translate into victims reporting high levels of satisfaction.

In terms of reoffending, the results are also promising. Both for the total sample and

for youth who successfully completed their diversion programs, youth who attended

conferences were significantly less likely to be rearrested 6 months after the initial

incident. Researchers are completing the 12-month followup of participants, and

final results of the study will be published in a forthcoming OJJDP Bulletin.
15

Building Community Through Restorative Conferencing

The true test of restorative conferencing. The ultimate

measure of success for any approach that claims to advance

restorative justice should be its ability to strengthen the

capacity of communities to respond effectively to crime

(Bazemore, 2000). In restorative justice, crime is viewed as

both a cause and result of broken or weakened relationships.

As Pranis (1998, p. 10) suggests: “The fabric of community is

the weaving of relationships. Crime harms relationships and

thus weakens community. Our response to crime needs to

attend to these relationships to rebuild or strengthen the

community fabric.”

If restorative conferencing models are to be more than

another programmatic add-on, advocates of the models

should be challenged to ask whether the models meet the

test of building community. Do these models:

◆ Create positive new relationships or strengthen existing

relationships?

◆ Increase community skills in problem solving and

constructive conflict resolution?

◆ Increase the community sense of capacity and efficacy

in addressing problems?

◆ Increase individual awareness of and commitment to the

common good?

◆ Create informal support systems or safety nets for victims

and offenders?

Potential roles for the community. Experience has shown

that given the chance, citizens and community groups can play

significant roles in restorative justice. Such roles may include

service on advisory boards at local, county, and State levels;

policy input through public forums and community surveys;

prevention policy development; a variety of victim and offender

support activities, including church- and community-based

programs, police chaplaincy programs, healing circles, and

neighborhood outreach programs; and volunteer service as

victim advocates, mediators for victim-offender mediation

programs, and reparative board members.

New functions for juvenile justice professionals. Despite

emphasis on the community role, restorative justice should

never be viewed as something independent of the formal

justice system. Juvenile courts and juvenile justice professionals must play key leadership roles in partnerships with

community groups to develop and sustain a credible

community response to youth crime. Because current job

descriptions for juvenile justice professionals usually do not

include functions associated with restorative justice, another

test for efforts to engage the community in decisionmaking

must be whether new professional roles are being developed.

Such new roles are emerging in several communities where

restorative justice is now actively practiced. For example, in

Deschutes County, OR, probation officers are now called

community justice officers, and their responsibilities include

developing and supporting community service projects,

developing restorative conferencing, coordinating services

to crime victims, and performing a variety of communitybuilding and restorative functions.

The process of engaging the community. The process

followed by juvenile justice professionals in engaging the

community may be the most important aspect of creating a

new collaborative relationship between the justice system and

the community. Such a process is illustrated in the following

steps suggested by the Minnesota Department of Corrections:

◆ Gather information about restorative justice and possible

models in the community.

◆ Educate yourself about the community you will be working

with.

◆ Identify credible leaders in the community or neighborhood,

attend community gatherings, read local papers, and ask

local residents about issues and leaders.

◆ Educate yourself about victim services in the community

and establish contact with those services.

◆ Clarify your own goals and values in approaching the

community. (What are you trying to achieve? What is

important to you about what you are doing and how

you do it?)

◆ Assess potential support in the criminal and juvenile justice

systems and educate key leaders about restorative justice.

◆ Working with community leaders, plan informational

sessions to explore community interest. Invite participation

by victims’ representatives.

◆ At each session, recruit volunteers who would like to be

involved in creating a new approach in the community

based on restorative values.

and evaluation will be needed to ensure

that conferencing processes adhere to

restorative justice principles. No model

or process is perfect. In practice, therefore, adherence to these principles may

be viewed as a continuum within which

new approaches can be assessed and

continuously improved (table 3).

Sharing and Balancing

Power

The restorative justice processes discussed

in this Bulletin are often proposed as alternatives to the legal-procedural approach to

dispositional decisionmaking by the juvenile court. Concerns have been raised, however, about the mechanisms of accountability in restorative justice decisionmaking. In

considering the development of justice programs in aboriginal communities in Canada,

Griffiths and Hamilton (1996) have raised

concerns that are just as relevant in urban

U.S. communities:

Care must be taken to ensure that

family and kinship networks and the

community power hierarchy do not

compromise the administration of

justice. As in any community, there

is a danger of a tyranny of community in which certain individuals
16

Table 3: Restorative Community Justice: Least- to Most-Restorative Impact

Least-Restorative Impact Most-Restorative Impact

Entire focus is on determining the amount of financial

restitution to be paid, with no opportunity to talk directly

about the full impact of the crime on the victim and the

community, and also on the offender.

No separate preparation meetings with the victim and

offender prior to bringing the parties together.

Victims not given choice of meeting place (where they would

feel most comfortable) or participants; given only written

notice to appear for mediation session at preset time, with no

preparation.

Mediator or facilitator describes offense and offender then

speaks, with the victim simply asking a few questions or

responding to questions from the mediator.

Highly directive styles of mediation or facilitation, with the

mediator talking most of the time, little if any direct dialog

between the involved parties.

Low tolerance for moments of silence or expression of

feelings.

Voluntary for victim but required of offender regardless of

whether he or she takes responsibility.

Settlement-driven and very brief (10–15 minutes).

Paid attorneys or other professionals serve as mediators.

Primary focus is on providing an opportunity for victims and

offenders to talk directly to each other, to allow victims to

describe the impact of the crime on their lives and receive

answers to questions, and to allow offenders to appreciate

the human impact of their behavior and take responsibility

for making things right.

Separate preparation meetings with the victim and offender,

with emphasis on listening to how the crime has affected

them, identifying needs, and answering questions about the

mediation process.

Victims continually given choices throughout the process:

where to meet, whom they would like to be present, etc.

Victims given choice to speak first and encouraged to

describe offense and participate actively.

Nondirective style of mediation or facilitation with minimal

mediator interference, and use of a humanistic or transformative mediation model.

High tolerance for silence, expression of feelings, and

discussion of the full impact of the crime.

Voluntary for victim and offender.

Dialog-driven and typically lasts about an hour (or longer).

Trained community volunteers serve as mediators or facilitators, along with agency staff.

and groups of residents, particularly

those who are members of vulnerable groups, find themselves at the

mercy of those in positions of

power and influence. (Griffiths and

Hamilton, 1996:187–188)

The often dramatic and dysfunctional

power differentials within communities

may make true participatory justice difficult to achieve and, in some settings, may

instead produce harmful side effects

(Griffiths and Corrado, 1998). Ironically,

those communities most in need of holistic restorative justice programs that encourage residents to become involved in

the disposition process are often precisely those communities that are the

most dysfunctional. Also, residents of

such communities may have only

limited interest in and/or capacity for

involvement, in part because they have

never had the opportunity to develop

meaningful partnerships with the juvenile

justice system. If these communities are

ever to benefit from a restorative approach to the problem of youth crime,

proponents of restorative justice must

direct specific attention to developing

strategies for building a sense of community among residents and for recruiting

and retaining resident volunteers.

A critical issue surrounding the development and implementation of restorative

justice models is: “Who controls the

agenda?” Traditionally, the formal justice

system has maintained a tight rein on

initiatives designed as alternatives to

criminal and juvenile justice processes.

This is evident in the origins and evolution

of diversion programs, which in many

jurisdictions appear to have become appendages to the formal justice process. In

this context, the inability or unwillingness

of decisionmakers in the formal juvenile

justice system to share discretion and

power with communities is likely to result

in “net-widening” (expanding the number

and types of youth brought under the supervision of the juvenile justice system)

rather than the development of more effective alternative decisionmaking processes (Blomberg, 1983; Polk, 1994).

If the new restorative justice models follow

the pattern of development of earlier

neighborhood dispute resolution models

(and to a lesser extent of victim-offender

mediation, as the oldest of the new models), one would anticipate significant additions to the richness and diversity possible in alternative sanctioning but little
17

impact on the formal system. Both victimoffender mediation and family group

conferencing (except as practiced in New

Zealand) ultimately depend on system

decisionmakers for referrals; the potential

for true sharing of power is minimal. If

new models are to avoid net-widening,

marginalization, and irrelevance, community advocates should begin to work with

sympathetic justice professionals who are

also committed to community-driven systemic reform.

Although a primary objective of proponents of restorative justice is to have

new concepts institutionalized as part

of the justice process, the danger is that

system control will lead to top-down development of generic models. Hence,

both promise and risk are implied in the

degree of institutionalization that some

new approaches have achieved in a relatively short time and in the rather dramatic system-community collaboration

that appears to be possible with these

approaches.

Clearly, the high profile given to restorative justice initiatives may result in grant

funding for research and new programs.

Yet, such support is no guarantee of longterm impact of the type envisioned in the

restorative justice literature. Moreover, in

the absence of substantive community

input (including input from crime victims)

at the design and implementation phases

of specific initiatives, an administrative

focus (i.e., one concerned primarily with

grant-funding processes) may even result

in cooptation or watering down of new

approaches in ways that ultimately function to undermine the philosophy and

objectives of restorative justice (Van

Ness, 1993).

For example, from a restorative justice perspective, perhaps the biggest challenge to

Vermont’s reparative boards is the fact

that they have been implemented within

the State’s formal justice system itself. On

one hand, the boards may have the greatest potential for significant impact on the

response of the formal system to nonviolent crimes. Moreover, the commitment of

administrators to local control may also

result in communities assuming and demanding a broader mandate. On the other

hand, as a creation of the State corrections

bureaucracy, the reparative boards may

find themselves at the center of an ongoing

struggle between efforts to give greater

power and autonomy to citizens and needs

of administrators to maintain control and

ensure system accountability. Indeed,

citizen board members may ultimately be

challenged to decide the extent to which

their primary client is the community or

the probation and court system.

Of the four models considered in this Bulletin, circle sentencing appears to be the

most advanced in terms of primacy of the

community’s decisionmaking role. In its

placement of neighborhood residents in

the gatekeeper role (see table 2), this

model provides the most complete example of power sharing. Acting through

the community justice committees, communities are clearly the “drivers” in determining which offenders will be admitted

to the circle and what should be done in

the collective effort to heal the community. Eligibility for circles is limited only

by the ability of offenders to demonstrate

to community justice committees their

sincerity and willingness to change. Surprisingly, the most promising lesson of

circle sentencing has been that, when

given decisionmaking power, neighborhood residents often choose to include

the most, rather than the least, serious

offenders in restorative justice processes

(Griffiths and Corrado, 1998; Stuart,

1996). As a result, however, certain tensions have developed within courts and

other agencies in Canadian communities

that are experimenting with circle sentencing. The tensions concern the extent

to which power sharing with the community should be limited and the issue of

whether statutes are being violated.

Implications and

Conclusions

The perpetual absence of the “community” in “community corrections,” either

as a target of intervention or as a participant in the justice process (Byrne, 1989;

Clear, 1996), may be due in part to an inability to identify meaningful roles for

citizens. This Bulletin has described four

nonadversarial decisionmaking models

and compared and contrasted the ways

in which they define and make operational the role of citizens in responding to

youth crime. As illustrated by a growing

number of restorative justice initiatives

(Pranis, 1995), such citizen involvement

may have important implications for juvenile justice. The models discussed here

offer significant potential for changing the

current dynamic in which the community

is largely a passive observer of juvenile

justice processes. When juvenile justice

professionals identify citizens willing to

participate in a community sanctioning

process, they may also have identified a

small support group willing to assist with

offender reintegration and victim support.

This Bulletin has also attempted to provide

a general framework for describing the dimensions of restorative conferencing processes. One purpose has been to avoid indiscriminate, arbitrary, and all-inclusive

groupings of programs and practices under

ill-defined terms such as community justice

or restorative justice. As noted at the beginning of this Bulletin, comparative discussions of new approaches at this relatively

early stage of development are important

because they serve to highlight similarities

and differences across emerging models.

Such discussions may prevent, or at least

minimize, what some have referred to as

the “community-policing syndrome”: the

widespread application (and misapplication) of a generic term to a broad range of

initiatives without a clear understanding of

the differences between interventions or

benchmark criteria that can be used to assess consistency with fundamental principles and objectives (Mastrofsky and Ritti,

1995). Unless proponents of restorative justice distinguish what should and should not

be included under that umbrella and unless

they refine definitions of success for interventions, they will miss a unique and valuable opportunity to develop more effective

methods for enhancing citizen involvement

in the response to youth crime and misconduct. A useful context for refining definitions is to view restorative justice as a way

of thinking about and responding to crime

that emphasizes one basic fact: crime

damages people, communities, and relationships. If crime is about harm, a justice

process should therefore emphasize repairing the harm.

Systemic reform toward restorative justice must not begin and end with new programs and staff positions. It must encompass new values that articulate new roles

for victims, offenders, and communities

as key stakeholders in the justice process.

Accordingly, such reform should create

and perpetuate new decisionmaking models that meet stakeholder needs for meaningful involvement. The capacity of these

models to influence, and even transform,

juvenile justice decisionmaking and intervention seems to lie in the potential

power of these new stakeholders. If victims, offenders, and other citizens are to

be fully engaged in meaningful decisionmaking processes, however, a dramatic

change must also occur in the role of juvenile justice professionals. That role

must shift from sole decisionmaker to
18

facilitator of community involvement and

resource to the community (Bazemore

and Schiff, 1996).

References

Alder, C., and Wundersitz, J., eds. 1994.

Family Group Conferencing and Juvenile

Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced

Optimism? Canberra, Australia: Australian

Institute of Criminology.

American Probation and Parole Association. 1996. Restoring Hope Through Community Partnerships: The Real Deal in

Crime Control. Lexington, KY: American

Probation and Parole Association.

Barajas, E., Jr. 1995. Moving Toward Community Justice. Topics in Community Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of

Prisons, National Institute of Corrections,

Community Division.

Bazemore, G. 2000. Community justice

and a vision of collective efficacy: The

case of restorative conferencing. In Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 3. Washington

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of

Justice, pp 228–297.

Bazemore, G., and Griffiths, C. 1997. Conferences, circles, boards, and mediations:

The “new wave” of community justice

decisionmaking. Federal Probation

61(2):25–37.

Bazemore, G., and Schiff, M. 1996. Community justice/restorative justice: Prospects for a new social ecology for community corrections. International Journal of

Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice

20(2):311–334.

Belgrave, J. 1995. Restorative justice. Discussion paper. Wellington, New Zealand:

New Zealand Ministry of Justice.

Blomberg, T. 1983. Diversion’s disparate

results and unresolved questions: An integrative evaluation perspective. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency

20(1):24–38.

Braithwaite, J., and Mugford, S. 1994. Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies. British Journal of Criminology

34(2):139–171.

Byrne, J.M. 1989. Reintegrating the concept of community into communitybased correction. Crime and Delinquency

35:471–479.

Clear, T.R. 1996. Toward a corrections of

“place”: The challenge of “community” in

corrections. NIJ Journal (August):52–56.

Coates, R., and Gehm, J. 1989. An empirical assessment. In Mediation and Criminal Justice, edited by M. Wright and

B. Galaway. London, England: Sage

Publications, Ltd.

Daly, K. 2000. Ideals meet reality: Research results on youth justice conferences in South Australia. Paper prepared

for the Fourth International Conference

on Restorative Justice for Juveniles,

Tuebingen, Germany, October 2000.

Dignan, J. 1990. An Evaluation of an Experimental Adult Reparation Scheme in

Lettering, Northamptonshire. Sheffield, UK:

Centre for Criminological and Legal Research, University of Sheffield.

Dooley, M.J. 1995. Reparative Probation

Program. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Department of Corrections.

Dooley, M.J. 1996. Restoring Hope Through

Community Partnerships: The Real Deal in

Crime Control. Lexington, KY: American

Probation and Parole Association.

Fercello, C., and Umbreit, M. 1999. Client

Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing.

St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice

and Mediation, University of Minnesota.

Garafalo, J., and Connelly, K. 1980. Dispute resolution centers, part I: Major

features and processes. Criminal Justice

Abstracts 12(3):416–439.

Griffiths, C.T., and Corrado, R. 1998.

Implementing restorative youth justice:

A case study in community justice and

the dynamics of reform. In Restorative

Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of

Youth Crime, edited by G. Bazemore and

L. Walgrave. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice

Press, pp. 237–263.

Griffiths, C.T., and Hamilton, R. 1996. Spiritual renewal, community revitalization

and healing. Experience in traditional aboriginal justice in Canada. International

Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 20(2):289–311.

Hakiaha, M. 1995. New Zealand youth family conference coordinator. Presentation

in Whitehorse, YT, Canada.

Harrington, C., and Merry, S. 1988. Ideological production: The making of community mediation. Law and Society Review

22(4):709–733.

Karp, D., and Walther, L. 2001. Community

reparative boards: Theory and practice.

In Restorative Community Justice:

Cultivating Common Ground for Victims,

Communities and Offenders, edited by

G. Bazemore and M. Schiff. Cincinnati,

OH: Anderson.

Marshall, T., and Merry, S. 1990. Crime and

Accountability. London, UK: Home Office.

Mastrofsky, S., and Ritti, R. 1995. Making

sense of community-policing: A theorybased analysis. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Society of

Criminology, Boston, MA, November 1995.

Maxwell, G., and Morris, A. 1993. Family

Participation, Cultural Diversity and Victim

Involvement in Youth Justice: A New

Zealand Experiment. Wellington, New

Zealand: Victoria University.

McCold, P., and Wachtel, B. 1998. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania, Police Family Group

Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA:

Community Service Foundation.

McDonald, J., Thorsborne, M., Moore,

D., Hyndman, M., and O’Connell, T. 1995.

Real Justice Training Manual: Coordinating

Family Group Conferences. Pipersville, PA:

Piper’s Press.

McElrea, F.W.M. 1993. A new model of justice. In The Youth Court in New Zealand:

A New Model of Justice, edited by B.J.

Brown. Auckland, New Zealand: Legal

Research Foundation.

McGillis, D., and Mullen, J. 1977. Neighborhood Justice Centers: An Analysis of Potential

Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

Melton, A. 1995. Indigenous justice systems and tribal society. Judicature

70(3):126–133.

Moore, D.B., and O’Connell, T. 1994. Family conferencing in Wagga-Wagga: A communitarian model of justice. In Family

Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The

Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?,

edited by C. Adler and J. Wundersitz.

Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute

of Criminology.

Morris, A., and Maxwell, G. 2001. Restorative conferencing. In Restorative and

Community Justice: Cultivating Common

Ground for Victims, Communities and Offenders, edited by G. Bazemore and M. Schiff.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
19

National Institute of Justice. 1996a. National Symposium on Restorative Justice

Proceedings, Spring. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

National Institute of Justice. 1996b. Communities: Mobilizing Against Crime: Making

Partnerships Work. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission. 1997. Balanced and Restorative

Justice in Pennsylvania: A New Mission and

Changing Roles Within the Juvenile Justice

System. Harrisburg, PA: Juvenile Court

Judges Commission.

Polk, K. 1994. Family conferencing: Theoretical and evaluative questions. In Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The

Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?

edited by C. Adler and J. Wundersitz.

Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute

of Criminology.

Pranis, K. 1995. Building community support for restorative justice: Principles and

strategies. Unpublished paper. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Pranis, K. 1998. Restorative Justice: Principles, Practices and Implementation, Section

6, Building Community. National Institute of

Corrections Curriculum. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau

of Prisons, National Institute of Corrections.

Reparative Probation Program. 1995. Program Design. Waterbury, VT: Vermont

Department of Corrections.

Rottman, D. 1996. Community courts:

Prospects and limits in community justice. NIJ Journal (August):50–51.

Schneider, A., ed. 1985. Guide to Juvenile

Restitution. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Strang, A. 1995. Family group conferencing: The victims’ perspective. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the

American Society of Criminology, Boston,

MA, November 1995.

Stuart, B. 1995. Sentencing circles—Making

“real” differences. Unpublished paper.

Whitehorse, Canada: Territorial Court of

the Yukon.

Stuart, B. 1996. Circle sentencing—

Turning swords into ploughshares. In

Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, edited by B. Galaway and J. Hudson.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press,

pp. 193–206.

Travis, J. 1996. Lessons for the criminal

justice system from twenty years of policing reform. Keynote address at the First

Annual Conference of the New York Campaign for Effective Crime Policy, New

York, NY.

Umbreit, M. 1994. Victim Meets Offender:

The Impact of Restorative Justice in Mediation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, M. 1995. Holding juvenile offenders accountable: A restorative justice

perspective. Juvenile and Family Court

Journal (Spring):33–41.

Umbreit, M. 1997. Humanistic mediation:

A transformation journey of peacemaking.

Mediation Quarterly 14(3):201–213.

Umbreit, M., and Coates, R. 1993. Impact

of mediating victim-offender conflict: An

analysis of programs in three States. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43(1):21–28.

Umbreit, M., Coates, R., and Roberts, A.

1997. Cross-national impact of restorative

justice through mediation and dialogue.

ICCA Journal on Community Corrections

8(2):46–50.

Umbreit, M., and Fercello, C. 1997. Family

group conferencing program results in

client satisfaction. Juvenile Justice Update

Journal 3(6):3–13.

Umbreit, M., and Greenwood, J. 1998.

Victim Sensitive Guidelines for Victim Offender Mediation. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, M., and Roberts, A.W. 1997. Victim offender mediation in England: An

assessment of two programs. In The Promise of Mediation, edited by G. Pisapia and

D. Antonucci. Milan, Italy: CEDAM,

pp. 63–83.

Umbreit, M., and Schug, B.A. 1997. Directory of Victim Offender Mediation Programs

in the US. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation, University of

Minnesota.

Umbreit, M., and Stacy, S. 1996. Family

group conferencing comes to the U.S.: A

comparison with victim offender mediation. Juvenile and Family Court Journal

47(2):29–39.

Umbreit, M., and Zehr, H. 1996. Restorative family group conferences: Differing

models and guidelines for practice. Federal Probation 60(3):24–29.

Van Ness, D. 1993. New wine and old wineskins: Four challenges of restorative justice. Criminal Law Forum 4(2):251–276.

Zehr, H. 1990. Changing Lenses: A New

Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale,

PA: Herald Press.

Bibliography

Bazemore, G. 1997. What’s new about the

balanced approach. Juvenile and Family

Court Journal 48(1):1–23.

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. 1995. Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime and

Delinquency 41(3):296–316.

Depew, R.C. 1994. Popular Justice and Aboriginal Communities: Some Preliminary

Considerations. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Justice of Canada.

Goldstein, H. 1987. Toward communityoriented policing: Potential, basic requirements and threshold questions. Crime and

Delinquency 33:6–30.

Hudson, J., Galaway, B., Morris, A., and

Maxwell, G. 1996. Research on family

group conferencing in child welfare in

New Zealand. In Family Group Conferences:

Perspectives on Policy and Practice.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Klien, A. 1995. Community Probation:

Acknowledging Probation’s Multiple Clients.

Topics in Community Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Institute of Corrections, Community Division.

LaPrairie, C. 1994. Community justice or

just communities? Aboriginal communities in search of justice. Unpublished paper. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Justice of Canada.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. 1998. Guide for Implementing

the Balanced and Restorative Justice

Model. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Robinson, J. 1996. Research on family

group conferencing in child welfare in

New Zealand. In Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice,

edited by J. Hudson et al. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press, pp. 49–64.

Young, M. 1995. Restorative Community Justice: A Call to Action. Washington, DC: National Organization for Victim Assistance.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 184738

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Acknowledgments

Gordon Bazemore, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Criminology and

Criminal Justice and Director of the Community Justice Institute at Florida Atlantic

University. Mark Umbreit, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Restorative Justice

and Peacemaking at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Bazemore and Dr. Umbreit

are Principal Investigators for the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, an

OJJDP-funded research initiative that is a joint project of Florida Atlantic University and the Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking.

Photographs © 1997–99 Artville Stock Images.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant

number 95–JN–FX–0024 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org