Comparing police‐ and civilian‐run family group conferences
Authors: Kroovand Hipple Natalie , McGarrell Edmund F. 
Published: November 2008

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to compare family group conferences (FGCs) facilitated by police officers with those facilitated by a civilian along several dimensions including process, reparation agreements, recidivism, and time until failure.Design/methodology/approachUsing observational data and juvenile histories of offending from the Indianapolis Restorative Justice Project, the authors attempted to answer four research questions: Are family group conferences facilitated by police officers procedurally different from family group conferences facilitated by civilians?; Are reparation agreements resulting from police‐officer‐facilitated conferences different from reparation agreements resulting from civilian‐facilitated conferences?; Did youths who participated in police‐facilitated conferences recidivate at different rates compared with youths who participated in civilian‐facilitated conferences?; Did youths who participated in police‐facilitated conferences have a longer time to failure than youths who participated in civilian‐facilitated conferences?FindingsGenerally, there appeared to be no major differences between conferences facilitated by civilians as opposed to police officers. Observations indicated that police officers seemed to lecture offenders more during the FGC and made more suggestions as to what should be in the reparation agreement. Youths who attended police‐officer‐facilitated conferences “survived” somewhat longer before re‐offending than youths who attended civilian‐facilitated conferences, although these differences were not statistically significant.Research limitations/implicationsWhile subjects in the Indianapolis experiment were randomly assigned to family group conferences or a “control group” diversion program, subjects were not randomly assigned to conferences according to facilitator type. This limits the generalizability of the findings.Practical implicationsThe study suggests tjat both police officers and civilians are capable of facilitating FGCs, consistent with restorative justice principles. For police departments interested in responding proactively to early juvenile offending and in strengthening ties with the community, FGCs provide an opportunity through police officer training and involvement as conference facilitators. In contrast, in communities where the police may be disinclined to commit officers to the role of facilitator, the findings suggest that civilian facilitators can also effectively coordinate FGCs.Originality/valueThe study adds to the restorative justice literature by further examining conference processes and outcomes. Additionally, it offers the first empirical examination of some of the concerns that have been raised about police‐ as opposed to civilian‐facilitated conferences. The finding that there were few differences between police‐ and civilian‐run conferences suggests that the police are at least as capable as civilians in facilitating FGCs. This suggests that FGCs could be implemented as part of a community policing initiative utilizing police officers as facilitators. Similarly, FGCs could be implemented as part of a community justice initiative utilizing civilians as facilitators. The key to successful outcomes is likely to be driven by fidelity to theoretical principles as opposed to the formal role of the facilitator.