family group conferencing: implications for crime victims · family group conferencing:...

Advocating for the Fair Treatment of Crime Victims

Office for Victims of Crime

Family GroupConferencing:

Implications forCrimeVictims

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs


Center forRestorativeJustice &PeacemakingUniversity of Minnesota

April 2000

This document was prepared by the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking(formerly the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation) under grant number96–VF–GX–K006, awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of JusticePrograms, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

Janet RenoAttorney General

Daniel MarcusActing Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou LearyActing Assistant Attorney General

Kathryn M. TurmanDirector, Office for Victims of Crime

Office of Justice ProgramsWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Office for Victims of Crime World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc

For grant and funding information contactU.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

OVC Resource Center1–800–627–6872

OVC Resource Center Home Pagewww.ncjrs.org

The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

NCJ 176347

Family GroupConferencing:

Implications forCrime Victims

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

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

University of MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota

April 2000

NCJ 176347


Advocating for the Fair Treatment of Crime Victims

This document draws upon a previous article by Mark Umbreit and Howard Zehr (1996),and the guidelines in the conclusion are based upon a consensus that emerged from a groupof individuals who participated in the Family Group Conference training provided by theREAL JUSTICE organization in Pennsylvania in 1995.

Cover images © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.

iii

Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims

Message From the Director

This collection of six documents covers a number of important issues related to restorativejustice. Four of the documents focus on victim-offender mediation, which is a major pro-grammatic intervention that fully embraces the concepts of restorative justice. The firstof these documents is the Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation:Restorative Justice Through Dialogue, which assists administrators in developing orenhancing their restorative justice programs. It provides practical guidance for mediatorsto facilitate balanced and fair mediation, which will ensure the safety and integrity of allthe participants. The National Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the UnitedStatescontains information about the characteristics of the various victim-offender media-tion programs operating nationwide and the major issues facing them in their day-to-dayoperations. The Surveydescribes the actual functioning of the programs, while theGuidelinessets standards for the practice of victim-offender mediation. Next, the Directoryof Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United Stateslists all identified victim-offender mediation programs in the country and provides their addresses, phone numbers,and contact and other basic information. The purpose of the Directory is to provide easyaccess for persons who would like to contact a given program. The Family GroupConferencing: Implications for Crime Victimsdocument discusses a related form of restora-tive justice dialogue that originated in New Zealand and Australia and has been replicatedin some communities in the United States. The Multicultural Implications of RestorativeJustice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangersdocument informs practitioners about concernsregarding the implementation of such frameworks when working with persons of cross-cultural perspectives. The sixth document, entitled Victim-Offender Mediation andDialogue in Crimes of Severe Violence,will be added to the collection late FY 2000. Itwill provide case study evidence suggesting that many of the principles of restorative jus-tice can be applied to crimes of severe violence, including murder. In addition, this docu-ment includes a discussion about the need for advanced training for persons working withvictims of severe violence.

The Office for Victims of Crime does not insist that every victim participate in victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, or other restorative justice intervention.Such participation is a personal decision that each victim must make for herself or himself.We strongly advocate, however, that all restorative justice programs be extremely sensitiveto the needs and concerns of the victims who would like to meet with their offenders. Nopressure should be placed on victims to participate, for participation must be strictly volun-tary. Victims should be granted a choice in the location, timing, and structure of the sessionand a right to end their participation at any stage in the process. These protections for vic-tims do not mean that offenders can be treated insensitively. Both victim and offender mustbe dealt with respectfully.

We sincerely hope that restorative justice programs already in operation in probation orparole agencies, judicial agencies, religious groups, victim service organizations, community-based organizations, or elsewhere study these documents and embrace the victim-sensitive

iv

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

Kathryn M. TurmanDirectorOffice for Victims of Crime

Acknowledgments

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) would like to offer special thanks to author Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director, of the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking(formerly the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation), School of Social Work,University of Minnesota, for this document. We would also like to acknowledge thevaluable contributions made by Howard Zehr, Ph.D., Conflict Transformation Programat Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia, and a working group of practitioners inMinnesota trained in family group conferencing and convened by the Center for RestorativeJustice & Peacemaking. In addition, we thank Robert Schug, Administrative Aide at theCenter for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, who prepared the document and respondedto numerous requests for draft copies.

This project also benefited greatly from the contributions, guidance, and support of SusanLaurence, the Project Manager at OVC. This Restorative Justice and Mediation Collectionis the result of the efforts of many individuals in the field who generously shared theirmaterials and experiences with the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking so thatvictims may be provided additional options in the process of healing.


v

Contents

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

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

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

Similarities and Differences Between Family Group Conferencing and Victim-Offender Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

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

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

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

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


vii

1

IntroductionDuring the past several years, familygroup conferencing (FGC) models usedin New Zealand and Australia havereceived considerable attention in NorthAmerica. Representatives from bothcountries have lectured and provided

training workshops throughout the UnitedStates and Canada. Audiences haveranged from those in the victim-offendermediation (VOM) and restorative justicemovements to many law enforcementofficers, school officials, and a growingnumber of victim advocates.

What Is Restorative Justice?By Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Center for Restorative Justice & PeacemakingUniversity of Minnesota School of Social Work

Restorative justice is a victim-centered response to crime that allows the victim, theoffender, their families, and representatives of the community to address the harmcaused by the crime. Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of providing oppor-tunities for more active involvement in the process of offering support and assistance tocrime victims; holding offenders directly accountable to the people and communitiesthey have violated; restoring the emotional and material losses of victims (to the degreepossible); providing a range of opportunities for dialogue and problem solving to inter-ested crime victims, offenders, families, and other support persons; offering offendersopportunities for competency development and reintegration into productive commu-nity life; and strengthening public safety through community building.

Restorative justice policies and programs are developing in more than 45 States, includ-ing a growing number of State and county justice systems that are undergoing major systemic changes. Restorative justice is also developing in many other parts of the world,including numerous European countries, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Theprinciples of restorative justice draw upon the wisdom of many cultures throughout theworld, most notably American-Indian cultures within the United States and aboriginalcultures within Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Specific examples of restorative justice initiatives include crime repair crews, victim inter-vention programs, family group conferencing, victim-offender mediation and dialogue,peacemaking circles, victim panels that address offenders, sentencing circles, communityreparative boards before which offenders appear, offender competency developmentprograms, victim empathy classes for offenders, victim-directed and citizen-involvedcommunity service by the offender, community-based support groups for crime victims,and community-based support groups for offenders. As the oldest and most widelydeveloped expression of restorative justice, having been in use more than 25 years andthe subject of numerous studies in North America and Europe, victim-offender media-tion and dialogue programs currently work with thousands of cases annually throughmore than 300 programs in the United States and more than 700 in Europe.

Research has found that restorative justice programs provide higher levels of victim andoffender satisfaction with the process and outcome and a greater likelihood of success-ful restitution completion by the offender than traditional justice programs. Research hasalso shown that restorative justice programs have reduced fear among victims anddecreased the frequency and severity of further criminal behavior among offenders.


This attention has resulted in the intro-duction of a number of pilot projects andnew program initiatives that incorporatesome form of the FGC approach. OnePennsylvania-based organization, REALJUSTICE, is vigorously promoting a specific police- and school-based modelthat originated in Wagga Wagga,Australia. REALJUSTICE has trainedhundreds of police officers and schoolstaff members and is working to replicatethis Australian model in a number ofsites. The Minnesota Legislature fundedthe development of FGC pilot projectsusing the REALJUSTICE model in ninecommunities in the First JudicialDistrict.

Rarely has a new criminal justice ideareceived such extensive exposure to andinterest from audiences as widespread asactivists, professionals, and the generalpublic in such a short period of time. Noother restorative justice approach has soquickly brought such large numbers oflaw enforcement officials to the table asactive stakeholders in the restorative jus-tice movement.

Family Group ConferencingFGC involves the community of peoplemost affected by the crime—the victimand the offender and the family, friends,and key supporters of both—in decidingthe resolution of a criminal or delinquentact. The facilitator contacts the victimand offender to explain the process andinvite them to the conference; the facili-tator also asks them to identify keymembers of their support systems whowill be invited to participate as well.Participation by all involved is voluntary.The offender must admit to the offenseto participate. The parties affected arebrought together by a trained facilitatorto discuss how they and others have beenharmed by the offense and how thatharm might be repaired.

The conference typically begins with theoffender describing the incident, fol-lowed by each participant describing theimpact of the incident on his or her life.Through these narrations, the offender isfaced with the human impact of his orher behavior on the victim, on thoseclose to the victim, and on the offender’sown family and friends. The victim hasthe opportunity to express feelings andask questions about the offense. After athorough discussion of the impact of theoffense on those present, the victim isasked to identify desired outcomes fromthe conference and thus helps to shapethe obligations that will be placed on theoffender. All participants may contributeto the process of determining how theoffender might best repair the harm he orshe has caused. The session ends withparticipants signing an agreement outlin-ing their expectations and commitments.

FGC is intuitively appealing to mostrestorative justice advocates in NorthAmerica. The mediation process, whichinvolves a wide range of people affectedby the crime, appears to expand the rich20-year history of VOM. FGC primarilyworks with juvenile offenders and usespolice or probation officers or schoolofficials, rather than trained volunteers,as facilitators.

Despite its appeal, a number of unre-solved issues and potential dangersremain in adapting the FGC model toNorth American justice systems withtheir strong commitment to retributive,offender-driven principles. The purposeof this overview is to encourage a seriousdiscussion of the opportunities andpotential pitfalls presented by the FGCprocess, particularly from the perspectiveof its impact on crime victims.

2


3

The History of Family Group ConferencingFGC originated in New Zealand as a wayto address the failures of traditional juve-nile justice and to incorporate indigenousMaori values that emphasize the role offamily and community in addressingwrongdoing. Institutionalized into law in 1989, FGC is now the standard way toprocess juvenile cases in New Zealand.Australia subsequently adopted the ideaand has implemented a number of FGCmodels in various communities. LikeVOM in North America, Australianimplementation of FGC has been piece-meal, and the model used varies with thecommunity.

All juvenile cases in New Zealand,with a few exceptions such as homi-cide, are diverted by courts to FGC. Consequently, judges report drops incaseloads of up to 80 percent. Theseconferences are then organized andfacilitated by a youth justice workeremployed not by the criminal justicesystem but by the welfare/social servicesector. The conferences attempt to beinclusive. In addition to involving theoffender, a major effort is made toinclude as many of his or her familymembers as possible, including extendedfamily members. Victims and their sup-porters are invited as are any profession-al caregivers who have been involvedwith the parties. A lawyer/advocate forthe offender is invited, and a representa-tive of the police department, who servesas the prosecutor, is present. Facilitatorroles are broadly and loosely defined andinclude mediation. The entire group,which includes participants usually con-sidered adversaries, is expected to cometo a consensus on the outcome for thecase, not just on a restitution agreement.Goals of the conference include account-ability, prevention of future misconduct,and victim empowerment.

FGC is clearly grounded in the theory of“reintegrative shaming” of offenders,which was developed by Australian crim-inologist Dr. John Braithwaite (1989), aswell as Silvan Tomkins’ affect theory(1992). By themselves, these theorieswere not sufficient in addressing theimportance of engaging crime victims inthe process. Restorative justice theorydid not play a large part in the origin ofFGC, but was used later to help fine-tunethe approach, resulting, for example, in agreater appreciation of the centrality ofvictims’ roles. Now, New Zealand JudgeF.W.M. McElrea calls the approach thefirst truly restorative system institutional-ized within a Western legal system.

FGC was adopted in Australia in a vari-ety of forms, but the model most oftenpromoted in North America was devel-oped in the Wagga Wagga PoliceDepartment. It differs from the NewZealand model in that it uses police offi-cers, usually in uniform, or school offi-cials to set up and facilitate meetings.Developments in Australia were consid-erably influenced by Braithwaite and hiswork on reintegrative shaming, with itsemphasis on changing offender behavior.

Similarities and DifferencesBetween Family GroupConferencing and Victim-Offender Mediation FGC is strengthened by its similaritieswith and differences from VOM. FGCseems to be a natural expansion of thedominant model of VOM currently usedby most of the more than 300 programsin North America and an even largernumber of programs in Europe. LikeVOM, FGC provides victims an opportu-nity to express the full impact of thecrime upon their lives, to receive answersto any lingering questions about the inci-dent, and to participate in holding the

4

Family Group Conferencing:Comparison of New Zealand and Australia (Wagga Wagga) Models

New Zealand Australia (Wagga Wagga)Family Group Conferencing Family Group Conferencing

Convened by: New Zealand Children & Young Persons Law enforcement officers,Services—Youth Justice Coordinator. school personnel.

Participants: Youth Justice Coordinator, offender, FGC Coordinator, offender, offender’soffender’s counsel, offender’s family family and support system, victim,and support system, victim, victim’s victim’s family and support system, family and support system, social investigating officer.services, police.

Purpose: Clarify facts of incident, express a Reveal effects of incident on all present,plea (“Yes, I did it.” or “No, I did express emotional impact, determinenot.”), reveal effects of incident on measures to make amends.all present, determine measures to make amends, make decisions relating to other penalties.

Selection of Youth Justice Coordinator and family Coordinator identifies key people to becommunity members: of offender identify key people to be involved; victim identifies his or her

involved; victim identifies his or her support system.support system.

Decisionmaking: Consensus. Consensus.

Victim role: Chooses participants for support, Chooses participants for support, expresses feelings about the crime, expresses feelings about the crime,describes impact on self, approves describes impact on self, provides inputplan to make amends that is submitted to plan to make amends.by offender’s family.

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

Targeted offenders: All juvenile offenders except murder Juvenile offenders with property offensesand manslaughter offenders. and assaults.

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

Preparation of Face-to-face visit with offender and Phone contacts (as the norm) with allparticipants: family before meeting, phone contact participants to explain the process.

to explain process to victim and other Occasional personal visits, if determinedparticipants, personal visit to victim to be necessary.if needed.

Gatekeeper/access Statutes that provide a family group Discretionary judgment of law enforcementto program: conference as a right for victims or school officials.

of all juvenile offenses other than murder and manslaughter and require offender participation.

Conceptual framework: Clearly based on restorative justice Clearly grounded in the theory of principles with explicit reference to reintegrative shaming by John Braithwaite, the long experience of victim-offender as well as Silvan Tomkins’ affect theory.reconciliation and mediation programs. Not explicitly grounded in restorative jus-

tice principles and not explicitly drawing upon the experience of victim-offender reconciliation and mediation programs.


5

offender accountable for his or heractions. Offenders can tell their story ofwhy the crime occurred and how it hasaffected their lives. They are given anopportunity to make things right with thevictim—to the degree possible—throughsome form of compensation. FGC pri-marily works with juvenile offenders whohave committed property crimes, but ithas also been used with violent juvenileoffenders and adult offenders. This isconsistent with the experience of VOM inNorth America over the past 20 years.

Unlike VOM, FGC uses public officials(police officers, probation officers,school officials) rather than trained volunteers as facilitators. Although theirroles include mediation, they are morebroadly defined, combining mediationwith other methods of interaction andallowing for more directed facilitation.The FGC process also casts a muchwider circle of participants than VOM.This approach has some potential advan-tages over current VOM practice:

◆ FGC contributes to the empower-ment and healing of the communityas a whole because it involves morecommunity members in the meetingcalled to discuss the offense, itseffects, and how to remedy theharm. By involving a broader rangeof people affected by the crime, farmore citizens become direct stake-holders in the criminal and juvenilejustice processes.

◆ A wider circle of people is recog-nized as being victimized by theoffense, and FGC explores theeffects on these people: the primaryvictim, people connected to the vic-tim, the offender’s family members,and others connected to the offender.The full impact of victimization ismore likely to be addressed in FGCbecause both primary and secondaryvictims are invited to participate.

◆ Citizen volunteers are more likelyto offer followup support for boththe victim and the offender becausea wider range of participants ispotentially involved in assisting withthe reintegration of the offender intothe community and the empower-ment of the victim.

◆ The important role of the family in ajuvenile offender’s life is acknowl-edged and emphasized. Familydynamics play a major role in juve-nile delinquency, and far too fewprograms effectively address theseissues. FGC offers a restorative jus-tice intervention with great potentialfor strengthening accountability thatcan actively involve both the offend-er’s family and the victim’s family.

Potential Dangers of FamilyGroup ConferencingThe FGC model has tremendous poten-tial for enhancing the practice of restora-tive justice in North America byproviding opportunities for crime victimsto participate in holding offendersaccountable and investing new stakehold-ers in the process (police personnel,school officials, and probation officers).However, a number of potential dangerscould result in unintended consequences.There are at least five potential dangersin the current FGC approach, particularlywith the Australian form:

1. Inadequate Preparation

Preparation of the primary parties priorto the joint conference is crucial to theprocess of building rapport and trust withthe involved parties, preparing them forparticipation in a dialogue in which thefacilitator/mediator does not dominatethe conversation, assessing theirneeds/expectations, and understandingthe full human context of the crime thatoccurred. Meeting in person with the

parties prior to a joint meeting has longbeen recognized by most VOM programsas the preferred process. Although theNew Zealand FGC model alwaysinvolves prior meetings with the offenderand family, it does not routinely involveprior in-person meetings with the victimand family. The Australia FGC modelroutinely contacts the parties by phoneand only occasionally conducts in-personmeetings. Eliminating in-person meetingsprior to FGC may significantly limit theimpact of FGC, as the parties may notfeel safe and prepared to attend and par-ticipate freely in a genuine dialogue.

2. Victim Insensitivity and Coercion

The FGC model emphasizes the impor-tance of involving and serving victims.However, several aspects of the modelmay inadvertently mirror the dominant,offender-driven criminal justice systemand its use of victims as “props”: theoffender’s group is usually seated first,which limits the choices presented tovictims (such as where they would feelthe safest or most comfortable in themeeting room or whether they wouldprefer to begin the conference with theirstory); the meeting routinely begins withthe offender’s story; and separate meet-ings are not scheduled with the victimprior to facing the offender. If the FGCmodel is perceived as not being sensitiveto the emotional, informational, and par-ticipatory needs of victims, it defeats oneof its main purposes—to serve victims’needs—and is likely to trigger needlessbut understandable resistance from thelarger victims’ rights constituency.

3. Young Offenders FeelingIntimidated by Adults

The presence of so many adults, includ-ing a police officer in uniform, may beso intimidating to young offenders thatthey may not feel safe or comfortable

enough to express and share their feel-ings and thoughts. It has long been rec-ognized in the VOM movement that thepresence of parents in some cases, not tomention additional adults, can interferewith the process of the juvenile offendertruly admitting to his or her delinquentbehavior and feeling comfortable enoughto speak openly. As the FGC model isadapted for use in the United States, it isimportant to ensure that the process trulycreates an environment in which theyoung person feels safe enough to active-ly participate, express feelings, andrespond to questions posed by the vic-tim. Otherwise, the conference could bedominated by adults talking at or aboutthe offender, with the offender tailoringresponses to suit the adults. Coercingoffenders to say what adults want to hearis very different from a more genuineexpression of their feelings about whathappened.

4. Lack of Neutrality—Shaming of Offenders

Police officers, probation officers, and/orschool officials play a particularly criti-cal role in the FGC model, especially inthe Australian form, as “coordinators” ofthe actual sessions (a role that is actuallyquite similar to facilitators or even medi-ators). Because of this, these public offi-cials must be trained in conflictresolution and mediation skills so thatthey can put aside their usual authoritari-an role as a public official. The inabilityof public officials (such as police or pro-bation officers) to serve in a neutral(unbiased in the sense of not takingsides, even though the parties are nottruly equal) and facilitative role can be aproblem and needs to be closely moni-tored as FGC programs begin developingin more communities throughout theUnited States, especially given the re-tributive climate of American criminaljustice. If conference coordinators fall

6


7

into authoritarian leadership and commu-nication patterns, the process could leadto the offender experiencing the confer-ence as a “shaming and blaming”encounter. The process could be one of“breaking down the juvenile offendersand then trying to build them up,” ratherthan the preferred “reintegrative sham-ing” in which the criminal behavior isdenounced but offenders are treated withrespect and feel safe enough in the pres-ence of adults to express themselves.

5. Inflexibility and AssumedCultural Neutrality of the Process

While the New Zealand model of FGCappears to allow for a great deal of flexi-bility in the process, the Australia model,which is being widely promoted in theUnited States, appears to be a very pre-scriptive, script-driven process. In manytraining manuals, coordinators areencouraged not to worry about whetherthe process should be adapted to differ-ent cultural needs and preferences withina community. Trainers emphasize thatthe FGC model (based on the WaggaWagga experience in Australia) isremarkably resilient and beneficial if thecoordinator adheres to the script and ifthe participants trust the coordinator.Many victim advocates, however, wouldbe concerned about issues of power andcontrol for the victim when the emphasisis primarily on trusting the coordinator.The inflexibility of the Australia modelmay present a serious obstacle to itsbeing considered a truly restorativeprocess that is victim-sensitive, particu-larly in diverse and multicultural communities.

Guidelines for RestorativeFamily Group ConferencingAs FGC begins to develop more exten-sively throughout North America in the

coming years, the following recommen-dations can serve as initial guiding prin-ciples to maximize the likelihood of ittruly being a restorative intervention for victims, offenders, families, and communities. The following guidingprinciples are based on a consensus thatemerged from a group of individualswho participated in FGC training, whichis offered throughout the country. Thisgroup included representatives from edu-cation, law enforcement, VOM programs,and communities in Minnesota. It wasconvened by the Center for RestorativeJustice & Peacemaking (formerly Centerfor Restorative Justice & Mediation) atthe University of Minnesota School ofSocial Work in 1995.

1. The process should be clearly andexplicitly grounded in restorative justice values.

2. If public agencies such as police orprobation are initiating FGC, theactual sessions should be cofacilitatedby a trained community member.

3. If a local VOM program exists, a newFGC program should be developed asa collaborative effort, including theuse of VOM volunteer mediators ascofacilitators.

4. FGC coordinators/facilitators shouldbe trained in mediation and conflictresolution skills and the effects ofvictimization and needs of crime victims.

5. FGC coordinators/facilitators shouldbe trained in understanding the expe-riences and needs of offenders.

6. The FGC process should be conduct-ed in the most victim-sensitive man-ner possible, including providingvictims with a choice of when andwhere to meet and allowing them topresent their story first. When askedto consider the process, victims

should be informed of both the poten-tial benefits and the potential risks,and they should not be pressured intoa conference or told just to trust thecoordinator’s judgment.

7. In-person preparation of the primaryparticipants in a conference (the vic-tim, the victim’s immediate family,the offender, and the offender’simmediate family) should occur toconnect with the parties, build rapportand trust, provide information,encourage participation, and preparethem for the conference should theychoose family group conferencing.This can help them to feel safeenough to participate in an open dia-logue with one another, with thecoordinators/facilitators being asnondirective as possible.

8. FGC coordinators/facilitators shouldbe trained in cultural and ethicalissues that are likely to affect the con-ference process and participants.

ConclusionFamily group conferences are an excitingdevelopment in the field of restorativejustice. They open up new opportunitiesfor crime victims to become directlyinvolved in imposing sanctions on theoffender. As with all innovations, howev-er, potential pitfalls must be considered.Good ideas and programs may haveunintended consequences. Particularly as a new program concept or model isbeing widely promoted, there is a dan-ger of falling into a “one size fits all”perspective. Victim-offender dialogue,whether through victim-offender media-tion or family group conferencing, hasthe potential for both benefits and risks.The intervention must be adapted to thespecific context and needs of the individ-uals involved. Some cases might warrantfamily group conferencing rather than

involve a much smaller group of peoplethrough victim-offender mediation. Otherneeds expressed by crime victims maysuggest that victim-offender mediation ismore appropriate. Some more seriouscases may even require both: first thesmaller mediation session and then, later,the larger conferencing session. It ishoped that those involved in victim advo-cacy, family group conferencing, andvictim-offender mediation will continuethe dialogue as new opportunities aresought for restorative justice in our com-munities and the available options andservices for crime victims are expanded.

8


9

BibliographyBraithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration.New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Coates, R.B., and J. Gehm. (1989) “An Empirical Assessment.” In M. Wright and B.Galaway (eds.),Mediation and Criminal Justice. London, England: Sage Publications.

Fercello, C., and M. Umbreit. (1998) Client Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing in12 Sites in the First Judicial District of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Center for RestorativeJustice & Mediation.

Maxwell, G., and A. Morris. (1993) Family, Victims and Culture: Youth Justice in NewZealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology,Victoria University of Wellington.

McCord, P., and B. Wachtel. (1998) Restorative Policing Experiment: The BethlehemPennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: CommunityService Foundation.

McDonald, J., D. Moore, T. O’Connel, and M. Thorsborne. (1995) REALJUSTICETraining Manual: Coordinating Family Group Conferences. Pipersville, PA: The Piper’sPress.

Moore, D., and L. Forsythe. (1995) “The Effect of Victim-Offender Mediation on Severityof Reoffense.”Mediation Quarterly12(4): 353–367.

Tomkins, S. (1992) Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness.Series of four books. New York,NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Umbreit, M.S. (In press) “Factors That Contribute to Victim Satisfaction With MediatedOffender Dialogue in Winnipeg: An Emerging Area of Social Work Practice.”The Journalof Law and Social Work.

———. (1999a) “Avoiding the Marginalization and ‘McDonaldization’ of Victim-OffenderMediation: A Case Study in Moving Toward the Mainstream.” In G. Bazemore and L.Walgrave (eds.),Restorative Juvenile Justice.Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

———. (1999b) “Victim-Offender Mediation in Canada: The Impact of an EmergingSocial Work Intervention.”International Journal of Social Work 42(2): 215–227.

———. (1998a) “A Comparison of Adult and Juvenile Victim-Offender Mediation.”CrimeVictim Report2(4): 51–52.

———. (1998b) “Restorative Justice Through Victim-Offender Mediation: A Multi-SiteAssessment.”Western Criminology Review1(1): 1–29.

———. (1994) Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation.Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, M.S., and W. Bradshaw. (1997) “Crime Victim Experience with Mediation: AComparison of Mediation with Adult vs. Juvenile Offenders.”Federal Probation61(4):33–39.

Umbreit, M.S., and R.B. Coates. (1993) “Cross-Site Analysis of Victim-OffenderMediation in Four States.”Crime and Delinquency39(4): 565–585.

Umbreit, M.S., and C. Fercello. (1997) “Family Group Conferencing Program Results inClient Satisfaction.”Juvenile Justice Update Journal3(6): 3–13.

Umbreit, M.S., and J. Greenwood. (1999) “National Survey of Victim-Offender MediationPrograms in the United States.”Mediation Quarterly16(3): 235–251.

Umbreit, M.S., and S. Stacey. (1996) “Family Group Conferencing Comes to the U.S.:A Comparison with Victim-Offender Mediation.”Juvenile and Family Court Journal 47(2):29–38.

Umbreit, M.S., and H. Zehr. (1996) “Restorative Family Group Conferences: DifferingModels and Guidelines for Practice.”Federal Probation60(3): 24–29.

Umbreit, M.S., R.B. Coates, and A. Roberts. (1998) “Impact of Victim-Offender Mediationin Canada, England, and the United States.”Crime Victim Report1(6): 83, 90–92.

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

Wactel, T. (1994) “Family Group Conferencing: Restorative Justice in Practice.”JuvenileJustice Update1(4): 1–14.

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

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

Wundersitz, J., and S. Hetzel. (1996) “Family Conferencing for Young Offenders: TheSouth Australian Experience.” In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, and B. Galaway(eds.),Family Group Conferences. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

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

10


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

Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center (OVCRC)P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000Telephone: 1–800–627–6872 or 301–519–5500

E-mail orders for print publications to [email protected] questions to [email protected]

Send your feedback on this service to [email protected]

Refer to publication number: NCJ 176347

NCJ 176347

family group conferencing: implications for crime victims · family group conferencing:...

Documents