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.

Table 1: Restorative Conferencing Models: Administration and Process

A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models	Juvenile Justice Bulletin • February 2001