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.

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

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, victim-offender mediation, for example, in effect defines the community as the 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 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 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).

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 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 over-view 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 re-view 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 inter-views 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 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.

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