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

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.

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 offender-ocused 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.

Contents


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