"Restorative justice" can generally be described as a way of dealing with the harm caused by an offense through the involvement of the victim, offender, and the community in repairing the harm done, holding the offender accountable, and devising a plan to reduce the likelihood that the offender will repeat his/her injurious behavior. The CJF, which is called "family group conferencing" (FGC) in some other countries, brings together the victims, offenders, and representatives of the community under a trained facilitator to forge an agreement as to how the offending behavior and its harms should be addressed. The facilitator guides the discussion to focus on how specific harms to the victim can be mitigated, how the offender should be held accountable to the victim and the community, and what can be done to modify the offender's behavior. From these discussions a plan of action is agreed upon and monitored for implementation. Currently, CJF's are being used for juvenile offenses and sometimes for adult offenses. Types of offenses addressed in CJF's include theft, assault, vandalism, "bullying," property damage, drug use and possession, shoplifting, and breaking and entering. The phase of the evaluation considered in the current report involved the use of mail-in questionnaires, telephone interviews, and in-depth personal interviews to collect information from participants. Data were obtained on CJF participants' overall satisfaction, their satisfaction with the process, and their satisfaction with the outcome/agreement. Similar information was collected from CJF facilitators. Based on responses received from 239 CJF participants, the mean ratings for "overall satisfaction" as well as levels of satisfaction with procedural and outcome fairness were high among all participants. Results for "satisfaction with agreement/outcome" were also consistently high. The evaluation found that 98 percent of all offenders stated they were helped in their understanding of the consequences of their actions and their willingness to take responsibility for those consequences. Victims reported that the CJF gave them back a sense of control over what happens to them, and representatives of the community were satisfied that the outcome improved community safety. The interviews with 30 facilitators in various parts of Canada also showed they were generally satisfied with the CJF's they had conducted. Recommendations and future implications pertain to the following areas: training standard for facilitators, prior briefing of CJF participants, the possibility of a power imbalance in CJF's, the monitoring/follow-up for agreement compliance, the applicability of CJF's, the police role, referrals, increased education and awareness, and the documentation necessary for longitudinal analysis. 14 tables, 8 figures, a 36-item bibliography, and appended case histories and the participant questionnaire