Title: Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative
Justice Through Dialogue
Series: Training Manual
Author: Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking
Published: April 2000
Subject: Victim-Offender Mediation, Restorative Justice
36 pages
90,112 bytes

----------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from Office for Victims of
Crime Resource Center at 800-627-6872.

----------------------------

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice
Through Dialogue

Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director 
Jean Greenwood, M.Div., Former Training Coordinator

Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking 
(formerly Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation)
School of Social Work
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota

NCJ 176346
April 2000

----------------------------

Message From the Director

This collection of six documents covers a number of important issues related to
restorative justice. Four of the documents focus on victim-offender mediation,
which is a major programmatic intervention that fully embraces the concepts of
restorative justice. The first of these documents is the Guidelines for
Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through
Dialogue, which assists administrators in developing or enhancing their
restorative justice programs. It provides practical guidance for mediators to
facilitate balanced and fair mediation, which will ensure the safety and integrity
of all the participants. The National Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation
Programs in the United States contains information about the characteristics of
the various victim-offender mediation programs operating nationwide and the
major issues facing them in their day-to-day operations. The Survey describes
the actual functioning of the programs, while the Guidelines sets standards for
the practice of victim-offender mediation. Next, the Directory of
Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States lists 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 easy access for persons who would like
to contact a given program. The Family Group Conferencing: Implications for
Crime Victims document discusses a related form of restorative justice dialogue
that originated in New Zealand and Australia and has been replicated in some
communities in the United States. The Multicultural Implications of Restorative
Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers document informs practitioners about
concerns regarding the implementation of such frameworks when working with
persons of cross-cultural perspectives. The sixth document, entitled
Victim-Offender Mediation and Dialogue in Crimes of Severe Violence, will be
added to the collection late FY 2000. It will provide case study evidence
suggesting that many of the principles of restorative justice can be applied to
crimes of severe violence, including murder. In addition, this document includes
a discussion about the need for advanced training for persons working with
victims 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 sensitive to the needs and concerns of
the victims who would like to meet with their offenders. No pressure should be
placed on victims to participate, for participation must be strictly voluntary.
Victims should be granted a choice in the location, timing, and structure of the
session and a right to end their participation at any stage in the process. These
protections for victims do not mean that offenders can be treated insensitively.
Both victim and offender must be dealt with respectfully.

We sincerely hope that restorative justice programs already in operation in
probation or parole agencies, judicial agencies, religious groups, victim service
organizations, community-based organizations, or elsewhere study these
documents and embrace the victim-sensitive guidelines that are relevant to their
particular type of intervention. Restorative justice programs can only be
strengthened by operating with heightened awareness of the needs of crime
victims. 

Kathryn M. Turman
Director
Office for Victims of Crime

----------------------------

Acknowledgments

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) would like to offer special thanks to
authors Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director, and Jean Greenwood, M.Div.,
former Training Coordinator, of the Center for Restorative Justice &
Peacemaking (formerly the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation),
School of Social Work, University of Minnesota. We would also like to
acknowledge the valuable contributions of review and commentary made by
Carolyn McLeod, Coordinator of Victim-Offender Conferencing for
Washington County Court Services in Minnesota; Marlene Young, Executive
Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance; and Ann Warner
Roberts in her dual role as both the Community Outreach Director of the
Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota School
of Social Work, and a member of the Board of Directors of the
Victim-Offender Mediation Association (VOMA).

We recognize the valuable contribution of other members of the Board of
Directors of VOMA who played a critical role in providing input and the
VOMA mailing list that was the foundation of the national survey of programs
and the guidelines presented in this document. We also thank the many staff
who took the time to participate in the Center's phone interviews about
victim-offender mediation program and practices. In addition, we would like to
acknowledge the valuable contribution made by Robert Schug, Administrative
Aide at the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, who spent many
hours preparing the document and responding to numerous requests for draft
copies.

This project also benefited greatly from the contributions, guidance, and
support of Susan Laurence, the Project Manager at OVC. This Restorative
Justice and Mediation Collection is the result of the efforts of many individuals
in the field who generously shared their materials and experiences with the
Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking so that victims may be provided
with additional options in the process of healing.


----------------------------

Contents

Executive Summary

I. Victim-Offender Mediation: A National Perspective
What Is It?
When Are Cases Referred?
How Is It Different From Other Kinds of Mediation?
Are Crime Victims Interested?
How Many Programs Exist?
What Have We Learned From Research?

II. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation and Dialogue With Offenders
Purpose of Victim-Offender Mediation
Underlying Principles of Victim-Offender Mediation
Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation

III. Recommendations for Program Development
Program Recommendations
Training Recommendations

IV. Summary 

Appendix A. Results of Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the
United States

Appendix B. What Is Humanistic Mediation?

Appendix C. Profiles of Programs

Appendix D. Promising Practices

Bibliography 

----------------------------

Executive Summary

The process of allowing interested crime victims to meet offenders in the
presence of trained mediators now occurs in nearly 300 communities in the
United States and more than 700 communities in Europe. When victim-offender
mediation originated in Canada in 1974 and in the United States in 1978, there
were only a handful of programs. With the growing interest in restorative justice
and the rapid expansion of victim-offender mediation programs, it is important
to gain a clear understanding of how the field is developing and becoming highly
responsive and sensitive to the needs of crime victims. Every effort must be
made to ensure that victims are not used simply as tools for offender
rehabilitation, as they are in the dominant offender-driven juvenile and criminal
justice systems. At the same time, the needs of offenders must also be
considered.

This monograph presents specific criteria and recommendations to enhance the
overall quality of victim-offender mediation programs and promote far more
victim-sensitive practices in the field. The material presented is grounded in a
yearlong assessment of the most current practices in the field, based on a
nationwide survey. The material focuses on the practice of victim-offender
mediation and dialogue regarding property crimes and minor assaults, the kinds
of offenses typically addressed through mediation. A small but growing number
of victims of severe violence are requesting to meet with their offenders. This is,
however, an intensive and lengthy process that requires advanced training for
the mediator. Fully addressing the multitude of issues related to working with
severely violent victimizations such as sexual assault, attempted homicide, or
murder is beyond the scope of this monograph.

The growing interest in victim-offender mediation arises from its capability to
facilitate a real and understandable sense of justice for those most directly
affected by crime: victims, victimized communities, and offenders.
Victim-offender mediation breathes life into the emerging concept of restorative
justice by asking, who was harmed, how can the harm be addressed, and who
is held accountable for what happened. It seeks more balanced and effective
juvenile and criminal justice systems that recognize the need to involve and
serve victims and victimized communities. At the same time, it seeks to hold
offenders more directly accountable to those they have harmed without
overreliance upon costly incarceration.

Along with identifying specific recommendations for program development, the
monograph sets forth guidelines for victim-sensitive victim-offender mediation.
The guidelines address victim safety, screening of cases, the victim's and
offender's choices, the mediator's obligations and responsibilities, victim and
offender support, the use of victim-sensitive language, and training for mediators
in victim sensitivity.

----------------------------

I. Victim-Offender Mediation: A National Perspective

----------------------------

An increasing number of crime victims are choosing to meet face-to-face with
the persons who victimized them. They are able to let the offenders know how
the crime affected their lives, to receive answers to many lingering questions,
and to be directly involved in holding offenders accountable for the harm they
caused. Victim-offender mediation is recognized as a viable alternative to more
traditional retributive response for serving victims' needs by probation,
prosecuting attorneys, courts, correctional facilities, and communities. As the
field of victim-offender mediation has grown extensively over the past 25 years,
it has become increasingly important to conduct the process in a highly
victim-sensitive manner while considering the needs of offenders.

Before addressing the underlying principles and guidelines of victim-offender
mediation, a description of the mediation process follows.

What Is It?

Victim-offender mediation (VOM) is a process that provides interested victims
(primarily those of property crimes and minor assaults) the opportunity to meet
their offenders in a safe and structured setting. The goal is to hold offenders
directly accountable while providing important support and assistance to
victims. With the assistance of trained mediators, the victims are able to let the
offenders know how the crime affected them, receive answers to their
questions, and be directly involved in developing a restitution plan that holds the
offenders financially accountable for the losses they caused. The offenders are
directly responsible for their behavior and therefore must learn the full impact of
what they did and develop a plan for making amends, to the degree possible, to
the persons they violated. Offenders' failure to complete the restitution
agreement results in further court-imposed consequences. Some VOM
programs are called "victim-offender meetings," "victim-offender reconciliation,"
or "victim-offender conferences."

Victim-offender mediation is one of the clearest expressions of restorative
justice, a movement that is receiving a great deal of attention throughout North
America and Europe. Current juvenile and criminal justice systems are primarily
offender-driven, with a retributive "trail 'em, nail 'em, and jail 'em" perspective
that views crime as an offense against the State and offers little help to crime
victims. 

Restorative justice, however, provides a very different framework for
understanding and responding to crime and victimization. Moving beyond the
offender-driven focus, restorative justice identifies three clients: individual
victims, victimized communities, and offenders. Crime is understood primarily
as an offense against people within communities, as opposed to the more
abstract legal definition of crime as a violation against the State. Those most
directly affected by crime are allowed to play an active role in restoring peace
between individuals and within communities. Restoration of the emotional and
material losses resulting from crime is far more important than imposing
ever-increasing levels of costly punishment on the offender. The debt owed by
offenders is concrete. Rather than passively "taking their punishment," offenders
are encouraged to actively restore losses, to the degree possible, to victims and
communities. The use of dialogue and negotiation among victims, victimized
communities, and offenders is emphasized. In truth, the essence of what is being
called restorative justice is deeply rooted in the traditional practices of many
indigenous people throughout the world, such as American Indians, Pacific
Islanders, the Maori in New Zealand, and First Nation people in Canada. 

When Are Cases Referred?

In some programs, cases are primarily referred to victim-offender mediation as
a diversion from prosecution, assuming the mediation agreement is successfully
completed. In other programs, cases are referred primarily after a formal
admission of guilt has been accepted by the court, with the mediation being a
condition of probation (if the victim is interested). Some programs receive case
referrals at both the diversion and post-adjudication levels. Most cases are
referred by officials involved in the juvenile justice system, although some
programs also receive referrals from the adult criminal justice system. Judges,
probation officers, victim advocates, prosecutors, defense attorneys, or police
can make referrals to VOM programs.

The national survey of VOM programs that was conducted as part of this
project found that, of the 116 programs that were interviewed (out of a total of
289 identified), 34 percent indicated that their primary referral was at a
diversion level; 28 percent, at a post-adjudication but pre-disposition level; and
28 percent, at a post-disposition level of referral (appendix A).

How Is It Different From Other Kinds of Mediation?

Mediation is being used in an increasing number of conflict situations, such as
divorce and child custody cases, community disputes, commercial disputes, and
other civil court-related conflicts. In such settings, the parties are called
"disputants," and the assumption made is that both are contributing to the
conflict and therefore both need to compromise to reach a settlement. Often,
mediation in these cases focuses heavily upon reaching a settlement, with less
emphasis upon discussing the full impact of the conflict on the disputants' lives.

In victim-offender mediation, the involved parties are not "disputants."
Generally, one party has clearly committed a criminal offense and has admitted
doing so, whereas the other has clearly been victimized. Therefore, the issue of
guilt or innocence is not mediated. Nor is there an expectation that crime
victims compromise or request less than what they need to restore their losses.
Although many other types of mediation are largely "settlement-driven,"
victim-offender mediation is primarily "dialogue-driven," with emphasis upon
victim empowerment, offender accountability, and restoration of losses. Most
VOM sessions (more than 95 percent) result in a signed restitution agreement.
This agreement, however, is secondary to the importance of the initial dialogue
between the parties. This dialogue addresses emotional and informational needs
of victims that are central to both the empowerment of the victims and the
development of victim empathy in the offenders, which can help to prevent
criminal behavior in the future. Research has consistently found that the
restitution agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to
express their feelings about the offense directly to the offenders (Schneider,
1986). Restorative impact is strongly related to the creation of a safe place for
dialogue between the crime victim and the offender.

----------------------------

Table 1 identifies key characteristics of victim-offender mediation that are likely
to result in the least and the most restorative impact.

----------------------------

Table 1: Victim-Offender Mediation Continuum: From Least to Most
Restorative Impact

LEAST RESTORATIVE IMPACT 
Agreement-Driven: Offender Focus

o Entire focus is upon determining the amount of financial restitution to be paid,
with no opportunity to talk directly about the full impact of the crime upon the
victims, the community, and the offenders.

o No separate preparation meetings are conducted with the victims and
offenders prior to bringing them together.

o Victims are not given a choice of where they would feel the most comfortable
and safe to meet or of whom they would like to have present.

o Victims are given only written notice to appear for a mediation session at a
preset time, with no preparation.

o The mediators or facilitators describe the offense and then the offenders
speak, with the victims simply asking a few questions or responding to
questions from the mediator.

o A highly directive style of facilitation is conducted with mediators talking most
of the time, continually asking both victims and offenders questions, with little if
any direct dialogue between the involved parties. 

o The session is marked by low tolerance of moments of silence or expressions
of feelings.

o The mediation session is voluntary for victims but required of offenders
whether or not they take responsibility.

o The mediation is settlement-driven and very brief (10-15 minutes). 

MOST RESTORATIVE IMPACT
Dialogue-Driven: Victim Sensitive

o Primary points of focus are to provide an opportunity for victims and
offenders to talk directly to each other; to allow victims to express the full
impact of the crime upon their lives and receive answers to important questions
they have; and to allow offenders to understand the real human impact of their
behavior and take direct responsibility for seeking to make things right.

o Restitution is important but secondary to the dialogue about the impact of the
crime.

o Victims are continually given choices throughout the process: where to meet,
who should be present, etc.

o Separate preparation meetings are conducted with victims and offenders prior
to bringing them together, with emphasis upon listening to how the crime has
affected them, identifying their needs, and preparing them for the mediation or
conference session.

o A nondirective style of facilitation is fostered with the parties talking most of
the time. The mediation incorporates a high tolerance of silence and the use of a
humanistic or transforming mediation model (see appendix B).

o The mediation is marked by high tolerance for expressions of feelings and of
the full impact of crime.

o Mediation is voluntary for both victims and offenders.

o Trained community volunteers serve as mediators or comediators along with
agency staff.

o The mediation session is dialogue-driven and typically about an hour (or
longer) in length.

----------------------------

Are Crime Victims Interested?

Interest in victim-offender mediation spread in the late 1970s, and local funding
began supporting the development of new programs across the country. A
recent statewide public opinion poll in Minnesota found that 82 percent of a
random sample of citizens throughout the State would consider participating in a
VOM program if they were victims of property crimes. Interviews with 280
victims who participated in VOM programs in 4 States found that 91 percent
felt their participation was totally voluntary. For those victims in the comparison
group for this study--namely, those who did not participate in mediation--70
percent would have preferred to meet the offender had they been given the
choice. Victim-offender mediation is not appropriate for all crimes. In all cases,
it must be presented as a choice to the victim.

How Many Programs Exist?

A national survey of the field found 289 VOM programs throughout the United
States as of 1998. Today, a more accurate estimation would be in excess of
300. Telephone interviews with 116 of the programs revealed that 42 percent
of the programs were run by community-based agencies, 23 percent were
church-based programs, 17 percent were sponsored by probation and
correctional departments, 3 percent were based in victim services agencies, 4
percent were operated by prosecuting attorney's offices, and 11 percent were
managed by other types of agencies. Programs most frequently identified their
primary source of funding as local, State, or Federal Government. Foundations
were the fourth most frequent source of funding. Of those programs answering
the question, 46 programs (45 percent) work only with juvenile offenders and
their victims, 9 programs (9 percent) work only with adult offenders and their
victims, and 48 programs (46 percent) work with both. The vast majority of
cases handled by the programs are property offenses and minor assaults. A
number of the more experienced programs, however, periodically work with
more violent cases.

After 20 years of development and many thousands of cases (primarily
property crimes and minor assaults) in more than 1,000 communities throughout
North America (more than 300) and Europe (more than 700), victim-offender
mediation is finally beginning to move toward the center of criminal and juvenile
justice systems (table 2). Some programs are still small, with a very limited
number of case referrals. Many other programs are receiving several hundred
referrals per year. A few programs have recently been asked to divert 1,000 or
more cases each year from the court system, and county governments have
provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund these VOM programs.

It is clear that the field of VOM has grown extensively since the first
Victim-Offender Reconciliation Project was initiated in Kitchener, Ontario,
Canada, in 1974, and replicated in the United States in Elkart, Indiana, in
1978. Perhaps the clearest expression of how the field has continued to
develop is the recognition it received in 1994 when the American Bar
Association (ABA) endorsed the practice of victim-offender mediation. After
many years of supporting civil court mediation, with limited interest in criminal
mediation, the ABA now endorses the process and recommends the use of
"victim-offender mediation and dialogue" in courts throughout the United States.
Similarly, a recent statewide survey of victim service providers in Minnesota
found that 91 percent believed that victim-offender mediation should be
available in every judicial district since it represents an important service option
for crime victims.

----------------------------

Table 2: International Development of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs

Country Number

Australia 5
Austria 17 
Belgium 31
Canada 26
Denmark 5
England 43
Finland 130
France 73
Germany 348
Italy 4
New Zealand Available in all jurisdictions
Norway 44
Scotland 2
South Africa 1
Sweden 10
United States 289

----------------------------

What Have We Learned From Research?

While a continuing need for more research in this field remains, far more
empirical data exist on this option than one might find on many other
correctional justice interventions. During the past several years, a small but
growing body of empirical data has emerged from multisite assessments in
Canada, England, and the United States. Studies conducted over the past 12
years throughout Europe and North America report high levels of satisfaction
with the mediation process and outcome on the part of victims and offenders
(Coates and Gehm, 1989; Collins, 1984; Dignan, 1990; Fischer and Jeune,
1987; Galaway, 1988; Galaway and Hudson, 1996; Gehm, 1990; Marshall
and Merry, 1990; Perry, Lajeunesse, and Woods, 1987; Umbreit, 1989,
1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b; Umbreit and Coates,
1993; and Wright and Galaway, 1989). Some studies found higher restitution
completion rates (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), reduced fear among victims
(Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), and reduced
further criminal behavior (Nugent and Paddock, 1995; Schneider, 1986; and
Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b). Multisite studies in England (Marshall and Merry,
1990; and Umbreit and Roberts, 1996), the United States (Coates and Gehm,
1989; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), and Canada (Umbreit, 1995a and
1995b) have confirmed most of these findings. A large multisite study in the
United States (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b) found that victims of crime who
meet with their offenders are far more likely to be satisfied with the criminal
justice system response to their cases than victims of similar offenses who go
through the conventional criminal court process.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the victim-offender mediation process can
serve to humanize the criminal justice experience for both the victim and the
offender. It holds offenders directly accountable to the people they have
victimized, allows for more active involvement of crime victims and community
members (as volunteer mediators and support persons) in the justice process,
and reduces further criminal behavior of offenders. During the early 1980s,
many questioned whether crime victims would want to meet face-to-face with
their offender. Today it is clear, from empirical data and experience, that the
majority of crime victims who are presented with the opportunity for mediation
and dialogue choose to engage in the process, with victim participation rates in
many programs ranging from 60 to 70 percent.


----------------------------

II. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation and Dialogue With Offenders

----------------------------

As the field of victim-offender mediation continues to develop throughout the
United States, it becomes increasingly important that the mediation process be
conducted in the most victim-sensitive manner possible while addressing
important needs of the offender. This section offers a number of very specific
guidelines and recommendations to strengthen victim-sensitive mediation
practices.

Purpose of Victim-Offender Mediation

The purpose of victim-offender mediation and dialogue is to provide a
restorative conflict resolution process that actively involves victims and
offenders in repairing (to the degree possible) the emotional and material harm
caused by the crime; an opportunity for both victims and offenders to discuss
offenses and express their feelings and for victims to get answers to their
questions; and an opportunity for victims and offenders to develop mutually
acceptable restitution plans that address the harm caused by the crime.

Underlying Principles of Victim-Offender Mediation

1. Human beings possess inner resources that, under the right circumstances,
can be accessed and used to address issues and resolve problems of
importance to them.

2. Appropriate structure (including a neutral third-party facilitator, procedural
guidelines, and a seating plan) can neutralize differences in status and power
and provide an environment conducive to meaningful dialogue, even in
emotionally intense contexts.

3. The use of specific techniques and strategies by the mediator must serve the
larger goal of creating a safe, comfortable environment in which a mediated
dialogue can occur.

4. The "personal" element is powerful: stories of individual experience can
evoke empathy, insight, and understanding. Telling and hearing these stories can
be empowering, validating, and transforming for both the speaker and the
listener.

5. The mediator's presence plays an important role in facilitating an open
dialogue in which the parties are actively engaged and doing most of the talking.
This "presence" is established through the mediator's verbal and nonverbal
communication, tone of voice, straightforwardness, expression of empathy, and
genuine concern for each party.

6. Presenting choices to the parties whenever possible (when to meet, where to
meet, etc.) maximizes opportunities for them to feel empowered by the process.

7. The mediator's role is critical in a successful mediation. It is important for
mediators "to get out of the way" and encourage conversation between victims
and offenders. Mediators should be cautious about intervening too frequently.

8. The mediation process may be adapted to meet the needs of the participating
parties so that they feel safe and comfortable to engage in an open dialogue.
Continual attention must be paid to differences in communication style that can
distort meaning. 

9. Discovering underlying needs and interests can enhance a collaborative effort
and provide more satisfying results.

10. Well-written agreements guide and focus behavior, thereby enhancing
results. A written agreement, however, is secondary in importance to the
dialogue between the victim and the offender about the crime itself and its
impact on their lives. Some mediated dialogue sessions may satisfy the needs of
the parties without resulting in a written agreement.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation

1. Victim Safety

A fundamental guideline for VOM programs is protecting the safety of the
victim. The mediator must do everything possible to ensure that the victim will
not be harmed. At every point in the mediation process, the mediator must ask,
"Does this pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim?" It is
essential that the mediator maintain rapport, study verbal and nonverbal
communication, and request feedback from the victim as the process unfolds. If
the victim feels unsafe, the mediator must be prepared to act immediately, to
provide options, to terminate a mediation session, and to provide an escort for
the victim leaving mediation. 

To ensure the safety of the victim, the mediation should be conducted in a
location that the victim considers safe, and the victim should be encouraged to
bring along a support person or two. The mediator may also wish to bring in
another mediator to comediate the session. In addition, the victim may find it
reassuring to have input on the arrangement of the room and the seating of the
parties and to have the freedom to be introduced in the manner he or she
chooses, such as using only first names.

An important safeguard for victims is knowing that the VOM program has
credibility. That credibility needs to be reinforced in writing, with an informative
letter of introduction and a program brochure. Victims may also need
reassurance that the program is not focused on the offender. In programs using
volunteers, victims need to be assured that staff work closely with volunteers,
that victims may contact staff if they have questions or concerns, and that
referrals are screened by staff with safety issues in mind. Programs should
consider having a victim advisory council consisting of crime victims and service
providers to give guidance in policy and program development and
implementation and to serve as a liaison to the victim-serving community.

2. Careful Screening of Cases

Each mediation program should have its own criteria for case selection, such as
type of offense, age of offender (juvenile or adult), first-time offense, or multiple
offenses. In addition to program criteria, staff or mediators or both should
exercise discretion as each case is developed and at each step in the process,
asking themselves if this case is suited for and should proceed to mediation.

For mediation to be meaningful, offenders must take responsibility for their
participation in the crime and proceed willingly. If a mediator has any doubts
about moving ahead with the process, he or she should talk with the victim to
explain the situation, share information about the offender (with the offender's
permission), and inquire about the victim's desire to proceed. A victim may
choose to proceed even if the offender is inarticulate or less than remorseful--
simply because he or she wishes to be heard--or a victim may decide not to
participate in mediation in such a situation. 

It is also important that mediators consider the readiness of both parties to
participate in mediation, noting in particular victims' ability to represent their
own interests and express their needs.

3. Meeting First With the Offender

A mediator usually meets first with the offender, prior to contacting the victim.
Then, if the offender is willing to participate in mediation, the victim can be
contacted and a meeting can be arranged. If the mediator meets first with a
victim, gains his or her consent to participate in mediation, and later discovers
that the offender will not participate, the victim may feel revictimized--having
raised hopes for some resolution to the crime, only to be denied that
opportunity. If, however, contacting the offender results in a significant delay of
mediation, the mediator needs to talk to the victim about the situation,
explaining the importance of voluntary participation on the part of the offender.

4. Offender's Choice To Participate

It is important that offenders participate voluntarily in all stages of the mediation
process. Even when the court system pressures them to participate, offenders
must understand that they may, in fact, decline. If offenders are forced to
mediate, victims may experience the mediation as unsatisfactory and even
harmful. The offender's unwillingness or insincerity may constitute an additional
offense in the eyes of the victim. 

5. Victim's Choices

Following a crime, a victim often feels vulnerable and powerless. Added to that
is the victim's experiences with the criminal or juvenile justice system, which
focuses on the offender. The victim is excluded from the process, rarely being
offered an opportunity to tell his or her experiences, define the resulting harm,
or express needs. It is not surprising that in the wake of a crime, a victim often
expresses a lack of control in his or her life that can intensify fears and anxieties.
The presence of choices and options for the victim in the mediation process can
contribute to a sense of power. Empowerment is conducive to healing, the
ability to move beyond difficult and painful experiences or integrate them into
one's life. The mediator provides information and support for the victim
engaged in decisionmaking but is careful not to apply pressure or impose
expectations on the victim. The victim must be given sufficient time to make
decisions, without the pressure of arbitrary time constraints. Choices should
continually be presented to the victim throughout the mediation process as
several decisions need to be made, including the following:

Participation. The victim must always have the right to say "no" to mediation, 
to refuse to participate, and to have that decision honored and respected. The
victim did not choose to be a victim of a crime. It is crucial then that the victim
experiences the power of choice about participating in the mediation process.
The victim must always be invited to participate and must be educated about
this option, but never pressured. The mediator should give accurate information
about mediation, describing the process itself, the range of responses from
victims who have participated in mediation, and research findings on client
satisfaction. The mediator then should encourage the victim to consider the
possible benefits and risks of mediation before deciding to proceed. The victim
may also wish to consult with a trusted friend, relative, clergy person, or victim
advocate before making a final decision. It is essential that the victim's
participation is based on "informed consent."

Support. Another important option for the victim is the choice of support
persons to accompany him or her to the mediation session. The presence of a
friend or relative can enhance the victim's sense of comfort and safety, even
though the support person typically has little or no speaking role. It is helpful for
the mediator to meet or telephone support persons to prepare them for the
mediation session.

Schedule for mediation session. The mediation session should be scheduled at a
time that is convenient for the victim. The victim's schedule needs to be a
priority so that the victim can feel a sense of control in the situation and find
comfort in the deference extended. At the same time the needs of others should
not be ignored.

Mediation site. Site selection is an important aspect of the mediation process.
The victim needs to know the locations available (e.g., private room in a
community center, library, religious building, office building, city hall) and be
asked which he or she prefers. Which setting would feel safe, neutral,
comfortable, and convenient? Occasionally, a victim chooses a more personal
setting, for example, a home or an institution such as the detention center at
which the offender is being held. The victim should consider the advantages and
disadvantages of particular settings. The final decision, however, should be the
victim's.

Seating. Generally, the parties are seated across from each other, allowing them
to establish direct eye contact as their dialogue develops. The use of a table
may increase the victim's sense of safety and maintain decorum. Mediators then
are typically seated at the ends of the table, while support persons sit off to the
side of each party. This arrangement, or a variation of it, is generally thought to
be effective. If, however, the victim finds it uncomfortable, his or her wishes
should be given serious consideration. Occasionally, a victim chooses to sit
closest to the door or at a greater distance from the offender or request that
support persons sit on the other side of the table, thus making them more visible
to the victim. Various cultural traditions may also suggest a different
arrangement. Whatever the seating, it should be conducive to dialogue and
comfortable for all parties. A victim's sense of security should be a priority in
determining the seating arrangement.

First speaker. The victim should have the opportunity to choose whether to
speak first during the initial narrative portion of the mediation session or whether
to speak last. This choice is given out of deference to his or her position as the
victim of crime--a position the criminal and juvenile justice systems frequently
ignore once the complaint has been filed. Often a victim finds it empowering to
begin by defining the harm--telling the offender first what was experienced and
how it has affected him or her. At times, however, a victim feels "put on the
spot" and requests that the offender speak first, initiating the session and
accepting responsibility for the crime. A victim sometimes finds it validating, and
often healing, to hear an offender offer words of regret or remorse that have not
been elicited by the victim's story. The mediator must make sure, however, that
whatever the order, both parties' complete stories are heard--that, for example,
the victim's emotional content is not compromised by any remorse the offender
may express, and that the offender, particularly if the offender is a juvenile, does
not retreat into silence in the face of the victim's emotional intensity.

In selecting who should speak first, the mediator may have to decide based on
the ages, needs, and communication styles of both parties. When the mediator
chooses who will initiate the conversation in a particular case, it is important that
he or she discuss the decision and the rationale privately with both parties prior
to the mediation session. Creating a safe place where both parties feel
comfortable enough to engage in an open dialogue to the extent of their ability is
ultimately the most important principle, regardless of who speaks first.

Termination of session. An extension of the victim's choice to participate in
mediation is the right to end the process at any point. The victim should be
informed that mediation remains a voluntary process to the end. If the victim
feels uncomfortable or unsafe, the mediator should consult first with both parties
and then conclude the mediation session temporarily or terminate the process
entirely.

Restitution. A victim has the right to select the restitution option that best meets
his or her needs. In addition to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, a
victim may request that the offender undertake community service (a public
service of the victim's choice), perform personal service for the victim, write a
letter of apology, participate in treatment or other programs to improve his or
her competence, or complete some other creative assignment. Although the
final restitution plan will be negotiated with the offender, the victim must
understand that he or she can request a particular compensation, within legal
limits. 

6. Mediator's Obligations During the In-Person Premediation Session With the
Victim

The mediator visits face-to-face with the victim at a convenient time and place.
The mediator usually offers to come to the victim's home or to an alternative
location if the victim prefers another setting. The purpose of the visit is to
establish credibility and rapport with the victim and to accomplish the following
tasks: to listen to the victim's stories, to provide information and answer
questions, and to assist the victim in considering mediation as an option. During
the initial visit, the mediator should ask whether the victim would rather begin by
telling his or her story or whether he or she would prefer to learn first about the
mediation program.

Listen. A critical task for the mediator is to attend to the victim, listening
carefully, patiently, and sympathetically out of a genuine desire to hear about the
victim's experience. Effective listening by the mediator gives the victim a chance
to vent and validate his or her feelings. The mediator's attentive listening
encourages the victim's trust and lets the victim know that he or she is a priority.
Occasional informal paraphrasing or summarizing by the mediator assures the
victim that the mediator is indeed paying attention and values what is being said.

Provide information and answer questions about--

o The mediation program: The mediator needs to give the victim thorough and
accurate information about the program itself (both orally and in writing)
including its goals, history, the population it serves, and any costs for
participants who might be involved. (Note: It should always be free for victims.)

o Oneself as mediator: Mediators should offer a few brief words about their
mediation training and experience and about themselves personally, as
appropriate. Giving information about oneself helps to build rapport and trust
with the victim.

o The mediation process and its purpose: The victim also needs to know, in
some detail, what happens in the mediation process, the role of participants,
and its overall purposes.

o The judicial system: Victims typically want to know what has happened so far
to the offenders and what might occur if they proceed with mediation or if they
decline. The limitations of the judicial system should also be addressed. A
mediator needs to be attentive to questions that may arise, even after the
mediation session. 

o Victim's rights: A victim should be given a summary of the rights granted to
victims in that State. Summaries are available from most of the thousands of
system and community-based victim service organizations in large and small
communities across America.

o Available resources: A mediator must be attentive to the victim's needs and
should contact staff, offer resources, or make referrals as requested to local,
State, and national organizations or agencies. A mediator should check out the
agencies to which referrals are made or make personal followup calls to ensure 
that the victim's needs are met.

o The offender: As a victim begins to consider mediation, he or she may find it
helpful to know something about the offender's state of mind and
circumstances. Mediators must get the offender's permission before sharing this
kind of information.

Discuss risks and benefits and assist victims in decisionmaking. After providing
the essential information about victim-offender mediation, the mediator needs to
assist the victim in considering the risks and benefits of mediation in his or her
particular situation.

7. Mediator's Responsibilities for Carefully Preparing the Victim

After a victim has decided to proceed with mediation, the mediator needs to
prepare the victim for what lies ahead. This can be done in the initial meeting or
in additional sessions. It is important that the mediation session not be
scheduled until the victim feels ready for it. It is also important that the mediator
try to accommodate any special needs, such as the need for interpreters or
needs related to physical handicaps or mental limitations.

Ensure victim's expectations are realistic. A victim may develop inflated
expectations of the mediation process (e.g., reconciliation with the offender,
complete healing or peace of mind, rehabilitation of the offender, or total repair
of the damage done). Although very positive outcomes are generally
experienced by both the victim and the offender, they cannot be guaranteed.
The mediator needs to be realistic with the victim, providing accurate
information about possible outcomes and the kinds of results that are most
typical, with strong caution that each mediation is unique (just as each victim is
unique) and cannot be predicted.

Assess losses and needs. Victims may appreciate assistance in identifying losses
experienced in the crime and current needs related to the crime. These can
include material and out-of-pocket monetary losses as well as less tangible
losses affecting their sense of safety and feelings of connection with their
community.

Estimate restitution possibilities. A mediator should engage the victim in
preliminary brainstorming about the ways losses and needs might be addressed-
-what it would take to repair the harm done. This process is intended to spark
the victim's ideas about possibilities for restitution that may or may not be
monetary. This groundwork must be laid before the mediation so that, during
the actual negotiation process, the victim has a solid base of ideas to draw from
to make the most suitable proposal. Victims, primarily those of violent crimes,
should also be informed of State victim compensation, assistance, or other
public funds dedicated to reimbursing victim losses.

8. Offender Support

An offender may choose to have a friend or relative accompany him or her to
the mediation session. The presence of support persons can reinforce the
seriousness of the mediation process. In addition, these supporters may in the
future serve as reminders to the offender of the commitments made and as
"coaches" who can encourage the offender to fulfill the agreement. Creating a
comfortable environment for the offender also makes for a better mediation that
benefits the victim, offender, community, and the justice system.

9. Mediator's Obligation During the In-Person Premediation Session With the
Offender

In the initial meeting with the offender, the mediator seeks to establish credibility
and rapport. To accomplish these tasks, the mediator needs to hear the
offender's experiences, offer information and answer questions about the
process, and assist the offender in considering mediation as an option. As
described in guideline number 6, the mediator, as attentive listener, gains an
understanding of the offender's experiences and feelings relative to the crime,
provides information, and responds to the offender's questions. The offender
needs to know about the mediation program and the mediator, the process
itself and its relationship to the judicial system, his or her rights, and available
resources. The offender may also have questions about the victim. The
mediator must have the victim's permission before reporting what he or she has
said. Using all available relevant information, the mediator assists the offender in
deciding whether to participate in mediation. It is important that each offender
considers the risks and benefits of the process in his or her particular situation.
Having a well-informed, willing offender increases the chances that the
mediation session will be beneficial for all parties involved.

10. Mediator's Responsibilities for Carefully Preparing the Offender

After the offender has decided to participate in mediation, the mediator needs
to prepare him or her for the session. The offender must feel ready to proceed
before the mediation session is scheduled. He or she needs a chance to reflect
on the crime and feelings about it, as well as an opportunity to organize what he
or she wishes to say to the victim. To help the offender try to understand the
victim's experience, the mediator may invite the offender to recall experiences
of being victimized and then ask him or her to consider what the actual victim
might be feeling or might want. These reflections should be within the context
that any past victimization the offender may have experienced in no way
excuses the choices he or she later made to hurt another person. The mediator
may ask the offender what he or she would like to do for the victim. It is also
important that the mediator try to accommodate interpreters or any special
needs related to physical disabilities or mental limitations. 

Ensure offender's expectations are realistic. Offenders may need assistance in
maintaining realistic expectations of mediation. An offender may expect that an
apology automatically diffuses the intensity of the victim's emotions or that one
mediation session erases the harm caused by the crime. The offender's
disappointment if such expectations are not met can be detrimental to the
victim, who may experience guilt or anger as a result. In any case, an apology
has no meaning without true remorse.

Assess victim's losses and restitution possibilities and offender's ability to fulfill
agreements. Mediators should assist offenders in thinking about the needs and
the losses victims might have experienced, both tangible and intangible, and then
engage offenders in preliminary brainstorming about the ways those needs and
losses might be addressed, such as what it would take to repair the harm done.
Mediators should discuss with offenders what resources might be used in
addressing the losses, including present income, income that can be generated
by taking additional jobs, and the types of services that he or she can offer to
the victim. Offenders should be encouraged to continue thinking of restitution
ideas and resources in preparation for the mediation session.

11. Use of Victim-Sensitive Language

Mediators must be careful in their use of language. Certain words and phrases
can imply judgment or convey expectation. For example, if a mediator says or
implies "you should" to either party, then neutrality is lost, rapport and credibility
may be damaged, and a victim may feel pressured and experience a diminished
sense of control. The mediator must provide information, present the options,
and encourage the victim to make the best decision. Most people are
accustomed to seeing professionals or trained volunteers as experts with
answers; in contrast, mediators must be vigilant in guarding the choices--and
thus the autonomy--of both parties.

It is also important that mediators avoid the use of words such as "forgiveness"
or "reconciliation." Again, such words pressure and prescribe behavior for
victims. In addition, mediators should try to avoid raising expectations that
cannot be fulfilled in a particular case. For example, using words such as
"healing," "restoration," and "being made whole" to describe possible outcomes
for mediation may elevate victims' hopes unrealistically. In the case of
"reconciliation," many victims find this word hurtful because it implies there was
a conciliatory relationship in the first place. Some victims may experience a
degree of reconciliation, but this must occur spontaneously, without a directive
from the mediator. In fact, it is more likely to occur if the mediator avoids
directives. Forgiveness also may be expressed during the mediation session, but
the mediator's use of the word "forgiveness" may be destructive to the victim.
Victims may, for example, feel guilty if they fail to feel forgiving. They may
resent the suggestion and shut down to the point that they miss the opportunity
to truly express how the crime has affected them, which is typically a
component of healing.

12. Use of Humanistic/Dialogue-Driven Model of Mediation

The mediation session itself is guided by a humanistic approach that is
"dialogue-driven" rather than "settlement-driven," which includes the following
topics (see appendix B, What Is Humanistic Mediation?):

Perspective of the mediator. Through a nonjudgmental attitude and a positive,
hopeful demeanor, the mediator conveys his or her trustworthiness and
sensitivity to the needs of both parties.

Relaxed, positive atmosphere. The mediator needs to put the parties as much at
ease as possible, renew the connections developed in previous separate
meetings, and establish an informal yet dignified atmosphere that is conducive to
dialogue and constructive problem solving and is of mutual benefit. The
mediator should present a calm, centered manner and should not dominate the
conversation.

Dialogue between victim and offender. As the mediation session proceeds, time
must be allowed for interaction between victim and offender and for personal
narratives. Silence must be honored. Time pressures or a focus on reaching
agreement can detract from the benefits of dialogue, questions, and answers.

Procedural guidelines. During the initial meeting with each participant and at the
beginning of the mediation session, the mediator must discuss the procedural
guidelines that shape the process. These guidelines help to establish a safe,
structured setting, encourage respectful conversation that acknowledges
concerns of each party, and elicit the strengths of the participants. Each party is
assured the opportunity to speak without interruption. The mediator, who
assumes a nondirective role, guards the process.

Feedback from participants. The mediator needs to maintain attentiveness to
the parties, watching for nonverbal cues and perceiving unacknowledged
feelings, as well as directly requesting feedback and consulting in private with
each party as needed to get further information. The mediator should talk with
each party before and after the mediation session to maximize feedback.

Option of followup session. The mediator needs to mention the possibility of an
additional session. Some parties find it useful to meet again, for example, to
conclude the conversation, allowing for additional thoughts, feelings, or
questions to arise; to negotiate further details regarding restitution; or to
acknowledge fulfillment of the agreement. 

13. Followup After the Mediation Session

It is vital that the mediator follow through on commitments and questions raised
in the mediation session. The dependability of the mediator is of utmost
importance to victims and offenders. 

Completion of agreement. The agreement that is the product of the mediation
session needs to be carefully monitored. The mediator should check with the
offender periodically to reinforce what was accomplished in the mediation
session and to assist with any problems that may interfere with the offender
fulfilling the agreement.

Notification of victim regarding status of the agreement. The victim should be
notified when the agreement has been fulfilled or if circumstances have changed
that may suggest alterations in the agreement.

Scheduling additional sessions if needed. If another meeting is desired by either
the victim or the offender, the mediator should contact the parties and negotiate
an additional session.

Telephone contact with parties. The mediator should maintain telephone contact
with both parties for a period of time following the mediation session, whether
the agreement has already been completed or not. A brief check-in may be all
that is required. The mediator can serve as a continuing source of information
and referral. If the case is not mediated, it may be beneficial, nonetheless, for
the mediator or victim support staff to maintain telephone contact with the
victim for a period of up to 6 months. Some mediators have found that monthly
written progress reports are more meaningful to victims than telephone calls.

Evaluation. VOM programs should establish procedures for evaluation of all
mediations. Victims and offenders need to be surveyed to ascertain their
satisfaction with the mediation process and its outcome.

14. Training for Mediators in Victim Sensitivity 

The initial training and continuing education of mediators should include
information on the experiences of victims of crime, referral sources, appropriate
communication skills for mediators, victim's and offender's rights, and guidelines
for victim-sensitive mediation. Trainees need to hear from victim advocates and
victims themselves.

----------------------------

III. Recommendations for Program Development

----------------------------

Program Recommendations

1. Create an Advisory Board

An advisory board can contribute significantly to the effectiveness of a
victim-offender mediation program. Its role may be consultative, without
decisionmaking authority. The board can assist in developing the program,
maintaining quality in program procedures and practices, fundraising, and
building support for the program within the judicial system and local community.

The composition of the advisory board may vary, depending on the context and
the needs of the program. The board may include the following members:

o A victim who has participated in victim-offender mediation.

o An offender who has participated in victim-offender mediation.

o Youth from the community.

o Representatives from the judiciary or court administration.

o Representatives from probation or parole.

o Police officers or diversion workers.

o Representatives from victim services.

o Social workers or counselors.

o Health care workers. 

o Other community representatives from the media, schools, and religious
groups.

2. Ensure Quality Control Through Program Evaluation

Procedures for program evaluation need to be established from the outset to
ensure quality control. Evaluations provide the program staff with general
feedback relative to the mediation process itself and the effectiveness of
program procedures. Evaluations also offer information about specific cases
and the competence of specific mediators. As a result, staff may suggest further
training or consultation for specific mediators or followup work with the
participants in a particular case. Evaluations should be gathered from
participants, mediator, and probation officer or victim service personnel.

Participants. In general, evaluations should be anonymous to encourage honest
responses. A coding system can be used, so that staff can identify the particular
case and mediator involved.

One model for participant evaluation has two phases. During the first phase,
information is gathered at the time of the mediation session. A simple evaluation
form is distributed to all participants, including parents of juvenile offenders who
might be present, with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The participants
are asked to complete the evaluation as soon as possible and mail it back, or
they may complete the form onsite at the end of the mediation session, if they
prefer.

The second phase of this evaluation process occurs at a later time, between 3
and 6 months after the mediation session. The evaluation may be conducted in
several ways to gather information:


o An instrument may be mailed out to all participants with a self-addressed,
stamped envelope.

o A telephone survey may be conducted.

o A face-to-face interview may be conducted.

The survey or interview may be conducted by a volunteer or a staff member,
but should not be conducted by the person who actually mediated the case.

An additional method for gathering information from victims is to sponsor focus
groups composed of victims who are willing to discuss their experiences in
mediation and offer input about the program and its practices.

Mediator. The mediator also needs to evaluate the mediation. A feedback
instrument can be completed by the mediator immediately following the
mediation session. Completing a self-evaluation helps the mediator develop
observation, analysis, and self-reflection skills. The mediator's evaluation can
also alert program staff to any issues or problems that may need further
attention or suggest revisions in program procedures.

Probation officer or victim service personnel. Feedback needs to be gathered
from probation officers or victim service personnel who work with the parties
before, during, and after mediation. This may be accomplished through formal
evaluation or informal feedback.

3. Develop and Maintain an Extensive and Effective Network

A crucial component of any victim-offender mediation program is the cultivation
of connections with stakeholders in the community. Stakeholders include judges
and court referees who may make referrals to the program, victim service
personnel who may refer cases or work with clients prior to or after mediation,
prosecuting attorneys and public defenders who have an interest in the outcome
of the case and the status of the parties, and probation officers who may follow
up with offenders. Establishing these relationships is vital to the continuous flow
of appropriate referrals and the overall success of the program.

VOM can be used as a diversion from prosecution or after a formal admission
of guilt has been accepted by the court, with mediation being a condition of
probation (if the victim is interested). Because mediation represents a serious
departure from the traditional handling of offenders, a concerted effort needs to
be made to educate court-related personnel on the VOM process. They need
information about the benefits and risks of mediation, the types of cases suitable
for referral, specific outcomes of cases, research findings about the short- and
long-term impact of mediation, safeguards and quality control procedures, and
evaluation processes. Stakeholders will also want assurance about the
credibility of the program itself and the training and competence of the
mediators.

In addition to providing information to stakeholders, program staff may seek to
strengthen the partnership by exploring avenues for collaboration. The training
of mediators is a natural opportunity for collaboration. Victim service providers
can present a training segment on the experience of victims. Portions of the
training can be held in the office of victim services. Probation officers can
provide a parallel segment on the experience of offenders. A judge can
describe what happens to victims and offenders in the courtroom and offer
information about what typically happens to a case that is not mediated. The
presence of representatives of the judicial system also informs trainees that the
system appreciates and supports mediation and values their contribution as
volunteer mediators. Service providers may take the roles of victims and
offenders to demonstrate how a case progresses through the system from
beginning to end. Such collaboration not only provides trainees with needed
information but also builds relationships within the system that can help ensure
the success of a mediation program.

Seeking support for victims and offenders throughout the VOM process
provides another opportunity for collaboration. For example, a victim service
provider may provide support to a victim throughout the entire mediation
process and beyond, even attending the mediation session with the victim, if
requested, in the role of a support person rather than as an active participant.
Such support may help the victim understand and articulate his or her
experiences and needs. Similarly, a social worker or probation officer may be
helpful to an offender by encouraging the development of understanding and
empathy for the victim and helping the offender prepare for dialogue with the
victim. 

Building connections within the larger community is also essential, because the
community is a stakeholder in the VOM process. Crime has an impact that
reaches into the community far beyond the immediate parties involved.
Consequently, the community needs to be invested in the VOM process. The
community can be a potential source of financial support for a mediation
program. Many programs are also dependent on the community as a source of
volunteers to serve as mediators. When the public is educated about VOM and
becomes invested in it, victims, offenders, and their support persons may be
more willing to participate in the process, and other community members may
be more likely to volunteer to be mediators. In addition to general public
education about mediation, specific connections should be made with
community agencies, places of worship and religious organizations, business
organizations, and local and State governments, including those organizations
that influence and determine legislation and public policy. Program leadership,
in particular, needs to have a thorough understanding of the community's
structure and resources.

Volunteer mediators may serve as a bridge to the wider community in
promoting victim-offender mediation both in the community and in the court
system. Also, they can bring diverse cultural perspectives to a program.
Volunteers may at times be more effective spokespersons than program staff.
Community members who serve as volunteer mediators, for instance, may
speak enthusiastically about their experiences with the process, and victims and
offenders who have found the mediation experience to be useful can serve as
eloquent promoters of the program.

It is also critical for VOM programs to maintain close ties with other VOM
programs and agencies providing mediation services to the community. These
connections can offer much-needed ongoing support, resources, and
consultation. In addition, staff from these programs may wish to share materials
and trainers and to collaborate in areas of common concern, such as legislative
initiatives.

4. Maintain High-Quality Standards for Mediators

Screen applicants seeking training as a mediator. The first step in creating a
team of effective, competent mediators is a comprehensive application process.
Prospective mediators should complete a form that requires submission of,
among other things, professional and volunteer histories, reasons for choosing
to become a mediator, and input about their personal style and value system.
Applicants should be asked specific questions about any past victimization
experiences they may have had. It is important to assess applicants' feelings
about victimization and whether their personal experiences might lead to
behavior or attitudes that are predisposed to being judgmental or blaming. 

Upon completion of the form, an interview may be conducted to screen further
for appropriate applicants. Because attitude and perspective are vital to
effectiveness as a mediator, the interview serves as a natural tool for assessing 
suitability.

Use mediation training as an additional tool for screening mediators. Program
staff must observe trainees during role plays. The nature of their skills and their
styles as mediators will often surface during this training. Program staff should
follow up on any concerns that arise during training by comediating cases with
trainees and discussing pertinent issues. Trainees should also solicit input from
coaches.

Maintain quality control through a meaningful program staff-mediator
relationship. In addition to the quality of mediator training, program staff should
maintain close contact with mediators actively involved in cases. Procedures
need to be established that provide for this supervisory and supportive
relationship. Relatively inexperienced mediators, in particular, may be expected
to contact staff after each client contact and to meet with staff both prior to and
immediately following the mediation session. 

Staff also need to be available for consultation on any case, as requested by the
mediator. With more complex cases, brainstorming/consultation sessions
involving the mediator, program staff, and, perhaps, other experienced
mediators should be arranged at the outset. To provide adequate supervision
and support, program staff should comediate a case annually with each
mediator.

In the interest of quality, training sessions should be limited to a group of 9 to
12 participants. This ensures that trainees receive individual attention and that
trainers have the opportunity to respond to the learning process of each
individual. Trainees should be provided with ample opportunities for
apprenticeship--namely, comediating with experienced mediators and staff.
After such an apprenticeship, trainees can best learn by having frequent
opportunities to mediate cases. Much that is gained through training and
apprenticeship can be lost if not reinforced by repeated experience with actual
cases. Also, mediators who are not called upon may lose interest in the
program. Generally, the best strategy is to train a small number of mediators,
use them frequently, maintain close contact with them, and provide them with all
the resources they need. In addition, trainees should expect to communicate
and collaborate with staff; complete evaluations; follow reporting requirements
and timely case management and quality procedures; keep updated through
continuing education; and make a time commitment (cases done carefully may
take up to 15 hours or more). Some programs find that a smaller group of
mediators working with more cases shows more commitment to the success of
the program than a larger group of mediators working with fewer cases.

Establish regular continuing education as a mechanism for strengthening skills.
Continuing education for mediators should be built around issues in the field,
advanced skill development, needs expressed by mediators, and staff
assessments. Case review can be a vital component in skill development and
quality control. For example, mediators may meet quarterly with program staff
to present case scenarios that raise questions and concerns that have emerged
from real cases.

5. Explore Opportunities for Broadening the Scope of Services

Develop a skills-training course for juvenile offenders and their parents.
Develop a course for juvenile offenders and their parents covering topics such
as conflict management skills, empathy development, competence development,
communication and life skills, esteem-building, anger management, and skills for
building peer support.

Improve mediators' ability to serve victims and offenders more effectively. Train
mediators to maintain a connection with victims and/or offenders for a specific
period of time following the mediation, provide support for the victim, and serve
as a mentor to the offender. Mediators may monitor agreements, accompany
offenders on job search excursions, and offer encouragement and reminders
about restitution obligations.

Coordinate between the community and the offender to perform community
service. Establish a public works program that can serve as an arena for
community service responsibilities and provide opportunities for staff to develop
relationships with offenders and to monitor restitution efforts.

Provide offender rehabilitation opportunities. Provide offenders with job search
assistance and actual job training. Establish a work-study program for
offenders.

Help offenders develop empathy for victims. Develop victim impact panels and
victim awareness classes to help offenders whose victims choose not to
participate in mediation.

Use mediation to foster positive family relationships when the offender leaves
corrections. Offer mediation to parents and children as juvenile offenders leave
a correctional facility to return home.

Training Recommendations

1. Maximize Experiential Learning by Enhancing Role Playing

Demonstrate a realistically performed role play. Trainees need to visualize what
is expected of them. The trainer may play the mediator role and experienced
mediators or actual victims and offenders may play the other roles. The
scenario should be planned out in terms of basic information and perhaps an
issue or two that could arise, but it should not be scripted. Role players should
seek authenticity and spontaneity.

Arrange the role-play schedule so that each trainee experiences each of the
roles. Of course, it is critical that trainees try out the mediator role. They may,
however, learn just as much by playing the victim and offender roles, which
allow them to reflect on mediator techniques and strategies from the perspective
of the participants.

Coach trainees on how to play the roles. The full value of the role-play exercise
may be lost if trainees overplay or overdramatize the roles so that the
experience bears no resemblance to reality. Instruct trainees to use what they
have learned about the victim and offender experiences to play the roles;
instructors might tell trainees to try to take on the actual feelings of the character
they are playing-- to feel what it is like to be a victim and how the victim would
respond-- and to play the role spontaneously without a script.

Guide trainees in debriefing the role play. Trainers can encourage peer review
by structuring the debriefing after the role play. They can allow the trainee
playing the mediator to begin by commenting first on what worked, what did
not work, and what questions arose. Then, trainees in the victim or offender
role can comment next on aspects that worked for them and others that did not
and give the mediator feedback on the amount and kind of interventions used
and their impact. The observing trainees should also provide feedback. The
victim and offender role players can answer questions from the other trainees
such as:

o Did you think that you were listened to? Did you have the chance to tell the
full story?

o Did you feel respected?

o Did you feel that you had the power to make decisions?

Use experienced mediators to coach role players. An experienced mediator
can act as a coach and provide a useful perspective on the victim-offender
mediation process. If necessary, the coach can rotate between two groups.
Clear instructions should be given regarding the coach's role. In general, it is
best if coaches do not intervene unless requested to do so by the trainees-- at a
moment of impasse, for example. Following the role play, effective coaches
seek to elicit information from participants by asking questions and, if
necessary, frame their comments in terms of positive tips and possibilities for
other ways of proceeding, rather than point out right and wrong methods. The
participants learn more if they reflect on the process and its effects and
brainstorm possibilities than if they are told explicitly what should have been
done.

Videotape role plays involving trainees. Trainees may find videotapes of
themselves in the mediator role to be quite useful. Videotapes may be studied
by participants to observe and reflect upon their own actions. Videotapes may
also be used in a one-on-one coaching situation. In addition, clips of exemplary
practices by trainees may be shown to the entire training group.

Design role plays to address specific problem areas. As trainees advance
toward more complex role-play scenarios, issues known to challenge many
mediators--such as intercultural tensions, agreements deemed unfair or
unrealistic by the mediator, controlling or out-of-control parents, and other
elements that may lead to impasse-- can be built into the scenario.

Use input from victims and offenders in creating role plays. Use actual
victim-offender mediation participants to critique role-play scenarios or ask a
victim or offender to create a role play. A juvenile offender's input may add
realistic issues of adolescent culture to a scenario.

Use actual current cases as the basis for role plays. Trainers should consider
designing individualized role plays that portray the actual case a trainee will
unknowingly receive as his or her first case.

Role play atypical portions of the mediation process. For a change of pace,
trainees may be invited into the hallway one by one to role play greeting the
participants as they arrive for the mediation session.

2. Use a Multidimensional Format To Enhance Learning

Incorporate into training the personal experiences, perspectives, and
knowledge of trainees. Trainers should always seek to build into training a
number of opportunities for interaction. Trainees should be asked what they
know about the judicial system and what they might do differently if they were
designing a system. Self-reflection about personal responses to conflict should
be encouraged. Trainees need to consider their experiences of victimization:
how they felt, what responses of others they found helpful, and what they
needed to do to move on with their lives. Similarly, trainees should reflect on
their experiences of having offended or caused pain to others.

Consider onsite observations by trainees. Trainees should be given the
opportunity to observe the court process, including the roles of victims and
offenders in that setting. Also, trainees should witness actual mediations before
they attend training, in the middle of training (thus splitting the training into two
segments), or immediately following training. A visit to a jail or a correctional
facility may also be relevant. 

Make training as realistic as possible. Trainers should invite actual victims and
offenders who have participated in mediation to speak to trainees.
Representatives of victim services, probation, and the judiciary can add
important and accurate information to the training. A panel of adolescents can
educate trainees in adolescent culture and strategies for working with youth.
Trainers should illustrate important points by describing actual cases and use
material for exercises drawn directly from real cases.

Vary the training format. For each skill or process segment addressed, trainers
should present the material briefly; demonstrate the skill or process; distribute a
worksheet, if relevant; allow for individual, paired, or group practice; role play;
debrief as a group and with a coach; and have interaction between the trainer
and trainees. Use stories, written exercises, case studies, guest speakers,
individual reflection, onsite observations, modeling, videotapes, overheads,
charts, and other learning aids.

Vary the pace of training. Alternate quiet reflective modules with interactive or
active modules. Provide generous opportunities for questions at certain points in
the schedule and, at other times, make it clear that a move to the next topic is
necessary.

Incorporate experiential learning whenever possible. In addition to role plays
and practice exercises targeting specific skills, trainers should allow trainees to
experience other dimensions of the mediation process. For example, trainees
may pair up to experiment with "zingers"--inappropriate, hurtful responses--
discovering for themselves how it feels to be ignored, interrupted, and judged.           
A brief demonstration or role play scripted to be mishandled can prove to be a
useful tool for trainees to experience the impact of destructive practices.
Trainees may also explore "quick decisions" (e.g., what to do if the offender's
parent threatens to leave, if the offender will not talk, if the victim is willing to
forgo any monetary restitution).

Make the training manual user friendly. The manual can be developed with
handouts that are distributed in conjunction with each topic, so that trainees are
not overwhelmed with material. Manuals should be accessible and helpful to
trainees.

Be current and creative, be fresh and interesting, be engaging. Trainings should
be dynamic rather than static. Program staff need to be alert to repetitious
patterns that become tedious for the trainer. Material needs to excite and
challenge the trainer. Trainees need to know the trainer's journey with
mediation and the impact of this work on his or her life. The trainer needs to
take time to "check the pulse" of the audience members throughout the training
program: Are their needs being met? Is their attention being held? Does the
trainer need to "switch gears"? New material infuses new life into the training.
For example, movie clips or newspaper articles portraying conflict scenarios
can be used to develop conflict skills.

3. Assist Trainees in Enhancing the Potential of the Preparation Phase

Encourage trainees to consider the use of outside support persons to help
prepare the participants for mediation. A victim service provider may help
victims determine issues of concern to them. A probation officer may help the
offender try to understand the victim's perspective and prepare a tentative script
reflecting ideas the offender may wish to express.

Develop materials that trainers can use when preparing for mediation. Some
materials or activities that offenders and victims may find helpful as they prepare
for mediation include a videotape describing the mediation process; a
self-guided workbook for use by victims and offenders that helps them think
about their experiences and the impact of those experiences on themselves and
others; and a questionnaire that helps victims organize their thoughts about what
they wish to express or accomplish during the mediation session.

Explore with trainees methods for seeking to increase victim and offender
participation and interaction. Victims and offenders need to be encouraged to
discover and sort out thoughts, feelings, and questions that arise in conjunction
with the mediation process. Mediators may offer to role play with victims or
offenders to help them understand reactions, needs, and ideas that may be
evoked and to prepare them for these responses should they arise during
mediation. It may be useful, in advance of the mediation session, for mediators
to provide offenders with questions typically asked by victims or actual
questions raised by victims in each particular case, so that the offenders can be
prepared to address the needs of the victims.

Guide trainees in how to help offenders and victims determine their goals. It is
helpful if the parties are directly asked to consider what they would like to
occur during the mediation session. A walk-through or a role play of the session
may be useful in preparing trainees to help participants establish personal goals
for the mediation.


----------------------------

IV. Summary

----------------------------

The guidelines offered in this monograph are grounded in more than 20 years of
practical experience in the field of victim-offender mediation in North America,
numerous conversations with individual victim advocates and staff members of
victim advocacy organizations, and the results of the recently completed
national survey of victim-offender mediation programs in the United States
(appendix A). The number of VOM programs is increasing in communities
throughout the country, and these guidelines will help lead to the development
of the highest quality victim-sensitive mediation services possible. Considerable
room, however, remains for continued experimentation in this emerging field. 

These guidelines are flexible and should be adjusted to fit the cultural context of
each community and the specific needs of the participating victims, offenders,
and support people. The development of programs must offer a safe place for
dialogue between the victim and offender that can lead to a sense of
accountability and restoration for all involved.