FOR CALIFORNIAAttn: California Community Justice Project 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Mr. Steve DeRoss Assistant Chief Probation Officer County of Sacramento

BALANCED AND REST

OR

AT

IVE JU

STIC

EAN INFORMATION MANUALFO

R C

ALIF

OR

NIA

accountabi l i t y

co

mm

un

i ty

sa

f ety com

petency development

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts

Ronald M. George

Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council

William C. Vickrey

Administrative Director of the Courts

Ronald G. Overholt

Chief Deputy Director

Diane Nunn

Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Copyright © 2006 Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved.

Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be repro-duced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute for educational purposes all or part of the work if the copies are distributed at or below cost and credit the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts.

Printed in the United States of America 10 09 08 07 06 5 4 3 2 1

This report is also available on the California Community Justice Project Web site: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/ccjp/resources.htm

For additional copies or more information about this report, please contact the Center for Families, Children & the Courts by phone at 415-865-7739, by e-mail at [email protected], or write to the fol-lowing address:

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts Attn: California Community Justice Project 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688

Mr. Steve DeRoss

Assistant Chief Probation Officer County of Sacramento Probation Department

Mr. Phillip Kader

Division Director, Juvenile Probation Services Fresno County Probation

Hon. Kurt E. Kumli

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

Mr. Kip Lowe

Deputy Chief of Victim Services (Ret.) California Youth Authority

Ms. Jessalyn Nash

Director Restorative Resources

Sebastopol

Hon. Arnold D. Rosenfield

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma

Mr. Joseph Spaeth

Public Defender County of Marin

Acknowledgments

We are truly grateful to the individuals who have provided guidance and support to the California Community Justice Project and its endeavors:

Special thanks are extended to the following Administrative Office of the Courts staff members and consultants for their contributions to the California Community Justice Project

and the production of this manual:

Cathy Cambron, Audrey Fancy, Fran Haselsteiner, LaRon Hogg Haught, Ligeia Heagy, Jon Kidde, Iona Mara-Drita, George Mattingly, Carolyn McGovern, Sewali Patel,

Allison Schurman, and Christopher Wu.

JudiciAl council members

Hon. Ronald M. George

Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council

Hon. Marvin R. Baxter

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Mr. Anthony P. Capozzi

Attorney at Law, Fresno

Hon. Candace D. Cooper

Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight

Hon. J. Stephen Czuleger

Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles

Hon. Joseph Dunn

Member of the Senate

Hon. Michael T. Garcia

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento

Mr. Thomas V. Girardi

Attorney at Law, Los Angeles

Mr. Rex S. Heinke

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP

Hon. Richard D. Huffman

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

Hon. Dave Jones

Member of the State Assembly

Hon. Suzanne N. Kingsbury

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of El Dorado

Hon. Charles W. McCoy, Jr.

Supervising Judge of the Superior Court of California,


Hon. Barbara J. Miller

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

Hon. Douglas P. Miller

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside

Hon. Eileen C. Moore

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three

Hon. Dennis E. Murray


County of Tehama

Hon. William J. Murray, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin

Hon. Michael Nash

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Ms. Barbara J. Parker

Chief Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney

Oakland

Hon. Richard E. L. Strauss

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

JUD

ICIA

L CO

UN

CIL M

EM

BER

S �

�I

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

ADVISORY MEMBERS

Hon. Ronald E. Albers

Commissioner of the Superior Court of California,

County of San Francisco

Ms. Tamara Lynn Beard

Executive Officer Superior Court of California,

County of Fresno

Ms. Deena Fawcett

Clerk/Administrator Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

Hon. Terry B. Friedman

California Judges Association President and Judge of the Superior Court of California,


Mr. Alan Slater

Chief Executive Officer Superior Court of California,

County of Orange

Ms. Sharol Strickland


County of Butte

Hon. Sharon J. Waters


County of Riverside

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

OF THE COURTS

Mr. William C. Vickrey

Administrative Director of the Courts and Secretary of the Judicial Council

FAmily And Juvenile lAw Advisory committee

Hon. Jerilyn L. Borack, Cochair

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento

Hon. Susan D. Huguenor, Cochair

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

Ms. Antonia W. Agerbek

Senior Staff Counsel California Department of Child Support

Services

Hon. Sue Alexander


County of Alameda

Hon. Brian John Back

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura

Hon. Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District

Ms. Elizabeth A. Barranco

Attorney at Law, El Cajon

Hon. Aviva K. Bobb


Ms. Judy Lynn Bogen

Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills

Mr. Bryan Borys, Ph.D.

Executive Director CASA of Los Angeles

Hon. Charles W. Campbell, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura

Mr. L. Michael Clark

Lead Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel

Santa Clara County

Ms. Judith A. Cox

Chief Probation Officer Probation Department of Santa Cruz County

Hon. Becky Lynn Dugan

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside

Hon. Leonard P. Edwards (Ret.)


Ms. Ana España

Supervising Attorney, Dependency Section County of San Diego Department of the

Public Defender

Hon. Janet M. Frangie

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino

Ms. Keri L. Griffith

Senior Program Manager Superior Court of California,

County of Ventura

Hon. Mary Ann Grilli


Hon. David L. Haet


County of Solano

Ms. Frances Harrison

Family Law Facilitator Superior Court of California,

County of San Diego

FAM

ILY A

ND

JU�

EN

ILE LA

W A

D�

ISOR

Y C

OM

MIT

TEE

�II

�III

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Hon. Margaret Henry


Mr. Vahan Hovsepian

Administrator, Family and Children Services Superior Court of California,

County of Butte

Ms. Sharon Kalemkiarian

Attorney at Law, San Diego

Ms. Miriam Krinsky

Executive Director Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles

Ms. Patricia Lee

Managing Attorney San Francisco Public Defender’s Office

Hon. Jan G. Levine


Mr. Rick Lewkowitz

Juvenile Division Supervisor Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office

Hon. James M. Mize

Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Sacramento

Hon. Frances Rothschild

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One

Mr. David Sanders

Director Los Angeles County Department of

Children and Family Services

Hon. Robert Alan Schnider


Hon. B. Tam Nomoto Schumann

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange

Hon. Dean Stout


County of Inyo

Ms. Shannan L. Wilber

Executive Director Legal Services for Children

Ms. Kate Yavenditti

Senior Staff Attorney San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program

ADVISORY MEMBERS

Ms. Caroline Huffman

Court Appointed Special Advocate San Diego County

Hon. Arnold D. Rosenfield

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma

COMMITTEE LIAISONS

Ju d i c i a l co u n c i l li a i s o n s

Hon. Terry B. Friedman


Hon. Michael Nash


co u r t ExE c u t i vE s ad v i s o r y

co m m i t t E E li a i s o n

Mr. Michael M. Roddy


County of San Diego

GovE rn i n G co m m i t t E E

o f t h E CJER li a i s o n

Hon. Emilie Harris Elias


tr i a l co u r t PrE s i d i n G Ju d G E s

ad v i s o r y co m m i t t E E li a i s o n

Hon. Dean Stout


County of Inyo

AOC STAFF

TO THE COMMITTEE

Ms. Audrey Fancy

Senior Attorney Administrative Office of the Courts,

Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Ms. Tracy Kenny

Attorney Administrative Office of the Courts,

Office of Governmental Affairs

Ms. Susie Viray

Supervising Administrative Coordinator Administrative Office of the Courts,


Ms. Jennifer Walter

Supervising Attorney Administrative Office of the Courts,


Ms. Julia Weber

Supervising Attorney Administrative Office of the Courts,

Center for Families, Children & the Court

FAM

ILY A

ND

JU�

EN

ILE LA

W A

D�

ISOR

Y C

OM

MIT

TEE

Ix

Foreword

On behalf of the Judicial Council of California and the Administrative Office of the Courts, it is my pleasure to present Balanced and Restorative Justice: An Information Manual for California. This manual describes the his-tory, concepts, and practices of balanced and restorative justice and offers suggestions for implementing these practices in our communities. The manual is a resource for the court family, and it encourages judges to partner with community stakeholders to develop collaborative approaches that help youth. This manual is also an invi-tation to interested community stakeholders to partici-pate in implementing restorative practices.

In the last decade, California has joined other states in an effort to identify ef-fective, proactive responses to crime and delinquency. A growing body of evidence indicates that balanced and restorative justice processes work to strengthen offenders’ sense of responsibility and connections to the community. Through these approaches offenders come face-to-face with the consequences of their actions and are given an opportunity to repair the harm to their victims, to the community whose sense of safety and security has been damaged, and to their own sense of self-worth. At the same time, restorative justice gives victims a real opportunity to be heard and to heal.

The balanced and restorative approach to justice holds community safety as the paramount purpose of the justice system. To achieve this goal of community safety we must have a continuum of effective responses to crime; we must hold offenders accountable to victims and communities; and we must make the valiant effort to develop competencies in the youth who come into contact with the system so that they are better equipped to contribute to their families, their com-munities, and the state of California.

The courts cannot solve the issues facing the state’s youth alone—it will take the efforts of all who are willing to take on this challenge, a challenge that has sig-nificant ramifications far into the future. I hope that you, as a stakeholder in the lives of California’s children, will accept this invitation to implement restorative practices and use the valuable information in this manual to improve juvenile and criminal justice outcomes and to repair the harm caused by crime to victims and our communities as a whole.

William C. VickreyAdministrative Director of the Courts

FOR

EW

OR

D

xI

contents

General OverviewIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1History of Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Taking the Next Step. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11What Is Restorative Justice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12General Implementation of Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Nonprogrammatic Restorative Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Promising Practices and California ExamplesModel Programs

Fact Sheet: Family Group Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Fact Sheet: Victim-Offender Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Mediation or Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Fact Sheet: Victim Impact Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Victim Impact Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Fact Sheet: Teen Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Peer Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Fact Sheet: Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Restitution Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Fact Sheet: Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Additional Promising PracticesFact Sheet: Community Restorative Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Restorative Justice Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Fact Sheet: Victim Impact Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Victim Impact Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Fact Sheet: Victim Impact Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Victim Expressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Fact Sheet: Sentencing Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Community Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Additional Programs and Services That Can Be RestorativeCommunity Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Fact Sheet: Deferred Entry of Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Deferred Entry of Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

The Balanced and Restorative Justice SurveySurvey Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

CO

NT

EN

TS

xIII

GEN

ER

AL O

�ER

�IE

W

�

General Overview

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM in the United States has traditionally been a system that administers punishment for crime. Offenders are taken to court, receive a sentence for their crimes, and pay society back by way of

fines, probation, or jail time. In this retributive system, crime is an act by an of-fender against the state. The system is built on the concepts that criminals should be punished for their crimes and that deterrence is the way to achieve community safety. This retributive system is not focused on addressing the needs of victims, the community, or the offenders. Restorative justice, in contrast, seeks to repair the harm done to all parties affected by crime—the victim, the community, and the offender; to hold offenders accountable; and to improve community safety, while increasing the ability of the youth who comes into contact with the juvenile justice system to contribute to his or her family and society. A crime is seen as an act against an individual victim or victims and the community. Restorative justice emphasizes the impact of crime or wrongdoing on relationships. Restorative justice is focused on addressing the needs of the most affected par-ties rather than simply ensuring that offenders get what they deserve. Both the retributive system and the restorative philoso-phy are based on a belief that when a crime happens, the offender’s obligation should be in proportion to the offense. Restorative justice ad-vocates for the obligation to focus on redressing the harm caused by the offense.

introduction

The restorative justice movement began as an effort to rethink needs created by crimes, as well as the roles implicit in crimes. Since the 1970s, thousands of suc-cessful programs have emerged with a restorative approach to juvenile justice.

Restorative justice

seeks to repair the harm

done to all parties affected by

crime—the victim, the community, and

the offender; to hold offenders accountable;

and to improve community safety, while

increasing the ability of the youth who

comes into contact with the juvenile

justice system to contribute to his

or her family and society.

�

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Originally used in cases involving offenses that were considered minor, such as theft, vandalism, and even burglary—which is considered more serious to vic-tims—restorative justice practices have evolved to include crimes that are viewed as severe, including rape, assault, and even murder. Implementing practices for severe offenses requires additional training, and the restoration often takes place after a significant amount of time has elapsed.

The restorative justice philosophy and many of the programs and practices described may be applied in any situation where there is conflict, harm, or mis-understanding. Restorative justice practices are also commonly used in child de-pendency cases. These practices have received accolades for aiding in resolving disputes in schools, universities, and the workplace and are being investigated for conservatorship cases.

Although this manual focuses on restorative justice practices and programs in the criminal and juvenile delinquency arenas, these practices are not limited to juvenile or criminal justice. It is hoped that this manual will serve as a reference for those wanting to learn more about restorative justice practices and for com-munities working toward greater implementation of restorative justice philosophy in the way the local justice system responds to crime.

History oF restorAtive Justice

THE CONTEMPORARY RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MOVEMENT grew out of an incident in Elmira, Ontario, in 1974, when a probation officer with a desire to hold offenders directly accountable to victims

walked door to door with offenders who were responsible for 22 property of-fenses.1 The officer’s action, although generally acknowledged as poorly planned, was regarded as successful in connecting the fields of conflict resolution and victim offender reconciliation2 and is credited with initiating the restorative justice movement. Thirty years later, restorative justice continues to gain mo-mentum, recognition, and, sometimes, notoriety in communities throughout the country and within the larger system responsible for administering justice.

National and International

The principles of restorative justice are driving legislation in 29 states, aided by endorsements beginning in 1994 by the American Bar Association3 and initia-tives that arose out of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion, which has long supported projects and programs that included aspects of victim restoration and offender accountability. The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Project sprang out of one of these initiatives and was established in 1985. In 1992, the BARJ Project, through Florida Atlantic University, was

1 H. Zehr, “Commentary, Restorative Justice: Beyond Victim-Offender Mediation” (2004) 22(1–2) Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Special Conflict Resolution in the Field: Assessing the Past, Charting the Future 305–315.

2 Ibid.3 M. S. Umbreit, R. B. Coates, and B. Vos, “Victim-Offender Mediation: Three Decades of

Practice and Research” (2004) 22(1–2) Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Special Conflict Resolution in the Field: Assessing the Past, Charting the Future 279–303.

hist

or

y o

f rest

or

at

ive ju

stic

e �

�

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

awarded funding to enhance the development of restitution programs as part of system-wide juvenile justice improvement using the concepts and principles of balanced and restorative justice. The BARJ project gained attention in 1998 when the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published the Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. During the same year the BARJ Project developed a BARJ Training Curriculum and a Training of Trainers Curriculum; both were prepared in cooperation with the National Institute of Corrections. Roundtable discussions that year brought to-gether professionals from a number of states that were making systemic changes related to the BARJ model. Three original BARJ “intensive” sites—Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Dakota County, Minnesota; and West Palm Beach County, Florida—have continued moving toward a more restorative model but have approached systemic change from different angles. Through the round-table discussions other sites were added, and the BARJ Project began coordinat-ing the special emphasis states initiative, of which California became a member in 2000.

California

California’s history in relation to community and restorative justice is unique and precedes California’s status as a state. Until 1850, California was still a part of Mexico. Under the Mexican California system, 85 percent of civil litigation cases were resolved through “conciliation”—in fact, potential litigants were required to attempt conciliation before filing a lawsuit.

[T]he primary social function of the Mexican process of civil litigation was to heal the breach in the community and between the parties caused by the dispute. Resolving the lawsuit itself, in the sense of determining disputed facts, declaring who was right and who wrong, or compensating victims for harms suffered, all this was secondary.4

When California joined the United States the state adopted a very different legal system, in which determination of the facts of a case is paramount. The breach in the community caused by a crime is of little concern to our justice system.

However, there are pockets within contemporary California where attempts have been made to change this order of priorities. Fresno became a restorative jus-tice pioneer when the first Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) in

4 D. J. Langum, Law and Community on the Mexican California Frontier (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1987), p. 131.

California was created there in 1982. VORPs build on the restorative justice phi-losophy by providing a forum for victims and offenders to come together with a trained facilitator or mediator to discuss a crime and its reparation. VORPs humanize the offense by allowing victims to demonstrate how a crime affected them. The process aims to hold an offender directly accountable to the vic-tim. The VORP model developed in Fresno has been duplicated throughout the state, the country, and the world. Fresno has also been central in defining the principles of restorative justice. The Fresno principles of restorative justice were adopted in 1995 by the United Nations Non-Governmental Organization Working Party on Restorative Justice as a foundation for its work in interna-tional restorative justice.5

Restorative justice political momentum surfaced in California during the 1993–1994 legislative sessions in the form of Assembly Bill 2428, introduced by Assembly Member Epple, which created a bipartisan task force, the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Justice Response. The result was a final report published in September 1996. One of the primary recommenda-tions of the report was adoption of the “balanced and restorative justice” model for juvenile justice. The report stated:

We recommend that California adopt the balanced approach framework within the juvenile justice system. This framework encourages equal consideration for community protection, offender ac-countability, and offender competency development. By declaring that community protection, accountability, and offender competency equally comprise the stated purposes of our juvenile justice system, California’s ju-venile justice system will recapture public confidence, and reintroduce balance and coherence into the day-to-day practices of all who participate in the system.6

Since the 1996 publication of this report, various bills have been introduced to adopt the restorative justice framework for juvenile justice law officially, by establishing the balanced and restorative justice approach as the statutory purpose of the juvenile court. This was a specific recommendation of the task force report.7 Formal efforts in

5 R. Claassen et al. (2001), “Restorative Justice: A Framework for Fresno,” http://peace.fresno.edu/docs/rjframe0201.pdf (accessed July 25, 2005). 6 California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Justice Response, Final

Report (1996), p. 57.7 Ibid.

Victim Offender

Reconciliation Programs

(VORPs) build on the restorative

justice philosophy by providing a forum

for victims and offenders to come together

with a trained facilitator or mediator to

discuss a crime and its reparation. VORPs

humanize an offense by allowing

victims to demonstrate how a

crime affected them.

hist

or

y o

f rest

or

at

ive ju

stic

e �

�

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

1995–1996 and in 1997 failed after bills passed in the Assembly and the Senate but were vetoed by the governor.8

Proposed in 1997, Assembly Bill 320 (Goldsmith) attempted to establish VORPs based on the values of balanced and restorative justice in a three-county pilot project. The bill passed the Senate and the Assembly unanimously but was vetoed by Governor Wilson. He stated that a study of existing VORPs would be a more direct and inexpensive way of accomplishing the goal and allocated $150,000 to the Judicial Council to evaluate VORPs.9

The Judicial Council’s evaluation, published in May 2000, included six Cali-fornia VORPs. The results were positive. Compared with juveniles not participat-ing in the program, juveniles in VORPs paid more restitution and were gener-

8 During the 1995–1996 legislative sessions, Senate Bill 2126, introduced by Senator Marks, focused on reframing the intention of the juvenile court and utilized some of the language developed by the Task Force to redraft the purpose clause of the juvenile court, Welfare & Institutions Code § 202. The bill would have established the balanced and restorative justice approach as the purpose of the juvenile court, setting forth five principles to govern the operation of the juvenile justice system. The five principles were as follows:

1. The public has a right to safe and secure homes and communities. 2. Juvenile offenders incur a personal responsibility to restore losses, to the degree feasible,

incurred both by victims and the community. 3. Juvenile offenders should be capable of living in a responsible and law-abiding manner

within the community and with their families when they emerge from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

4. The unique set of experiences and circumstances contributing to the minor’s offense behavior must be addressed.

5. Juvenile justice is best served when public safety, accountability of the offender to the victim and the community, and offender competency development are treated as equally weighted goals.

These five principles, not coincidentally, can also be found in the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Justice Response, Final Report (1996), Appendix K. The draft in the appendix was a first attempt to initiate a redraft of Welfare and Institutions Code §202. This bill passed narrowly in the Senate but failed in the Assembly.

Senate Bill 668, introduced by Senator Vasconcellos in 1997, essentially reintroduced SB 2126 (Marks), which had been introduced during the previous legislative session. The bill again focused on reframing the intention of the juvenile court to include a balanced and restorative approach. The bill passed in the Assembly after the third reading with 77 in favor; the Senate concurred with 37 senators for the bill. No senators or Assembly members voted against it. Governor Wilson’s veto of the bill requested that the legislature give further attention to the failure of juvenile courts to hold juveniles accountable for their offenses. Governor Wilson cited Oregon, Minnesota, and Connecticut as states that have adopted the BARJ philosophy with more focused juvenile justice systems yet, unlike California, have removed the crime of murder from juvenile court jurisdiction. Governor Wilson encouraged a broader, more substantive and structural reform of the juvenile justice system to ensure that juveniles are held accountable for their offenses, public safety is protected, and procedures that hamper implementation of effective intervention and rehabilitation programs are removed.

9 Official California Legislative Information, n.d.

ally less likely to reoffend. VORP participants (both victims and offenders) were more satisfied with the process.10

The report evaluated six current countywide programs in counties with popu-lations varying from under 100,000 to more than 500,000. The evaluation work was assigned to the Judicial Council’s Center for Families, Children & the Courts, which was charged with the following tasks:

Evaluate the number of victims and offenders participating in VORPs Find what percentage of victims and eligible offenders decline to participate Evaluate how successful the programs are in terms of restitution completion, recidivism, participant satisfaction, program completion, and any additional success factors Explain the annual operating administrative costs of the programs

The study design required a control group of juvenile offenders who had not participated in a VORP for comparison of outcomes. The comparison group differed depending on the county. Representative comparison groups were estab-lished, for example, by including juveniles who were referred to the VORP but who did not participate because the victim declined to take part, by matching the control group to the VORP participant group by key variables (age, sex, offense), and by using juveniles who were referred to the VORP but who did not partici-pate for other reasons.

The summary of the six programs found reason for optimism. The amount of restitution collected from all the VORP groups exceeded restitution collected from the comparison groups by at least the 40 percent benchmark established by the legislature. Not only did the VORP group collect more restitution pay-ments, but in addition more offenders were required to pay restitution, and the average amount of restitution offenders were obligated to pay was higher than the comparison group. In five of the six programs, recidivism rates were reduced by at least the 10 percent benchmark; the rates ranged from 21 percent to 105 percent less than the comparison group in the five counties. Because of a small sample size, the difference in recidivism rates in the sixth county was not considered to be statistically significant. The rate of participation for victims and offenders was satisfactory. Between 10 percent and 33 percent of victims declined to participate, and between 6 percent and 39 percent of offenders declined to participate. The of-fenders who participated in a VORP completed a high percentage of their agree-

10 A. Evje and R. C. Cushman, A Summary of the Evaluations of Six California Victim Offender Reconciliation Programs, report to the California Legislature by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts (2000).

hist

or

y o

f rest

or

at

ive ju

stic

e �

�

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

ments, between 70 percent and 93 percent. The strongest measure of success was participant satisfaction, with all programs reporting that more than 90 percent of both victims and offenders were satisfied with the process. Also reported were additional measures of success such as decreases in case processing times, comple-tion of additional community service, and an increased number of mediations. The administrative costs of the programs varied. The report noted that all pro-grams either at the time of the report or in the past have struggled financially. The cost per juvenile participant per year ranged from $314 to $1,178, and the median cost across the six programs was $593 per juvenile per year.11

The legislature took no action after the Judicial Council’s evaluation was pub-lished in May 2000.

In 1998, Senate Bill 2074 (Schiff) revised section 202 of the Welfare and In-stitutions Code, which sets out the purpose of the juvenile courts. The purpose of California’s juvenile courts subsequently became in part to provide guidance that would better enable a juvenile “to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community.”12 The new language of section 202 also states:

“Juvenile courts and other public agencies charged with enforcing, interpreting, and administering the juvenile court law shall consider the safety and protection of the public, the importance of redressing injuries to victims, and the best inter-ests of the minor in all deliberations.”

In addition, the bill added the following section to the Welfare and Institu-tions Code:

Section 742 (b) In any case in which a petition has been filed pursuant to Sec-tion 602, the probation officer shall inform the victim of the offense, if any, of any victim offender conferencing program or victim impact class available in the county, and of his or her right pursuant to subdivision (a) to be informed of the final disposition of the case, including his or her right, if any, to victim restitu-tion, as permitted by law.

Section 742 essentially requires probation officers to inform victims of juve-nile delinquent behavior of restorative programs that exist in the community. It appears as though few probation officers are aware of this section in the Welfare and Institutions Code.

More restorative justice momentum was generated in 1999 when Governor Davis signed Assembly Bill 637 (Migden), which revised the existing Youth Au-thority Act. The Youth Authority Act governed the commitment of juvenile of-fenders to the Department of the Youth Authority. Prior to the passage of AB 637,

11 Ibid.

12 Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202 (b).

the California Youth Authority (CYA) was expected to focus on retributive pun-ishment as a means to protect society from the consequences of criminal activity. AB 637 replaced retributive punishment with a focus on community restoration, victim restoration, and offender training and treatment, making restorative jus-tice part of the mission of the CYA set out in section 1700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.13

Signed shortly after AB 637, another bill pushed forward a more restorative agenda for the state’s response to crime: Senate Bill 334, sponsored by Senator Alpert and passed into law in September 1999. The bill gives crime victims the right to present victim impact statements in all juvenile court hearings and re-quires the probation department to notify victims of all judicial proceedings. The bill re-substantiates principles of restorative justice demanding that the juvenile justice system respond to youth crime by protecting our communities, restoring losses suffered by victims, and reforming juvenile offenders into productive, law-abiding citizens. The bill also states that restitution accountability is central to restoring victims and reforming youthful offenders and that the long-term health of our society depends on a renewed commitment to community building, with an increased emphasis on prevention of crime and violence, community involve-ment, and collaboration.

In 2000, California was selected as one of seven special emphasis states to participate in BARJ Project roundtable discussions. The legislative momentum created in the mid to late 1990s played a role in the selection of California, but California was also selected in part because of the joint activities of the Admin-istrative Office of the Courts and the CYA to implement balanced and restor-ative justice in the state. The most successful effort was a statewide conference on restorative justice in 1999, after which many counties implemented restorative justice practices. The BARJ Project and the special emphasis states roundtable discussions were sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

OJJDP continues to help guide the BARJ movement and now recognizes many of the BARJ practices represented in this survey as models to address cir-cumstances that warrant immediate sanctions. Family group (restorative) confer-

13 As of July 1, 2005, the CYA has been folded into the Division of Juvenile Justice, a division of the newly formed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CDCR replaces California’s Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, which oversaw the CYA, now referred to as the Division of Juvenile Justice; the California Department of Corrections, now referred to as Adult Operations and Adult Programs; the Board of Prison Terms, now referred to as the Board of Parole Hearings; and the Board of Corrections, now referred to as the Corrections Standards Authority. The duties of the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority were merged with the Board of Parole Hearings. Other divisions have maintained their names.

hist

or

y o

f rest

or

at

ive ju

stic

e �

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

encing, victim impact panels, victim-offender mediation, restitution/community service, peer mediation/conflict resolution, and teen/youth court are among the BARJ practices that have been identified by OJJDP.

Formed in August 2000, the Probation Services Task Force undertook a com-prehensive examination of probation in California and published a report in 2003. The report details the task force’s examination, summarizes input from stakehold-ers around the state, and makes recommendations focused on improving proba-tion in California. One of the 17 recommendations advanced by the report was that probation departments adopt a restorative justice approach. The report spe-cifically recommended that “probation departments … consider an approach to probation that balances offender accountability, victim restoration, competency development, and community collaboration.”14 This recommendation reiterated the recommendation from the 1996 Task Force on Juvenile Crime and the Juve-nile Justice Response for the state of California.

The BARJ philosophy continues to be recommended by advisory com-mittees and landmark publications in the state and nationwide. The recom-mendations of the 2005 benchbook publication of best practices for juvenile delinquency courts, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, encompass the restorative justice philosophy in the first chapter, “Foundations for a Juvenile Delinquency Court of Excellence.” The report states:

A juvenile delinquency court goal statement should include some aspect of all of the following components:

The goals of the Juvenile Delinquency Court are to:

Increase safety in communities by supporting and implementing both effec-tive delinquency prevention strategies as well as a continuum of effective and least intrusive responses to reduce recidivism; Hold juvenile offenders accountable to their victims and community by en-forcing completion of restitution and community service requirements; Develop competent and productive citizens by advancing the responsible liv-ing skills of youth within the jurisdiction of the juvenile delinquency court.

The juvenile delinquency court cannot achieve these goals alone. These goals

14 Administrative Office of the Courts and California State Association of Counties, Probation Services Task Force, Final Report (2003), p. 96.

can only be achieved when the juvenile delinquency court collaborates with stakeholders in the community and other components of the juvenile justice system.15

Legislation, reports, publications, and localized efforts supporting restorative justice are influencing decisions and programs, but no statewide implementation of restorative justice principles has taken place to date.

tAking tHe next step

The California Community Justice Project (CCJP) of the Administrative Of-fice of the Courts was established in February 2004 with a mission to enhance awareness and understanding of community justice principles and practices in the state, to facilitate information sharing between existing community justice programs and start-up programs, and to facilitate the development of local practices consistent with community justice principles. CCJP is the first state project with the purpose of promoting community justice principles and practices.

In 2002 the Administrative Office of the Courts set out to determine the prevalence of restorative justice practices in California and to document some innovations in restorative practices used throughout the state in the criminal and delinquency areas. The survey results are in the final section of this publi-cation and have been provided to the National BARJ Project to further assess the effectiveness of BARJ programs in California and throughout the country. One intention of the survey was to aid the BARJ Project in locating programs to study.

Considerable efforts have been made to make balanced and restorative jus-tice part of the juvenile courts’ response to crime, but previously no inquiry had been made to determine how many programs exist and which practices are most popular in the state. This survey has created a snapshot of restorative practices in California; it is in no way an evaluation of the programs described.

It is hoped that this publication will illustrate BARJ programs in California to provide an understanding of program innovations and to serve as a blueprint for the development of other BARJ programs, encouraging replication for other jurisdictions.

15 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases (2005), pp. 22–23; original notation removed.

TA

KIN

G T

HE N

Ex

T ST

EP

��

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

wHAt is restorAtive Justice?

Restorative justice is not a program, but a practiced theory that can be viewed as a continuum, with certain practices being more restorative than others.16 Restor-ative justice theory is a principle-driven philosophical framework focused on the beliefs that crime harms people and that justice, in turn, should facilitate healing. Restorative justice is a collaborative process in which all stakeholders are offered an opportunity to have a voice in the justice system and are empowered to ensure that their needs are met. Victims, communities, and offenders have the oppor-tunity to come to the table, create solutions that meet their needs, and make reparations for the harm resulting from crime. This collaborative process is ideal for determining reparation, which is often relevant to the offense. Programs or practices that allow for dialogue among victims, offenders, and others impacted by crime are at the more fully restorative end of the continuum; these victim- offender dialogue models are being labeled as promising and best practices.

BARJ principles center around the core philosophy that individuals and com-munities are bound by mutual support and obligation. Programs following BARJ principles require an offender to restore the victim and the community, to the extent possible, to the state of well-being that existed before the offense. In a BARJ approach,

equal weight is given to ensuring community safety, holding offenders accountable to victims, and providing competency development for

offenders. In practice, the programs often involve empowering vic-tims to speak, enabling offenders to make amends to their victims and the community, and encouraging community involvement in public safety. Victims are always given the choice whether or not to participate without coercion. The figure on the next page shows that a balanced and restorative justice response exists when

the interests of the stakeholders overlap, with collective goals of ac-countability, community safety, and competency development.

In contrast to the criminal justice system’s external authority and focus on what laws were broken, who the offender is, and how the

offender should be punished, restorative justice invites those impacted by the offense to come together to determine what harm resulted, how steps can be taken toward resolving the situation, and who is responsible.18 This is a process that must balance the needs of the community, the victim, and the offender. The BARJ philosophy also pays equal attention to community safety, offender ac-

Restorative justice

requires at minimum that we

address victims’ harms and needs,

hold offenders accountable to put

right those harms, and involve victims,

offenders, and communities

in this process.17

16 P. McCold and T. Watchtel, In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice, paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Criminology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (August 10–15, 2003).

17 H. Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Intercourse, Penn.: Good Books, 2002), p. 25.18 H. Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (Scottsdale, Penn.: Herald

Press, 1990).

countability, and development of the offender’s ability to be an effective member of the community (competency development).

Empirical research on restorative practices that provide for dialogue be-tween victim and offender shows that such practices have positive outcomes. Restorative practices improve victim and offender satisfaction with both the criminal justice system and the program that gave them an opportunity for

Encourage involvement and seek collaboration

Offenders who enter the justice system should be more capable when they leave than when they entered

Expect active involvement to achieve accountability to the victim and community. Community integration encourages and supports skill development so that offenders become productive and law abiding citizens

An offender incurs an obligation to individual victims and the

community

Support to become involved to the desired degree to have needs met and losses restored

The justice system has a responsibility to protect the community from offenders in the system

WH

AT

IS REST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E?

��

accountabi l i t y

co

mp

ete

ncy

develo

pm

en

t

Justice System

Community

com

munit

y sa

fety

BARJ

Victim Offender

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

dialogue. Participants regard the process and agreement as fair, restitution is completed at a higher rate, and the BARJ models are at least as effective in re-ducing recidivism as traditional probation while offering considerable promise for cost reduction and containment.19

generAl implementAtion oF restorAtive Justice

In the following pages, numerous programs based on restorative justice principles and practices are described. The degree to which each program is restorative var-ies, and programs in each community reflect the community’s unique strengths and needs. Programs are highlighted to give the reader an understanding of suc-cesses and to help readers considering implementation of restorative practices to determine which practices would fit best in their communities. Note that many counties have multiple programs and practices; having a series or a continuum of restorative justice programs or practices may best meet a community’s diverse needs.

The cornerstone of restorative justice implementation is the involvement of community stakeholders in the process of creating restorative justice practices and ways of responding to crime. Professionals will need to re-evaluate continually who the stakeholders in the process are. In addition to the many professionals

who work with those who commit criminal acts, victims, former offenders, and community members are all important stakeholders with unique

perspectives. Programs that empower victims of crime and include them in the process have experienced greater success than those that do not.20 Including critics and skeptics is also crucial to program success because they will more readily identify where the program is falling short of meeting community needs.

Restorative justice is often misunderstood as a program that will come and go as many other programs do. Professionals may

find it challenging to devote the time necessary to understand restor-ative justice theory. The concepts of restorative justice are not new, and

practicing it does not necessarily mean creating something new. In many cases restorative practices already exist in communities but are not labeled as such. A familiar response when people learn about restorative justice is “This is common

19 M. S. Umbreit, R. B. Coates, and B. Vos, “Victim-Offender Mediation: Three Decades of Practice and Research” (2004) 22(1–2) Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Special Conflict Resolution in the Field: Assessing the Past, Charting the Future 279–303.

20 See generally M. S. Umbeit, “Restorative Justice: Intervention’s Impact Varies; Manner of Implementation Critical” (May/June 1997) 1(2) The Crime Victim’s Report 19–20, 2(4) The Crime Victim’s Report 51–52.

The cornerstone

of restorative justice

implementation is the involvement

of community stakeholders in the

process of creating restorative

justice practices and ways of

responding to crime.

sense!” Conversely, there is the risk of labeling a program as restorative when it is not. The understanding of restorative justice requires a paradigm shift away from the way we typically respond to crime, rule breaking, and wrongdoing, toward an approach that empowers those impacted to work for accountability, competency development, and community safety. Restorative justice practices are participa-tory; they bring together key stakeholders with professionals in a shared decision-making forum. These practices harness the strengths of those involved.

A restorative response to crime does not necessarily require a program; the absence of one does not preclude a county, an organization, or an individual from having a response based in the restorative justice philosophy. If we are inclusive, opening the doors for collaboration, and if we are mindful of the needs of victims and communities as they define those needs while focusing on holding offenders accountable to those most affected and remaining aware of both immediate and long-term community safety concerns, a restorative response will emerge.

nonprogrAmmAtic restorAtive eFForts

Although the 2002 survey and this publication are focused on restorative justice programs, restorative justice is not a “program” per se but a philosophical ap-proach that stakeholders can use to improve outcomes for all parties involved in the criminal justice system. Several counties provided unsolicited responses about how the county uses BARJ to help guide daily decisions.

Amador County’s adult and juvenile services are geared toward achieving the BARJ goals: providing safety to the community, accountability, and competency develop-ment to the offender. The BARJ concept guides decisions even though the county does not have many specific programs because of a lack of staffing and funding.

Fresno County, seen as a leader in restorative justice, operates a number of programs specifically labeled as BARJ programs, but the philosophy is incor-porated into other areas as well. Like many California counties, Fresno County has a victim witness program that carries out the BARJ philosophy by working to empower victims, aiding victims to create impact statements, and educating offenders and community about the effect crime has on victims. Another pro-gram in Fresno County, Students Targeted with Opportunities for Prevention (STOP), is a collaborative program run in seven communities by Probation Services. The STOP program has a specialized conflict resolution component that uses traditional restorative justice practices to resolve transgressions. Par-ticipants receive mentoring, tutoring, and counseling as needed. Interactive

A familiar response when people learn about restorative justice is

“This is common sense!”

NO

NPR

OG

RA

MM

AT

IC R

EST

OR

AT

I�E E

FFOR

TS

��

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

theatrical productions are also used to support restorative justice practices and to educate about issues related to crime and its impact.

Other counties reported partnering efforts with community-based organiza-tions that involved community service, service learning projects, and events to increase awareness of the effects of crime.

BARJ philosophy can be used to guide daily decisions. Any process, program, or activity can be restorative if it is value-based, stakeholder-focused, and aimed at the three goals of community protection, competency development, and ac-countability. To help in evaluating compliance with BARJ principles, consider the following five questions.21

Does the process, program, or activity show equal concern for victims, of-fenders, and community? Does the process, program, or activity encourage offender accountability to repair the harm caused to the victim, community, and family and focus on the repair rather than on punishment? Does the process, program, or activity provide opportunities for dialogue, di-rect or indirect, among the stakeholders? Does the process, program, or activity encourage collaboration, power sharing, and reintegration rather than isolation or silo building—meaning segregating the stakeholders and reducing communication between partners? Does the process, program, or activity involve and empower the affected com-munity, increasing its capacity to recognize and respond to harm and crime for all community members?

Many more BARJ-based initiatives undoubtedly exist in California. The ways in which BARJ philosophy impacts the daily decisions of individuals and organiza-tions or agencies is difficult to capture in a survey. In addition, the survey did not explicitly solicit responses in relation to nonprogrammatic restorative efforts.

The following sections will describe promising programs and practices and ex-amples of various California BARJ programs. The programs that are highlighted were selected from those identified and described by respondents to the BARJ survey. The results of the survey by no means encompass all BARJ programs and practices in California. Survey results are simply a snapshot of the information provided to us. It is hoped that these fact sheets and examples will increase the reader’s understanding of restorative justice in its many forms and will aid coun-ties wishing to develop or expand restorative justice efforts.

21 Dr. D. Bell, Manager of Programs, Prevention, BARJ, and Community Corrections, Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, “Restorative Justice: What Works and Why,” address to the Restorative Justice Symposium, Beyond the Bench Conference, San Jose, December 8, 2004.

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

Promising Practices and California Examples

FTER A SERIES OF SYMPOSIA hosted across the country in 1997 and 1998 by the National Institute of Justice, the Office for Victims of Crime, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Bureau of

Justice Assistance, and the National Institute of Corrections, the Office of Justice Programs compiled a resource notebook filled with articles, perspectives, descriptions, and examples of restorative justice as it is practiced. The Restorative Justice Fact Sheets that follow, originally published by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. De-partment of Justice, were a product of the series of symposia. These fact sheets on promising restorative justice–based programs were created through a partnership of the Office of Justice Programs, the National Institute of Justice, the Office for Vic-tims of Crime, the National Institute of Corrections, and the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention, all within the U.S. Department of Justice.22

Model Programs

Many of the promising practices were later deemed model programs by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Model programs are evidence-based programs that have scientifically validated outcomes. The model programs addressing immediate sanctions generally support the restorative justice philosophy. The following fact sheets on OJJDP-recognized model programs were originally published by the National Institute of Justice as promising practices.

22 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/rest-just/ (accessed February 21, 2006).

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

FAct sHeet: FAmily group conFerencing

Family group conferencing involves the community of people most affected by the crime—the victim and the offender; and the family, friends, and key supporters of both—in deciding the resolution of a criminal incident. These affected parties are brought together by a trained facilitator to discuss how they and others have been harmed by the offense and how that harm might be repaired. To participate, the offender must admit to the offense. Participation by all involved is voluntary. The facilitator contacts the victim and offender to explain the process and invites them to the conference; the facilitator also asks them to identify key members of their support systems, who will be invited to participate as well.

The conference typically begins with the offender describing the inci-dent, followed by each participant describing the impact of the incident on his or her life. It is preferable to allow the victim to start the discus-sion, if they wish. Through these narrations, the offender is faced with the human impact of the behavior on the victim, on those close to the victim, and on the offender’s own family and friends. The victim has the opportunity to express feelings and ask questions about the incident. Af-ter a thorough discussion of the impact of the behavior on those present, the victim is asked to identify desired outcomes from the conference, and thus help to shape the obligations that will be placed on the offender. All participants may contribute to the problem-solving process of determin-ing how the offender might best repair the harm he or she has caused. The session ends with participants signing an agreement outlining their expectations and commitments.

Family group conferencing was developed from a Maori tradition in New Zealand, where it is currently used for most juvenile offenses. The process was adapted by police in Australia, and then introduced to the United States, where it is currently used by some police agencies, schools, and probation. Family group conferencing is most often used as a diversion from the court process for juveniles, but can be used after adjudication to address unresolved emotional issues or to determine the specific terms of restitution. The process has been used in a few adult cases. A variety of offenses have been resolved through family group conferencing, including theft, arson, minor assaults, drug offenses, and vandalism.

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

Goals

The goals of family group conferencing include:

Provide an opportunity for the victim to be directly involved in the discus-sion of the offense and in decisions regarding appropriate sanctions to be placed on the offender. Increase the offender’s awareness of the human impact of his or her behav-ior and provide an opportunity to take full responsibility for it. Engage the collective responsibility of the offender’s support system for making amends and shaping the offender’s future behavior. Allow both offender and victim to reconnect to key community support systems.

Implementation

The family group conferencing process has been implemented in schools, po-lice departments, probation offices, and neighborhood groups. Either volun-teers or paid employees can serve as facilitators after completing a required course of skills training. Besides involving the victim, offender, and their fam-ily members, a conference might involve other key people in the victim’s and offender’s lives such as teachers, other relatives, peers and spe-cial adult friends, and the like. Some family group conferencing programs are implemented within a single agency, while oth-ers are developed collaboratively among several agencies.

Lessons Learned

To date, two studies have been conducted to assess the im-pact of family group conferencing with youthful offenders. One study assessed the impact of a new law mandating the widespread use of conferencing in New Zealand. It found that families of offenders are more frequently and actively involved in the justice process when they participate in a family group conference, rather than standard justice processes (Maxwell and Morris, 1993). It also found that the offenders and victims, as well as their families, reported that the confer-ence process had been helpful. Preliminary program evaluations in the United States also indicate high levels of victim satisfaction with the family group conferencing process and high rates of compliance by offenders with the agreements reached during conferences.

Preliminary

program evaluations in

the United States also indicate

high levels of victim satisfaction

with the family group conferencing

process and high rates of compliance

by offenders with the agreements

reached during conferences.

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Practitioners observe a reduction in fear for many victims. When used as a diversion from court, family group conferencing provides a much speedier resolution of the incident than would otherwise be the case. Family group conferencing also builds community skills in conflict resolution and participa-tory decisionmaking.

For More Information

For more information about family group conferencing, contact:

David Hines, Woodbury Police Department, 2100 Radio Drive, Wood-bury, MN 55125-9598, 612-739-4141. Carver Scott Educational Cooperative, 401 East 4th Street, Chaska, MN 55318, 612-368-8804. Kay Pranis or Sue Stacey, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN 55108, 612-642-0329 or 612-642-0338. Real Justice, P.O. Box 229, Bethlehem, PA 18016, 610-807-9221.

Originally published by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

FAct sHeet: victim-oFFender mediAtion

Victim offender mediation is a process that provides interested victims an opportunity to meet their offender, in a safe and structured setting, and engage in a mediated discussion of the crime. With the assistance of a trained mediator, the victim is able to tell the offender about the crime’s physical, emotional, and financial impact; to receive answers to lingering questions about the crime and the offender; and to be directly involved in developing a restitution plan for the offender to pay back his or her financial debt.

This process is different from mediation as it is practiced in civil or commercial disputes, since the involved parties are not “disputants” nor of similar status—with one an admitted offender and the other the victim. Also, the process is not primarily focused upon reaching a settlement, al-though most sessions do, in fact, result in a signed restitution agreement. Because of these fundamental differences with standard mediation prac-tices, some programs call the process a victim offender “dialogue,” “meet-ing,” or “conference.”

Currently, there are more than 290 victim offender mediation programs in the United States and more than 500 in Europe. The American Bar Asso-ciation recently endorsed victim offender mediation and recommends its use throughout the country. A recent statewide survey of victim service providers in Minnesota found that 91 percent of those surveyed believe that victim of-fender mediation should be available in every judicial district, since it repre-sents an important victim service.

Goals

The goals of victim offender mediation include:

Support the healing process of victims, by providing a safe and controlled setting for them to meet and speak with the offender on a strictly volun-tary basis. Allow the offender to learn about the impact of the crime on the victim and to take direct responsibility for their behavior. Provide an opportunity for the victim and offender to develop a mutually acceptable plan that addresses the harm caused by the crime.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Implementation

Cases may be referred to victim offender mediation programs by judges, proba-tion officers, victim advocates, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and police. In some programs, cases are primarily referred as a diversion from prosecution, assuming any agreement reached during the mediation session is successfully completed. In other programs, cases are usually referred after a formal admission of guilt has been accepted by the court, with mediation being a condition of probation (if the victim has volunteered to participate). Some programs receive case referrals at both stages. The majority of mediation sessions involve juvenile offenders, although the process is occasionally used with adults and even in very serious violent cases

In implementing any victim offender mediation program, it is critically important to maintain sensitivity to the needs of the victim. First and fore-most, the mediator must do everything possible to ensure that the victim will not be harmed in any way. Additionally, the victim’s participation must be completely voluntary, as should the participation of the offender. The victim should also be given choices, whenever possible, concerning decisions such as when and where the mediation session will take place, who will be pres-ent, who will speak first, etc. Cases should be carefully screened regarding the readiness of both victim and offender to participate. The mediator should conduct in person, pre-mediation sessions with both parties and make follow-up contacts, including the monitoring of any agreement reached.

Lessons Learned

A large multi-site study (Umbreit, 1994) of victim offender mediation pro-grams with juvenile offenders found the following:

3,142 cases were referred to the four study-site programs during a two-year period, with 95 percent of the mediation sessions resulting in a successfully negotiated restitution agreement to restore the victim’s fi-nancial losses. Victims who met with their offender in the presence of a trained mediator were more likely to be satisfied (79 percent) with the justice system than similar victims who went through the normal court process (57 percent). After meeting the offender, victims were significantly less fearful of being revictimized. Offenders who met with their victims were far more likely to successfully complete their restitution obligation (81 percent) than similar offenders who did not participate in mediation (58 percent).

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S �

�

Fewer offenders who participated in victim offender mediation recidi-vated (18 percent) than similar offenders who did not participate in media-tion (27 percent); furthermore, participating offenders’ subsequent crimes tended to be less serious.


For additional information, contact Dr. Mark Umbreit, Center for Restor-ative Justice and Mediation, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, 386 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, 612-624-4923.

Originally published by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Depart-ment of Justice

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

mediAtion or conFerencing

Victim-offender mediation, victim-offender conferencing, family group confer-encing, restorative group conferencing, community justice conferencing, and victim-offender reconciliation programs are in many ways very similar in that they all provide a forum for dialogue between a victim and an offender. These dialogue models were labeled mediation or conferencing models for the pur-poses of the survey. Both victim-offender mediation and family group con-ferencing have been identified as model programs by the OJJDP. There are at least 25 programs that provide a forum for victim-offender dialogue in the state. In 1998, Senate Bill 2074 amended the California Welfare and Institutions Code to include language directing probation officers to inform the victim or victims of an offense involving a juvenile offender of any victim-offender conferencing program providing this service in the area.

Unfortunately, because probation officers are busy and face increasing case-loads and a lack of resources, they have not received adequate, specific training about conferencing practices and resulting positive outcomes for both juvenile of-fenders and victims of crime. Therefore, few victims are referred to these services.

Examples of the mediation or conferencing approach follow.

Victim Offender Reconciliation Program

Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) of Fresno County has been mediating with offenders and victims since 1982. VORP has been instrumental in assisting the probation department in the collection of direct victim and state fund restitution payments.

Referrals typically come to VORP from the Fresno County juvenile proba-tion department and court. Youth may be referred at any time during the course of their journey through the juvenile justice system. VORP does not discriminate based on race, creed, color, gender, or sexual preference. Referrals are based on four criteria: (1) the offender acknowledges involvement in the offense; (2) vic-tim restitution has been ordered; (3) there is a clearly identifiable victim; and (4) trained volunteer mediators and staff are available to manage each referral to completion.

Restorative Conferencing and Family Group Conferencing

In Sonoma County, the probation department contracts with a community non-profit, Restorative Resources, for restorative conferencing services. In a restorative conference or family group conference, the juvenile offender, his or her family, the victim with his or her support people, and a law enforcement official meet to decide how the youth can be held accountable and take responsibility for his or

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S �

�

her behavior. The focus is on putting things right, not punishment. Cases include diversion and preadjudication cases, and offenses range from assault to burglary. Similar programs are used in Sonoma County for child welfare cases. Families are empowered to participate actively in decisions about their children’s care and protection needs. Through this participatory process, families work together with family, youth, and children’s service providers on concerns such as reunification and placement. Restorative Resources has trained coordinators to organize and facilitate both these types of meetings. The nonprofit is the lead agency of five youth agencies in Sonoma County implementing restorative conferencing. In a fact sheet that Restorative Resources developed in December 2004, the following outcomes were noted:

More than 90 percent of victims were satisfied with the process. Nine coordinators were running conferences. More than 320 restorative conferences had taken place. Under the nonprofit’s state grant, 91 percent of cases were completed; only 9 percent of cases were unsuccessful. Ninety percent of restitution agreed on had been paid to victims. More than $117,600 in restitution had been collected. More than 7,400 hours of community service had been completed. Thirty-five high-level felony cases from the courts (involving offenses such as home burglary, arson, and use of explosives) had been handled, with only 10 percent of the offenders repeating offenses. Ninety percent of these youth had completed their plans and did not repeat offenses. Referrals came from the court, the probation department, the police depart-ment, the county sheriff’s department, schools, and community-based orga-nizations. Youth quote: “After doing my plan, I became friends with the person I had stolen from.” Victim quote: “Through this process, I no longer feel like a victim.” Parent quote: “My son has come to realize the importance of career goals. He argues much less frequently with me, and is more responsible around the house; he participates more in the family.”

Shoplifter Accountability Workshop

The Shoplifter Accountability Workshop in Napa County provides victim-offender mediation for shoplifting offenses. Referrals originate both from the probation di-version program and from the policy youth diversion program and are limited to youth charged with shoplifting offenses only. Youth attend the 90-minute work-shop followed by two hours of community service. Attendance of one or both of

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

their parents at the workshop is mandatory. Youth are guided through a discus-sion of the factors that led to their shoplifting. Youth and parents are given an op-portunity to discuss the offense and the impact of the offense on their relationship. Finally, the youth are asked to name a personal value. Group discussion develops the ways in which criminal behavior undermines personal values, resulting in lowered self-esteem. Group discussion also develops ways in which youth can rebuild trust.

The last portion of the workshop session is a discussion of the impact of shoplifting on the community, followed by the opportunity for the youth to promise themselves, their parents, and the facilitators (as community representa-tives) never to shoplift again. Immediately following the workshop, the youth as a group perform two hours of community service in an effort to give back to the community that they have harmed.

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

FAct sHeet: victim impAct pAnels

Victim impact panels provide a forum for crime victims to tell a group of of-fenders about the impact of the crime on their lives and on the lives of their families, friends, and neighbors. Panels typically involve three or four victim speakers, each of whom spends about 15 minutes telling their story in a non-judgmental, non-blaming manner. The offenders of the victim presenters are not present. While some time is usually dedicated to questions and answers, the purpose of the panel is for the victims to speak, rather than for the victims and offenders to engage in a dialogue.

Victim impact panels were first initiated in 1982 by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In light of the devastating consequences of drunk driving on its victims and on society (causing over 17,000 deaths and more than one million injuries in 1995 alone), MADD felt that it was critical to change the generally accepted attitude that these incidents were “accidents” rather than crimes. They believed that a key component of changing attitudes was to confront drunk drivers with first-hand testimony from the victims of drunk driving crashes.

As a result of positive feedback from both victims and offenders who have participated in drunk driving panels, this strategy has been used with other crimes such as property crimes, physical assault, domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse, and homi-cide (the survivors serve as panelists). Attendance by offenders at a panel is often court-ordered in juvenile and criminal cases, either at diversion or accompanying a probation sentence. Pan-els have also been used in prison and jail settings, with parolees, and in treatment programs, defensive driving schools, and youth education programs. Additionally, victim impact panels are often presented at training forums for juvenile and criminal justice profession-als to help them better understand the scope and trauma of victimization.

Goals

The goals of victim impact panels are to:

Help offenders understand the impact of their crimes on victims and com-munities. Provide victims with a structured, positive outlet to share their personal experiences and to educate offenders, justice professionals, and others about the physical, emotional, and financial consequences of crime.

Victim impact

panels provide a

forum for crime victims to

tell a group of offenders about

the impact of the crime on their

lives and on the lives of their

families, friends, and

neighbors.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Build a partnership among victim service providers and justice agencies that can raise the individual and community awareness of the short- and long-term impacts of crime.

Implementation

Many criminal and juvenile justice agencies have institutionalized victim im-pact panels as a sentencing option. Victim service organizations either imple-ment the program for the court, or work in collaboration with justice per-sonnel to conduct panels. Whatever the structure, victim service agencies are usually best prepared to perform the critically important role of screening victims to ensure they are sufficiently healed from their victimization experi-ence not to be retraumatized by participating in the panel. Other implemen-tation tasks are to prepare the victims for participation, moderate the panels, gather participant feedback information, and provide records of participants and program activities to the sentencing authority.

Lessons Learned

A research study of victims speaking on victim impact panels to convicted drunk drivers found that 82 percent of victims who told their stories to of-fenders said that speaking aided them in their recovery (Mercer, 1995). Ten percent felt they were neither harmed nor helped by the experience, and eight percent said they felt the experience had been harmful to them.

Most offenders who complete evaluations after listening to a victim im-pact panel indicate that their experiences were positive and educational, and contributed to a change in their attitudes and perceptions about their crimes.


A comprehensive guidebook and educational videotape on how to imple-ment victim impact panels is available from the National Office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (1-800-438-6233). Additionally, the Office for Victims of Crime sponsors a regional training-for-trainers series conducted by MADD and the California Youth Authority on how to implement victim impact pan-els and awareness classes. For more information, please contact Regina So-bieski, MADD, 1-800-438-6233, ext. 261.


MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S �

�

victim impAct pAnels

Victim impact panels have been recognized as a model program by OJJDP. Vic-tim impact panels provide victims with a forum to confront offenders and to express themselves about the impact of crime. Only three county probation de-partments reported that victim impact panels were being used in their counties in response to the BARJ survey. Many more counties have victim impact panels run in coordination with victim advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). These programs may not be closely connected with probation, or the practice may be more institutionalized in some counties, with the result that probation departments may categorize victim impact panels as different from BARJ. Some victim impact panels are geared specifically toward drunk driving; others have expanded to address other crimes.

Examples of victim impact panel programs follow.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Orange County

The following example was not included in the survey results but provides an ex-cellent description of how victim impact panels in Orange County were formed and how they can be therapeutic for the victims who participate by working toward educating offenders about the impact of their actions.

MADD Orange County currently works with five courts for the Victim Impact Panels. Three Panels have been offered each month in English and one Panel in Spanish every other month.

The victim impact panel (VIP) is a term used to describe a meeting of driv-ers convicted of alcohol-related violations and/or crashes, hosted by victims of alcohol related incidents (people whose lives have been significantly affected by drunken driving crashes).

Whether a victim, or a family member of a victim, all volunteer speakers attend to educate possible repeat offenders. Their need to be there stems from a deep need to do something to help in the fight against drunk driving.

The audience generally consists of those who have already been sentenced and are currently attending the Panel as part of their probation. However, when there is room, guests are often present.

Those required to attend, but who have been listed as a “no show” and who are not complying with the court order, will have a notice of non-compliance posted. It is possible that a warrant for that individual’s arrest will be issued for failure to attend.

The effectiveness of the VIP is that most actions taken against the drunk driving offenders focus on punishment, consequently allowing the offender to perceive themselves as victims of police action. Offenders tend to rationalize

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

their arrest as bad luck, especially if they were not involved in a crash. In contrast to this attitude, the VIP exposes the DUI offender to the deep

grief of others hurt by such irresponsible driving. The goal is to change the at-titudes of those people who shield themselves from the hurt they have (or may have) caused.

Volunteer speakers usually consist of a police officer to introduce and con-clude the presentation, up to three victims and possibly one offender, all of whom are there to relate their experience. This is done in hopes of relating to the attendees their experiences in such a way as to give a clear understanding about the devastation of a crash involving themselves or a family member who was either killed or injured.

The Panel can be very therapeutic for the Panelists. Some come to the Panels even if they are not scheduled to speak to provide support to other Panelists. The Panel has become a way for some to work through their grief; for many it is one of the few places where they can talk about their loss. Many times their friends and family are tired of hearing about it. For those who have re-married, there are instances where the new spouse doesn’t wish to hear about the former spouse and/or children. Thus, the panel becomes an important pressure release valve.

The concept of the VIP is not for MADD to point fingers or to place blame, rather it is an effort to raise awareness and change the thinking and behavior of those present. The responses to the program have been varied and occasionally there is complete indifference. However, it is the many positive responses that continue to make the program worthwhile. And the knowledge that one more person has been saved as they stand up after what they have heard and emphati-cally state that they will never drink and drive again.23

The Victim Awareness program in Napa County has adapted the MADD model for youthful offenders. The presentations are conducted semiannually or quarterly to young offenders by victims of crime who volunteer as speakers. The goal is to increase young offenders’ awareness about the harm done to their victims and the community as well as the needs of the community and victims resulting from the crime.

San Luis Obispo’s victim impact panel program is run entirely by volunteers in the community.

23 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Orange County Chapter, “Victim Impact Panels: How They Help,” www.maddorangecounty.org/vippanels.htm (accessed February 20, 2006).

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

FAct sHeet: teen courts24

This model program, often referred to as peer, teen, or youth court, operates like a traditional criminal court with attorneys, judges, and juries, but peers fill the roles traditionally filled by adults. These peers also decide the outcome of a case. Communities vary in how they put the youth court model into practice, with some com-munities including adults in decision making. Youth are held accountable by their peers through sentencing options that are often innovative and creative.

Typical ways youth are held accountable include paying res-titution, performing community service, writing formal apologies, and serving on a subsequent teen court jury. Teen courts may also re-quire juvenile offenders to attend classes designed to improve their decision-making skills, develop victim awareness, or prevent them from participating in future criminal behavior.25

Goals

Teen courts have two goals: To determine a fair and appropriate disposition for a youth who has al-ready admitted to the charge against him or her To address needs of the victim and the community and to promote posi-tive youth development, all based on restorative justice principles

Implementation

Teen, youth, or peer courts have been implemented in schools, as diversionary programs. Either volunteers or paid employees can serve as facilitators. Four models are popular for teen courts: adult judge, youth judge, tribunal, and peer jury.26 The adult judge model has youth participating as attorneys, jurors,

Teen court

operates like a traditional

criminal court with attorneys,

judges, and juries, but peers

fill the roles traditionally

filled by adults.

24 This fact sheet has not been previously published and was not part of the Restorative Justice Fact Sheets originally published by the National Institute of Justice. It has been written to conform to the format NIJ used. The information contained in the fact sheet comes from the “OJJDP Online Model Programs Guide,” www.dsgonline.com/mpg_non_flash/teen_court.htm (accessed February 21, 2006).

25 J. Butts, and J. Buck, Teen Courts: A Focus on Research (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000).

26 T. Godwin, Peer Justice and Youth Empowerment: An Implementation Guide for Teen Court Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998).

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

clerks, and bailiffs, while an adult serves as the judge and rules over courtroom procedure. The youth judge model is similar to the adult judge model, but a youth fills the role of judge. In the tribunal model, youth attorneys present the case to three youth judges who determine how the offender will be held accountable and repair the harm done. The peer jury model uses either an adult or a youth to present the case to a youth jury; the youth jury may ques-tion the defendant and then determine the appropriate disposition. Some teen courts are implemented within a single agency, whereas others are developed collaboratively among several agencies.

Lessons Learned

The most recent evaluation of teen courts (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall, 2002) suggested that teen courts are a promising alternative for the juvenile justice system. The study used a quasi-experimental design to examine four teen court sites. The four sites reported relatively low recidivism rates. For two of the sites, youth who participated in teen courts were significantly less likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system for a new offense within six months of the original offense. For the other two sites, there was no sta-tistically significant difference. Additional evidence suggests that teen courts may provide further benefits for offending youth, such as a general satisfac-tion with the experience (McLeod, 1999; Swink, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998), improved attitudes toward authority (LoGalbo, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998), and greater knowledge of the legal system (LoGalbo, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998).27


J. Butts, J. Buck, and M. Coggeshall, The Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002).

The Urban Institute 2100 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 www.urban.org

OJJDP Model Programs Guide www.dsgonline.com/mpg_non_flash/teen_court.htm

27 “OJJDP Online Model Programs Guide,” www.dsgonline.com/mpg_non_flash/teen_court.htm (accessed February 21, 2006).

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

The National Youth Court Center, operated by the American Proba-tion and Parole Association, has developed a publication entitled “Peer Justice and Youth Empowerment: An Implementation Guide for Youth Courts.” To order this publication (free of charge), contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 1-800-638-8736 or download the publication at www.youthcourt.net/Publications/peer_justice.htm.

Collaborative Justice Project, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council of Cali-fornia, www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/collab/.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

peer courts

Peer courts are youth-focused, youth-driven courts where youth are trained to hear cases of minor law or school violations, listen to cases, and make decisions about the outcome. Peer courts, also called youth courts or teen courts, differ in terms of the role adults play. In most peer courts in California, youth sit on a jury or panel that questions the offender and determines the outcome of the case. Sentenced youth often must stipulate that they will participate as jurors or panelists for future cases that come before the peer court. The experience of being a juror, determin-ing how to bring justice to a criminal incident, gives the youth a new and often valuable perspective. Peer courts have been identified as a model program by the OJJDP, meaning that they have been empirically shown to be effective.

Peer courts empower youth by giving them the authority to hold their peers accountable for decisions they make. Youth court programs strive to bring an awareness of the current laws affecting youth and an understanding of the ju-venile justice system to participants. Youth courts are often used to divert par-ticipants from the formal court system by providing options to combat juvenile delinquency at its earliest stages. The programs’ goals are to promote feelings of self-worth and motivation for self-improvement and to foster a healthy attitude toward authority.

Examples of these courts follow.

Placer County Youth Court

Placer County Youth Court is a voluntary diversion program for students attend-ing Roosevelt High School who are first-time misdemeanor offenders. The pro-gram serves as an alternative to violation referrals from the Juvenile Intake Unit.

The Youth Court operates with the full authority of a court of law. The ba-sic difference is that Roosevelt High School students comprise the Youth Court, function primarily as a sentencing body, and do not de-termine guilt or innocence.

The juvenile court judge presides over the hearing with the probation officer stating the

facts of the offense from the law enforcement report. A school staff member is present in court and guides the jurors in their deliberation and sentencing of the defendant.

The jurors of the Youth Court are selected by school staff from students at Roosevelt High School who volunteer for the program. The student jurors receive training in how to ask questions of defendants and how to reach fair decisions regarding sentencing.

Once a probation officer has determined that it would be appropriate to con-

Peer courts empower youth by giving them the authority to

hold their peers accountable for decisions they make.

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S �

�

sider a minor for referral to the Youth Court, the minor and his or her parents or legal guardians are interviewed. The parents or legal guardians and the minor must agree not to contest the police report and must agree to be sentenced by a jury of the minor’s peers. If the minor fulfills the conditions of the Youth Court, does not re-offend before completing those conditions, and participates as a juror, the minor’s record pertaining to the matter is sealed. If the minor fails to comply with the aforementioned conditions, the minor is referred back to the probation officer for additional sanctions. The minor can be referred to the Youth Court only once.

Orange County Peer Court

Since 1994, Orange County Peer Court has been a low-cost alternative to the formal juvenile justice system. The program provides first-time offenders who have committed nonviolent misdemeanors with an opportunity to face the conse-quences of their actions. Peer Court is held two to three times a week after school on local high school campuses.

Each year, 240 youth appear at Peer Court sessions accompanied by a par-ent or guardian. A multi-lesson curriculum developed by the Orange County Department of Education integrates Peer Court into classroom instruction. Or-ange County Superior Court produced a video showcasing the Peer Court process, from arrest to sanctioning, which supplements the curriculum.

Peer Court is a juvenile diversion program operating under the authority of the Orange County Probation Department and Orange County Superior Court. To participate in Peer Court, juvenile offenders must admit their guilt and waive their right to confidentiality and attorney representation. During Peer Court hear-ings, juvenile offenders and their parents or guardians are questioned by student jurors and the judge about their cases. Student jurors then deliberate and select appropriate sanctions, which young offenders must complete within six months to ensure that charges will be dismissed. Juveniles who do not complete their or-dered sanctions are referred to the district attorney for formal prosecution.

Peer Court succeeds because of substantial support from judges, attorneys, probation officers, educators, students, and community members. Volunteers play an integral role in the Peer Court process.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

FAct sHeet: restitution

Criminal restitution is a process by which offenders are held accountable for the financial losses they have caused to the victims of their crimes. The res-titution payment is the sum of money paid by the offender to the victim to balance this monetary debt.

Without restitution, a victim may be financially devastated by the crime committed against them. A victim’s financial losses can also contribute to their experience of trauma and frustration with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. On the other hand, receiving a restitution payment can make a vic-tim feel that the justice system is working on their behalf to ensure they are justly compensated for their losses. Moreover, restitution, as a part of the sen-tence or a condition of community supervision, is an essential aspect of hold-ing offenders accountable for their crimes.

Restitution is considered to be a “core” victim right which is crucial to help victims reconstruct their lives in the aftermath of a crime. In recent years, restitution has been made mandatory for persons convicted of federal crimes. Additionally, 29 states require a court to order restitution to the victim or to state on the record the reasons for failing to do so (1996 Victims’ Rights Source-book, National Victim Center).

Goals

The goals of restitution are to:

Provide remuneration to victims who suffer financial losses as a result of crime. Such losses may include out-of-pocket expenses for medical or mental health treatment, property loss or damage, sexual assault examina-tions, HIV testing, participation in justice processes, and funeral costs. Hold offenders accountable for their actions, specifically those that cause financial harm to victims.

Implementation

Appropriate restitution orders are based on information provided by vic-tims to the court about out-of-pocket losses and information about offend-ers’ financial status and earning capacity. Victim input is usually gathered through either victim impact statements or pre-sentence investigations. Victims often need assistance to prepare complete, accurate documentation of their immediate and projected financial losses resulting from the crime. Such assistance can be provided by victim advocates, prosecution staff, or

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

probation/parole personnel. Justice agencies also need to conduct compre-hensive assessments of convicted offenders’ assets and ability to pay, both immediate and long-term.

The ordering, collecting, and disbursing of restitution require strong col-laborative efforts among many justice agencies. Justice officials need to prac-tice “due diligence” in seeking court- or parole-ordered restitution payments from offenders. Records of restitution judgments should be incorporated into offenders’ case files at the court, probation, incarceration/detention, and pa-role stages of the criminal and juvenile justice processes. Victims should be advised of the types of remedies the system can pursue when offenders fail to comply with restitution orders, which include, but are not limited to, convert-ing restitution orders to civil judgments, extending the terms of probation/parole until restitution is paid, asset forfeiture, garnishment or attachment, income withholding orders, revocation of the offender’s driver’s license, and revocation of probation/parole, in some cases.

Lessons Learned

A study involving 6,336 formal juvenile probation cases in Utah, conducted by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, found the use of restitution associ-ated with significant reductions in recidivism among certain juvenile offend-ers. Juveniles agreeing to pay restitution as an informal disposition, as well as those formally ordered to pay restitution, returned to court significantly less often than juveniles who did not pay restitution (OJJDP, 1992).

Other studies have identified restitution as one of the most significant factors related to victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process (Amer-ican Bar Association, Improving Enforcement of Court-Ordered Restitu-tion, 1989).


A bulletin entitled Restitution Reform: A Coordinated Interagency Approach is available from the Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center by calling 1-800-627-6872. You may also contact William Brantley at the Office for Vic-tims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice, at 202-307-5983.


��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

restitution collection

Restitution collection is a process through which offenders are held accountable for the financial losses of their victims resulting from the offenders’ crimes. A probation officer or the court most often collects restitution from an offender and then repays victims. Restitution was identified as a promising practice for imme-diate sanctioning of juvenile offenders by the OJJDP. Sixteen counties reported the existence of a restorative restitution program. However, restitution exists in all 58 counties to some degree, and restitution programs always fall somewhere on the restorative continuum because such programs require offenders to make up, at the very least, some of their victims’ financial losses. In this way offenders are held at least partly accountable for harm imposed on crime victims.

Recently more attention has been paid to restitution, and it is commonly being ordered and enforced. The importance of restitution should be stressed by those supervising youth with outstanding restitution payments because restitu-tion is a practical way to hold offenders accountable to their victims.

MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S �

�

FAct sHeet: community service

Community service is work performed by an offender for the benefit of the community as a formal or informal sanction. Just as neighborhoods and com-munities are harmed by criminal and delinquent activities, they can be at least partially restored by meaningful service that contributes to their improvement. Community service offers one way an offender can be held accountable to repair some of the harm caused by his or her criminal actions.

Community service is effectively used in all 50 states and at the federal level as a component of criminal sentences and ju-venile adjudications involving diversion, probation, and parole. Restorative justice practices in institutions are also beginning to incorporate community service sanctions for infractions that have a detrimental impact on the “community” of a prison or detention center.

Goals

The goals of community service are to:

Hold offenders accountable for the harm they have caused to the com-munity. Provide communities with human resources that can improve the quality of life in public environments, business, and even individual residences. Help offenders develop new skills through supervised work activities. Allow victims a voice and occasionally some direct benefit by recommend-ing the type of community service performed.

Implementation

Successful community service programs require a true public-private partner-ship. Residents in a community can enhance efforts of the criminal and juve-nile justice systems by providing meaningful work experiences, volunteering to supervise offenders sentenced to community service, and serving as men-tors for adjudicated youth in community service capacities. Examples of com-munity service include public work programs that beautify a community’s en-vironment such as park and roadside clean-up efforts or graffiti removal. Truly restorative community service offers crime victims the opportunity to provide input into the types of community service they would like to see the offender perform, including activities that directly benefit the victim or a charity or project of the victim’s choice. Community service can also benefit victim ser-

Community

service offers one

way an offender can be

held accountable to repair

some of the harm caused

by his or her criminal

actions.

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

vice organizations, for example, by providing bookkeeping services to a rape crisis center or other valuable support, as described in the example below.

Lessons Learned

Adult and juvenile offenders, under the supervision of the Department of Community Corrections in Deschutes County, Oregon, have accomplished a number of human service and public works tasks, including the construction of a homeless shelter and domestic abuse crisis center. Offenders raised the money to pay for the building materials, as well as provided the construction labor. This type of community service provides offenders an opportunity for skill development and interaction with positive role models, as well as learning about the needs of others and helping to create something of lasting benefit to the community.


For more information, contact Dennis Maloney, Deschutes County Depart-ment of Community Justice, 1128 NW Harriman Avenue, Bend, OR 97701, 541-388-6673.


MO

DEL P

RO

GR

AM

S ��

community service

Community service programs vary widely in how restorative they truly are. Of-fenders can be held accountable through the community service they complete if the service matches the type of offense committed, such as graffiti removal for youth who have damaged public property, or if the service complies with a victim’s preference, such as working for a nonprofit that the victim supports. Providing service or assistance to an organization that the victim values can be a step toward repairing the harm that the victim has suffered. Community service can also develop competencies in offenders by giving them employment skills that they otherwise would not have, such as landscaping for parks or construction and carpentry skills that may be developed by work for nonprofits such as those that build houses for economically disadvantaged citizens. The service provided can also repair the relationship between the community and the offender; both the community and the offender come to realize that the offender can be a contributing member of the community.

Restorative community service should focus on the offender’s strengths and interests and consider how the service relates to the offense. Advocates of restorative community service be-lieve that when community service provides opportunities for young people to develop positive relationships with commu-nity members and provides a meaningful experience, youth will be less likely to offend in the future. If the experience is positive, youth may continue to contribute to the organization beyond the requirements of the sanction.

Community service is integral to many programs in California counties. The practice often does not stand alone but is incorporated into the terms of most informal or formal probation and parole cases.

Examples of community service programs follow.

Humboldt County Juvenile Assigned Work Service Program

The Humboldt County Juvenile Assigned Work Service (JAWS) Program, admin-istered by the Humboldt County Probation Department, is designed to provide a meaningful yet cost-effective dispositional alternative to incarceration as well as to serve as a rehabilitative sanction for delinquent behavior. The program requires that a juvenile, in response to a specific court order or at the direction of an as-signed probation officer, participate in supervised community service work in lieu of incarceration or imposed fines or as a condition of probation. The target population includes wards of the juvenile court, as defined in Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as well as youth who are being monitored by the department as part of diversion or informal probation. Program participants, both

Offenders can be

held accountable through the

community service they complete if

the service matches the type of offense

committed, such as graffiti removal

for youth who have damaged public

property, or if the service complies

with a victim’s preference.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

male and female youthful offenders 13 to 18 years of age, take part in 10-member work crews performing community service work on Saturdays and Sundays or on other days as directed by program staff.

Program participants are specifically instructed by program staff in the proper use of tools, tasks to be accomplished, and expected behavior. Participants are required to meet each assigned workday at the Juvenile Hall, where they are trans-ported to and from designated worksites in a county vehicle. The work service program is successfully completed when a youth meets the standards of the pro-gram for the number of assigned days specified by the court or probation officer.

Graffiti Abatement

The Graffiti Abatement Program in Fresno County is a partnership with the City of Fresno to provide clean-up services and graffiti eradication. Youth are referred to this community service as part of the Probation Department’s early interven-tion strategies. This partnership between the Fresno County Probation Depart-ment and the Office of the Mayor, with the full support of the Fresno City Coun-cil, is a program that imposes realistic and immediate consequences for crimes by juveniles that degrade the visual appearance of the City of Fresno, affecting the quality of life in the city.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

Additional Promising Practices

The following practices have not yet had their outcomes validated but are still re-garded as promising practices. The fact sheets about these practices were originally published by the National Institute of Justice.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

FAct sHeet: community restorAtive boArds

There is a rapidly growing interest among many criminal justice agencies, communities, and citizens in community members becoming substantively

involved in the justice process. One strategy for achieving this is through the establishment of community reparation boards.

A community restorative board typically is composed of a small group of citizens, prepared for this function by intensive training, who conduct public, face-to-face meetings with of-fenders sentenced by the court to participate in the process. During a meeting, board members discuss with the offender the nature of the offense and its negative consequences. Then

board members develop a set of proposed sanctions which they discuss with the offender, until they reach agreement on the spe-

cific actions the offender will take within a given time period to make reparation for the crime. Subsequently, the offender must docu-

ment his or her progress in fulfilling the terms of the agreement. After the stipulated period of time has passed, the board submits a report to the court on the offender’s compliance with the agreed upon sanctions. At this point, the board’s involvement with the offender is ended.

One innovative example of the use of community reparation boards is the Reparative Probation Program, initiated in 1996 by the Vermont Depart-ment of Corrections with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The department was spurred to develop the program after seeing the response of Vermont citizens to a public opinion study, conducted in Spring 1994, which indicated broad support for programs with a reparative emphasis and active community involvement.

Goals

The goals of community restorative boards include:

Promote citizen ownership of the criminal justice system by involving them directly in the justice process. Provide opportunities for victims and community members to confront offenders in a constructive manner about their behavior. Provide opportunities for offenders to take personal responsibility and be held directly accountable for the harm they caused to victims and communities. Generate meaningful “community-driven” consequences for criminal ac-tions that reduce a costly reliance on formal criminal justice processing.

A community

restorative board

typically is composed of a

small group of citizens, prepared

for this function by intensive

training, who conduct public,

face-to-face meetings

with offenders.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

Implementation

Community reparation boards have primarily been used with offenders con-victed of non-violent and minor offenses. Involving community members in the process of dealing with serious offenders can also be effective, however, as demonstrated in the sentencing circles conducted in Western Canada. Based on the experience of the Vermont program, the following factors have been identified as important elements of implementing a successful community-driven reparation board program:

Marketing the program effectively to the criminal justice system (to judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys). Having a committed, well trained staff. Working with victim organizations, and ensuring that victims are repre-sented and provided adequate opportunity to participate. Processing cases expeditiously and in a manner that is simple for commu-nity members to understand. Facilitating a positive experience for the board members. Providing quality training for the boards. Supporting the program with adequate resources (e.g., space, time, and staff). Striving for initial successes for offenders, victims, and community par-ticipants. Getting support from judges in limiting the time the offender is in the program and on probation.

Lessons Learned

Little quantitative data has been collected on the effectiveness of commu-nity reparation boards. There is a growing concern and understanding that evaluations of these interventions consider measures besides the standard offender-focused measure of recidivism. Measures should include victim and community responsiveness and satisfaction, as well as factors such as com-munity beautification and indicators of healthy citizen relationships within the community. At this point, experiential and anecdotal information show much promise for community reparative boards as an effective response to non-violent crime.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE


More information on Community Reparation Boards can be obtained from the following: Vermont Department of Corrections, 103 S. Main Street, Wa-terbury, VT 05671, 802-241-2270; the National Institute of Corrections In-formation Center, 1960 Industrial Circle, Longmont, CO 80501, 1-800-995-6429; Restoring Hope Through Community Partnerships, American Probation and Parole Association, c/o Council of State Governments, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910, 606-244-8196.


restorAtive Justice boArds

In 2002, 13 respondent counties in California identified boards as part of their restorative justice programs. The names may differ across counties, but many re-storative justice boards share basic characteristics. Examples of board programs identified by respondents are youth accountability boards, juvenile accountability boards, parent accountability boards, community accountability boards, commu-nity diversion panels, and community correction centers. The common charac-teristic of restorative justice boards is that they actively involve community mem-bers in the justice process, devolving authority from justice professionals to the citizens of the community in order for them to determine how the offender can take steps to repair the harm done by crime. These programs aim to demonstrate directly to offenders how their actions affect their communities, to encourage greater community involvement in the justice process, and to reduce the costs of the formal criminal justice process.

Examples of restorative justice boards follow.

Accountability Boards

The overall objective of the Tulare County Neighborhood Accountability Board (NAB) is to assist youth to live respectfully in the community and to keep them out of the formal juvenile justice system and jail. The NAB works with first-time youth offenders cited by the police, making them accountable for offenses against victims and the community. The NAB is a group of private citizens who serve as a “neighborhood court.” Board members are required to attend 30 hours of train-ing per year, make a minimum one-year commitment, attend approximately one board meeting a month, and maintain strict confidentiality. The program is sup-ported by the probation department, the health and human services agency, the district attorney’s office, Community Services and Employment Train-ing Inc., the sheriff’s office, and the juvenile court.

Merced County has two programs labeled as restorative jus-tice boards. The Youth Accountability Board is a panel made up of volunteers from the community. The panel interviews first-time misdemeanor offenders and their parents and de-signs a contract that the minor fulfills in order to have his or her referral purged from the probation system. Approxi-mately 130 volunteers were participating at the time of the survey. The Parent Accountability Board in Merced County applies the practice to parents whose children have been ordered into out-of-home placement. Parents are subject to court orders aimed at enhancing the probability of their children’s success. Parents are monitored by boards made up of volunteers from the community and are referred

Restorative

justice boards aim to directly

demonstrate to offenders how

their actions affect their communities,

to encourage greater community

involvement in the justice process, and

to reduce the costs of the formal

criminal justice process.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

to the district attorney for prosecution if they do not cooperate with the board. Neighborhood Accountability Boards (NABs) in Sacramento County offer

community-derived solutions to community problems. The primary goals of a NAB are as follows:

To help young offenders establish a sense of personal responsibility for their actions; To help young offenders adhere to community values; and To help restore victims and the community through community service per-formed by the youthful offender.

NAB members are community volunteers who work with the Sacramento County Probation Department in partnership with local law enforcement. The depart-ment expects volunteers to have good communication skills, an ability to be ob-jective, and a concern with community safety. The department runs a background check on all prospective NAB members. Training is provided by the probation department, and additional training is offered one to two times a year. The NAB’s job is to interview the offender and his or her parents, then decide on a construc-tive accountability plan.

The plan, put in the form of a legally binding contract, may require that offending juveniles complete community service, take skill-building classes, par-ticipate in counseling, and provide financial restitution where appropriate. The contract also requires young offenders to write apology letters to their victims, to abide by curfews, and to attend school. When a juvenile signs the contract, he or she has two choices: either fulfill the terms of the agreement or be referred to the juvenile justice system. When a first-time offender completes the terms of the contract, the violation of the law is removed from his or her record.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

FAct sHeet: victim impAct clAss

The victim impact class is an educational program designed to teach offend-ers about the human consequences of crime. Offenders are taught how crime affects the victim and the victim’s family, friends, and community, and how it also affects them and their own families, friends, and communities. Spe-cific modules address property crimes, sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, elder abuse and neglect, drunk driving, drug-related crimes, gang violence, and homicide. Victim impact classes have been adapted for both adult and juvenile offenders in diversion, probation, prison, pre-release, detention, and parole supervised settings.

A key element of the classes is the direct involvement of victims and vic-tim service providers. They tell their personal stories of being victimized or of helping victims to reconstruct their lives after a traumatic crime. Parents of in-carcerated youth and community representatives, such as insurance adjusters, may also speak to the class. Offenders are encouraged to enter into a dialogue with the guest speakers.

Some programs integrate victim impact panels, composed of three to four victims of the particular type of crime being examined, into the curriculum. When the panel format is used, the class participants may ask questions at the end of the presentation, but usually do not engage in discussion with the victim presenters.

This program was originally developed in 1986 by the California Youth Authority (CYA) and called the Impact of Crime on Victims Program. CYA offers this program to offenders incarcerated in CYA facilities throughout California.

Goals

The goals of victim impact classes include:

Teach offenders about the short- and long-term trauma of victimization. Increase offenders’ awareness of the negative impact of their crime on their victims and others. Encourage offenders to accept responsibility for their past criminal actions. Provide victims and victim service providers with a forum to educate of-fenders about the consequences of their criminal behaviors, with the hope that it will help to prevent future offending. Build linkages between criminal and juvenile justice agencies and victims and victim service organizations.

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Implementation

The victim impact class program can be adapted to incorporate between eight and 40 hours of classroom activities. Strong support and involvement from crime victims, victim service providers, and community members are essential to program planning, development, and implementation. Once a program is established, judges and criminal and juvenile justice agencies can refer or order offenders to participate.

Like any other program that brings offenders together with victims, it is essential that both participating offenders and victim speakers be carefully screened to ensure that they are appropriate candidates for this intervention. Every precaution should be taken to avoid any retraumatization of the victims involved. They should be thoroughly prepared before coming to the class and debriefed afterward.

Many programs provide an opportunity for offenders, after completing the course material, to conduct fund-raising activities or a community service project to benefit victims. For example, program participants at one CYA fa-cility worked to raise funds for victims throughout the year, collecting more than $10,000 that was donated to a local child abuse council, battered wom-en’s shelter, and Parents of Murdered Children chapter.

Lessons Learned

A small study conducted in 1994 by the Washington Department of Correc-tions found that adult offenders under correctional supervision who partici-pated in victim awareness classes were more likely to fulfill their restitution obligations to victims than non-participants (Stutz, 1994). Pre- and post-tests administered to offenders participating in the program indicated that most had increased sensitivity to and understanding of the negative impact of crime on victims (CYA, 1992).

In general, victims and victim service providers who participate as speak-ers in victim impact classes express high levels of satisfaction and believe that their involvement may help prevent offenders from continuing their criminal or delinquent activities in the future. One research study conducted to exam-ine the effects on victims of speaking to convicted drunk drivers (Mercer, 1995) found that 82 percent of victims who told their stories to offenders said that it aided them in their recovery.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��


A series of training-for-trainers seminars on the victim impact class program is being offered by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and CYA, with support from the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). For more information about the seminars or about curriculum materials, including student resource manuals and instructors guides, contact Regina Sobieski, MADD, at 1-800- 438-6233, ext. 261 or the OVC Response Center at 1-800-851-3420.


��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

victim impAct clAsses

The National Institute of Justice fact sheet on victim impact classes credits the CYA with the development of this model in 1986. These classes inform offenders about how crime affects the lives of victims and offenders.

Information on victim impact classes was not explicitly requested in the sur-vey, but space was available to discuss additional services in the “other” category. Victim impact classes were included here because the practice began in California and because two counties mentioned the practice, with descriptions that could inform other counties interested in it. It is likely that a number of California counties run victim impact classes; the survey did not determine how many coun-ties use this practice. Examples of victim impact class programs follow.

Monterey County’s Impact of Crime on Victims course uses the curriculum developed by the CYA to teach offenders about the human consequences of crime. The purposes of the program are to expose youthful offenders to the long-term harm they caused their victims, to hold offenders accountable for their actions, and to teach offenders better ways to handle conflict and violence. An essential component of the program is the use of actual crime victims as speakers to show the reality of the harm that crime causes. Youth incarcerated in Juvenile Hall and the Youth Center as well as youth participating in the noncustodial Silver Star Youth Program are exposed to these classes.

The purpose of Santa Cruz County’s Victim Awareness Education Program is to expose juvenile law violators to the effects that crime has on victims, their fami-lies, and the community. Among the program’s goals is development of increased awareness, increased empathy, a greater understanding of the multiple effects of crime, and more responsible behavior. The curriculum comprises 10 to 15 hours of classroom work, in which students are introduced to the various categories of criminal offenses and how each impacts victims, families, and communities. The harm caused by crime is spelled out in human terms, emphasizing the emotional, psychological, material, and financial suffering caused victims. Classes are typi-cally two hours in length and are offered in three community locations, as well as in the Juvenile Hall. Handouts, media presentations and guest speakers are com-monly used as training aids.

Juvenile offenders are referred to this program by court order. Attendance is monitored, and a certificate is awarded upon completion. Class size is limited to 20 participants; instructors are Probation Department staff, juvenile probation officers, or members of the community at large. Volunteer community instructors undergo intensive training and are cleared through background investigations. A team-teaching format is used to broaden the spectrum of ideas generated.

FAct sHeet: victim impAct stAtements

The victim impact statement (VIS) is one of the most effective means to communicate the “voice of the victim” throughout the criminal and juve-nile justice systems. The use of VIS was initiated in 1976 by then–Chief Probation Officer James Rowland of Fresno County (CA), who felt that victims had valuable information they could provide to courts prior to sentencing.

A VIS is a victim’s description of how the crime affected their life and the lives of their loved ones. The VIS provides the court and paroling authorities with vital information relevant to the short- and long-term psychological, physical, and finan-cial effects of a crime on the victim and on others around them. The VIS can be delivered by victims orally (by “allocution”), in writing, or in audiotape or videotape formats.

VIS are commonly used by courts as part of pre-sentence investi-gations and at sentencing, and by paroling authorities as part of pre-parole investigations, parole release, and revocations. The use of VIS is a restorative practice that can assist in holding offenders accountable for their criminal or delinquent actions, promote community safety by providing important infor-mation relevant to decisions affecting case disposition, and involve victims in a meaningful way in what may be one of the most significant events of their lives. VIS are appropriate not only for individual victims, but for entire neigh-borhoods that are detrimentally affected by chronic drug or gang activities (called “community impact statements”).

Goals

The goals of VIS are to:

Document crucial information about the actual crime that may not be evident from plea agreements, dispositions, sentencing, or offenders’ cor-rectional case files, and that can serve to hold offenders accountable for the actual crimes they committed. Provide a format for victims—including victims who may have special obstacles to accessing the systems such as child victims, victims with dis-abilities, and non-English speaking victims—to present information to and participate in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

The victim

impact statement

(VIS) is one of the most

effective means to communicate

the “voice of the victim”

throughout the criminal and

juvenile justice systems.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Implementation

The systematic use of VIS requires the involvement of and coordination among key criminal and juvenile justice officials. For VIS to be an effective tool:

Prosecutors need to inform victims of their right to submit a VIS; Probation officials need to practice due diligence in locating victims and documenting relevant VIS information as part of their pre-sentence in-vestigations; Corrections officials need to maintain records of the VIS from the sentenc-ing phase in a confidential section of the offender’s file for review by parol-ing authorities, and notify victims of any rights they might have relevant to VIS input at parole hearings; and Parole boards should have policies that encourage the use of VIS by crime victims, both for parole hearings and parole revocation proceedings.

In many jurisdictions, victims are given printed forms describing the type of information that is most important to include in VIS. Often victim service and criminal justice professionals assist victims in filling out VIS forms. This guidance can help victims to include complete, pertinent information, and is particularly beneficial for victims who have had little or no prior interactions with the criminal or juvenile justice systems.

Lessons Learned

Many victims report that VIS increased their satisfaction with the entire crim-inal justice system. Research by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD, 1994) found that 66 percent of victims were satisfied with the criminal justice system if they were given the opportunity to present written VIS, and 62 percent of victims were satisfied with the criminal justice system if they were given the opportunity to present oral VIS. Victim dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system increased to 75 percent when they were not allowed to submit written VIS, and to 78 percent when they were not allowed to present oral VIS.

A rich body of research concludes that two factors increase victims’ overall satisfaction with the justice system and reduce victim trauma: (1) being taken seriously and being believed; and (2) being informed and involved in key jus-tice proceedings related to their cases. VIS provide opportunities to fulfill both of these key elements that help victims reconstruct their lives in the aftermath of a crime.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��


A comprehensive guidebook to the implementation of VIS, Impact State-ments: A Victim’s Right to Speak, A Nation’s Responsibility to Listen, published by the National Victim Center, MADD, and the American Prosecutor’s Research Institute in 1994, is available from the Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center by calling 1-800-627-6872. You may also contact Laura Federline or Susan Laurence at the Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Jus-tice, at 202-307-5983.


��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

victim expressions

Victim expressions include victim impact statements, presentence investigation reports, or victim witness services. Victims can express in a written statement for the court or prosecutor the effect a crime has had, feelings about the offense, and restitution requests. Victims can also give information to a probation officer for inclusion in sentencing or disposition report, or they can go to court with a support person to express their feelings, opinions, or requests in person. Victim witness services can also assist in pursuing a restitution claim through the State Victim Fund.

A victim’s statements and restitution requests may be relayed to a probation officer and the court in a number of ways. Some practices are more restorative than others, but it should be noted that providing the opportunity for a victim to make an impact statement, to file a claim for restitution, and to receive a referral to any available victim impact classes is mandated by statute (see Welf. and Inst. Code, §§ 656.2, 730.6, 742). Counties that reported restorative victim statement practices may view their processes as particularly restorative, but nonreporting of such practices by other counties does not mean that they fail to provide these required victim services.

An example of a victim expression programs is the Victim Witness Program in Fresno County, which began in 1985 to provide direct services to victims of crimes. Services provided include but are not limited to crisis intervention, emergency as-sistance, victim impact statements, court support, and referrals to family services. More than 6,300 victims were referred to the program in fiscal year 2001–2002. Fresno County also has a Victim Awareness Program, which began in 1998 and which focuses on providing education and personalizing the impact crime has on victims and the community. Apology letters and other methodologies are used. Almost 1,000 incarcerated youth have graduated from the program.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

FAct sHeet: sentencing circles

A sentencing circle is a community-directed process, conducted in part-nership with the criminal justice system, to develop consensus on an appropriate sentencing plan that addresses the concerns of all interested parties. Sentencing circles—sometimes called peacemaking circles—use traditional circle ritual and struc-ture to involve the victim, victim supporters, the offender, offender supporters, judge and court personnel, prosecu-tor, defense counsel, police, and all interested community members. Within the circle, people can speak from the heart in a shared search for understanding of the event, and together identify the steps necessary to assist in healing all af-fected parties and prevent future crimes.

Sentencing circles typically involve a multi-step procedure that includes: (1) application by the offender to participate in the circle process; (2) a healing circle for the victim; (3) a healing circle for the offender; (4) a sen-tencing circle to develop consensus on the elements of a sentencing plan; and (5) follow-up circles to monitor the progress of the offender. The sentencing plan may incorporate commitments by the system, community, and family members, as well as by the offender. Sentencing circles are used for adult and juvenile offenders with a variety of offenses and have been used in both rural and urban settings. Specifics of the circle process vary from community to community and are designed locally to fit community needs and culture.

Sentencing circles have been developed most extensively in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon and have been used occasionally in several other communities. Their use spread to the United States in 1996 when a pilot proj-ect was initiated in Minnesota.

Goals

The goals of sentencing circles include:

Promote healing for all affected parties. Provide an opportunity for the offender to make amends. Empower victims, community members, families, and offenders by giving them a voice and a shared responsibility in finding constructive resolutions. Address the underlying causes of criminal behavior. Build a sense of community and its capacity for resolving conflict. Promote and share community values.

Sentencing

circles – sometimes

called peacemaking circles – use

traditional circle ritual and structure to

involve the victim, victim supporters, the

offender, offender supporters, judge and

court personnel, prosecutor, defense

counsel, police, and all interested

community members.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Implementation

A successful sentencing circle process depends upon a healthy partnership between the formal justice system and the community. Participants from both need training and skill building in the circle process, peacemaking, and consensus building. The community can subsequently customize the circle process to fit local resources and culture. It is critically important that the community’s planning process allows sufficient time for strong relationships among justice professionals and community members to develop. Implemen-tation procedures must be highly flexible, because the circle process will evolve over time based on the community’s knowledge and experience.

In many communities, direction and leadership are provided by a com-munity justice committee that decides which cases to accept, develops support groups for the victim and offender, and helps to conduct circles. In most com-munities, circles are facilitated by a trained community member, who is often called a “keeper.”

Sentencing circles are not appropriate for all offenders. The connection of the offender to the community, the sincerity and nature of the offender’s efforts to be healed, the input of victims, and the dedication of the offender’s support group are key factors in determining whether a case is appropriate for the circle process. Because communities vary in health and in their capac-ity to deal constructively with conflict, representatives of the formal justice system must participate in circles to ensure fair treatment of both victims and offenders.

The capacity of the circle to advance solutions capable of improving the lives of participants and the overall well-being of the community depends upon the effectiveness of the participating volunteers. To ensure a cadre of capable volunteers, the program should support a paid community-based vol-unteer coordinator to supply logistical support, establish linkages with other agencies and community representatives, and provide appropriate training for all staff.

Lessons Learned

Very little research has been conducted to date on the effectiveness of sentenc-ing circles. One study conducted by Judge Barry Stuart (1996) in Canada in-dicated that fewer offenders who had gone through the circle recidivated than offenders who were processed by standard criminal justice practices. Those who have been involved with circles report that circles empower participants to resolve conflict in a manner that shares responsibility for outcomes; gener-

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

MISIN

G P

RA

CT

ICES

��

ate constructive relationships; enhance respect and understanding among all involved; and foster enduring, innovative solutions.


For a more complete discussion of sentencing circles, see Building Community Justice Partnerships: Community Peacemaking Circles, by Barry Stuart, available from Aboriginal Justice Section, Department of Justice of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1AOH8; Fax 613-957-4697, Attn. Learning Network.


�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

community sentencing

Community sentencing practices asked about in the survey included circle sen-tencing, peacemaking circles, and healing circles. The community sentencing process is said to have originated in Native American traditions and is used to resolve individual and community issues collectively. The purpose of the circle is to discuss the impact of the offense, to explore potential resolutions of the conflict, and to establish ways to monitor compliance. Although no county probation departments in California reported use of community sentencing or circles, this practice of restorative dialogue has been effective in schools and treatment pro-grams across the country.

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

GR

AM

S AN

D SE

R�

ICES T

HA

T C

AN

BE R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

��

Additional Programs and Services That Can Be Restorative

IT IS IMPORTANT to recognize that many programs can have a restor-ative component; the programs described in the following pages may be linked to programs based on restorative justice or may constitute philo-

sophical approaches that lend a more community-based or restorative focus to a particular task. The set of practices outlined here is by no means an exhaustive list of possible applications for restorative justice philosophy but rather a small sampling of services that have successfully integrated restorative justice or that are gateways for positive intervention by restorative justice–based programs.

community lAw enForcement

Community law enforcement, also referred to as community policing, is a col-laborative, strength-based approach to decrease crime and the fear of crime in communities and neighborhoods. The philosophy relies on a community part-nership among local government, police, and the community; the collaboration is mutually beneficial to law enforcement and the community. The resources of law enforcement are coupled with the strengths and assets that exist among com-munity members to create a partnership that expands the role of law enforcement. This new approach includes a more proactive, preventive, and problem-solving response to crime. As the partnership strengthens over time, it allows for an in-creased focus on the issues underlying crime. This approach relies on active com-munity involvement, often using volunteer resources in the community. Collabo-ration with school districts and departments of education is typical of community law enforcement programs.

This same philosophy of community involvement is often extended to in-

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

clude probation and prosecution. Probation officers are assigned to specific neigh-borhoods to patrol, supervise, and work to resolve neighborhood problems where they occur. Probation officers are often assigned to school campuses and to work with youth, communities. Probation officers and police with a community polic-ing orientation stress the importance of academic progress, reduce truancy, and in some cases provide reintegration support to youth who have been released from the system.

District attorney’s offices and prosecuting attorney’s offices can employ the philosophy by working more closely with community members to understand

the impact of an offense on the commu-nity and to focus more on how to hold an offender accountable to the commu-nity. Rather than simply punishing the of-

fender, prosecuting attorneys can encourage more restorative sanctions that more closely meet the needs of victims and the community.

Community policing allows officers to become a part of a youth’s everyday life. This kind of involvement can provide valuable insight into underlying prob-lems in the community that may be influencing juvenile crime. It also allows the officers to identify at-risk youth before problems begin and to employ early intervention and prevention techniques. By maintaining a partnership with the community, officers are better able to understand the needs of the community and to respond to those needs with appropriate solutions. This program gives communities a more effective approach to law enforcement and shows youth that everyone is in this together.

“Community prosecution, like the community policing movement, is grounded … in the theory that involving ordinary citizens as co-producers of safety and public order will reap important benefits both for the community and for criminal justice agencies.”28

Goals

The goals of community law enforcement are as follows:

Reduce crime and the fear of crime in communities and neighborhoods Increase active community involvement Understand and begin to address the underlying causes of crime Aid in the development of stronger, more self-reliant communities

Community policing allows officers to become a part of a youth’s everyday life.

28 National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Phillip Heymann and Carol Petrie, Eds., What’s Changing in Prosecution? Report of a Workshop, Committee on Law and Justice (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

GR

AM

S AN

D SE

R�

ICES T

HA

T C

AN

BE R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

��


www.communitypolicing.org

www.cops.usdoj.gov/

The American Prosecutors Research Institute and the Center for Court Innova-tion make available a number of publications on community prosecution.

American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510 Alexandria, Va. 22314 Phone: 703-549-4253 Fax: 703-836-3195 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.ndaa-apri-org

Center for Court Innovation 520 8th Avenue New York, N.Y. 10018 Phone: 212-397-3050 Fax: 212-397-0985 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.courtinnovation.org/

The BARJ Survey asked respondents about community law enforcement programs in which “police or probation officers are assigned to specific neighborhoods to patrol, supervise, and work to resolve neighborhood problems where they occur.” Community law enforcement is also called community policing and may also include community probation. Ten of the respondent counties reported that they have a community law enforcement program.

Examples of community law enforcement programs follow.

Risk Prevention Program

The Risk Prevention Program (RPP) in San Mateo County provides prevention and early intervention services to middle school– and high school–age youth who are referred to the Probation Department by local police jurisdictions for law vio-lations or by the schools for truancy or unacceptable behavior on school grounds. RPP is a partnership among the Probation Department, six school districts, 14 po-lice departments, and five local youth service bureaus and is designed to prevent and abate juvenile delinquency.

Case treatment plans are individualized for youth and their families, and they focus on eliminating at-risk behavior, increasing personal responsibility, stressing pro-social values, providing counseling referrals, and helping solve family problems.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

After a referral is assigned to an RPP probation officer, the probation officer calls a meeting with the minor, his or her parents, and the police department. An informal supervision agreement is set up for a maximum six-month period. The average caseload for each of the 11 RPP probation officers is 50. Additionally, two group supervisors provide support to the probation officers by monitoring school attendance and making home visits; the minor is seen at school and at home by the probation officer. If the minor meets his or her obligations under the agree-ment, the matter is officially closed. If the minor fails to follow the agreement, the probation officer takes steps to begin formal Juvenile Court proceedings. If the minor is booked while on an informal contract, the RPP probation officer prepares the detention matter and refers the new offense to the district attorney for filing.

Officers also handle prevention contracts on their assigned campuses. Refer-rals are made to RPP for youth who do not have a new law violation but have demonstrated serious behavior problems in school and show signs of other nega-tive dynamics in their lives. The probation officer then determines whether an intervention would be beneficial or makes a referral to a community-based orga-nization for individual or family counseling.

In addition to case interventions, the probation officer is available to the schools as a source of information on juvenile law and community resources serv-ing juveniles and their families; in conjunction with local police, the probation of-ficer provides information regarding community youth gangs. Probation officers and group supervisors in the program are also available for classroom presenta-tions, counseling groups, and parent meetings at the request of school officials.

Neighborhood Supervision Units

The Santa Barbara County Probation Department uses Neighborhood Supervi-sion Units (NSUs), which are based on a comprehensive service delivery model and which use a family-focused, neighborhood-based supervision team to pro-vide services to criminally involved families with identified substance abuse prob-lems and to supervise juveniles who break the law and are placed on probation. NSUs employ strategies of community supervision, including assigning caseloads to probation officers based on where the juvenile offenders reside. Geographically based caseloads allow probation officers to provide better service to the com-munity and the probationers they supervise because the officers can spend time in the area, marshalling its resources and listening to the concerns and needs of the neighborhood. Neighborhood supervision officers view the community as their customer, and they involve the public, when appropriate, in problem solving through collaboration and accountability boards.

Staff assigned to supervise juvenile caseloads work closely with youth, their

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

GR

AM

S AN

D SE

R�

ICES T

HA

T C

AN

BE R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

��

families, and school officials. Probation officers are assigned to several school campuses throughout the county. Probation officers are familiar with and refer probationers to community service organizations for counseling and treatment services. In addition, alcohol, drug, and mental health services staff are housed at each area office. They are available to provide on-site services to youth and to assist with crisis situations.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

FAct sHeet: deFerred entry oF Judgment

Deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) is an option in all 58 California counties and is available for adults as well as juveniles. Juvenile DEJ, as provided for in Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 et seq., is an opportunity for first-time offenders, 14 and older, who have committed generally nonserious or nonviolent felonies, to take responsibility for their actions without incurring a juvenile record. Typically, a youth admits to the offense before the court and agrees to pay restitution, to do community service, and to meet other condi-tions imposed. If the youth completes the terms of probation successfully, the case is dismissed and the offense is deemed never to have occurred.

DEJ recognizes that youth are bound to make mistakes simply because they are young. DEJ programs incorporating the restorative justice philosophy can give youth an opportunity to see that their actions have consequences and that they have a responsibility to victims, the community, and to themselves to make reparations. When given this opportunity, many low-risk youth will respond positively, without recidivism and without burdening the juvenile court system.

No resources are needed for a court to grant DEJ. It is a matter of the court’s processing a delinquency petition expeditiously and in a way that al-lows an offender’s record to remain clean provided he or she successfully ful-fills the court’s orders.

Goals

The goals of DEJ are as follows:

Avoid a criminal stigma for an offender who is capable of rehabilitation without formal court processing, while still fostering accountability in the offender Give victims sure, swift resolution to their cases Restore the community by requiring appropriate public service work and fostering competency development in offenders


See LaRon Hogg Haught, Deferred Entry of Judgment: An Overlooked and Un-dervalued Benefit of Proposition 21 (2004) 38 U.S.F. L.Rev. 339.

deFerred entry oF Judgment

Although all counties have the ability to implement DEJ, 14 counties responded to the 2002 BARJ survey stating that the option was used as defined in the survey, as a program or opportunity in which a “youth contracts with the court to make restitution, do community service, and meet other conditions. If successful, the offense is deemed never to have occurred.”

Examples of DEJ follow.

Napa County’s Deferred Entry of Judgment

Napa County uses DEJ to create a court-ordered diversion program that has been increasing in restorative value as the county’s restorative justice services expand and develop. Youth who are subject to DEJ may be referred to victim-offender mediation, will be ordered to pay restitution, and may participate in Napa’s Shop-lifter Accountability Workshop.

Santa Clara County’s Deferred Entry of Judgment

Santa Clara County’s DEJ program is a hybrid of best practices and balanced and restorative justice principles administered within the statutory framework, as op-posed to a literal application of the California code to delinquency. The program is available to first-time, nonviolent felony offenders over the age of 14 who are willing to admit their offenses and who are not in need of intensive services or supervision.

In diagnostically appropriate cases, statutorily eligible DEJ candidates are charged only with the offense that best characterizes their conduct, as opposed to a battery of alternative and lesser included offenses. The first court appearance, which occurs within a month of the delinquent conduct, includes the youth’s admission of culpability and a dispositional contract between the youth and the court. There are no preliminary court dates, setting dates, or pretrial hearings to desensitize the youth to the court process.

The written DEJ contract generally has five to seven requirements, in contrast to the normal 30 to 35 probation terms and conditions. Emphasis is on victim restitution, community service, and school attendance. Copies of the contract are given to the parties and become the focal point of subsequent court hearings, which occur every three months to monitor the youth’s progress. Unsatisfactory progress is addressed through a series of graduated sanctions ranging from more court reviews to a determination that the youth has failed the program and, pos-sibly, incarceration. Success in the program is rewarded with decreased parte re-views, instead having ex parte reviews, and ultimately with program completion. Upon successful completion of DEJ, which generally takes one year, the minor’s

AD

DIT

ION

AL P

RO

GR

AM

S AN

D SE

R�

ICES T

HA

T C

AN

BE R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

��

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

case is closed, records are sealed, and the history of his or her arrest for the under-lying offense is deemed never to have occurred.

Santa Clara County’s experience with the program has been encouraging. In the first two years following its creation, more than 400 youth were allowed to participate. The failure rate is less than 10 percent. Moreover, rates of victim res-titution, community service, and school attendance are dramatically greater than those of similar groups in the probation wardship and incarcerated populations. From a resource standpoint, these cases require less court time, fewer probation resources, and significantly diminished attorney involvement, with considerably better results.

BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��

The Balanced and Restorative Justice Survey

IN DECEMBER 2002, the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts conducted a statewide survey of juve-nile probation services to determine the prevalence of BARJ principles in

practice throughout California.

survey metHod

This survey was sent to the chief probation officer in each of the 58 California counties with a cover letter stating that responses and data generated from the survey would be used to develop a publication enumerating and describing BARJ programs in California in order to gain an understanding of program innovations and to serve as a blueprint for development of programs for other jurisdictions. A copy of the survey and the accompanying cover letter is included in Appendix A. Probation departments were selected as respondents for the survey because of their involvement with all juve-nile offenders and the likelihood that probation officers would be aware of programs designed to serve this population. However, as a result this survey does not necessarily include programs run by community-based organizations. The survey is only a snap-shot of programs working with probation departments as of December 2002.

The survey comprised two sections. The first section asked respondents to describe, in general terms, whether their county has balanced and restorative services. The second section asked respondents to describe the key features of the juvenile BARJ programs operating in their county. Respondents could check one of 17 practices identified in the survey, and additional space (“other”) was left for open-ended responses. The 17 practices were defined in the survey. A copy of the original survey follows the results.

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

procedure

The surveys were mailed out on December 11, 2002, addressed to the chief pro-bation officer in each county, with a deadline of January 17, 2003. The Judicial Council continued to receive completed surveys past this deadline. Counties that did not respond received as many as three follow-up telephone calls. Once re-ceived, the data from the surveys was transferred to an Excel spreadsheet. Non-BARJ services were deleted. Further explanations were requested by telephone in cases where counties entered data that was unclear.

A conservative approach was used when the data was processed; the results of the survey are a conservative sampling of programs in the state as provided to the Administrative Office of the Courts in 2002 by county probation departments. One of the programs listed on the survey was not included in the results of the sur-vey because of a misunderstanding of how the program name or label was meant to be applied. If, upon further investigation, it was determined that not enough information was included or that the information included led to concerns that the program might not be based on restorative principles, the program was not included in the data. If county respondents filled out the survey incompletely but included printed material on BARJ programs, those programs were included in the data even though the information was not recorded on the survey.

In cases in which county respondents stated that their counties had DEJ, com-munity service, and restitution programs or services, those responses were not in-cluded because these programs or services exist in all 58 counties. It would be mis-leading to state anything to the contrary. For example, listing that 16 counties had restitution services would imply that the other 42 counties did not. Some counties’ application of DEJ, use of community service, or restitution collection practices are more restorative than others; selections are highlighted for reference.

BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��

results

The response to the survey was excellent, with responses from 52 of the 58 counties in California, reporting 89 juvenile BARJ services in California at the time of the survey. The following table shows the number of unique juvenile BARJ programs in each of the responding counties.

Number of Unique Juvenile BARJ Services, Per County

Number Reported* County

6 Monterey 5 Butte, Santa Barbara, Sonoma 4 El Dorado, Fresno, Napa, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo,

Santa Clara 3 Merced, Orange, San Diego, Santa Cruz 2 Humboldt, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Shasta,

Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo 1 Alameda, Alpine, Contra Costa, Imperial, Kings, Los Angeles,

Marin, Nevada, Riverside, Stanislaus, Solano, Tulare 0* Amador, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Inyo, Kern, Lake, Lassen,

Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter No response Calaveras, Madera, Mendocino, San Francisco, Ventura, Yuba

* Note that a number of the counties listed as not having any restorative justice programs and all counties listed above do indeed have deferred entry of judgment, restorative community service programs, and restitution services that collect and distribute restitution in a restorative way. During the data cleaning process, the deferred entry of judgment, community service, and restitution categories were removed from the data, as these services are available in all California counties.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

The counties in which examples of the practice were used in this publication are in boldface.

Mediation or Conferencing

Family group conferencing or victim offender conferencing or victim of-fender mediation or reconciliation. Trained mediators do victim offender me-diation that includes family members and supporters of both the victim and the offender, discuss the impact of the offense on all parties, and try to work out possible restitution/disposition issues.

Program Name or Type Respondent County

Restorative Justice Mediation Program San Diego

Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center San Mateo

Merchant Accountability Panel Monterey

Victim Offender Mediation Program Sacramento, Contra Costa, Santa Barbara, Sonoma,San Luis Obispo

Parent/Teen Mediation San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara

Mediation Center of North Valley Butte

Victim Offender Reconciliation or Restoration Program

Napa, Alameda, Monterey, Placer, Marin, Fresno

Juvenile Community Justice Conferencing Fresno

Shoplifter Accountability Workshop Napa

Community Justice Conferencing San Joaquin

Conferencing Tehama

Family Group Conferencing(Restorative Conferencing)

Santa BarbaraSonoma

Restorative Justice Program Santa Clara

Victim Offender Dialogue Santa Cruz

BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��


Victim Impact Program San Luis Obispo

Butte County Victim Witness Program Butte

Victim Awareness Napa, Santa Cruz

Victim Impact Panels*


Teen Court San Diego, Humboldt, El Dorado, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, San Bernardino, Los Angeles

Peer Court Placer, Imperial, Tehama, Orange, Tuolumne, Napa, Nevada, Butte

Peer Courts

Peer court or teen court or youth court. Youth trained to hear cases of minor law or school violations listen to cases and render dispositions.

* Orange County is not listed in the table. The example provided was retrieved after the survey and was not included in the survey data submitted by the Orange County Probation Department.

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Restorative Justice Boards

Citizen or community reparation boards; community or neighborhood or youth accountability boards. Trained volunteers hear and dispose of cases, deter-mine probation conditions, assign community service and restitution, help youth to understand the impact of their crimes on victims, and monitor compliance.


Juvenile Justice Program San Diego

Youth Accountability Boards Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Merced, Fresno

Neighborhood Accountability Boards Stanislaus, Sacramento, Tulare

Community Correction Center Shasta

Community Diversion Panels San Luis Obispo

Community Accountability Board Trinity

Parent Accountability Board Merced

Juvenile Accountability Board Shasta


Victim Impact Classes

Victims confront groups of offenders, not necessarily the offender who commit-ted the crime against them.


Impact of Crime on Victims Course Monterey

Victim Impact Class Santa Cruz

BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��

Victim Expressions

Victim impact statement or pre-sentence investigation report or victim/witness service. A victim can express in a written statement for the court or prosecutor the effect the crime has had, feelings about the offense, and restitution requests, or give information to the probation officer for inclusion in a sentencing report, or go to court with a support person to express to the court in person feelings, opinions, or requests. A victim/witness can also assist in pursuing a restitution claim through the State Victim Fund.


Impact Statements Monterey

Court Investigations Solano

Pre-Sentence Investigations Humboldt, Merced


Victim Impact Statement Sonoma, El Dorado,San Bernardino

Victim Impact/Expression Santa Barbara

Victim Witness Program Trinity

Victim Coordinator Orange

Victim Expressions Tuolumne

Victim Services/Awareness Fresno

Victim Offender Service Alpine

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

Community Law Enforcement

Community policing or community probation. Police or probation officers are assigned to specific neighborhoods, to patrol, supervise, and deal with neighbor-hood problems where they occur.


Risk Prevention Program San Mateo

Campus Probation Officers Monterey

F.A.V.O.R. Kings

West Sacramento Probation Officer Yolo

Gang Violence Suppression Unit Yolo

Community Alliance to Reduce Truancy (CART)

El Dorado

Transitional Reporting and Education Centers (TREC)

El Dorado

Neighborhood Supervision Santa Barbara

Community Policing/POs on Campus Sonoma

Volunteer Probation Officers Orange

IMPACT San Bernardino

School Supervision Teams Butte

Butte County Juvenile Drug Court Butte


BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��

tHe bAlAnced And restorAtive Justice survey

��

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��

�0

B

ALA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E

JUST

ICE

discussion

This survey provides information that is the first of its kind about the preva-lence of BARJ programs being utilized by county probation offices in the state of California. It describes juvenile programs and services that wholly or partly incorporate some principles of restorative justice or BARJ and provides guidance on where to find BARJ programs in the state for further evaluation.

Limitations

The survey was sent only to probation departments, and these departments may not be fully aware of all available BARJ services in the community. No evaluation of the effectiveness of programs was done. There was no attempt to measure how well the person filling out the survey understood BARJ concepts, and counties were permitted to self-report about the restorative nature of their programs and practices.

Other sampling methods may have proved to be more effective to determine the prevalence of BARJ practices, such as snowball sampling, in which respon-dents refer the researcher to others working with the BARJ philosophy.

The BARJ philosophy is not common knowledge; many in the field perceive the philosophy as foreign, and, therefore, programs with a restorative component that have been accepted or institutionalized might not have been included. Again, the results from the survey are extremely conservative. This publication makes no claim that that the results are conclusive, that the programs described are truly restorative, or that a county’s programs are limited to the restorative justice programs or practices reported here. This publication simply reports on data pro-vided to Administrative Office of the Courts as a result of the 2002 survey.

Future Research

More research needs to be conducted on who is being served by these alternative programs in terms of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, level of risk of committing future offenses, and type of offense. The prevalence of BARJ needs to be evaluated from additional perspectives such as those of local nonprofit organi-zations working with children and their families, the CYA, faith-based organiza-tions, and so on.

The results of the 2002 survey provide a snapshot of programs and practices aimed at a more restorative response to juvenile crime in California at that time. Since that time, some programs have gone out of existence, while in many parts of the state new programs have been developed or expanded with a restorative justice focus. There are many restorative justice resources and examples outside of the juvenile justice realm, with some of the most progressive programs in the field

BA

LA

NC

ED

AN

D R

EST

OR

AT

I�E JU

STIC

E SUR

�E

Y

��

serving serious and violent adult offenders in the San Francisco Jail (Reserve to Stop the Violence Program, or RSVP) and the California Department of Correc-tions and Rehabilitation San Quentin facility. This publication does not pretend to be a complete presentation of restorative justice programs, practices, or pos-sibilities. It encourages those interested in expanding restorative justice efforts to explore, organize stakeholders, and develop programs that best meet the needs of their community. Good luck!

GENERAL OVERVIEW

MODEL PROGRAMS

ADDITIONAL PROMISING PRACTICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT CAN BE RESTORATIVE

THE BALANCED AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SURVEY

455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3688 415-865-7739 [email protected] www.courtinfo.ca.gov

Documents

FOR CALIFORNIAAttn: California Community Justice Project 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Mr. Steve DeRoss Assistant Chief Probation Officer County of Sacramento