Harrison 2002

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]
On: 26 October 2014, At: 07:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Public Administration

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20
COMMUNITY-BASED MEDIATION PROGRAMS: A CASE

STUDY AND COMPARISON
a
Russell S. Harrison Ph.D.
a
Forum for Policy Research and Public Service , Political Science Department , Graduate
Department of Public Policy and Administration , Rutgers University–Camden , 401 Cooper
Street, Camden, NJ, 08102, U.S.A.
Published online: 07 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Russell S. Harrison Ph.D. (2002) COMMUNITY-BASED MEDIATION PROGRAMS: A CASE STUDY AND
COMPARISON, International Journal of Public Administration, 25:11, 1427-1457, DOI: 10.1081/PAD-120013353
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120013353
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
MARCEL DEKKER, INC. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK, NY 10016
©2002 Marcel Dekker, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 1427±1457, 2002
COMMUNITY-BASED MEDIATION
PROGRAMS: A CASE STUDY AND
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 07:55 26 October 2014
COMPARISON
Russell S. Harrison, Ph.D.
Political Science Department, Graduate Department of

Public Policy and Administration, Director of the
Forum for Policy Research and Public Service, Rutgers
University±Camden, 401 Cooper Street,
Camden, NJ 08102, USA
Fax: (856) 225-6085;
E-mail: russellharrison@msn.com
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In growing numbers advocates of Restorative Justice insist that fully

restorative programs should utilize methods of mediation and group
conferencing that are fully inclusive of community-interests and incorporate
a wide range of community participants.[1] Participation in decision-making
and case-management should be opened to members of the ``faith
community'' and others who lack ``professional'' credentials in the court
system.[2] To the maximum extent possible, the criminal justice system
should involve those with a constructive interest in positive outcomes for
those affected by a particular case, even though not part of the traditional
court hierarchy.
In short, fully restorative programs are fully community-based. They
do not restrict participation in the decision-making process to only a narrow
1427
DOI: 10.1081=PAD-120013353 0190-0692 (Print); 1532-4265 (Online)

Copyright # 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com
1428 HARRISON
range of secular interests and professional bureaucrats like judges, lawyers,

police, probations, or child protection workers. In turn, important societal
bene®ts may become possible: The most fully restorative mediation
programs will maximize social capital[3] and promote a civic culture[4] by
af®rming popular support for public decisions, by bringing the community
more fully into the case management and decision-making process.[5] The
role of the mediator is to facilitate and coordinate this process.
I propose that such hypotheses be applied to many programs that
utilize community-based mediation, and seek to maximize community
involvement and community support for dif®cult decisions, even though

their administrators do not publicly utilize the Restorative Justice label.
This paper will describe the San Diego model of family group decision-
making[6] as a prime example of a mediation program that is fully
community-based, and which generates an extremely high level of public
satisfaction with its outcomes ± as measured by feedback from participants
in individual conferences.
Next I will show that support for similar mediation programs is widely
spread throughout the United States, as measured by participants in
conference programs sponsored by the National Center on Family Group
Decision-Making (the FGDM). Even though California leads in total
participants, support extends to many other states.
However, so does support for programs that are not as ``fully
restorative'' ± which limit participation in mediation programs to only a
narrow range of community participants. These ``partially restorative''
programs are epitomized by victim-offender mediation, which also has a
wide range of support among the American states. To illustrate the range of
interest, I report the distribution of Victim Offender Mediation Association
(VOMA) members in different states.[7]
I show that combined participation rates for FGDM conferences and
VOMA membership are greater in states with more extensive popular
support for ``liberal'' ideologies, a variable linked to the diffusion of certain
types of innovative policies among the American states.[8]
In contrast, most programs dealing with court adjudication issues
follow the traditional judicial model of decision-making and case-manage-
ment, which is not very inclusive at all. Such programs dominate family
courts, dependency courts, juvenile courts, and most other criminal courts in
the U.S. and other Western countries. The traditional approach least utilizes
community-based mediation, and is thereby ``least restorative.''
In closing, I will illustrate several methods for evaluating payoffs from
these competing ``fully restorative,'' ``partially restorative'' and ``least
restorative'' approaches to community-based mediation involving cases in
the criminal justice system. I will compare means and utilize multiple
COMMUNITY-BASED MEDIATION PROGRAMS 1429
regression analysis to evaluate average satisfaction and fairness ratings by

participants in different programs both in the United States and other
countries. The goal is to show that all these evaluation techniques document
the same hypothesis. Mediation programs that are the most ``community-
inclusive'' and ``fully restorative'' generate maximum positive results
indicative of ``public trust'' outcomes. This evidence validates evidence
and extends predictions by Claassen [1995], McCold and Wachtel [2000],
and others.
I. THE SAN DIEGO MODEL AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF

COMMUNITY BASED MEDIATION
The author has been given the opportunity to evaluate and review the
planning, training, and administration of the San Diego Family Unity
Meeting program over the last several years. This program conducts group
conferences to help participants develop case plans to deal with child abuse
and neglect cases. Mediators serve in a variety of roles to coordinate and
facilitate the group conferences where case management options are
discussed ± including what will happen to the children involved.
The San Diego program was created to divert child abuse and neglect
cases from the exclusive jurisdiction of local dependency courts and the case
workers assigned to these cases from Child Protective Services. The idea was
to improve how the victims of child abuse and neglect were treated, improve
community-court linkages, strengthen family values, and ®nd out whether a
form of community-based mediation could serve as an effective means of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involving placement decisions.
With support from a local judge sympathetic to New Zealand
precedents, a system of group decision-making was implemented to be
coordinated and facilitated by a staff committed to a new style of mediation.
The program Chief developed a training program, hired staff, publicized the
program, worked out role de®nitions for the evolving staff, and worked with
them to ensure that individual sessions implemented speci®c programmatic
priorities. In turn these priorities serve to illustrate what a system of
community-based mediation (CBM) is, or can be, and the positive outcomes
that can be expected ± as well as the controversial choices that must be made.
Prior reports outline the genesis and day-to-day operation of the San
Diego model of family group decision-making.[9] Other research has
outlined similar mediation-based decision making programs that increas-
ingly process child abuse and neglect cases in other states and countries.[10]
Parallel research on ``restorative justice'' makes it clear that a wide range of
1430 HARRISON
programs serving many different vicinages share basic values of CBM with
the San Diego model.[11]
CBM is group based. The ``family group decision-making conference''
helps produce a consensus-based case plan, not a plan based on an
individual bureaucrat's views. CBM is responsive to the values and interests
of community members, not what is comfortable and familiar to bureau-
crats and members of restrictive professional guilds. Above all, CBM is
practical.
The role of the mediator is not simply to show up and tell participants
what to say and do. The mediation staff schedules a suitable location,
ensures that food and drink are available for participants, and makes
resources available when necessary for childcare at the conference. At the
front end, the mediator tracks down suggested participants and helps them
with transportation planning if necessary. Overall, the result is that a wide
range of participants becomes involved in the decision-making and case
management process. There is far more involvement by extended family and
community representatives than has been true for judicial processes of the
past. The task of the mediation team is far more than just showing up to
``run a meeting''. Thus in San Diego county the mediation staff take turns in
doing what is required for successful meetings. They model group values in
how they do their jobs, and not just talk about them as abstract ideals at the
conference session where placement options are reviewed. They all take turns
presiding over meetings, as well as front-end and back-end administration.
1. Prior to the meeting, program staff meets with the non-involved

parent and guardian of the victims to ensure that all family mem-
bers are invited to attend the Group Conference. The focus is not
just to have a victim attend. Rather, those invited to attend
encompass all who can be expected to work together to help devise
a plan to ensure that the interests of the victim are protected in the
future, as well as the rights of all family members to participate in
decision-making about how to meet family needs. All members of
the family of the victim are invited, even though they have not
been personally and overtly hurt by the actions of the perpetrator.
Generally, very young children do not attend the actual session.
Indeed the staff of the mediation program often provides child-
care on site to facilitate participation by parents, especially non-
offending parents of abused or neglected children.
2. The role of program staff is to respond to the will of family mem-
bers, not serve as authoritarian censors of who should partici-
pate. Representatives of community support groups are invited.
These include ministers, pastors, and other religious leaders, even
when the social worker or court administrator may be anti-reli-

gious in general or hostile to the speci®c denominations involved.
Those invited also include signi®cant others, friends, or members
of self-help groups who are perceived as valuable allies in imple-
menting community support to eliminate or at least minimize
future problems. They are not limited to any narrow de®nition
of family or community.
3. Mediators are sensitive to turf issues. Meetings are held in
churches, synagogues, recreation facilities, local community
building, or other locations convenient to and comfortable for

the participants. The sterile, antiseptic and intimidating environ-
ments of courtrooms, courthouses, and county welfare of®ces are
deliberately avoided.
4. Mediators are sensitive to the fact that ``professionals'' do not
have to be part of the decision-making elite. Mediators are aware
of the fact that the arbitrary inclusion of certain professionals
may destroy the ability of the group to work together equally
to achieve a consensus-based solution. All those who are per-
ceived to care about the best interests of the individuals involved
are encouraged to participate. However, those typically not
invited include self-interested professionals with ®nancial motiva-
tions to attend the session, since they are paid by the hour. Those
excluded also include professionals who want to impose arcane
professional mores and practices that help them dominate the
proceedings. The problem is that their biases emasculate the abil-
ity of normal citizens, family members, and community represen-
tatives to use common sense to achieve a practical decision. Self-
interested professionals frequently demand to attend indepen-
dently of the will of other participants. Their self-serving wishes
are not granted. Even if they are allowed to observe, they are
not allowed to dominate, and indeed should not intervene.
5. The role of the mediator is to protect the autonomy of the group
decision-making process. The remediation plan is developed inde-
pendently of the caseworker's recommendation, or what a judge
might recommend. It is long on practicality, not legal precedent.
It is short on concern with who has been responsible for what
transgressions in the past. Instead it plans for the future, using
community norms and family values to guide outcomes. Thus
the group may make a recommendation that differs from that
of the caseworkers ± especially those comfortable with institu-
tionalization and bureaucratic control as general solutions to
typical cases. In San Diego County, the group frequently makes
1432 HARRISON
placement recommendations that contradict a priori caseworker

recommendations. In turn, these deviations are typically far more
favorable toward family values than those of the caseworker. The
victim of child abuse and neglect is more often placed with a
non-offending parent or family member. The victim is less often
placed in foster care or institutionalized in a group home, as
recommended by the caseworker. Caseworkers may mean well
by recommending such traditional bureaucratic options. How-
ever, such settings also violate community norms that place
major emphasis on family preservation and keeping the child

close to those who care about them for whom they are, not
because they are paid to house and supervise the child. Institu-
tional settings tend to produce long-term graduates who end up
at high rates in therapy, juvenile courts, and adult prisons. In
the short run, the per diem costs of institutional placement are
staggering. Thus top-down case management plans may cost tax-
payers far more both in the short run and in the long run.
6. The role of the mediator in the meeting is not on ``shaming'' the
perpetrators, or forcing them to express public ``contrition'' and
remorse for their past actions. Instead the focus is on protecting
the rights and interests of the victim, the family, and community
participants to help devise solutions for the future. The focus is
not on what the perpetrators have done or not done, and their
sins of omission or commission. The focus is on what the group
can do to ensure a better future for the children involved and
those who care about their best interests. In the San Diego model,
all participants in the meeting are treated with respect, and their
worth is af®rmed, not denigrated, whatever their past failures.
7. The role of the mediator is to ensure that family values and com-
munity norms are allowed to shape outcomes. In training pro-
grams prospective mediators are speci®cally told not to view
members of the group as dysfunctional patients who need to be
assigned individual therapy by a professional mental health
bureaucrat. The focus is on what is functional about the group,
not what is dysfunctional.
8. The role of the mediator is not that of a therapist who wants to
make a victim feel better through an individual consultation, or
even group therapy. Rather the role of the mediator is to serve
as a coach to help community members come together as a team
to produce a plan and thereby empower themselves. Above all,
they become committed to implementing the plan, since they
were the ones who drew up the plan.
9. The role of the mediator is not to focus on what the perpetrator

says or does. Thus the mission of the group is not diverted by a
false facËade of shame and contrition expressed by the perpetrator.
To produce a patina of remorse on the part of the perpetrator is
not the role of the mediator. Indeed the perpetrator is rarely pre-
sent at the session. Rather, the mission of the mediator is to help
conference members produce a practical plan to deal with future
contingencies, and allow the members of the group to develop
that plan with a focus on the task at hand. That task does not
include a need to ensure that the perpetrator is publicly crying

or openly emotional about what they have done or not done.
Shaming and shock therapy are not the priority of community-
based decision-making.
10. The role of the mediator is to ensure that the non-offending
family members are given the empowering role of helping select
who attends the group conference. They are given the sense of
authority and power they may have heretofore lacked. They pro-
vide the names of those involved in the decision-making process.
The job is not left to faceless police, bailiffs, lawyers, and judges
who may not care about family values or community norms, or
are perceived as not caring because they do not belong to the
same ethnic and socio-economic status group the community
members represent.
11. The role of the mediator is to ensure that group members can
represent the social, ethnic, economic, and religious traits of the
community of those hurt by the crime on a personal level, not
the upper status elites who monopolize power in the judicial sys-
tem. The result is that those who make the decision share the
same traits as those who were victim and perpetrator. This is
quite different from the typical pattern of status bias in judicial
decision-making. The present pattern of judicial selection de
facto excludes racial minorities and lower status individuals from
positions of responsibility and control in the typical court and
case management process, proportionate to those who are subject
to adjudication. In San Diego County, for example, African
Americans are fully represented among the decision-making elites
who de®ne the group conferences. This is quite different from the
nationwide pattern in which blacks are rarely found among judi-
cial elites in numbers proportionate to their share of the popula-
tion of those subject to adjudication.
12. The role of the mediator is to provide as much autonomy as pos-
sible to the group, who will become responsible for and invested
1434 HARRISON
in implementing the case plan they themselves devise. Group

members are allowed to determine how much time is needed to
reach a decision. Group members are free on their own to request
a follow-up meeting. Group members are free to arrive at their
own consensus.
By giving up power over the process of decision-making, the goal is to
improve the product. In part, this may simply re¯ect a desire to keep a child
out of foster care or institutional placement. Community based mediation is
an effective way to help these children ®nd a safe haven in a home with
family members or guardians who care about the child on a personal basis,
and usually provides new options to help dysfunctional nuclear families
reintegrate with traditional family mores.
However, CBM has other possible outcomes, besides what happens to
victimized children and taxpayers. These outcomes include changes in public
trust based on an improved sense of satisfaction with the decision-making
process by direct participants. These public trust outcomes will be documented
in Sec. III. In Sec. II I will report membership patterns for two main interest
groups representing community-based mediation ideals and principles.
II. MEMBERSHIP IN CBM INTEREST GROUPS BY STATE
In the United States two different approaches to community-based

mediation are represented by VOMA and the National Center on Family
Group Decision Making. VOMA represents advocates, practitioners, and
students of Victim-Offender mediation and Victim-Offender Restitution
programs. By law such programs are ``partially restorative'' in that the
``victim'' of an offense is typically the only community member involved in
a case management session. The role of the mediator is to work out a
resolution to the dispute between that victim and the offender. Often no
other persons are present.
The National Center on Family Group Decision Making, af®liated with
the American Humane Association, represents those concerned with a more
``fully restorative'' approach to mediation. Through national conferences,
traditional publications, and Internet resources the organization advocates
for more inclusive approaches to case management and decision-making,
whether for schools, child protective agencies or other settings. Typically a
range of community representatives are included in a case management and
decision-making group, which is coordinated and facilitated by one or more
mediators ± who serve as moderators, not arbitrators.
Table 1 summarizes individual participation in these organizations by
state. Participation includes early registration and attendance at the 2001
Table 1. Participation in Family Group Decision Making and Victim±Offender

Mediation Conferences During 2001, by American State
2001 FGDM
National
Conference (Initial
Registrations Individual Members
for Chapel Hill of VOMA in
NC Site Prior to 2001 (Excludes
Beginning of Corporate Totals for
State Conference) Memberships) 2001 (Both Groups)
California 62 20 82
Minnesota 14 32 46
North Carolina 29 11 40
Oregon 14 17 31
Pennsylvania 11 15 26
Massachusetts 18 6 24
Michigan 14 9 23
Colorado 11 10 21
Florida 7 13 20
Louisiana 13 7 20
Virginia 15 3 18
Wisconsin 3 14 17
Nebraska 15 1 16
Iowa 2 13 15
Ohio 5 9 14
District of Columbia 11 1 12
Utah 4 8 12
Indiana 2 9 11
Arizona 4 7 11
Texas 1 10 11
Oklahoma 10 1 11
Illinois 4 6 10
New Jersey 7 3 10
Missouri 1 9 10
South Carolina 9 1 10
Kansas 5 4 9
Kentucky 6 2 8
Maryland 7 1 8
Washington 2 6 8
New York 4 4 8
Vermont 7 0 7
Tennessee 0 7 7
Maine 3 4 7
Nevada 2 4 6
(continued)
1436 HARRISON
Table 1. Continued
2001 FGDM
National
Conference (Initial
Registrations Individual Members
for Chapel Hill of VOMA in
NC Site Prior to 2001 (Excludes
Beginning of Corporate Totals for
State Conference) Memberships) 2001 (Both Groups)
Alaska 1 5 6
New Hampshire 0 4 4
Montana 0 2 2
South Dakota 0 2 2
Idaho 0 2 2
Georgia 0 2 2
West Virginia 2 0 2
Rhode Island 0 1 1
Wyoming 1 0 1
Hawaii 1 0 1
Delaware 0 1 1
New Mexico 1 0 1
North Dakota 0 1 1
Connecticut 0 1 1
Alabama 0 0 0
Arkansas 0 0 0
Mississippi 0 0 0
FGDM conference, and=or individual memberships in VOMA during early

2001. A few individuals participated in both groups, and thus were counted
twice. 47 states had at least one participant, as did the District of Columbia,
who joined other participants from Canada, England, Ireland, Australia,
Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, and Japan.
Only extremely poor, Deep South states like Alabama, Arkansas,
and Mississippi failed to attract even a single member into either
organization.
California leads in the total number of participants, due in part to its
large size, outstanding leadership in counties like San Diego, Santa Clara,
and Stanislaus, and regional academies that have begun to offer training
throughout the state.
Minnesota is a leader, perhaps due in part to the ``moralistic'' political
culture[12] dominant in the upper Midwest of the United States,[13] plus the
leadership of Mark Umbreit, prominent scholar and leader of the victim-

offender mediation and reconciliation movement at the University of
Minnesota.
North Carolina is a leader in implementing the new methods in a more
``traditionalistic'' political culture.[14] Joan Pennel at North Carolina State
University serves as a prominent advocate of family group decision-making
strategies, and helped attract the 2001 FGDM conference to Chapel Hill,
along with a large delegation of North Carolina participants.
Table 2 compares the average participation rates for these two
organizations, per million population, among states that are more

``liberal'' or ``conservative'' as measured by self-reports of political
ideologies during 1976±1988 by over 167,000 respondents spread among
the American states.
Prior research by Erikson, Wright, and McIver [1993] shows that
state-level ideological identi®cation is correlated with state ``policy liberal-
ism'' in aggregate, as well as the ideological postures of major political elites
within the state. Table 2 shows another correlation for `ìdeological
identi®cation''. Namely, aggregate membership rates (per unit of popula-
tion) in CBM groups are higher on average for states with a history of
``liberal'' popular ideologies. ``Liberal'' American states have higher average
participation rates in interest groups representing practitioners and
proponents of community-based mediation in general.
Like participation in state political parties, membership and personal
involvement in CBM interest groups re¯ects who the people within a state
are, and how they view optimal approaches to civic issues, plus the in¯uence
of personal and professional networks. However, neither ideologies nor
membership totals suf®ce to tell which CBM approach works better.
III. COMPARING DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO

COMMUNITY-BASED MEDIATION
This section illustrates new methods for evaluating differences in

outcomes between the two approaches illustrated by the National Center on
FGDM of AHA and VOMA respectively. This research builds on and
extends recent ``meta'' analyses by Paul McCold and Ted Wachtel, key
leaders of ``Real Justice'' and ``Restorative Practice'' organizations head-
quartered in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia.[15] The Real
Justice organization and its sister organizations provide training workshops
and conferences for mediators in the United States plus Canada, the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Hungary, and the Netherlands.[16]
The present research is designed to answer two different questions.
1438
Table 2. Participation Rates of States, Classi®ed by the Political Ideology of States (Using the Erikson, Wright, and McIver
(1993) Mean Index of Self-Reported `Ìdeological Identi®cation in the United States, 1976±1988'')
Rate of Rate of
Participation Participation
and Involvement in and Involvement Rate of Average for
2000 FGDM in 2001 FGDM Participation All
Conference at Conference at and Involvement 3 Participation
Madison, Chapel Hill, in VOMA 2001 ± Rates
Wisconsin, North Carolina, individual members [per Million
per Million per Million per Million State State
State Population State Population Population Population]
24 most conservative states: mean average 0.40 1.37 1.07 0.95

24 most liberal states plus D.C.: Mean average 1.68 1.51 1.58 1.59
Net higher rate in most liberal states 1.28 0.14 0.52 0.64
% higher rate in more liberal states vs. more 315.88 10.33 48.28 68.07
conservative states
HARRISON
& Is public trust, or at least satisfaction with the decision-making

process, lower for traditional adjudication processes that for the
more community-based mediation processes?
& Is satisfaction with the process greatest for those community-
based mediation programs that are most responsive to and inclu-
sive of community participants and values?
For empirical evidence, this research will compare satisfaction ratings
by participants in three different genres of decision-making processes. These
illustrate the spectrum of potential ADR programs in dependency, juvenile,
and even adult criminal courts, from minimum to maximum community

involvement.
(1) The least community involvement is found in traditional adjudi-
cation processes. Many courts do not use alternative dispute reso-
lution at all, or only in a narrow set of cases. They preserve the
traditional roles of court personnel as the arbitrator of outcomes.
Placement decisions, restitution decisions, and other case plans
are imposed by a judge, court personnel, or traditional casewor-
ker. The decision-making process is top-down, authoritarian, and
insulated from community input and participation. The tradi-
tional adjudication process follows the monolithic bureaucratic
model described by Max Weber rather than the models of grass
roots involvement and self-help portrayed by Alexis de Tocque-
ville and Robert Putnam (2000).
(2) Moderate levels of community involvement are found in VOM
(victim-offender mediation) and VORP (victim-offender reconci-
liation program) models. For most jurisdictions these programs
represent the ®rst major step away from the old court-based
model, inspired in many states by a strong victims rights concern.
The VOM=VORP program takes a case, or part of the case man-
agement process, out of the traditional court setting. This is a step
forward. However, the VOM=VORP program limits participa-
tion to a victim and offender. The VOM=VORP programs does
not include a broad cross-section of community members who
focus on meeting potential needs of the victim and=or their
immediate family in ways that can not be addressed by the offen-
der or victim alone.
(3) Maximum community involvement is found in GDM=CDM
(group decision making=community decision-making) conference
programs. They use mediators to expand the scope of commu-
nity-based participation and decision-making to the maximum
extent possible. They meet many if not most criteria for the San
1440 HARRISON
Diego model, in terms of who participates, and the role of the

mediator.
There are a wide variety of fully restorative mediation programs that
actively work to maximize community involvement.
& The early Family Unity Meeting program in San Diego and
Family Group Decision-Making programs in Santa Clara, Stani-
slaus, and other California counties illustrate their application to
child abuse and neglect cases.
& ``Reparative boards'' in various Vermont townships, with their

long tradition of grass-roots democracy and local involvement
in civic life, illustrate their use in juvenile delinquency cases, as
do New Zealand family group conferences for juvenile delin-
quents.[17]
& Tribal conferences held in Canada and the United States by ``First
Nation'' groups illustrate their use in dealing with transgressions
by `ìndigenous'' groups. Such cases include child abuse and
neglect cases, juvenile delinquency, as well as adult cases.
& Some group conference programs use police as mediators. They
have been implemented in locations as diverse as Waga Waga,
Australia and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, by advocates of Real Jus-
tice methods of group based mediation. These programs have
been applied to a wide range of cases, including juvenile violence
and adult crimes.[18]
Based on a review of the Restorative Justice literature, the hypothesis
is that participant evaluations and satisfaction with outcomes will be most
positive for the genre of decision-making that is most community-based,
which is category 3. Conversely, participant satisfaction will be least positive
for the genre of decision-making that is least community-base, which is
category 1.
On average, satisfaction with the process will be only intermediate for
category 2, which achieves only a moderate or partial level of community
inclusion. Category 2 programs place restrictions on who is invited to
participate and the scope of case management plans devised by those who
participate. The goal of the meeting is often simply only ``reintegrative
shaming'' which helps the victim perhaps, but is often quite insulated from
more general community concerns. Thus victim-offender mediation is not
expected to achieve the highest levels of satisfaction by participants that
match those for community-based mediation programs that emphasize
certain forms of group decision-making.
To evaluate outcomes, one must classify a full spectrum of programs
into their appropriate genres. Early steps were made by Umbreit.[19]
However, the goal of the early Umbreit research is limited. It primarily

shows that crime victims and other participants in victim-offender
mediation programs report more satisfaction with outcomes and perceive
the decision-making process as fairer than those subject to the ``traditional''
adjudication process. In effect, this research compares only two categories
of cases.
Paul McCold and Ted Wachtel, as part of their work for the
International Institute for Restorative Practices, have completed the next
step.[20] They classi®ed a large number of case management processes or
programs by the degree they are ``fully restorative'', ``partially restorative'',

and ``least restorative'' ± using the language of the Restorative Justice
movement. These categories correspond directly to the three categories to be
used in this analysis. The least restorative programs limit decision-making
primarily to the offender and of®cers of the court. The partially restorative
programs expand decision-making to include victims of an offense. The fully
restorative programs include a wide range of community interests, including
extended families and tribal groups.
To illustrate the ``fully restorative'' category, the San Diego program is
a useful example. Here the task of the facilitator or co-facilitator is to serve
as a neutral moderator, not a judge and jury. The goal is to move all group
members into a constructive dialogue, to maximize their moral potential by
making their own decisions. In short, the facilitators serve as mediators,
not arbitrators.
In its very beginning, the San Diego program was named the Family
Unity Meeting program, because mediators stayed with the family groups
during the entire conference session. Subsequently, mediators withdrew to
allow more ``private time'' for conference participants, and to emphasize
the community-based values program administrators sought to implement.
This is more typical of what is called ``family group decision making'' in
child protective services. However, the San Diego program has retained
the name of Family Unity Meetings for various political and practical
reasons. In either case, the San Diego program has always emphasized a
desire to expand the scope of community-based participation and decision-
making to the maximum extent possible, and encourage mediators to see
their role as coordinators and facilitators, not judges, arbitrators, or
therapists.
The author was provided a summary of evaluations by community
participants in ``Family Unity Meetings'' during the ®rst year of the San
Diego program. 95 per cent of those surveyed expressed their satisfaction
with the meeting and how it was conducted. These responses were based on
an evaluation form returned within a week of the meeting. Follow-up phone
interviews several months later con®rmed the results of the `ìmmediate
1442 HARRISON
feedback'', so that the perceptions cannot be dismissed as a ``bubble effect''.

The San Diego model is clearly an example of a community-based
mediation program that produces extremely high satisfaction among
participants.
Table 3 shows average satisfaction for 12 different ``fully restorative
justice'', including the San Diego program. The median for all those
programs is 94.5, which is just below the San Diego score. The mean average
satisfaction score is 91.583%, due to some especially low scores in
Australian programs where police often serve as mediators.
No separate fairness ratings were available for the San Diego program
and two other programs. For the nine fully restorative programs with data,
the mean average fairness score was 94.333%, counting each program
equally.
Table 3 also includes my average ``public trust'' ratings for other
programs that are less restorative. Overall, the geographical locations served
by these programs include the United States, Australia, Canada, and
England, looking at data going back to 1993. The types of cases include
juvenile delinquency cases, child abuse and neglect cases, as well as adult
crimes.
This meta-analysis includes data for programs previously analyzed by
Paul McCold and Ted Wachtel of the Real Justice Organization. They
conducted similar analyses to identify types of programs that maximize both
``satisfaction'' and ``fairness'', using mean averages for different groups. For
this new analysis I introduce ®ve additional programs or processes, plus
report the results of a formal Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Later I will
report results using a more advanced multivariate regression analysis of
``public trust'' outcomes.
The ``least restorative''=``least'' community-based programs include
members of ``control'' groups who were not given access to experimental
restorative justice mediation groups. These control groups include both
offenders and victims subject to the traditional court adjudication process.
To these ``least restorative'' groups I added four groups of self-reported
crime victims, based on a survey conducted by the prestigious polling ®rms
of Schulman, Ronca and Bucuvalas, Inc. (1999), under contract to the
Council of State Governments.
The staff at the Council of State Governments kindly provided
satisfaction ratings for White, Black (African-American), Hispanic, and
`òther minority'' groups in the Northeastern United States, based on survey
results during 1998. As typical crime victims in the Northeastern United
States these respondents are assumed to represent attitudes of those subject
to the traditional court paradigm. It should be noted that both
African-American (black) respondents and other minorities report much
less satisfaction with case outcomes than either Hispanics or Whites with
satisfaction rates of 27%, 30%, 51%, and 52% respectively. These results
were added to other ``least restorative'' programs analyzed in prior research
by McCold and Wachtel (2000).
The ``moderately restorative'' category of programs includes many
different Victim-Offender Mediation and VORP programs analyzed by
Mark Umbreit and his associates. They were among the ®rst to report cross-
sectional data on different programs, which generally con®rm the superiority
of victim-offender mediation outcomes to the traditional court adjudication
and case management process primarily using information from ``control

groups''. This new report allows one to compare the results of VOM and
VORP programs with more ``fully restorative programs'' as well.
The San Diego ``Family Unity Meeting''=FGDM program is added to
other examples of programs in the ``fully restorative'' category of
community-based mediation, with satisfaction ratings based on data
provided by the former program chief.
Table 3 summarizes my own calculations of average satisfaction
ratings for each program category. The ``fully restorative'' community-
based programs produce the highest average satisfaction ratings. Con-
versely, the ``least restorative'' and ``least community-based programs
produce the lowest satisfaction ratings. All in all, the research hypotheses
are documented, with results highly comparable to prior research. The
differences in mean satisfaction ratings among the three programs vary in
the hypothesized direction. So do the differences in perceived ``fairness''.
& Maximum community-based mediation is, or tries to be, ``fully

restorative''. As predicted, these programs on average produce
the highest public trust ratings.
& Minimal community-based mediation is ``least restorative''. On
average these programs produce the lowest public trust ratings.
& Moderately community-based mediation is only ``partially
restorative''. On average these programs produce intermediate
public trust ratings, in-between those of the most and least
restorative categories.
& Victim-offender mediation and Victim-offender reconciliation
programs do produce superior outcomes to the traditional adju-
dication process. However, the results for the more inclusive
mediation programs illustrated by family group conferences
and family group decision-making programs are even better.
The next set of tables extends prior research to include various control
variables as part of a formal ``multivariate regression analysis'' of evaluation
1444 HARRISON
Table 3. Average Levels of Public Trust, Classi®ed by Degree of Community-

Based Mediation Present in Various Criminal Justice Programs
Category of RJ=CBM Satis®ed % Fairness %
Least restorative
N of programs 19 13
Median 56.000 56.000
Mean 55.316 60.692
Moderately restorative
N of programs 13 13
Median 83.000 78.000
Mean 77.385 77.077
Fully restorative
N of programs 12 9
Median 94.500 97.000
Mean 91.583 94.333
Total
N of programs 44 35
Median 74.500 78.000
Mean 71.727 75.429
Measures of association
Eta Eta Squared
Satis®ed % with category .767 .588
of RJ=CBM
Fairness % with category .702 .493
of RJ=CBM
ANOVA table Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Satis®ed % with category

of RJ=CBM
Between groups (Combined) 10,264.628 5132.314 29.217 .000
Within groups 7202.099 4 175.661
Total 17,466.727 4
Fairness % with category
of RJ=CBM
Between groups (Combined) 6074.879 3037.440 15.572 .000
Within groups 6241.692 3 195.053
Total 12,316.571 3
ratings. The use of MRA seems fully justi®ed, since the dependent variable
is an interval variable. All the independent variables have been transformed
to dichotomy or ``dummy'' variables for use as predictors, except the year of
the program. The type of cases include programs serving either adult or
juveniles respectively, vs. `òthers''. The location variables measure
programs in the U.S.A., Canada, England, and Australia respectively.
FGC=CGC programs are used to measure the impact of ``fully restorative''
processes, while VOM=VORP programs are used to measure the impact of
``moderately restorative'' processes. The contrast for fully and partially
restorative programs is the traditional court adjudication process, which is

least restorative.
In multiple regression analysis each slope, beta coef®cient, etc., isolates
the effect of one predictor variable, controlling for the others. Thus the slope
for the FGC=CGC programs measures ``residual'' satisfaction ratings vs.
those in the traditional court adjudication process and those in the
VOM=VORP category, taking into account the year of the program, the
location, and the type of cases involved.
Table 4 shows that the FGC=CGC category of CBM produces a
signi®cant ``multiplier'' effect on satisfaction ratings. Both slope and beta
coef®cients con®rm that the effect for the FGC=CGC style programs is far
greater than the effect observed for the VOM=VORP category of programs.
However, both types of programs have signi®cantly higher satisfaction
ratings than the residual category of traditional court adjudication. In short,
both ``fully'' and ``partially'' restorative programs are associated with higher
levels of public satisfaction, but this is especially true for the ``fully
restorative'' programs.
Table 5 con®rms that what is true for satisfaction ratings is also true
for fairness ratings. Both the fully restorative and partially restorative
programs are associated with higher levels for public satisfaction and
fairness ratings. However, the most community-inclusive models of
mediation receive the highest ratings.
In each equation both the moderate and maximum use of mediation
produce positive increments in public trust, ceteris paribus. In both
equations, maximum use of mediation is associated with the greatest
multiplier effects, ceteris paribus. The decision-making approach that
includes family group decision-making and other community intensive
conferences produce maximum increments in public trust.
In other sets of Eqs. (I) used a three-fold classi®cation of programs as
an independent variable. I gave a score of 2 for maximum community-based
mediation programs, a score of 1 for moderate community based mediation,
and a 0 for minimal use of community based mediation. Then I regressed
satisfaction and fairness ratings on this variable, ceteris paribus.
Table 5. A Regression Analysis of Fairness Ratings by Participants Using Two

Different Indices of Community-Based Mediation and 3 Other Predictor Variables
Unstandardized Standardized
Predictor Variables Coef®cients Coef®cients Sig.
Coef®cients SPSS index B Std. Error Beta T

(Constant) 7 3990.468 1768.601 7 2.256 .032
Fully restorative = GDM=CDM 33.079 6.257 .805 5.287 .000
maximum CBM
(1 yes, 0 no)
Moderately restorative= VOM=VORP 15.420 4.732 .414 3.258 .003
moderate CBM
(1 yes, 0 no)
Location in US USA 16.414 4.917 .433 3.338 .002
Time period YEAR 2.024 .887 .284 2.283 .030
Type of clients=cases ADULT 13.616 8.013 .213 1.699 .100
Explained variation in % Fairness using 5 predictors
Model Summary R R Square Adjusted Std. Error of the
R Square Estimate
.824 .679 .622 11.314
Mean
ANOVA Sum of Squares Df Square F Sig.
Regression 7581.954 5 1516.391 11.846 .000

Residual 3584.282 28 128.010
Total 11,166.235 33
contrast maximum and moderate community-based mediation programs

not only with each other, but also with the omitted category of residual
programs. This is of course the category of programs that are least
community-based and least restorative. Both indices obtain positive
relationships with the public trust index. Both are associated with higher
public trust scores than the programs that are least community-based and
least restorative ± holding constant or adjusting for certain ``ceteris paribus''
control variables.
In other sets of Eqs. I used different combinations of control variables
along with the two basic indices of fully restorative and partially restorative
programs. The statistical signi®cance of the more restorative programs
persists using three separate predictor variables for Canada, England, and
Australia respectively with the U.S. as the comparison, or vice-versa. Both
1448 HARRISON
for satisfaction and fairness U.S.A. programs produce favorable outcomes,

at least for this sample.
The statistical signi®cance of the more restorative justice methods
persists whether one controls for adult cases or for juvenile cases. However,
it should be noted that thus far very few programs have been developed for
adult offenders that provide adequate outcome data, especially for fairness
ratings. This helps explain why the ``type of case'' predictor obtains very
weak relationships.
For a further validity check, I weighted the cases by the number of
``clients'' served ± whether offenders under court adjudication, or commu-

nity=victim participants. Doing so produces the same hierarchy of slopes
obtained from un-weighted cases. The most fully restorative community-
based mediation programs produce the most positive results for public trust.
For the observed sample size based on all individuals being surveyed, the
statistical relationships are highly signi®cant. Public trust ratings are the most
favorable where programs maximize the use of fully restorative community
based mediation principles and practices. Where community-based media-
tion is most intensive, community participants rate the process with
maximum satisfaction and perceived fairness. Moreover, so do offenders.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Such results clearly suggest that community-based mediation pro-

grams can transform administrative rulemaking and case management
programs into a style of decision-making that maximizes public trust, or at
least popular satisfaction with administrative processes. At a minimum they
improve popular satisfaction with case management for speci®c courts. In
addition, they increase popular conceptions that the process is fair.
Thus community-based mediation seems a compelling alternative to
traditional adjudication processes. This is important, because certain
minority groups ± and not just those in the United States ± feel the traditional
court system is unfair, elitist, condescending, and demeaning. Other publics
charge that all too often courts are immune to popular control, unresponsive
to grass-roots values, and destructive of traditional community norms
and mores of self-help and collective responsibility. For whatever reason,
recent research indicates that where lawyers and judges overly dominate
decision-making processes within a state, the civic culture erodes.[21]
Community-based mediation is a compelling alternative to traditional
adjudication processes. It gives family and friends a chance to overcome the
shame of a case involving child abuse and neglect by pooling their collective
resources to protect the child, the family, and the community. They can
1446 HARRISON
Table 4. A Regression Analysis of Satisfaction Ratings by Participants Using Two

Different Indices of Community-Based Mediation and 3 Other Predictor Variables
Unstandardized Standardized
Predictor Variables Coef®cients Coef®cients Sig.
Coef®cients SPSS index Std. Error Beta T

(Constant) 7899.460 1787.121 7.503 .618
Fully restorative= GDM=CDM 33.088 5.905 .745 5.603 .000
maximum CBM
(1 yes, 0 no)
Moderately restorative= VOM=VORP 20.80 4.955 .479 4.198 .000
moderate CBM
(1 yes, 0 no)
Location in US USA 4.35 4.491 .104 .970 .338
Time period YEAR .47 .896 .058 .534 .596
Type of clients=cases ADULT 79.98 5.806 7.195 71.720 .094
Explained variation in % Satisfaction using 5 predictors
Model summary R R Square Adjusted Std. Error of the
R Square Estimate
.795 .632 .582 13.035
Mean
ANOVA Sum of Squares Df Square F Sig.
Regression 10,782.216 5 2156.443 12.692 .000

Residual 6286.296 37 169.900
Total 17,068.512 42
The slope for this variable was both positive and statistically
signi®cant for both satisfaction and fairness ratings. The same pattern
persisted for bivariate equations and for multivariate equations that used all
the control variables in a variety of combinations.
However, using a composite index of restorative justice produces two
problems. The trichotomy=three-fold index is more ordinal than interval.
Moreover, the composite index hides what is in effect a non-linear or
exponential relationship. Namely, the shift in satisfaction ratings from
category to category is not a constant. The shift in satisfaction ratings for
the most fully restorative programs, ceteris paribus, is greater than the shift
for the moderately restorative programs.
Thus it seems most useful to use two dummy variables as predictors in
the multiple regression analysis, as illustrated in Tables 3 and 4. They
reintegrate themselves into the larger world where people do whatever is

possible to protect children from abuse and neglect.
In addition to other payoffs, CBM provides the alienated and
disenfranchised an opportunity to develop basic decision-making skills
and self-help values essential to social capital and civic culture. As I will
show in future research, community-based mediators can both expand the
vitality of civic culture and social capital in the future, and build on the civic
culture and social capital of the past.
Community-based conference programs produce multiple bene®ts for
the public. Thus it is no wonder that mediators who serve in community-

based mediation programs feel proud of what they do and how much they
help others to help themselves. Public of®cials should be made aware of this
powerful option to older less productive forms of case management and
administrative control. Managers should be ready to ®ght on behalf of this
new model of decision-making, even in the face of potential fears and
opposition by professional guilds who wish to hold on to outmoded
monopolies of bureaucratic power.
Community-based conference models are not the answer to all the
problems of cynicism, distrust, alienation, and anomy felt by many citizens.
However, at their best they provide a vision of what public life can be.
REFERENCES
1. Christie, N. Limits to Pain; Martin Robertson: Oxford, UK, 1981; 123;

Chupp, M. Reconciliation Procedures and Rationale. In Mediation and
Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders and Community; Wright, M.,
Galaway, B., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1989; 56; Klein,
L.; Van Ness, S. Give Peace a Chance: Community Corrections as
Peacemaking. Proceeding of the American Society of Criminology
Conference, Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 20±23, 1996;
Moore, D.B. Shame, Forgiveness, Juvenile Justice. In Justice, Crime
and Ethics; 2nd Ed.; Brawwell, M.C., McCarthy, B.R., McCarthy B.J.,
Eds.; Anerison Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, 1996; 261±198; Moore,
D.B. Pride, Shame and Empathy in Peer Relations: New Theory and
Practice in Education and Juvenile Justice. In Children's Peer
Relations; Rigby, K., Shee, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1997;
Van Ness, D.; Heetderks, K. Restoring Justice; Anderson Publishing
Company: Cincinnati, OH, 1997; 228.
2. Colson, C.; Van Ness, D. Convicted: New Hope for Ending America's
Crime Crisis; Crossway Books: Westchester, IL, 1989; 109; Boers, A.P.
Justice that Heals: A Biblical Vision for Victims and Offenders; Faith and
1450 HARRISON
Life Press: Newton, KS, 1992; 166; Consedine, J. Restorative Justice:

Healing the Effects of Crime; Ploughshares Publications: NZ, 1995; 176.
3. Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community; Simon and Schuster: New York, 2000.
4. Rice, T.; Sumberg, A. Civic Culture and Government Performance in
the American States. In The Lanahan Readings in State and Local
Government; Baker, J., Ed.; Lanahan Publishers: Baltimore, MD, 2001.
5. Cooke, L.H. The Highways and Byways of Dispute Resolution. St.
John's Law Review 1981, 55 (4), 611±632; Cooke, L.H. Mediation ± A
Boon to Courts and Citizens. Court Review 1982, 20 (1), 8±11, 16.
6. Harrison, R.; Quinnett, E. Improving the Productivity of Family
Unity Meeting Programs: Five Management Methods in San Diego
County. In 2000 National Roundtable on Family Group Decision
Making: Summary of Proceedings; Merkel-Holguin, L., Wilmot, L.,
Eds.; American Humane Association: Englewood, CO, 2001; Vol.
2001195-202; Harrison, R.; Quinnett, E. A New Paradigm for San
Diego County: The Organizational Setting for Implementing Family
Unity Meetings in a Change Environment. In 1999 National Round-
table on Family Group Decision Making: Summary of Proceedings;
Merkel-Holguin, L., Wilmot, L., Eds.; American Humane Association:
Englewood, CO, 2000.
7. VOMA (Victim Offender Mediation Association) 2001 Membership
Directory; Center for Policy, Planning, and Performance: Minneapolis
MN, 2001.
8. Erikson, R.; Wright, G.; McIver, J. Statehouse Democracy: Public
Opinion and Policy in the American States; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1993.
9. Harrison, R.; Quinnett, E. Improving the Productivity of Family
Unity Meeting Programs: Five Management Methods in San Diego
County. In 2000 National Roundtable on Family Group Decision
Making: Summary of Proceedings; Merkel-Holguin, L., Wilmot, L.,
Eds.; American Humane Association: Englewood, CO, 2001; Vol.
2001195-202; Harrison, R.; Quinnett, E. A New Paradigm for San
Diego County: The Organizational Setting for Implementing Family
Unity Meetings in a Change Environment. In 1999 National Round-
table on Family Group Decision Making: Summary of Proceedings;
Merkel-Holguin, L., Wilmot, L., Eds.; American Humane Association:
Englewood, CO, 2000.
10. Burford, G.; Hudson, J. Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in
Community-Centered Child and Family Practice; Aldine De Gruyter:
Hawthorne, NY, 2000; Connolly, M.; McKenzie, M. Effective
Participatory Practice: Family Group Conferencing in Child Protection;

Aldine De Gruyter: Hawthorne, NY, 1999.
11. Morris, A.; Maxwell, G. Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family
Group Conferences as a Case Study. In Western Criminology Review;
[Online]. Available: http:==wcr.sonoma.edu=vlnl=morris.html. (ac-
cessed 1998); Bazemore, G. Developing a Victim Orientation for
Community Corrections: A Restorative Justice Paradigm and a
Balanced Mission. Perspectives 1994, 18 (3), 19±24; Bazemore, G.
Three Paradigms for Juvenile Justice. In Restorative Justice: Interna-
tional Perspectives; B. Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.; Criminal Justice

Press: Monsey, NY, 1996; 37; Bazemore, G.; Umbreit, M. Rethinking
the Sanctioning Function in Juvenile Court: Retributive or Restorative
Responses to Youth Crime. Crime and Delinquency 1995, 41 (3), 296±
316; Bazemore, G.; Umbreit, M. Balanced and Restorative Justice for
Juveniles: A National Strategy for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century;
Florida Atlantic University: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 1994; 32; Walgrave, L.
Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Just a Technique or a Fully Fledged
Alternative? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 1995, 34 (3), 228±249;
Walgrave, L. In Search of a Constructive Alternative in the Judicial
Response to Juvenile Crime. European Journal of Criminal Policy and
Research 1994, 2 (2), 57±75; Van Ness, D. Restorative Justice. In
Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation; Galaway, B., Hudson,
J., Eds.; Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY, 1990a; 7±14; Van Ness,
D. Restoring the Balance: Tipping the Scales of Justice. Corrections
Today 1990b, 52 (1), 62, 64±66; Van Ness, D.; Heetderks, K. Restoring
Justice; Anderson Publishing Company: Cincinnati, OH, 1997; 228.
12. Sharkansky, I. The Utility of Elazar's Political Culture. Polity 1969, 2,
66±83.
13. Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States, 2nd Ed.;
Crowell: New York, 1972; Elazar, D. Cities of the Prairie: The
Metropolitan Frontier and American Politics; Basic: New York, 1970;
Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States; Crowell: New
York, 1966.
14. Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States, 2nd Ed.;
Crowell: New York, 1972; Elazar, D. Cities of the Prairie: The
Metropolitan Frontier and American Politics; Basic: New York, 1970;
York, 1966.
15. McCold, P.; Wachtel, T. Restorative Justice Theory Validation.
Proceeding at the Fourth International Conference on Restorative
Justice for Juveniles, Tubingen, Germany, October 1±4, 2000.
1452 HARRISON
16. Real Justice. In the Real Justice Forum: a conferencing and restorative
practices newsletter, 2000, issue 9.
17. Morris, A.; Maxwell, G. Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family
Group Conferences as a Case Study. In Western Criminology Review;.
[Online]. Available: http:==wcr.sonoma.edu=vlnl=morris.html. (ac-
cessed 1998)
18. McCold, P.; Stahr, J. Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing
Project. Proceeding of the American Society of Criminology Con-
ference, Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 20±23, 1996; Umbreit,
M. Stacey? Family Group Conferencing Comes to the U.S.: A

Comparison with Victim Offender Mediation; The Center for Restora-
tive Justice and Mediation, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN,
1995; 15; McDonald, J.; Thorsborne, M.; Moore, D.B.; Hyndman, M.;
O'Connell, T. Family Group Conferencing: A Training Manual;
Transformative Justice: Bondi Beach, AUS, 1995; 75.
19. Umbreit, M. Restorative Justice Through Mediation: The Impact of
Offenders Facing their Victims in Oakland. Law and Social Work
1996a, 13; Umbreit, M. Restorative Justice Through Mediation: The
Impact of Programs in Four Canadian Provinces. In Restorative
Justice: International Perspectives; Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.;
Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY, 1996b; 373±386; Umbreit, M.
The Development and Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation in the
United States. Mediation Quarterly 1995, 12 (3), 63±276; Umbreit, M.
Crime Victims Confront Their Offenders: The Impact of a
Minneapolis Mediation Program. Journal of Research on Social Work
Practice 1994, 4 (4), 436±447; Umbreit, M. Victim Meets Offender: The
Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation; Criminal Justice Press:
Monsey, NY, 1994; 256; Umbreit, M. Juvenile Offenders Meet Their
Victims: The Impact of Mediation in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review 1993, 31 (1), 90±100; Umbreit,
M. Mediating Victim-Offender Con¯ict: From Single-Site Analysis to
Multi-Site Analysis in the U.S. In Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls
and Potentials of Victim-Offender Mediation ± International Research
Perspectives; Messmer, H., Otto, H.-U., Eds.; Kluwer Academic
Publishers: Dordrecht, NETH, 1992; 431±444; Umbreit, M. Having
Offenders Meet with their Victims Offers Bene®ts for Both Parties.
Corrections Today 1991, 53 (4), 164±166; Umbreit, M. The Meaning
of Fairness to Burglary Victims. In Criminal Justice, Restitution, and
Reconciliation; Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.; Criminal Justice Press:
Monsey, NY, 1990; Umbreit, M. Crime Victims Seeking Fairness,
Not Revenge: Towards Restorative Justice. Federal Probation 1989,
53 (3), 52±57; Umbreit, M. Victim Understanding of Fairness:
Burglary Victims in Victim-Offender Mediation. Citizens Council on

Crime and Justice; Minneapolis MN, Minnesota, 1988; Umbreit, M.
Victim Offender Mediation: Con¯ict Resolution and Restitution,
PACT; Institute of Justice: Valparaiso, 1985; 85; Umbreit, M.;
Roberts, A. Mediation of Criminal Con¯ict in England: An Assessment
of Services in Coventry and Leeds; Center for Restorative Justice and
Mediation, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, 1996; 92; Umbreit,
M.; Coates, R.; Kalanj, B.; Lipkin, R.; Petros, G. Mediation of
Criminal Con¯ict: An Assessment of Programs in Four Canadian
Provinces; Executive Summary Report; The Center for Restorative

Justice and mediation, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, 1995;
23; Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. Cross-Site Analysis of Victim-Offender
Mediation in Four States. Crime and Delinquency 1993, 39 (4), 565±
585; Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. The Impact of Mediating Victim
Offender Con¯ict: An Analysis of Programs in Three States. Juvenile
and Family Court Journal 1992a, 43 (1), 21±28; Umbreit, M.; Coates,
R. Victim Offender Mediation: A Review of the Research in the
United States. In Making Amends: Mediation and Reparation in
Criminal Justice; Davis, G., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1992b; 190±
199; Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. Victim Offender Mediation: An Analysis
of Programs in Four States of the U.S.; Minnesota Citizens Council on
Crime and Justice: Minneapolis, MN, 1992c; 214.
20. McCold, P.; Wachtel, T. Restorative Justice Theory Validation.
Proceeding at the Fourth International Conference on Restorative
Justice for Juveniles, Tubingen, Germany, October 1±4, 2000.
21. Rice, T.; Sumberg, A. Civic Culture and Government Performance in
the American States. In The Lanahan Readings in State and Local
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bazemore, G. Three Paradigms for Juvenile Justice. In Restorative Justice:

International Perspectives; B. Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.; Criminal
Justice Press: Monsey, NY, 1996; 37.
Bazemore, G. Developing a Victim Orientation for Community Correc-
tions: A Restorative Justice Paradigm and a Balanced Mission.
Perspectives 1994, 18 (3), 19±24.
Bazemore, G.; Umbreit, M. Rethinking the Sanctioning Function in
Juvenile Court: Retributive or Restorative Responses to Youth Crime.
Crime and Delinquency 1995, 41 (3), 296±316.
1454 HARRISON
Bazemore, G.; Umbreit, M. Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A

National Strategy for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century; Florida
Atlantic University: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 1994; 32.
Bazemore, G.; Umbreit, M. Balanced and Restorative Justice; U.S.
Department of Justice, Of®ce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention: Washington DC, 1994; 16.
Boers, A.P. Justice that Heals: A Biblical Vision for Victims and Offenders;
Faith and Life Press: Newton, KS, 1992; 166.
Burford, G.; Hudson, J. Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in
Community-Centered Child and Family Practice; Aldine De Gruyter:

Hawthorne, NY, 2000.
Christie N. Limits to Pain; Martin Robertson: Oxford, UK, 1981; 123.
Chupp, M. Reconciliation Procedures and Rationale. In Mediation and
Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders and Community; Wright, M.,
Galaway, B., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1989; 56.
Classen, R. Restorative Justice Principles. VORP News; Clovis, CA, 1995
(July±November), 14.
Colson, C.; Van Ness, D. Convicted: New Hope for Ending America's Crime
Crisis; Crossway Books: Westchester, IL, 1989; 109.
Connolly, M.; McKenzie, M. Effective Participatory Practice: Family Group
Conferencing in Child Protection; Aldine De Gruyter: Hawthorne, NY,
1999.
Consedine, J. Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime; Ploughshares
Publications: NZ, 1995; 176.
Cooke, L.H. Mediation ± A Boon to Courts and Citizens. Court Review
1982, 20 (1), 8±11,16.
Cooke, L.H. The Highways and Byways of Dispute Resolution. St. John's
Law Review 1981, 55 (4), 611±632.
Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States; 2nd Ed.; Crowell:
New York, 1972.
Elazar, D. Cities of the Prairie: The Metropolitan Frontier and American
Politics; Basic: New York, 1970.
York, 1966.
Erikson, R.; Wright, G.; McIver, J. Statehouse Democracy: Public opinion
and policy in the American States; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge UK, 1993.
Harrison, R.; Quinnett, E. Improving the Productivity of Family Unity
Meeting Programs: Five Management Methods in San Diego County. In
2000 National Roundtable on Family Group Decision Making: Summary
of Proceedings; Merkel-Holguin, L., Wilmot, L., Eds.; American
Humane Association: Englewood, CO, 2001; Vol. 2001195-202.
Harrison, R.; Quinnett, E. A New Paradigm for San Diego County:

The Organizational Setting for Implementing Family Unity Meetings
in a Change Environment. In 1999 National Roundtable on Family
Group Decision Making: Summary of Proceedings; Merkel-Holguin, L.,
Wilmot, L., Eds.; American Humane Association: Englewood, CO,
2000.
Hudson, J.; Morris, G.; Maxwell, G.; Galaway, B., Eds.; Family Group
Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice; Federation Press:
Annandale NSW,1996.
Klein, L.; Van Ness, S. Give Peace a Chance: Community Corrections as

Peacemaking. Proceeding of the American Society of Criminology
Conference, Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 20±23, 1996.
McCold, P.; Stahr, J. Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project.
Proceeding of the American Society of Criminology Conference, Annual
Meeting, Chicago, November 20±23, 1996.
McCold, P.; Wachtel, T. Restorative Justice Theory Validation. Proceeding
at the Fourth International Conference on Restorative Justice for
Juveniles, Tubingen, Germany, October 1±4, 2000.
McDonald, J.; Thorsborne, M.; Moore, D.B.; Hyndman, M.; O'Connell, T.
Family Group Conferencing: A Training Manual; Transformative
Justice: Bondi Beach, AUS, 1995; 75.
Moore, D.B. Pride, Shame and Empathy in Peer Relations: New Theory
and Practice in Education and Juvenile Justice. In Children's Peer
Relations; Rigby, K., Shee, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1997.
Moore, D.B. Shame, Forgiveness, Juvenile Justice. In Justice, Crime and
Ethics; 2nd Ed.; Brawwell, M.C., McCarthy, B.R., McCarthy B.J., Eds.;
Anerison Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, 1996; 261±198.
Morris, A.; Maxwell, G. Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family Group
Conferences as a Case Study. In Western Criminology Review; [Online].
Available: http:==wcr.sonoma.edu=vlnl=morris.html (accessed 1998).
Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community; Simon and Schuster: New York, 2000.
Real Justice. In the Real Justice Forum: a conferencing and restorative
practices newsletter; 2000, issue 9.
Rice, T.; Sumberg, A. Civic Culture and Government Performance in the
American States. In The Lanahan Readings in State and Local
Sabatino, J. ADR as Litigation Lite: Procedural and Evidentiary Norms
Embedded within Alternative Dispute Resolution. Emory Law Journal
1998, 47 (4), 1290±1349.
Sharkansky, I. The Utility of Elazar's Political Culture. Polity 1969, 2, 66±83.
1456 HARRISON
Umbreit, M. Restorative Justice Through Mediation: The Impact of

Offenders Facing their Victims in Oakland. Law and Social Work
1996a, 13.
Umbreit, M. Restorative Justice Through Mediation: The Impact of
Programs in Four Canadian Provinces. In Restorative Justice: Interna-
tional Perspectives; Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.; Criminal Justice
Press: Monsey, NY, 1996b; 373±386.
Umbreit, M. The Development and Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation
in the United States. Mediation Quarterly 1995, 12 (3), 63±276.
Umbreit, M. Crime Victims Confront Their Offenders: The Impact of a

Minneapolis Mediation Program. Journal of Research on Social Work
Practice 1994, 4 (4), 436±447.
Umbreit, M. Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and
Mediation; Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY, 1994; 256.
Umbreit, M. Juvenile Offenders Meet Their Victims: The Impact of
Mediation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Family and Conciliation
Courts Review 1993, 31 (1), 90±100.
Umbreit, M. Mediating Victim-Offender Con¯ict: From Single-Site
Analysis to Multi-Site Analysis in the U.S. In Restorative Justice on
Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-Offender Mediation ± International
Research Perspectives; Messmer, H., Otto, H.-U., Eds.; Kluwer
Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, NETH, 1992; 431±444.
Umbreit, M. Having Offenders Meet with Their Victims Offers Bene®ts for
Both Parties. Corrections Today 1991, 53 (4), 164±166.
Umbreit, M. The Meaning of Fairness to Burglary Victims. In Criminal
Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation; Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.;
Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY, 1990.
Umbreit, M. Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Towards
Restorative Justice. Federal Probation 1989, 53 (3), 52±57.
Umbreit, M. Victim Understanding of Fairness: Burglary Victims in Victim-
Offender Mediation. Citizens Council on Crime and Justice; Minneapolis,
MN, Minnesota, 1988.
Umbreit, M. Victim Offender Mediation: Con¯ict Resolution and Restitu-
tion, PACT; Institute of Justice: Valparaiso, 1985; 85.
Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. Cross-Site Analysis of Victim-Offender Mediation
in Four States. Crime and Delinquency 1993, 39 (4), 565±585.
Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. The Impact of Mediating Victim Offender Con¯ict:
An Analysis of Programs in Three States. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal 1992a, 43 (1), 21±28.
Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. Victim Offender Mediation: A Review of the
Research in the United States. In Making Amends: Mediation and
Reparation in Criminal Justice; Davis, G., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK,

1992b; 190±199.
Umbreit, M.; Coates, R. Victim Offender Mediation: An Analysis of
Programs in Four States of the U.S.; Minnesota Citizens Council on
Crime and Justice: Minneapolis, MN, 1992c; 214.
Umbreit, M.; Roberts, A. Mediation of Criminal Con¯ict in England: An
Assessment of Services in Coventry and Leeds; Center for Restorative
Justice and Mediation, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, 1996; 92.
Umbreit, M. Stacey, ?. Family Group Conferencing Comes to the U.S.: A
Comparison with Victim Offender Mediation; The Center for Restorative

Justice and Mediation, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, 1995; 15.
Umbreit, M.; Coates, R.; Kalanj, B.; Lipkin, R.; Petros, G. Mediation of
Criminal Con¯ict: An Assessment of Programs in Four Canadian
Provinces; Executive Summary Report; The Center for Restorative
Justice and mediation, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, 1995; 23.
Van Ness, D. Restorative Justice. In Criminal Justice, Restitution, and
Reconciliation; Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.; Criminal Justice Press:
Monsey, NY, 1990a; 7±14.
Van Ness, D. Restoring the Balance: Tipping the Scales of Justice.
Corrections Today 1990b, 52 (1), 62, 64±66.
Van Ness, D. Pursuing a Restorative Vision of Justice. In Justice: The
Restorative Vision; Arthur, P., Ed.; Mennonite Central Committee Of®ce
of Criminal Justice: Akron, PA, 1989; 17±30.
Van Ness, D.; Heetderks, K. Restoring Justice; Anderson Publishing
Company: Cincinnati, OH, 1997; 228.
VOMA (Victim Offender Mediation Association) 2001 Membership
Directory; Center for Policy, Planning, and Performance: Minneapolis
MN, 2001.
Walgrave, L. Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Just a Technique or a Fully
Fledged Alternative? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 1995, 34 (3),
228±249.
Walgrave, L. In Search of a Constructive Alternative in the Judicial
Response to Juvenile Crime. European Journal of Criminal Policy and
Research 1994, 2 (2), 57±75.

Harrison 2002

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Harrison 2002

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]

On: 26 October 2014, At: 07:55

International Journal of Public Administration

COMMUNITY-BASED MEDIATION PROGRAMS: A CASE

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120013353

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Russell S. Harrison, Ph.D.

Political Science Department, Graduate Department of

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

In growing numbers advocates of Restorative Justice insist that fully

DOI: 10.1081=PAD-120013353 0190-0692 (Print); 1532-4265 (Online)

range of secular interests and professional bureaucrats like judges, lawyers,

involvement and community support for dif®cult decisions, even though

regression analysis to evaluate average satisfaction and fairness ratings by

I. THE SAN DIEGO MODEL AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF

1. Prior to the meeting, program staff meets with the non-involved

when the social worker or court administrator may be anti-reli-

building, or other locations convenient to and comfortable for

placement recommendations that contradict a priori caseworker

major emphasis on family preservation and keeping the child

9. The role of the mediator is not to focus on what the perpetrator

include a need to ensure that the perpetrator is publicly crying

in implementing the case plan they themselves devise. Group

II. MEMBERSHIP IN CBM INTEREST GROUPS BY STATE

In the United States two different approaches to community-based

Table 1. Participation in Family Group Decision Making and Victim±Offender

State Conference) Memberships) 2001 (Both Groups)

FGDM conference, and=or individual memberships in VOMA during early

leadership of Mark Umbreit, prominent scholar and leader of the victim-

organizations, per million population, among states that are more

III. COMPARING DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO

This section illustrates new methods for evaluating differences in

24 most conservative states: mean average 0.40 1.37 1.07 0.95

& Is public trust, or at least satisfaction with the decision-making

and even adult criminal courts, from minimum to maximum community

Diego model, in terms of who participates, and the role of the

& ``Reparative boards'' in various Vermont townships, with their

However, the goal of the early Umbreit research is limited. It primarily

programs by the degree they are ``fully restorative'', ``partially restorative'',

feedback'', so that the perceptions cannot be dismissed as a ``bubble effect''.

and case management process primarily using information from ``control

& Maximum community-based mediation is, or tries to be, ``fully

Table 3. Average Levels of Public Trust, Classi®ed by Degree of Community-

Category of RJ=CBM Satis®ed % Fairness %

Satis®ed % with category

restorative programs is the traditional court adjudication process, which is

Table 5. A Regression Analysis of Fairness Ratings by Participants Using Two

Coef®cients SPSS index B Std. Error Beta T

Regression 7581.954 5 1516.391 11.846 .000

contrast maximum and moderate community-based mediation programs

for satisfaction and fairness U.S.A. programs produce favorable outcomes,

``clients'' served ± whether offenders under court adjudication, or commu-

Such results clearly suggest that community-based mediation pro-

Table 4. A Regression Analysis of Satisfaction Ratings by Participants Using Two

Coef®cients SPSS index Std. Error Beta T

Regression 10,782.216 5 2156.443 12.692 .000

reintegrate themselves into the larger world where people do whatever is

the public. Thus it is no wonder that mediators who serve in community-

1. Christie, N. Limits to Pain; Martin Robertson: Oxford, UK, 1981; 123;

Life Press: Newton, KS, 1992; 166; Consedine, J. Restorative Justice:

Participatory Practice: Family Group Conferencing in Child Protection;

tional Perspectives; B. Galaway, B., Hudson, J., Eds.; Criminal Justice

M. Stacey? Family Group Conferencing Comes to the U.S.: A