Family group conferencing is considered an
important new development in restorative justice practice as a means
of dealing more effectively with young first-time offenders by
diverting them from court and involving their extended families and
victims in conferences to address their wrongdoing. The purpose of
this study was to evaluate the implementation of conferencing as a
restorative policing practice. This project was designed to answer six
programmatic questions about police-based conferencing as it was being
applied in the United States: (1) Can typical American police officers
conduct conferences consistent with due process and restorative
justice principles? (2) Does involvement in conferencing transform
police attitudes, organizational culture, and role perceptions? (3)
Does conferencing produce conflict-reducing outcomes by helping to
solve ongoing problems and reduce recidivism? (4) Will victims,
offenders, and the community accept a police-based restorative justice
response? (5) Does the introduction of diversionary conferencing alter
the case processing of juvenile offenders (e.g., net-widening)? (6)
How does police-based conferencing compare to the existing system and
to other restorative justice practices?
The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Department and
the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year study on the
effectiveness of police-based family group conferencing. Beginning on
November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were conducted for the study. Twenty
Bethlehem police officers were trained in facilitating family group
conferences, which involved following a scripted protocol, except when
participants digressed from the focus of the conference. The script
began with a preamble that explained the purpose of the conference and
informed the offenders of their due process rights. The process then
proceeded with the facilitator asking a series of open-ended questions
of the offender, the victim, the victim's supporters, the offender's
supporters, and the arresting officer, if present. In the agreement
phase, all of the participants, beginning with victims, talked about
what they would like to see done to address the harm. Solutions were
not imposed by the police facilitator but resulted from the dynamic
interaction of participants. When an agreement was reached, with
offenders concurring, the conference was over. Then the facilitator
provided refreshments and allowed some time for informal socializing
while writing up the agreement for the participants to sign. Victims,
offenders, and the offenders' parents in the three experimental groups
(control, conference, decline) were surveyed by mail, in-person
interviews, or telephone interviews approximately two weeks after
their cases were disposed. Those who participated in conferences
(Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different questionnaire than those
whose cases went through formal adjudication (Parts 5, 7, and 9), with
similar questions to allow for comparison and some questions
particular to the type of processing used on their case. Data on
recidivism and outcomes of control and decline group cases were
obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest database
(Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district
magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court
database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
(Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered
to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the
conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later
(post-test) (Part 3).
Random sampling.
Offenders, parents of offenders, and victims from cases
eligible for the study in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, between November
1995 and 1997.
Individuals.
Parts 1 and 2: Administrative records. Parts 3 to 9:
Personal and telephone interviews and mail-back questionnaires.
administrative records data,
survey data,
experimental data
Disposition data on cases were collected from five district
magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12,
1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group
cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest
database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district
magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court
database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
(Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered
to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the
conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later
(post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of
offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type,
offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition
data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the
conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current
arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge,
arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced,
current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of
community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected
information on police attitudes and work environment before and after
the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include
ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision,
administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on
operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration,
external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to
9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims
about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice
system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs
about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and
offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with
the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held
accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful,
if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the
respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an
opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the
offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better
opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's
attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a
conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the
talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim
participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better
understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only
wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.
Not applicable
Several Likert-type scales were used.