Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2679)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

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?

Study Design View help for Study Design

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).

Sample View help for Sample

Random sampling.

Universe View help for Universe

Offenders, parents of offenders, and victims from cases eligible for the study in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, between November 1995 and 1997.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

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.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-type scales were used.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2000-08-28

Version History View help for Version History

Hide