Title: Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue Series: Training Manual Author: Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking Published: April 2000 Subject: Victim-Offender Mediation, Restorative Justice 36 pages 90,112 bytes ---------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center at 800-627-6872. ---------------------------- Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director Jean Greenwood, M.Div., Former Training Coordinator Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking (formerly Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation) School of Social Work University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota NCJ 176346 April 2000 ---------------------------- Message From the Director This collection of six documents covers a number of important issues related to restorative justice. Four of the documents focus on victim-offender mediation, which is a major programmatic intervention that fully embraces the concepts of restorative justice. The first of these documents is the Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue, which assists administrators in developing or enhancing their restorative justice programs. It provides practical guidance for mediators to facilitate balanced and fair mediation, which will ensure the safety and integrity of all the participants. The National Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States contains information about the characteristics of the various victim-offender mediation programs operating nationwide and the major issues facing them in their day-to-day operations. The Survey describes the actual functioning of the programs, while the Guidelines sets standards for the practice of victim-offender mediation. Next, the Directory of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States lists all identified victim-offender mediation programs in the country and provides their addresses, phone numbers, and contact and other basic information. The purpose of the Directory is to provide easy access for persons who would like to contact a given program. The Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims document discusses a related form of restorative justice dialogue that originated in New Zealand and Australia and has been replicated in some communities in the United States. The Multicultural Implications of Restorative Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers document informs practitioners about concerns regarding the implementation of such frameworks when working with persons of cross-cultural perspectives. The sixth document, entitled Victim-Offender Mediation and Dialogue in Crimes of Severe Violence, will be added to the collection late FY 2000. It will provide case study evidence suggesting that many of the principles of restorative justice can be applied to crimes of severe violence, including murder. In addition, this document includes a discussion about the need for advanced training for persons working with victims of severe violence. The Office for Victims of Crime does not insist that every victim participate in victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, or other restorative justice intervention. Such participation is a personal decision that each victim must make for herself or himself. We strongly advocate, however, that all restorative justice programs be extremely sensitive to the needs and concerns of the victims who would like to meet with their offenders. No pressure should be placed on victims to participate, for participation must be strictly voluntary. Victims should be granted a choice in the location, timing, and structure of the session and a right to end their participation at any stage in the process. These protections for victims do not mean that offenders can be treated insensitively. Both victim and offender must be dealt with respectfully. We sincerely hope that restorative justice programs already in operation in probation or parole agencies, judicial agencies, religious groups, victim service organizations, community-based organizations, or elsewhere study these documents and embrace the victim-sensitive guidelines that are relevant to their particular type of intervention. Restorative justice programs can only be strengthened by operating with heightened awareness of the needs of crime victims. Kathryn M. Turman Director Office for Victims of Crime ---------------------------- Acknowledgments The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) would like to offer special thanks to authors Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Director, and Jean Greenwood, M.Div., former Training Coordinator, of the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking (formerly the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation), School of Social Work, University of Minnesota. We would also like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of review and commentary made by Carolyn McLeod, Coordinator of Victim-Offender Conferencing for Washington County Court Services in Minnesota; Marlene Young, Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance; and Ann Warner Roberts in her dual role as both the Community Outreach Director of the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota School of Social Work, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Victim-Offender Mediation Association (VOMA). We recognize the valuable contribution of other members of the Board of Directors of VOMA who played a critical role in providing input and the VOMA mailing list that was the foundation of the national survey of programs and the guidelines presented in this document. We also thank the many staff who took the time to participate in the Center's phone interviews about victim-offender mediation program and practices. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by Robert Schug, Administrative Aide at the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, who spent many hours preparing the document and responding to numerous requests for draft copies. This project also benefited greatly from the contributions, guidance, and support of Susan Laurence, the Project Manager at OVC. This Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection is the result of the efforts of many individuals in the field who generously shared their materials and experiences with the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking so that victims may be provided with additional options in the process of healing. ---------------------------- Contents Executive Summary I. Victim-Offender Mediation: A National Perspective What Is It? When Are Cases Referred? How Is It Different From Other Kinds of Mediation? Are Crime Victims Interested? How Many Programs Exist? What Have We Learned From Research? II. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation and Dialogue With Offenders Purpose of Victim-Offender Mediation Underlying Principles of Victim-Offender Mediation Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation III. Recommendations for Program Development Program Recommendations Training Recommendations IV. Summary Appendix A. Results of Survey of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs in the United States Appendix B. What Is Humanistic Mediation? Appendix C. Profiles of Programs Appendix D. Promising Practices Bibliography ---------------------------- Executive Summary The process of allowing interested crime victims to meet offenders in the presence of trained mediators now occurs in nearly 300 communities in the United States and more than 700 communities in Europe. When victim-offender mediation originated in Canada in 1974 and in the United States in 1978, there were only a handful of programs. With the growing interest in restorative justice and the rapid expansion of victim-offender mediation programs, it is important to gain a clear understanding of how the field is developing and becoming highly responsive and sensitive to the needs of crime victims. Every effort must be made to ensure that victims are not used simply as tools for offender rehabilitation, as they are in the dominant offender-driven juvenile and criminal justice systems. At the same time, the needs of offenders must also be considered. This monograph presents specific criteria and recommendations to enhance the overall quality of victim-offender mediation programs and promote far more victim-sensitive practices in the field. The material presented is grounded in a yearlong assessment of the most current practices in the field, based on a nationwide survey. The material focuses on the practice of victim-offender mediation and dialogue regarding property crimes and minor assaults, the kinds of offenses typically addressed through mediation. A small but growing number of victims of severe violence are requesting to meet with their offenders. This is, however, an intensive and lengthy process that requires advanced training for the mediator. Fully addressing the multitude of issues related to working with severely violent victimizations such as sexual assault, attempted homicide, or murder is beyond the scope of this monograph. The growing interest in victim-offender mediation arises from its capability to facilitate a real and understandable sense of justice for those most directly affected by crime: victims, victimized communities, and offenders. Victim-offender mediation breathes life into the emerging concept of restorative justice by asking, who was harmed, how can the harm be addressed, and who is held accountable for what happened. It seeks more balanced and effective juvenile and criminal justice systems that recognize the need to involve and serve victims and victimized communities. At the same time, it seeks to hold offenders more directly accountable to those they have harmed without overreliance upon costly incarceration. Along with identifying specific recommendations for program development, the monograph sets forth guidelines for victim-sensitive victim-offender mediation. The guidelines address victim safety, screening of cases, the victim's and offender's choices, the mediator's obligations and responsibilities, victim and offender support, the use of victim-sensitive language, and training for mediators in victim sensitivity. ---------------------------- I. Victim-Offender Mediation: A National Perspective ---------------------------- An increasing number of crime victims are choosing to meet face-to-face with the persons who victimized them. They are able to let the offenders know how the crime affected their lives, to receive answers to many lingering questions, and to be directly involved in holding offenders accountable for the harm they caused. Victim-offender mediation is recognized as a viable alternative to more traditional retributive response for serving victims' needs by probation, prosecuting attorneys, courts, correctional facilities, and communities. As the field of victim-offender mediation has grown extensively over the past 25 years, it has become increasingly important to conduct the process in a highly victim-sensitive manner while considering the needs of offenders. Before addressing the underlying principles and guidelines of victim-offender mediation, a description of the mediation process follows. What Is It? Victim-offender mediation (VOM) is a process that provides interested victims (primarily those of property crimes and minor assaults) the opportunity to meet their offenders in a safe and structured setting. The goal is to hold offenders directly accountable while providing important support and assistance to victims. With the assistance of trained mediators, the victims are able to let the offenders know how the crime affected them, receive answers to their questions, and be directly involved in developing a restitution plan that holds the offenders financially accountable for the losses they caused. The offenders are directly responsible for their behavior and therefore must learn the full impact of what they did and develop a plan for making amends, to the degree possible, to the persons they violated. Offenders' failure to complete the restitution agreement results in further court-imposed consequences. Some VOM programs are called "victim-offender meetings," "victim-offender reconciliation," or "victim-offender conferences." Victim-offender mediation is one of the clearest expressions of restorative justice, a movement that is receiving a great deal of attention throughout North America and Europe. Current juvenile and criminal justice systems are primarily offender-driven, with a retributive "trail 'em, nail 'em, and jail 'em" perspective that views crime as an offense against the State and offers little help to crime victims. Restorative justice, however, provides a very different framework for understanding and responding to crime and victimization. Moving beyond the offender-driven focus, restorative justice identifies three clients: individual victims, victimized communities, and offenders. Crime is understood primarily as an offense against people within communities, as opposed to the more abstract legal definition of crime as a violation against the State. Those most directly affected by crime are allowed to play an active role in restoring peace between individuals and within communities. Restoration of the emotional and material losses resulting from crime is far more important than imposing ever-increasing levels of costly punishment on the offender. The debt owed by offenders is concrete. Rather than passively "taking their punishment," offenders are encouraged to actively restore losses, to the degree possible, to victims and communities. The use of dialogue and negotiation among victims, victimized communities, and offenders is emphasized. In truth, the essence of what is being called restorative justice is deeply rooted in the traditional practices of many indigenous people throughout the world, such as American Indians, Pacific Islanders, the Maori in New Zealand, and First Nation people in Canada. When Are Cases Referred? In some programs, cases are primarily referred to victim-offender mediation as a diversion from prosecution, assuming the mediation agreement is successfully completed. In other programs, cases are referred primarily after a formal admission of guilt has been accepted by the court, with the mediation being a condition of probation (if the victim is interested). Some programs receive case referrals at both the diversion and post-adjudication levels. Most cases are referred by officials involved in the juvenile justice system, although some programs also receive referrals from the adult criminal justice system. Judges, probation officers, victim advocates, prosecutors, defense attorneys, or police can make referrals to VOM programs. The national survey of VOM programs that was conducted as part of this project found that, of the 116 programs that were interviewed (out of a total of 289 identified), 34 percent indicated that their primary referral was at a diversion level; 28 percent, at a post-adjudication but pre-disposition level; and 28 percent, at a post-disposition level of referral (appendix A). How Is It Different From Other Kinds of Mediation? Mediation is being used in an increasing number of conflict situations, such as divorce and child custody cases, community disputes, commercial disputes, and other civil court-related conflicts. In such settings, the parties are called "disputants," and the assumption made is that both are contributing to the conflict and therefore both need to compromise to reach a settlement. Often, mediation in these cases focuses heavily upon reaching a settlement, with less emphasis upon discussing the full impact of the conflict on the disputants' lives. In victim-offender mediation, the involved parties are not "disputants." Generally, one party has clearly committed a criminal offense and has admitted doing so, whereas the other has clearly been victimized. Therefore, the issue of guilt or innocence is not mediated. Nor is there an expectation that crime victims compromise or request less than what they need to restore their losses. Although many other types of mediation are largely "settlement-driven," victim-offender mediation is primarily "dialogue-driven," with emphasis upon victim empowerment, offender accountability, and restoration of losses. Most VOM sessions (more than 95 percent) result in a signed restitution agreement. This agreement, however, is secondary to the importance of the initial dialogue between the parties. This dialogue addresses emotional and informational needs of victims that are central to both the empowerment of the victims and the development of victim empathy in the offenders, which can help to prevent criminal behavior in the future. Research has consistently found that the restitution agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to express their feelings about the offense directly to the offenders (Schneider, 1986). Restorative impact is strongly related to the creation of a safe place for dialogue between the crime victim and the offender. ---------------------------- Table 1 identifies key characteristics of victim-offender mediation that are likely to result in the least and the most restorative impact. ---------------------------- Table 1: Victim-Offender Mediation Continuum: From Least to Most Restorative Impact LEAST RESTORATIVE IMPACT Agreement-Driven: Offender Focus o Entire focus is upon determining the amount of financial restitution to be paid, with no opportunity to talk directly about the full impact of the crime upon the victims, the community, and the offenders. o No separate preparation meetings are conducted with the victims and offenders prior to bringing them together. o Victims are not given a choice of where they would feel the most comfortable and safe to meet or of whom they would like to have present. o Victims are given only written notice to appear for a mediation session at a preset time, with no preparation. o The mediators or facilitators describe the offense and then the offenders speak, with the victims simply asking a few questions or responding to questions from the mediator. o A highly directive style of facilitation is conducted with mediators talking most of the time, continually asking both victims and offenders questions, with little if any direct dialogue between the involved parties. o The session is marked by low tolerance of moments of silence or expressions of feelings. o The mediation session is voluntary for victims but required of offenders whether or not they take responsibility. o The mediation is settlement-driven and very brief (10-15 minutes). MOST RESTORATIVE IMPACT Dialogue-Driven: Victim Sensitive o Primary points of focus are to provide an opportunity for victims and offenders to talk directly to each other; to allow victims to express the full impact of the crime upon their lives and receive answers to important questions they have; and to allow offenders to understand the real human impact of their behavior and take direct responsibility for seeking to make things right. o Restitution is important but secondary to the dialogue about the impact of the crime. o Victims are continually given choices throughout the process: where to meet, who should be present, etc. o Separate preparation meetings are conducted with victims and offenders prior to bringing them together, with emphasis upon listening to how the crime has affected them, identifying their needs, and preparing them for the mediation or conference session. o A nondirective style of facilitation is fostered with the parties talking most of the time. The mediation incorporates a high tolerance of silence and the use of a humanistic or transforming mediation model (see appendix B). o The mediation is marked by high tolerance for expressions of feelings and of the full impact of crime. o Mediation is voluntary for both victims and offenders. o Trained community volunteers serve as mediators or comediators along with agency staff. o The mediation session is dialogue-driven and typically about an hour (or longer) in length. ---------------------------- Are Crime Victims Interested? Interest in victim-offender mediation spread in the late 1970s, and local funding began supporting the development of new programs across the country. A recent statewide public opinion poll in Minnesota found that 82 percent of a random sample of citizens throughout the State would consider participating in a VOM program if they were victims of property crimes. Interviews with 280 victims who participated in VOM programs in 4 States found that 91 percent felt their participation was totally voluntary. For those victims in the comparison group for this study--namely, those who did not participate in mediation--70 percent would have preferred to meet the offender had they been given the choice. Victim-offender mediation is not appropriate for all crimes. In all cases, it must be presented as a choice to the victim. How Many Programs Exist? A national survey of the field found 289 VOM programs throughout the United States as of 1998. Today, a more accurate estimation would be in excess of 300. Telephone interviews with 116 of the programs revealed that 42 percent of the programs were run by community-based agencies, 23 percent were church-based programs, 17 percent were sponsored by probation and correctional departments, 3 percent were based in victim services agencies, 4 percent were operated by prosecuting attorney's offices, and 11 percent were managed by other types of agencies. Programs most frequently identified their primary source of funding as local, State, or Federal Government. Foundations were the fourth most frequent source of funding. Of those programs answering the question, 46 programs (45 percent) work only with juvenile offenders and their victims, 9 programs (9 percent) work only with adult offenders and their victims, and 48 programs (46 percent) work with both. The vast majority of cases handled by the programs are property offenses and minor assaults. A number of the more experienced programs, however, periodically work with more violent cases. After 20 years of development and many thousands of cases (primarily property crimes and minor assaults) in more than 1,000 communities throughout North America (more than 300) and Europe (more than 700), victim-offender mediation is finally beginning to move toward the center of criminal and juvenile justice systems (table 2). Some programs are still small, with a very limited number of case referrals. Many other programs are receiving several hundred referrals per year. A few programs have recently been asked to divert 1,000 or more cases each year from the court system, and county governments have provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund these VOM programs. It is clear that the field of VOM has grown extensively since the first Victim-Offender Reconciliation Project was initiated in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, in 1974, and replicated in the United States in Elkart, Indiana, in 1978. Perhaps the clearest expression of how the field has continued to develop is the recognition it received in 1994 when the American Bar Association (ABA) endorsed the practice of victim-offender mediation. After many years of supporting civil court mediation, with limited interest in criminal mediation, the ABA now endorses the process and recommends the use of "victim-offender mediation and dialogue" in courts throughout the United States. Similarly, a recent statewide survey of victim service providers in Minnesota found that 91 percent believed that victim-offender mediation should be available in every judicial district since it represents an important service option for crime victims. ---------------------------- Table 2: International Development of Victim-Offender Mediation Programs Country Number Australia 5 Austria 17 Belgium 31 Canada 26 Denmark 5 England 43 Finland 130 France 73 Germany 348 Italy 4 New Zealand Available in all jurisdictions Norway 44 Scotland 2 South Africa 1 Sweden 10 United States 289 ---------------------------- What Have We Learned From Research? While a continuing need for more research in this field remains, far more empirical data exist on this option than one might find on many other correctional justice interventions. During the past several years, a small but growing body of empirical data has emerged from multisite assessments in Canada, England, and the United States. Studies conducted over the past 12 years throughout Europe and North America report high levels of satisfaction with the mediation process and outcome on the part of victims and offenders (Coates and Gehm, 1989; Collins, 1984; Dignan, 1990; Fischer and Jeune, 1987; Galaway, 1988; Galaway and Hudson, 1996; Gehm, 1990; Marshall and Merry, 1990; Perry, Lajeunesse, and Woods, 1987; Umbreit, 1989, 1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b; Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and Wright and Galaway, 1989). Some studies found higher restitution completion rates (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), reduced fear among victims (Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), and reduced further criminal behavior (Nugent and Paddock, 1995; Schneider, 1986; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b). Multisite studies in England (Marshall and Merry, 1990; and Umbreit and Roberts, 1996), the United States (Coates and Gehm, 1989; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b), and Canada (Umbreit, 1995a and 1995b) have confirmed most of these findings. A large multisite study in the United States (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b) found that victims of crime who meet with their offenders are far more likely to be satisfied with the criminal justice system response to their cases than victims of similar offenses who go through the conventional criminal court process. It is becoming increasingly clear that the victim-offender mediation process can serve to humanize the criminal justice experience for both the victim and the offender. It holds offenders directly accountable to the people they have victimized, allows for more active involvement of crime victims and community members (as volunteer mediators and support persons) in the justice process, and reduces further criminal behavior of offenders. During the early 1980s, many questioned whether crime victims would want to meet face-to-face with their offender. Today it is clear, from empirical data and experience, that the majority of crime victims who are presented with the opportunity for mediation and dialogue choose to engage in the process, with victim participation rates in many programs ranging from 60 to 70 percent. ---------------------------- II. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation and Dialogue With Offenders ---------------------------- As the field of victim-offender mediation continues to develop throughout the United States, it becomes increasingly important that the mediation process be conducted in the most victim-sensitive manner possible while addressing important needs of the offender. This section offers a number of very specific guidelines and recommendations to strengthen victim-sensitive mediation practices. Purpose of Victim-Offender Mediation The purpose of victim-offender mediation and dialogue is to provide a restorative conflict resolution process that actively involves victims and offenders in repairing (to the degree possible) the emotional and material harm caused by the crime; an opportunity for both victims and offenders to discuss offenses and express their feelings and for victims to get answers to their questions; and an opportunity for victims and offenders to develop mutually acceptable restitution plans that address the harm caused by the crime. Underlying Principles of Victim-Offender Mediation 1. Human beings possess inner resources that, under the right circumstances, can be accessed and used to address issues and resolve problems of importance to them. 2. Appropriate structure (including a neutral third-party facilitator, procedural guidelines, and a seating plan) can neutralize differences in status and power and provide an environment conducive to meaningful dialogue, even in emotionally intense contexts. 3. The use of specific techniques and strategies by the mediator must serve the larger goal of creating a safe, comfortable environment in which a mediated dialogue can occur. 4. The "personal" element is powerful: stories of individual experience can evoke empathy, insight, and understanding. Telling and hearing these stories can be empowering, validating, and transforming for both the speaker and the listener. 5. The mediator's presence plays an important role in facilitating an open dialogue in which the parties are actively engaged and doing most of the talking. This "presence" is established through the mediator's verbal and nonverbal communication, tone of voice, straightforwardness, expression of empathy, and genuine concern for each party. 6. Presenting choices to the parties whenever possible (when to meet, where to meet, etc.) maximizes opportunities for them to feel empowered by the process. 7. The mediator's role is critical in a successful mediation. It is important for mediators "to get out of the way" and encourage conversation between victims and offenders. Mediators should be cautious about intervening too frequently. 8. The mediation process may be adapted to meet the needs of the participating parties so that they feel safe and comfortable to engage in an open dialogue. Continual attention must be paid to differences in communication style that can distort meaning. 9. Discovering underlying needs and interests can enhance a collaborative effort and provide more satisfying results. 10. Well-written agreements guide and focus behavior, thereby enhancing results. A written agreement, however, is secondary in importance to the dialogue between the victim and the offender about the crime itself and its impact on their lives. Some mediated dialogue sessions may satisfy the needs of the parties without resulting in a written agreement. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Mediation 1. Victim Safety A fundamental guideline for VOM programs is protecting the safety of the victim. The mediator must do everything possible to ensure that the victim will not be harmed. At every point in the mediation process, the mediator must ask, "Does this pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim?" It is essential that the mediator maintain rapport, study verbal and nonverbal communication, and request feedback from the victim as the process unfolds. If the victim feels unsafe, the mediator must be prepared to act immediately, to provide options, to terminate a mediation session, and to provide an escort for the victim leaving mediation. To ensure the safety of the victim, the mediation should be conducted in a location that the victim considers safe, and the victim should be encouraged to bring along a support person or two. The mediator may also wish to bring in another mediator to comediate the session. In addition, the victim may find it reassuring to have input on the arrangement of the room and the seating of the parties and to have the freedom to be introduced in the manner he or she chooses, such as using only first names. An important safeguard for victims is knowing that the VOM program has credibility. That credibility needs to be reinforced in writing, with an informative letter of introduction and a program brochure. Victims may also need reassurance that the program is not focused on the offender. In programs using volunteers, victims need to be assured that staff work closely with volunteers, that victims may contact staff if they have questions or concerns, and that referrals are screened by staff with safety issues in mind. Programs should consider having a victim advisory council consisting of crime victims and service providers to give guidance in policy and program development and implementation and to serve as a liaison to the victim-serving community. 2. Careful Screening of Cases Each mediation program should have its own criteria for case selection, such as type of offense, age of offender (juvenile or adult), first-time offense, or multiple offenses. In addition to program criteria, staff or mediators or both should exercise discretion as each case is developed and at each step in the process, asking themselves if this case is suited for and should proceed to mediation. For mediation to be meaningful, offenders must take responsibility for their participation in the crime and proceed willingly. If a mediator has any doubts about moving ahead with the process, he or she should talk with the victim to explain the situation, share information about the offender (with the offender's permission), and inquire about the victim's desire to proceed. A victim may choose to proceed even if the offender is inarticulate or less than remorseful-- simply because he or she wishes to be heard--or a victim may decide not to participate in mediation in such a situation. It is also important that mediators consider the readiness of both parties to participate in mediation, noting in particular victims' ability to represent their own interests and express their needs. 3. Meeting First With the Offender A mediator usually meets first with the offender, prior to contacting the victim. Then, if the offender is willing to participate in mediation, the victim can be contacted and a meeting can be arranged. If the mediator meets first with a victim, gains his or her consent to participate in mediation, and later discovers that the offender will not participate, the victim may feel revictimized--having raised hopes for some resolution to the crime, only to be denied that opportunity. If, however, contacting the offender results in a significant delay of mediation, the mediator needs to talk to the victim about the situation, explaining the importance of voluntary participation on the part of the offender. 4. Offender's Choice To Participate It is important that offenders participate voluntarily in all stages of the mediation process. Even when the court system pressures them to participate, offenders must understand that they may, in fact, decline. If offenders are forced to mediate, victims may experience the mediation as unsatisfactory and even harmful. The offender's unwillingness or insincerity may constitute an additional offense in the eyes of the victim. 5. Victim's Choices Following a crime, a victim often feels vulnerable and powerless. Added to that is the victim's experiences with the criminal or juvenile justice system, which focuses on the offender. The victim is excluded from the process, rarely being offered an opportunity to tell his or her experiences, define the resulting harm, or express needs. It is not surprising that in the wake of a crime, a victim often expresses a lack of control in his or her life that can intensify fears and anxieties. The presence of choices and options for the victim in the mediation process can contribute to a sense of power. Empowerment is conducive to healing, the ability to move beyond difficult and painful experiences or integrate them into one's life. The mediator provides information and support for the victim engaged in decisionmaking but is careful not to apply pressure or impose expectations on the victim. The victim must be given sufficient time to make decisions, without the pressure of arbitrary time constraints. Choices should continually be presented to the victim throughout the mediation process as several decisions need to be made, including the following: Participation. The victim must always have the right to say "no" to mediation, to refuse to participate, and to have that decision honored and respected. The victim did not choose to be a victim of a crime. It is crucial then that the victim experiences the power of choice about participating in the mediation process. The victim must always be invited to participate and must be educated about this option, but never pressured. The mediator should give accurate information about mediation, describing the process itself, the range of responses from victims who have participated in mediation, and research findings on client satisfaction. The mediator then should encourage the victim to consider the possible benefits and risks of mediation before deciding to proceed. The victim may also wish to consult with a trusted friend, relative, clergy person, or victim advocate before making a final decision. It is essential that the victim's participation is based on "informed consent." Support. Another important option for the victim is the choice of support persons to accompany him or her to the mediation session. The presence of a friend or relative can enhance the victim's sense of comfort and safety, even though the support person typically has little or no speaking role. It is helpful for the mediator to meet or telephone support persons to prepare them for the mediation session. Schedule for mediation session. The mediation session should be scheduled at a time that is convenient for the victim. The victim's schedule needs to be a priority so that the victim can feel a sense of control in the situation and find comfort in the deference extended. At the same time the needs of others should not be ignored. Mediation site. Site selection is an important aspect of the mediation process. The victim needs to know the locations available (e.g., private room in a community center, library, religious building, office building, city hall) and be asked which he or she prefers. Which setting would feel safe, neutral, comfortable, and convenient? Occasionally, a victim chooses a more personal setting, for example, a home or an institution such as the detention center at which the offender is being held. The victim should consider the advantages and disadvantages of particular settings. The final decision, however, should be the victim's. Seating. Generally, the parties are seated across from each other, allowing them to establish direct eye contact as their dialogue develops. The use of a table may increase the victim's sense of safety and maintain decorum. Mediators then are typically seated at the ends of the table, while support persons sit off to the side of each party. This arrangement, or a variation of it, is generally thought to be effective. If, however, the victim finds it uncomfortable, his or her wishes should be given serious consideration. Occasionally, a victim chooses to sit closest to the door or at a greater distance from the offender or request that support persons sit on the other side of the table, thus making them more visible to the victim. Various cultural traditions may also suggest a different arrangement. Whatever the seating, it should be conducive to dialogue and comfortable for all parties. A victim's sense of security should be a priority in determining the seating arrangement. First speaker. The victim should have the opportunity to choose whether to speak first during the initial narrative portion of the mediation session or whether to speak last. This choice is given out of deference to his or her position as the victim of crime--a position the criminal and juvenile justice systems frequently ignore once the complaint has been filed. Often a victim finds it empowering to begin by defining the harm--telling the offender first what was experienced and how it has affected him or her. At times, however, a victim feels "put on the spot" and requests that the offender speak first, initiating the session and accepting responsibility for the crime. A victim sometimes finds it validating, and often healing, to hear an offender offer words of regret or remorse that have not been elicited by the victim's story. The mediator must make sure, however, that whatever the order, both parties' complete stories are heard--that, for example, the victim's emotional content is not compromised by any remorse the offender may express, and that the offender, particularly if the offender is a juvenile, does not retreat into silence in the face of the victim's emotional intensity. In selecting who should speak first, the mediator may have to decide based on the ages, needs, and communication styles of both parties. When the mediator chooses who will initiate the conversation in a particular case, it is important that he or she discuss the decision and the rationale privately with both parties prior to the mediation session. Creating a safe place where both parties feel comfortable enough to engage in an open dialogue to the extent of their ability is ultimately the most important principle, regardless of who speaks first. Termination of session. An extension of the victim's choice to participate in mediation is the right to end the process at any point. The victim should be informed that mediation remains a voluntary process to the end. If the victim feels uncomfortable or unsafe, the mediator should consult first with both parties and then conclude the mediation session temporarily or terminate the process entirely. Restitution. A victim has the right to select the restitution option that best meets his or her needs. In addition to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, a victim may request that the offender undertake community service (a public service of the victim's choice), perform personal service for the victim, write a letter of apology, participate in treatment or other programs to improve his or her competence, or complete some other creative assignment. Although the final restitution plan will be negotiated with the offender, the victim must understand that he or she can request a particular compensation, within legal limits. 6. Mediator's Obligations During the In-Person Premediation Session With the Victim The mediator visits face-to-face with the victim at a convenient time and place. The mediator usually offers to come to the victim's home or to an alternative location if the victim prefers another setting. The purpose of the visit is to establish credibility and rapport with the victim and to accomplish the following tasks: to listen to the victim's stories, to provide information and answer questions, and to assist the victim in considering mediation as an option. During the initial visit, the mediator should ask whether the victim would rather begin by telling his or her story or whether he or she would prefer to learn first about the mediation program. Listen. A critical task for the mediator is to attend to the victim, listening carefully, patiently, and sympathetically out of a genuine desire to hear about the victim's experience. Effective listening by the mediator gives the victim a chance to vent and validate his or her feelings. The mediator's attentive listening encourages the victim's trust and lets the victim know that he or she is a priority. Occasional informal paraphrasing or summarizing by the mediator assures the victim that the mediator is indeed paying attention and values what is being said. Provide information and answer questions about-- o The mediation program: The mediator needs to give the victim thorough and accurate information about the program itself (both orally and in writing) including its goals, history, the population it serves, and any costs for participants who might be involved. (Note: It should always be free for victims.) o Oneself as mediator: Mediators should offer a few brief words about their mediation training and experience and about themselves personally, as appropriate. Giving information about oneself helps to build rapport and trust with the victim. o The mediation process and its purpose: The victim also needs to know, in some detail, what happens in the mediation process, the role of participants, and its overall purposes. o The judicial system: Victims typically want to know what has happened so far to the offenders and what might occur if they proceed with mediation or if they decline. The limitations of the judicial system should also be addressed. A mediator needs to be attentive to questions that may arise, even after the mediation session. o Victim's rights: A victim should be given a summary of the rights granted to victims in that State. Summaries are available from most of the thousands of system and community-based victim service organizations in large and small communities across America. o Available resources: A mediator must be attentive to the victim's needs and should contact staff, offer resources, or make referrals as requested to local, State, and national organizations or agencies. A mediator should check out the agencies to which referrals are made or make personal followup calls to ensure that the victim's needs are met. o The offender: As a victim begins to consider mediation, he or she may find it helpful to know something about the offender's state of mind and circumstances. Mediators must get the offender's permission before sharing this kind of information. Discuss risks and benefits and assist victims in decisionmaking. After providing the essential information about victim-offender mediation, the mediator needs to assist the victim in considering the risks and benefits of mediation in his or her particular situation. 7. Mediator's Responsibilities for Carefully Preparing the Victim After a victim has decided to proceed with mediation, the mediator needs to prepare the victim for what lies ahead. This can be done in the initial meeting or in additional sessions. It is important that the mediation session not be scheduled until the victim feels ready for it. It is also important that the mediator try to accommodate any special needs, such as the need for interpreters or needs related to physical handicaps or mental limitations. Ensure victim's expectations are realistic. A victim may develop inflated expectations of the mediation process (e.g., reconciliation with the offender, complete healing or peace of mind, rehabilitation of the offender, or total repair of the damage done). Although very positive outcomes are generally experienced by both the victim and the offender, they cannot be guaranteed. The mediator needs to be realistic with the victim, providing accurate information about possible outcomes and the kinds of results that are most typical, with strong caution that each mediation is unique (just as each victim is unique) and cannot be predicted. Assess losses and needs. Victims may appreciate assistance in identifying losses experienced in the crime and current needs related to the crime. These can include material and out-of-pocket monetary losses as well as less tangible losses affecting their sense of safety and feelings of connection with their community. Estimate restitution possibilities. A mediator should engage the victim in preliminary brainstorming about the ways losses and needs might be addressed- -what it would take to repair the harm done. This process is intended to spark the victim's ideas about possibilities for restitution that may or may not be monetary. This groundwork must be laid before the mediation so that, during the actual negotiation process, the victim has a solid base of ideas to draw from to make the most suitable proposal. Victims, primarily those of violent crimes, should also be informed of State victim compensation, assistance, or other public funds dedicated to reimbursing victim losses. 8. Offender Support An offender may choose to have a friend or relative accompany him or her to the mediation session. The presence of support persons can reinforce the seriousness of the mediation process. In addition, these supporters may in the future serve as reminders to the offender of the commitments made and as "coaches" who can encourage the offender to fulfill the agreement. Creating a comfortable environment for the offender also makes for a better mediation that benefits the victim, offender, community, and the justice system. 9. Mediator's Obligation During the In-Person Premediation Session With the Offender In the initial meeting with the offender, the mediator seeks to establish credibility and rapport. To accomplish these tasks, the mediator needs to hear the offender's experiences, offer information and answer questions about the process, and assist the offender in considering mediation as an option. As described in guideline number 6, the mediator, as attentive listener, gains an understanding of the offender's experiences and feelings relative to the crime, provides information, and responds to the offender's questions. The offender needs to know about the mediation program and the mediator, the process itself and its relationship to the judicial system, his or her rights, and available resources. The offender may also have questions about the victim. The mediator must have the victim's permission before reporting what he or she has said. Using all available relevant information, the mediator assists the offender in deciding whether to participate in mediation. It is important that each offender considers the risks and benefits of the process in his or her particular situation. Having a well-informed, willing offender increases the chances that the mediation session will be beneficial for all parties involved. 10. Mediator's Responsibilities for Carefully Preparing the Offender After the offender has decided to participate in mediation, the mediator needs to prepare him or her for the session. The offender must feel ready to proceed before the mediation session is scheduled. He or she needs a chance to reflect on the crime and feelings about it, as well as an opportunity to organize what he or she wishes to say to the victim. To help the offender try to understand the victim's experience, the mediator may invite the offender to recall experiences of being victimized and then ask him or her to consider what the actual victim might be feeling or might want. These reflections should be within the context that any past victimization the offender may have experienced in no way excuses the choices he or she later made to hurt another person. The mediator may ask the offender what he or she would like to do for the victim. It is also important that the mediator try to accommodate interpreters or any special needs related to physical disabilities or mental limitations. Ensure offender's expectations are realistic. Offenders may need assistance in maintaining realistic expectations of mediation. An offender may expect that an apology automatically diffuses the intensity of the victim's emotions or that one mediation session erases the harm caused by the crime. The offender's disappointment if such expectations are not met can be detrimental to the victim, who may experience guilt or anger as a result. In any case, an apology has no meaning without true remorse. Assess victim's losses and restitution possibilities and offender's ability to fulfill agreements. Mediators should assist offenders in thinking about the needs and the losses victims might have experienced, both tangible and intangible, and then engage offenders in preliminary brainstorming about the ways those needs and losses might be addressed, such as what it would take to repair the harm done. Mediators should discuss with offenders what resources might be used in addressing the losses, including present income, income that can be generated by taking additional jobs, and the types of services that he or she can offer to the victim. Offenders should be encouraged to continue thinking of restitution ideas and resources in preparation for the mediation session. 11. Use of Victim-Sensitive Language Mediators must be careful in their use of language. Certain words and phrases can imply judgment or convey expectation. For example, if a mediator says or implies "you should" to either party, then neutrality is lost, rapport and credibility may be damaged, and a victim may feel pressured and experience a diminished sense of control. The mediator must provide information, present the options, and encourage the victim to make the best decision. Most people are accustomed to seeing professionals or trained volunteers as experts with answers; in contrast, mediators must be vigilant in guarding the choices--and thus the autonomy--of both parties. It is also important that mediators avoid the use of words such as "forgiveness" or "reconciliation." Again, such words pressure and prescribe behavior for victims. In addition, mediators should try to avoid raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled in a particular case. For example, using words such as "healing," "restoration," and "being made whole" to describe possible outcomes for mediation may elevate victims' hopes unrealistically. In the case of "reconciliation," many victims find this word hurtful because it implies there was a conciliatory relationship in the first place. Some victims may experience a degree of reconciliation, but this must occur spontaneously, without a directive from the mediator. In fact, it is more likely to occur if the mediator avoids directives. Forgiveness also may be expressed during the mediation session, but the mediator's use of the word "forgiveness" may be destructive to the victim. Victims may, for example, feel guilty if they fail to feel forgiving. They may resent the suggestion and shut down to the point that they miss the opportunity to truly express how the crime has affected them, which is typically a component of healing. 12. Use of Humanistic/Dialogue-Driven Model of Mediation The mediation session itself is guided by a humanistic approach that is "dialogue-driven" rather than "settlement-driven," which includes the following topics (see appendix B, What Is Humanistic Mediation?): Perspective of the mediator. Through a nonjudgmental attitude and a positive, hopeful demeanor, the mediator conveys his or her trustworthiness and sensitivity to the needs of both parties. Relaxed, positive atmosphere. The mediator needs to put the parties as much at ease as possible, renew the connections developed in previous separate meetings, and establish an informal yet dignified atmosphere that is conducive to dialogue and constructive problem solving and is of mutual benefit. The mediator should present a calm, centered manner and should not dominate the conversation. Dialogue between victim and offender. As the mediation session proceeds, time must be allowed for interaction between victim and offender and for personal narratives. Silence must be honored. Time pressures or a focus on reaching agreement can detract from the benefits of dialogue, questions, and answers. Procedural guidelines. During the initial meeting with each participant and at the beginning of the mediation session, the mediator must discuss the procedural guidelines that shape the process. These guidelines help to establish a safe, structured setting, encourage respectful conversation that acknowledges concerns of each party, and elicit the strengths of the participants. Each party is assured the opportunity to speak without interruption. The mediator, who assumes a nondirective role, guards the process. Feedback from participants. The mediator needs to maintain attentiveness to the parties, watching for nonverbal cues and perceiving unacknowledged feelings, as well as directly requesting feedback and consulting in private with each party as needed to get further information. The mediator should talk with each party before and after the mediation session to maximize feedback. Option of followup session. The mediator needs to mention the possibility of an additional session. Some parties find it useful to meet again, for example, to conclude the conversation, allowing for additional thoughts, feelings, or questions to arise; to negotiate further details regarding restitution; or to acknowledge fulfillment of the agreement. 13. Followup After the Mediation Session It is vital that the mediator follow through on commitments and questions raised in the mediation session. The dependability of the mediator is of utmost importance to victims and offenders. Completion of agreement. The agreement that is the product of the mediation session needs to be carefully monitored. The mediator should check with the offender periodically to reinforce what was accomplished in the mediation session and to assist with any problems that may interfere with the offender fulfilling the agreement. Notification of victim regarding status of the agreement. The victim should be notified when the agreement has been fulfilled or if circumstances have changed that may suggest alterations in the agreement. Scheduling additional sessions if needed. If another meeting is desired by either the victim or the offender, the mediator should contact the parties and negotiate an additional session. Telephone contact with parties. The mediator should maintain telephone contact with both parties for a period of time following the mediation session, whether the agreement has already been completed or not. A brief check-in may be all that is required. The mediator can serve as a continuing source of information and referral. If the case is not mediated, it may be beneficial, nonetheless, for the mediator or victim support staff to maintain telephone contact with the victim for a period of up to 6 months. Some mediators have found that monthly written progress reports are more meaningful to victims than telephone calls. Evaluation. VOM programs should establish procedures for evaluation of all mediations. Victims and offenders need to be surveyed to ascertain their satisfaction with the mediation process and its outcome. 14. Training for Mediators in Victim Sensitivity The initial training and continuing education of mediators should include information on the experiences of victims of crime, referral sources, appropriate communication skills for mediators, victim's and offender's rights, and guidelines for victim-sensitive mediation. Trainees need to hear from victim advocates and victims themselves. ---------------------------- III. Recommendations for Program Development ---------------------------- Program Recommendations 1. Create an Advisory Board An advisory board can contribute significantly to the effectiveness of a victim-offender mediation program. Its role may be consultative, without decisionmaking authority. The board can assist in developing the program, maintaining quality in program procedures and practices, fundraising, and building support for the program within the judicial system and local community. The composition of the advisory board may vary, depending on the context and the needs of the program. The board may include the following members: o A victim who has participated in victim-offender mediation. o An offender who has participated in victim-offender mediation. o Youth from the community. o Representatives from the judiciary or court administration. o Representatives from probation or parole. o Police officers or diversion workers. o Representatives from victim services. o Social workers or counselors. o Health care workers. o Other community representatives from the media, schools, and religious groups. 2. Ensure Quality Control Through Program Evaluation Procedures for program evaluation need to be established from the outset to ensure quality control. Evaluations provide the program staff with general feedback relative to the mediation process itself and the effectiveness of program procedures. Evaluations also offer information about specific cases and the competence of specific mediators. As a result, staff may suggest further training or consultation for specific mediators or followup work with the participants in a particular case. Evaluations should be gathered from participants, mediator, and probation officer or victim service personnel. Participants. In general, evaluations should be anonymous to encourage honest responses. A coding system can be used, so that staff can identify the particular case and mediator involved. One model for participant evaluation has two phases. During the first phase, information is gathered at the time of the mediation session. A simple evaluation form is distributed to all participants, including parents of juvenile offenders who might be present, with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The participants are asked to complete the evaluation as soon as possible and mail it back, or they may complete the form onsite at the end of the mediation session, if they prefer. The second phase of this evaluation process occurs at a later time, between 3 and 6 months after the mediation session. The evaluation may be conducted in several ways to gather information: o An instrument may be mailed out to all participants with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. o A telephone survey may be conducted. o A face-to-face interview may be conducted. The survey or interview may be conducted by a volunteer or a staff member, but should not be conducted by the person who actually mediated the case. An additional method for gathering information from victims is to sponsor focus groups composed of victims who are willing to discuss their experiences in mediation and offer input about the program and its practices. Mediator. The mediator also needs to evaluate the mediation. A feedback instrument can be completed by the mediator immediately following the mediation session. Completing a self-evaluation helps the mediator develop observation, analysis, and self-reflection skills. The mediator's evaluation can also alert program staff to any issues or problems that may need further attention or suggest revisions in program procedures. Probation officer or victim service personnel. Feedback needs to be gathered from probation officers or victim service personnel who work with the parties before, during, and after mediation. This may be accomplished through formal evaluation or informal feedback. 3. Develop and Maintain an Extensive and Effective Network A crucial component of any victim-offender mediation program is the cultivation of connections with stakeholders in the community. Stakeholders include judges and court referees who may make referrals to the program, victim service personnel who may refer cases or work with clients prior to or after mediation, prosecuting attorneys and public defenders who have an interest in the outcome of the case and the status of the parties, and probation officers who may follow up with offenders. Establishing these relationships is vital to the continuous flow of appropriate referrals and the overall success of the program. VOM can be used as a diversion from prosecution or after a formal admission of guilt has been accepted by the court, with mediation being a condition of probation (if the victim is interested). Because mediation represents a serious departure from the traditional handling of offenders, a concerted effort needs to be made to educate court-related personnel on the VOM process. They need information about the benefits and risks of mediation, the types of cases suitable for referral, specific outcomes of cases, research findings about the short- and long-term impact of mediation, safeguards and quality control procedures, and evaluation processes. Stakeholders will also want assurance about the credibility of the program itself and the training and competence of the mediators. In addition to providing information to stakeholders, program staff may seek to strengthen the partnership by exploring avenues for collaboration. The training of mediators is a natural opportunity for collaboration. Victim service providers can present a training segment on the experience of victims. Portions of the training can be held in the office of victim services. Probation officers can provide a parallel segment on the experience of offenders. A judge can describe what happens to victims and offenders in the courtroom and offer information about what typically happens to a case that is not mediated. The presence of representatives of the judicial system also informs trainees that the system appreciates and supports mediation and values their contribution as volunteer mediators. Service providers may take the roles of victims and offenders to demonstrate how a case progresses through the system from beginning to end. Such collaboration not only provides trainees with needed information but also builds relationships within the system that can help ensure the success of a mediation program. Seeking support for victims and offenders throughout the VOM process provides another opportunity for collaboration. For example, a victim service provider may provide support to a victim throughout the entire mediation process and beyond, even attending the mediation session with the victim, if requested, in the role of a support person rather than as an active participant. Such support may help the victim understand and articulate his or her experiences and needs. Similarly, a social worker or probation officer may be helpful to an offender by encouraging the development of understanding and empathy for the victim and helping the offender prepare for dialogue with the victim. Building connections within the larger community is also essential, because the community is a stakeholder in the VOM process. Crime has an impact that reaches into the community far beyond the immediate parties involved. Consequently, the community needs to be invested in the VOM process. The community can be a potential source of financial support for a mediation program. Many programs are also dependent on the community as a source of volunteers to serve as mediators. When the public is educated about VOM and becomes invested in it, victims, offenders, and their support persons may be more willing to participate in the process, and other community members may be more likely to volunteer to be mediators. In addition to general public education about mediation, specific connections should be made with community agencies, places of worship and religious organizations, business organizations, and local and State governments, including those organizations that influence and determine legislation and public policy. Program leadership, in particular, needs to have a thorough understanding of the community's structure and resources. Volunteer mediators may serve as a bridge to the wider community in promoting victim-offender mediation both in the community and in the court system. Also, they can bring diverse cultural perspectives to a program. Volunteers may at times be more effective spokespersons than program staff. Community members who serve as volunteer mediators, for instance, may speak enthusiastically about their experiences with the process, and victims and offenders who have found the mediation experience to be useful can serve as eloquent promoters of the program. It is also critical for VOM programs to maintain close ties with other VOM programs and agencies providing mediation services to the community. These connections can offer much-needed ongoing support, resources, and consultation. In addition, staff from these programs may wish to share materials and trainers and to collaborate in areas of common concern, such as legislative initiatives. 4. Maintain High-Quality Standards for Mediators Screen applicants seeking training as a mediator. The first step in creating a team of effective, competent mediators is a comprehensive application process. Prospective mediators should complete a form that requires submission of, among other things, professional and volunteer histories, reasons for choosing to become a mediator, and input about their personal style and value system. Applicants should be asked specific questions about any past victimization experiences they may have had. It is important to assess applicants' feelings about victimization and whether their personal experiences might lead to behavior or attitudes that are predisposed to being judgmental or blaming. Upon completion of the form, an interview may be conducted to screen further for appropriate applicants. Because attitude and perspective are vital to effectiveness as a mediator, the interview serves as a natural tool for assessing suitability. Use mediation training as an additional tool for screening mediators. Program staff must observe trainees during role plays. The nature of their skills and their styles as mediators will often surface during this training. Program staff should follow up on any concerns that arise during training by comediating cases with trainees and discussing pertinent issues. Trainees should also solicit input from coaches. Maintain quality control through a meaningful program staff-mediator relationship. In addition to the quality of mediator training, program staff should maintain close contact with mediators actively involved in cases. Procedures need to be established that provide for this supervisory and supportive relationship. Relatively inexperienced mediators, in particular, may be expected to contact staff after each client contact and to meet with staff both prior to and immediately following the mediation session. Staff also need to be available for consultation on any case, as requested by the mediator. With more complex cases, brainstorming/consultation sessions involving the mediator, program staff, and, perhaps, other experienced mediators should be arranged at the outset. To provide adequate supervision and support, program staff should comediate a case annually with each mediator. In the interest of quality, training sessions should be limited to a group of 9 to 12 participants. This ensures that trainees receive individual attention and that trainers have the opportunity to respond to the learning process of each individual. Trainees should be provided with ample opportunities for apprenticeship--namely, comediating with experienced mediators and staff. After such an apprenticeship, trainees can best learn by having frequent opportunities to mediate cases. Much that is gained through training and apprenticeship can be lost if not reinforced by repeated experience with actual cases. Also, mediators who are not called upon may lose interest in the program. Generally, the best strategy is to train a small number of mediators, use them frequently, maintain close contact with them, and provide them with all the resources they need. In addition, trainees should expect to communicate and collaborate with staff; complete evaluations; follow reporting requirements and timely case management and quality procedures; keep updated through continuing education; and make a time commitment (cases done carefully may take up to 15 hours or more). Some programs find that a smaller group of mediators working with more cases shows more commitment to the success of the program than a larger group of mediators working with fewer cases. Establish regular continuing education as a mechanism for strengthening skills. Continuing education for mediators should be built around issues in the field, advanced skill development, needs expressed by mediators, and staff assessments. Case review can be a vital component in skill development and quality control. For example, mediators may meet quarterly with program staff to present case scenarios that raise questions and concerns that have emerged from real cases. 5. Explore Opportunities for Broadening the Scope of Services Develop a skills-training course for juvenile offenders and their parents. Develop a course for juvenile offenders and their parents covering topics such as conflict management skills, empathy development, competence development, communication and life skills, esteem-building, anger management, and skills for building peer support. Improve mediators' ability to serve victims and offenders more effectively. Train mediators to maintain a connection with victims and/or offenders for a specific period of time following the mediation, provide support for the victim, and serve as a mentor to the offender. Mediators may monitor agreements, accompany offenders on job search excursions, and offer encouragement and reminders about restitution obligations. Coordinate between the community and the offender to perform community service. Establish a public works program that can serve as an arena for community service responsibilities and provide opportunities for staff to develop relationships with offenders and to monitor restitution efforts. Provide offender rehabilitation opportunities. Provide offenders with job search assistance and actual job training. Establish a work-study program for offenders. Help offenders develop empathy for victims. Develop victim impact panels and victim awareness classes to help offenders whose victims choose not to participate in mediation. Use mediation to foster positive family relationships when the offender leaves corrections. Offer mediation to parents and children as juvenile offenders leave a correctional facility to return home. Training Recommendations 1. Maximize Experiential Learning by Enhancing Role Playing Demonstrate a realistically performed role play. Trainees need to visualize what is expected of them. The trainer may play the mediator role and experienced mediators or actual victims and offenders may play the other roles. The scenario should be planned out in terms of basic information and perhaps an issue or two that could arise, but it should not be scripted. Role players should seek authenticity and spontaneity. Arrange the role-play schedule so that each trainee experiences each of the roles. Of course, it is critical that trainees try out the mediator role. They may, however, learn just as much by playing the victim and offender roles, which allow them to reflect on mediator techniques and strategies from the perspective of the participants. Coach trainees on how to play the roles. The full value of the role-play exercise may be lost if trainees overplay or overdramatize the roles so that the experience bears no resemblance to reality. Instruct trainees to use what they have learned about the victim and offender experiences to play the roles; instructors might tell trainees to try to take on the actual feelings of the character they are playing-- to feel what it is like to be a victim and how the victim would respond-- and to play the role spontaneously without a script. Guide trainees in debriefing the role play. Trainers can encourage peer review by structuring the debriefing after the role play. They can allow the trainee playing the mediator to begin by commenting first on what worked, what did not work, and what questions arose. Then, trainees in the victim or offender role can comment next on aspects that worked for them and others that did not and give the mediator feedback on the amount and kind of interventions used and their impact. The observing trainees should also provide feedback. The victim and offender role players can answer questions from the other trainees such as: o Did you think that you were listened to? Did you have the chance to tell the full story? o Did you feel respected? o Did you feel that you had the power to make decisions? Use experienced mediators to coach role players. An experienced mediator can act as a coach and provide a useful perspective on the victim-offender mediation process. If necessary, the coach can rotate between two groups. Clear instructions should be given regarding the coach's role. In general, it is best if coaches do not intervene unless requested to do so by the trainees-- at a moment of impasse, for example. Following the role play, effective coaches seek to elicit information from participants by asking questions and, if necessary, frame their comments in terms of positive tips and possibilities for other ways of proceeding, rather than point out right and wrong methods. The participants learn more if they reflect on the process and its effects and brainstorm possibilities than if they are told explicitly what should have been done. Videotape role plays involving trainees. Trainees may find videotapes of themselves in the mediator role to be quite useful. Videotapes may be studied by participants to observe and reflect upon their own actions. Videotapes may also be used in a one-on-one coaching situation. In addition, clips of exemplary practices by trainees may be shown to the entire training group. Design role plays to address specific problem areas. As trainees advance toward more complex role-play scenarios, issues known to challenge many mediators--such as intercultural tensions, agreements deemed unfair or unrealistic by the mediator, controlling or out-of-control parents, and other elements that may lead to impasse-- can be built into the scenario. Use input from victims and offenders in creating role plays. Use actual victim-offender mediation participants to critique role-play scenarios or ask a victim or offender to create a role play. A juvenile offender's input may add realistic issues of adolescent culture to a scenario. Use actual current cases as the basis for role plays. Trainers should consider designing individualized role plays that portray the actual case a trainee will unknowingly receive as his or her first case. Role play atypical portions of the mediation process. For a change of pace, trainees may be invited into the hallway one by one to role play greeting the participants as they arrive for the mediation session. 2. Use a Multidimensional Format To Enhance Learning Incorporate into training the personal experiences, perspectives, and knowledge of trainees. Trainers should always seek to build into training a number of opportunities for interaction. Trainees should be asked what they know about the judicial system and what they might do differently if they were designing a system. Self-reflection about personal responses to conflict should be encouraged. Trainees need to consider their experiences of victimization: how they felt, what responses of others they found helpful, and what they needed to do to move on with their lives. Similarly, trainees should reflect on their experiences of having offended or caused pain to others. Consider onsite observations by trainees. Trainees should be given the opportunity to observe the court process, including the roles of victims and offenders in that setting. Also, trainees should witness actual mediations before they attend training, in the middle of training (thus splitting the training into two segments), or immediately following training. A visit to a jail or a correctional facility may also be relevant. Make training as realistic as possible. Trainers should invite actual victims and offenders who have participated in mediation to speak to trainees. Representatives of victim services, probation, and the judiciary can add important and accurate information to the training. A panel of adolescents can educate trainees in adolescent culture and strategies for working with youth. Trainers should illustrate important points by describing actual cases and use material for exercises drawn directly from real cases. Vary the training format. For each skill or process segment addressed, trainers should present the material briefly; demonstrate the skill or process; distribute a worksheet, if relevant; allow for individual, paired, or group practice; role play; debrief as a group and with a coach; and have interaction between the trainer and trainees. Use stories, written exercises, case studies, guest speakers, individual reflection, onsite observations, modeling, videotapes, overheads, charts, and other learning aids. Vary the pace of training. Alternate quiet reflective modules with interactive or active modules. Provide generous opportunities for questions at certain points in the schedule and, at other times, make it clear that a move to the next topic is necessary. Incorporate experiential learning whenever possible. In addition to role plays and practice exercises targeting specific skills, trainers should allow trainees to experience other dimensions of the mediation process. For example, trainees may pair up to experiment with "zingers"--inappropriate, hurtful responses-- discovering for themselves how it feels to be ignored, interrupted, and judged. A brief demonstration or role play scripted to be mishandled can prove to be a useful tool for trainees to experience the impact of destructive practices. Trainees may also explore "quick decisions" (e.g., what to do if the offender's parent threatens to leave, if the offender will not talk, if the victim is willing to forgo any monetary restitution). Make the training manual user friendly. The manual can be developed with handouts that are distributed in conjunction with each topic, so that trainees are not overwhelmed with material. Manuals should be accessible and helpful to trainees. Be current and creative, be fresh and interesting, be engaging. Trainings should be dynamic rather than static. Program staff need to be alert to repetitious patterns that become tedious for the trainer. Material needs to excite and challenge the trainer. Trainees need to know the trainer's journey with mediation and the impact of this work on his or her life. The trainer needs to take time to "check the pulse" of the audience members throughout the training program: Are their needs being met? Is their attention being held? Does the trainer need to "switch gears"? New material infuses new life into the training. For example, movie clips or newspaper articles portraying conflict scenarios can be used to develop conflict skills. 3. Assist Trainees in Enhancing the Potential of the Preparation Phase Encourage trainees to consider the use of outside support persons to help prepare the participants for mediation. A victim service provider may help victims determine issues of concern to them. A probation officer may help the offender try to understand the victim's perspective and prepare a tentative script reflecting ideas the offender may wish to express. Develop materials that trainers can use when preparing for mediation. Some materials or activities that offenders and victims may find helpful as they prepare for mediation include a videotape describing the mediation process; a self-guided workbook for use by victims and offenders that helps them think about their experiences and the impact of those experiences on themselves and others; and a questionnaire that helps victims organize their thoughts about what they wish to express or accomplish during the mediation session. Explore with trainees methods for seeking to increase victim and offender participation and interaction. Victims and offenders need to be encouraged to discover and sort out thoughts, feelings, and questions that arise in conjunction with the mediation process. Mediators may offer to role play with victims or offenders to help them understand reactions, needs, and ideas that may be evoked and to prepare them for these responses should they arise during mediation. It may be useful, in advance of the mediation session, for mediators to provide offenders with questions typically asked by victims or actual questions raised by victims in each particular case, so that the offenders can be prepared to address the needs of the victims. Guide trainees in how to help offenders and victims determine their goals. It is helpful if the parties are directly asked to consider what they would like to occur during the mediation session. A walk-through or a role play of the session may be useful in preparing trainees to help participants establish personal goals for the mediation. ---------------------------- IV. Summary ---------------------------- The guidelines offered in this monograph are grounded in more than 20 years of practical experience in the field of victim-offender mediation in North America, numerous conversations with individual victim advocates and staff members of victim advocacy organizations, and the results of the recently completed national survey of victim-offender mediation programs in the United States (appendix A). The number of VOM programs is increasing in communities throughout the country, and these guidelines will help lead to the development of the highest quality victim-sensitive mediation services possible. Considerable room, however, remains for continued experimentation in this emerging field. These guidelines are flexible and should be adjusted to fit the cultural context of each community and the specific needs of the participating victims, offenders, and support people. The development of programs must offer a safe place for dialogue between the victim and offender that can lead to a sense of accountability and restoration for all involved.