The study, completed in May 1998, addresses six key questions: (1) Can typical American police officers conduct conferences consistent with due process and restorative justice principles; (2) Does 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) How does the introduction of conferencing alter the case processing of juvenile offenders?; (6) How does conferencing compare to the existing system and to other restorative justice practices?

The appendices include copies of the research instruments, including surveys and questionnaires administered to victims, offenders, offenders' parents and police officers.

Abstract:

This is a report on the Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. First-time moderately serious juvenile offenders were randomly assigned either to a formal adjudication or to a diversionary "restorative policing" process called family group conferencing. Police-based family group conferencing employs trained police officers to facilitate a meeting attended by juvenile offenders, their victims, and their respective family and friends, to discuss the harm caused by the offender's actions and to develop an agreement to repair the harm. Victim and offender participation is voluntary. The effect of the program was measured through surveys of victims, offenders, offender's parents and police officers and by examining outcomes of conferences and formal adjudication. Results are related to six questions about restorative policing. Findings include: 42% participation rate, 100% of conferences (n=67) reaching an agreement, 94% of offenders (n=80) fully complying with agreements, and participant satisfaction and sense of fairness exceeding 96%. Results suggest that recidivism was more a function of offenders choice to participate than the effects of conferencing, per se. Violent offenders participating in conferences had lower rearrest rates than violent offenders declining to participate, but this was not true for property offenders.