Family group conferences (FGCs) are facilitated discussions that allow those most affected by a particular crime—the victim, the offender, and the family and friends of both—to discuss the impact of the crime and decide how the offender should be held accountable for it (Umbreit, 2000). FGC originated in New Zealand as a way to address the failures of traditional juvenile justice. It incorporates indigenous Maori values that emphasize the roles of family and community in addressing wrongdoing (McGarrell, 2001). Australia subsequently adopted the concept and has implemented several FGC models. Today, FGC is used extensively as a formal juvenile sanction in New Zealand and Australia and to a lesser extent in the United States (Immarigeon, 1999), including communities in Indiana, Florida Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia (McGarrel, et al., 2000).

Group conferencing follows principally from the theory of reintegrative shaming. It argues that people are generally deterred from committing crime by two informal forms of social control: fear of social disapproval and conscience (Braithwaite,1989). Braithwaite argues that the consequences imposed by family members, friends, or other individuals important to an offender are more meaningful and therefore more effective than those imposed by the legal system. As a result, the fear of being shamed by the people most intimate with an offender is the most significant deterrent to committing crime.

A typical conference begins when the victim, the offender, and each of their supporters are brought together with a trained facilitator to discuss the incident and the harm it has caused. It proceeds with the offender describing the incident and each participant describing the impact of the incident on his or her life. The purpose of this process is for the offender to face the human impact of his or her crime (Umbreit, 2000). The victim then is presented with the opportunity to express feelings, ask questions about the offense, and identify desired outcomes from the conference. All participants may contribute to the process of determining how the offender might best repair the harm. By the end of the conference, the participants must reach an agreement on how the youth can make amends to the victim and sign a reparation agreement. The agreement typically includes an apology, and it often includes a requirement that some type of restitution be made to the victim. Some agreements require youth to perform community service or call for other actions such as improving school attendance, completing homework, or performing chores at home or school (McGarrell, 2001).

Although the evidence to date is somewhat limited, the research to date tends to support the use of group conferences as an alternative to traditional juvenile justice practices. Three formal experiments of group conferences found promising results. In the United States, an evaluation of police-run conferences in Bethlehem, Pa., found high levels of victim satisfaction and some evidence of reduced reoffending for person offenses, but not property offenses (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). In Canberra, Australia, an evaluation of the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) also reported high levels of victim satisfaction and showed positive changes in the attitudes of offenders (Strang et al., 1999), but the impact of group conferences on recidivism remains under investigation. Finally, the Indianapolis Restorative Justice Experiment found that group conferences produced high levels of satisfaction among participants and promising recidivism results. The evaluation found that youths participating in conferences were significantly less likely to have been rearrested six-months after the initial incident. The rate of rearrest was 20 percent for conferenced youths compared to 34 percent for the control group. When limited to those youths who successfully completed the diversion program (conference or control group program), 12 percent of the youths involved in conferences had been re-arrested compared to 23 percent of the control group. (McGarrell, et al., 2000). Similar findings were observed at 12 months for the total sample (McGarrell, 2001).

References

Search for Family Group Conference Programs