Burt Galaway

Crime Victim and Offender Mediation as a Social Work Strategy

Juvenile offenders and their victims are brought together to discuss the offense/victimization and to negotiate a mutually satisfactory restitution plan. One hundred sixty-five offenders participated in the first 2 years. One hundred sixty-two victims were involved in the offenses and 54 percent (87) decided to meet their offenders. One hundred twenty-eight agreements were negotiated involving 99 offenders and 84 victims. Seventy-nine percent of the agreements were successfully closed. Crime victim and offender mediation will be useful for social workers; mediation provides an opportunity for both victims and offenders to participate actively in decision making and challenge stereotypes through a process of communication. From a policy perspective the practice provides a mechanism to respond to victim interest in participating in the justice system and provides a dispute settlement procedure to replace other responses to property offenders. A growing body of research indicates that mediation is feasible and acceptable to both victims and the general public and that the public supports replacing prison and jail with restitution, community service, and mediation as a response to property offenders.

A Survey of North American Specialist Foster Family Care Programs

Over the past 10 years, specialist foster family care services have emerged as a distinct child welfare service. Snowballing sampling techniques were used to identify over 1,200 possible North American specialist foster family care programs; 293 met six criteria established as defining a specialist foster family care program. Data on the programs, ranging from size, number of clients, foster parent training, size of caseload, length of stay, and intervention techniques, are presented.

Restitution and Rehabilitation Some Central Issues

While most victim compensation schemes dwell on the situa tion of the victim, the use of restitution within criminal justice systems is comparatively unexplored. This concept may have rehabilitative potential for offenders, but before the potential can be realized a number of issues must be resolved: Should the aim be complete restitution or partial, symbolic restitution? Can restitution be more effective as a rehabilitative measure if it is required or if it is made voluntarily? What would be the effect of personal victim-offender interaction within a restitution scheme? Should the offender be held responsible for making restitution in crimes that were clearly victim-precipitated? These issues are considered and suggestions are made for their resolution.

Restitution as Innovation or Unfilled Promise

Sixteen years have elapsed since the establishment of the Minnesota Restitution Center in 1972. During this time requiring juvenile and adult offenders to make financial restitution to their victims has become an accepted practice in American criminal and juvenile justice. This article reviews what we have learned about restitution since 1972 and will consider restitution practices in light of early theory and work of Stephen Schafer.

The New Zealand Experience Implementing the Reparation Sentence

The New Zealand Criminal Justice Act of 1985 establishes reparation as a sentence and establishes a policy of this being a preferred sentence for property offenders. 1987 and 1988 data indicated that reparation was getting relatively limited use. Data was secured from a review of court files, interviews with probation officers and judges, a survey of probation officers, and a public survey to study implementation of the reparation provisions of the Act. A reparation sentence is imposed in 56% of property offences for which there is an identifiable loss indicated in police reports; losses are only identified in 59% of police reports for property offences. Sixty-four percent of employed property offenders were sentenced to reparation compared to 54% of unemployed property offenders. Reparation is imposed as a sole sentence for 22% of offenders sentenced to reparation. District and senior probation officers believe that reparation is being under-utilized in their districts. Judges and probation officers do not perceive reducing imprisonment as an aim for the reparation sentence. Probation officers, however, report that there are offenders from their district going to prison who could be handled in the community if reparation were combined with other noncustodial penalties. Comparisons of 1989 with 1983 public data found some erosion of the findings that the public would support a reduction in the use of imprisonment if this was linked with an increase in reparation, although there was no overall increase in the public expectation that property offenders be imprisoned. Judges are more likely to perceive imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for burglars than either the general public or probation officers. Compliance, after one year, is higher for fines than for reparation. After one year, 58% of the offenders sentenced to reparation were in full compliance. Enforcement actions were required for 76% of the offenders sentenced to reparation. Judges and probation officers perceived that victim-offender meetings are useful but these seldom occur. There is also considerable confusion as to whether the reparation sentence is intended primarily as a service for victims or as a sanction for offenders. Finally, there is ambiguity regarding an appropriate role of probation in administration of the reparation sentence.