Restorative Justice in Missouri's Juvenile System
 |
 |
 |
Hon. T. Bennett
Burkemper, Jr.1 |
Nina Balsam1 |
May Yeh1 |
Introduction
Despite increasing use, many are still unfamiliar with the concept of restorative justice in the United States.2 Part I of this article provides information about restorative justice and highlights restorative justice outcomes. Part II discusses the history and prevalence of restorative justice internationally and in the United States. Part III of this article reports on the current state of restorative justice practices in Missouri juvenile courts today. Finally, part IV discusses the importance of systemic integration of restorative justice principles into the juvenile justice system and how legislation can assist in this goal.
What is Restorative Justice?
Restorative justice is a way of looking at behavior that harms through a different lens. Instead of viewing it from the traditional retributive justice perspective, the new lens focuses on the harm to the victim and how to repair that harm. The offender takes responsibility for the harm he/she caused and makes amends. The community supports the victim while holding the offender accountable for the harm. Communities examine the conditions that might have caused the harm and then find ways to change those conditions so that the likelihood of harm is reduced in the future.3
Restorative justice is very different from retributive justice, on which our criminal justice system is based. Retributive justice focuses on punishing the offender for a violation to the state. In this process, the harm to the victim can either be ignored or exacerbated. The victim is a witness for the state in the prosecution and the offender’s attorney may try to shift blame away from his/her client to the victim in the course of the proceedings, trying to exonerate his/her client. Moreover, the defense attorney may attempt to portray the offender as a victim to have his/her client exonerated. In this system, while the offender may be held accountable by facing punishment for the crime, the victim’s harm is ignored and the offender does not take responsibility for the crime, nor does he/she help heal the harm to the victim.
The process that victims and offenders go through in focusing on harm and healing harm in a restorative justice process can be transformative. It allows victims to be made whole and offenders to understand the impact of their actions on the victim, develop empathy for the victim, and change their belief systems and behavior.
The involvement of the community in the restorative justice process is also transformative. The victim is validated and embraced. The offender is held accountable and supported in his/her transformation, and, if the necessary changes are made, he/she is reintegrated into the community. The community is involved in healing the harm, and a sense of community is created where one may not have existed previously.
Models of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is a set of principles that, ideally, are infused in the every day workings of the system in which they are implemented. However, a number of specific practices have evolved based on these principles.
Victim/offender mediation/ or dialogue4 (VOD), which provides an opportunity for interested victims to meet and talk with their offender in a safe and structured setting, uses a facilitator to lead the discussion. The goal of VOD is to allow the victim to express the harm done to him/her and to hold the offender accountable for his/her conduct, express remorse, and develop empathy for the victim. More than 1,000 VOD programs operate throughout North America (315) and Europe (707).5 In 1994, the American Bar Association endorsed VOD and recommended that it be used in courts throughout the United States.6
Family group conferencing (FGC) is a meeting or meetings of the community of people personally affected by an offense (the victim, the offender, and the family, friends, and key supporters of both). They meet to talk about the impact of the offense and to decide how the offender should be held accountable for the harm caused.
Community accountability board (CAB) restoration projects bring the offender, and sometimes the victim, before a panel of community members who decide how the harm of the offense will be addressed. The result of the meeting is a written agreement by the offender to make reparations, often through restitution, expressions of remorse, and community service. This model is being used in an increasing number of juvenile courts in the United States.7
In addition to the models of restorative justice that include victims, offenders, and the community, there are a variety of practices that incorporate one or more elements of restorative justice. These practices, while they may not be considered restorative justice from a purist perspective, focus on making victims whole and holding offenders accountable, while assisting them to transform. Examples of practices with these restorative justice elements include: 1) victim impact panels (VIP), where offenders listen to victims talk about the impact of crime on them in order to assist the offender in developing empathy; 8 2) offender diversion processes that provide mentoring and referral to social services that hold the offender accountable and give him/her an opportunity for transformation;9 3) restitution; and 4) community service. Restitution and community service are specifically provided for in the juvenile code in Missouri.10
Benefits of Restorative Justice
In comparison to incarceration, many restorative justice practices have produced lower recidivism rates and costs. In a meta-analysis of 63 VOD programs spanning five countries, researchers found a nine percent to 27 percent decrease in recidivism rates, suggesting a clear relationship between VOD participation and subsequent delinquent behavior.11 In a U.S. study comparing one year re-offense rates among 1,300 juveniles, those who had participated in VOD were about one-third less likely to commit another offense than their non-VOD counterparts, who were matched by age, sex, offense and racial/ethnic characteristic.12 Less than one in five (18 percent) VOD juveniles committed a crime within a year, compared to more than one in four (27 percent) of non-VOD juveniles.13 In addition, those VOD juveniles who did re-offend within a year were involved in less serious offenses than their non-VOD counterparts.14
Restorative justice practices can often save time and money as well. Genesse County in New York has been running a restorative justice practice since 1981. Based on data compiled at the end of December 2004, the county estimates it saved more than $4 million by diverting offenders to “community service sentencing” versus placing them in jail.15
Lower recidivism and costs are not the only demonstrable benefits of restorative justice. One of the most important benefits is how victims feel after going through a restorative justice process. In one study, researchers found that 79 percent of juvenile crime victims were satisfied with the justice system referral of their case to mediation, and 83 percent of victims felt that the mediation process was fair.16 Victims were significantly more likely to be satisfied and more likely to experience fairness than those in the comparison (normal court process) group.17 In addition, nine out of 10 victims would recommend VOD programs to other participants.18 This was partially due to the fact that 81 percent of the offenders completed restitution payment to victims, while only 57 percent of the comparison group completed payments.19 Victims were also significantly less fearful of being victimized by the offender after meeting him/her than before (10 percent compared to 23 percent).20
History and Prevalence of Restorative Justice in Juvenile Justice Systems
Canada, considered the birthplace for the modern restorative justice movement, began using VODs in 1974.21 As word about the success of these grass-root programs grew, more countries began implementing restorative justice philosophies and creating practices to suit the needs of their communities. Today, restorative justice theory has come to inform juvenile justice systems globally, including Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, and much of Western Europe.22 International organizations such as the Council of Europe, the European Union and the United Nations all have policies promoting the use of restorative justice practices in criminal justice matters.23
New Zealand is the first country to use legislation to re-orient the majority of their juvenile justice system toward restorative justice.24 In 1989, legislation was passed requiring all youth in trouble with the law to participate in family group conferencing (FGC) as a diversionary measure, or as a prerequisite for a judge to sentence the child in youth court.25 FGC, which is focused on collective responsibility and community, is modeled after the Maori indigenous response to harm, and is effective in part due to its cultural appropriateness.26 A judge in Wellington, New Zealand reported that from 1998-2000, youth offenses declined by approximately two-thirds.27 He attributed family group conferencing as a key factor in declining youth offense rates.28
Sporadic restorative justice practices arose in U.S. juvenile court settings during the late 1970s and through the 1980s, but the vast growth in this area occurred in the 1990s with the creation of the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (BARJ) in 1992.29 BARJ was developed through a funding initiative of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice.30 It provides technical assistance and training for juvenile justice systems that are interested in implementing restorative justice.31
At the present time, virtually all states have incorporated some BARJ principles, and at least 36 states have passed legislation authorizing the use of BARJ in one or more aspects of their juvenile justice systems.32 A number of states are currently implementing broad systemic change based on restorative justice principles in their juvenile justice systems, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.33
Restorative Justice in Missouri’s Juvenile Justice System
Although there is statutory authorization for restorative justice practices in the Missouri adult offender setting, there is no such explicit authorization in the juvenile offender setting. As a result, it has taken the initiative of several programs throughout the state of Missouri to incorporate restorative justice practices into their judicial circuits.
Some Missouri juvenile courts only use restorative justice practices when diverting status and delinquent cases. These cases are informal adjustments, for which Missouri statutes provide judges flexibility in disposition.34 Other juvenile courts have interpreted the language of Chapter 211 (Juvenile Courts) in the Missouri Revised Statutes to permit a broad spectrum of practices, including the use of restorative justice practices in both formal and informal cases.35 Among those courts surveyed, many reported that while restorative justice is not explicitly required, the authority to pursue restorative justice programming exists from Missouri Supreme Court Rules, individual court mission statements, and in the statutes as currently written.
In 1988, the 32nd Judicial Circuit was the first juvenile court in the state of Missouri to implement a restorative justice practice.36 Additional restorative justice practices, however, did not spread to other juvenile courts until the late 1990s. Today, at least 13 of the 45 circuit courts in Missouri have adopted some form of restorative justice practice.37 Because of space considerations, this article will focus on three of the most utilized practices in Missouri: victim offender dialogue, victim impact panels, and community accountability boards.
Victim Offender Dialogue (VOD) in Missouri Juvenile Courts
Currently, eight circuits have implemented VOD practices.38 While the practices in each court are managed independently, there are some consistent themes that ensure adherence to restorative justice principles. First, to limit the risk of revictimization, all of the circuits have a careful screening process to determine if VOD is appropriate for the particular case. VOD is used only if the victim is willing to participate and the offender acknowledges that he/she has committed some level of harm or wrongdoing. Second, prior to the dialogue, the mediator will meet or speak with both victim and offender independently. This provides an opportunity for the mediator to assess each party’s suitability, review the process, and answer any questions or concerns. By carefully screening and preparing both parties, the circuits are ensuring, to the best of their ability, that the process will be positive and restorative.
The majority of VOD processes also incorporate restitution and/or community service into the disposition. A VOD proceeding through diversion has enormous flexibility. Prior to, or during, the VOD, victims are encouraged to provide input on how the juvenile should be held accountable. Examples include cleaning up what was damaged (property offenses), letters of apology, showing grades at the end of the semester, and other unique requirements. While it is not always possible, there is often an effort to tie community service to the harm that occurred.
There are also noticeable differences among the circuits, which are spread throughout rural and urban areas of Missouri, reflecting how each has tailored their VOD practice to the specific needs of their community. For example, each circuit has its own rules concerning what crimes are suitable for VOD. Crimes in which VOD has been utilized include status offenses,39 delinquency,40 misdemeanors, vandalism, shoplifting, auto theft, tampering 1st and 2nd, property damage 2nd, assault 3rd, and burglary. At this point, all of the circuits have excluded sexual offenses from the VOD process.
Each court also has its own rules concerning when VOD is employed. Depending on the court, a VOD can be used during: 1) diversion; 2) the informal process; 3) between adjudication and pre-disposition or post-adjudication and pre-disposition; and 4) post-disposition. Overall, the majority of referrals come through informal adjustments for diversion of status offenses and delinquency cases. Some offenders are ordered by judges to go through the VOD program post-adjudication.
Circuits also have different methods for funding their practices. Some circuits have established family courts, which allow them to charge a $30 fee per case to fund restorative justice practices.41 Others have taken advantage of grants from the Division of Youth Services and the Missouri Department of Public Safety that are specifically geared toward starting restorative justice practices.42 As programs mature and grant funding expires, many circuit courts have begun absorbing the costs into their budgets. A 2000 study in Missouri found that it costs between $232 and $338 to provide VOD to a juvenile offender.43 VOD, the study concluded, “may be one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent crime and rehabilitate delinquent youth.”44
Since VOD practices are relatively new in Missouri, there are few statistics regarding recidivism rates. However, an evaluation completed by the 22nd Circuit found that 27.1 percent of juveniles who successfully completed the VOD program re-offended, while 41.1 percent of the juveniles in the control group re-offended.45 In the 7th Judicial Circuit, 2003 recidivism rates for juveniles who participated in the orientation for VOD (but did not progress to the actual dialogue) were near 10 percent, while recidivism for juveniles who completed mediation was around one percent.46
Community Accountability Boards (CAB) in Missouri Juvenile Courts
Community accountability boards (CAB) are relatively new to Missouri juvenile courts; the first program started in 2001.47 Since then, four other circuits have developed CAB practices and each is called by a different name.48 All of these boards are focused on using community resources to support and hold juveniles accountable for their actions.
Typically, a group of three to six volunteers from the same community will sit on a CAB and meet with the juvenile and his/her parents. Together, they will discuss the harm done, ask questions, hear the juvenile’s side of the story, and determine how the juvenile offender should repair the harm. Victims are invited to attend, but not required. Mentorship is often a key component in the CAB program. After a juvenile has an initial meeting with the board, a specific board member is assigned to follow up on the progress of the child. This can mean calling the juvenile, and sometimes even dropping by school to check on his/her progress.
A volunteer’s commitment to these CABs is significant. All of the circuits have an intense initial training process that can range from six to 16 hours, and require continuing education throughout a volunteer’s term on a CAB. Each CAB meets once or twice a month. At the meetings, they will process new cases and review the status and progress of older cases.
Examples of resolutions that CABs have reached include requiring the offender to make restitution, attend specific classes, and participate in community service. The decisions are tailored to the crime and the needs of the juvenile. In one case where a juvenile violated town codes by skateboarding in public areas, the juvenile assisted a city planning council in planning a skateboard park to complete his community service hours.
Similar to VODs, each circuit has its own rules concerning what crimes are suitable for boards. The majority of boards address minor misdemeanors, such as shoplifting, alcohol, trespassing, and disorderly conduct. In the City of St. Louis, the juvenile court has begun to refer both informal and formal cases (sometimes felonies) to the CAB if there is a community board in the juvenile’s community.49 Thus far, the 22nd Judicial Circuit has a 90 percent fulfillment rate for agreements made by juveniles and the board.50
Victim Impact Panels (VIP) in Missouri Juvenile Courts
Three circuits in Missouri currently run victim impact panels (VIP).51 Each panel is facilitated by a trained program director. Panel sizes can range from smaller, more intimate groups (two victims speaking with five to eight juveniles) to larger settings (six victims speak with groups of 35 to 40 offenders). In larger group settings, there are often additional deputy juvenile officers in the room so victims do not feel overwhelmed.
The greatest difficulty with VIPs is recruiting and protecting the emotional well-being of victims. The risk of re-victimization is always a concern; therefore, all of the programs select victims who are many years removed from the actual event. In the 32nd Judicial Circuit, the facilitator meets with the victims beforehand to provide information about the juvenile participants and provide time for processing by the victims.52
After serving as a panelist for almost a decade, one volunteer was tired of sharing how her husband’s murder impacted her. She felt that her story had little impact on the juveniles and was ready to stop volunteering. One day, a woman approached her and said her daughter had pointed out the volunteer and said, “That is the lady who changed my life.” The volunteer’s story, the daughter claimed, was why she was making better choices about drugs, alcohol, friends, and behavior at home. This chance meeting rejuvenated and empowered the volunteer to continue the program.
Additional Restorative Justice Practices in Missouri
Outside of the three most commonly used restorative justice practices in Missouri, several circuits have created practices to meet specific needs. For instance, when there is more than one juvenile offender, the 21st Judicial Circuit adopted the use of circles in place of VODs.53 To ensure that the victim is not overwhelmed with the size of the meeting, the offenders, victim, and a mediator sit in an inside circle, while parents sit in an outer ring with additional mediator(s). Separate pre-meetings are held for parents, victims, and juvenile offenders so each group can better understand their roles and responsibilities in the process.
In the 37th Judicial Circuit, family mediation (similar to family group conferencing) was implemented after officials noticed that 66-70 percent of the referrals in the area were status offenses, the majority of which were related to internal family issues.54 In these cases, a contracted mediator facilitates communication between family members, discusses the problem, and outlines future expectations and goals. The program is also occasionally used for status offenses or harmful behaviors outside of the family (i.e., gossiping or fighting in high schools).
In the 33rd Judicial Circuit, restorative justice principles and philosophies are incorporated into a program called “Respect Yourself and Others” (RYSO).55 Run by an outside contractor, the program operates post-adjudication, with the juvenile attending at the request of the judge. The program includes 30 hours of LifeSkills training (education about tobacco and drugs, personal self-management, and social skills), 10 hours of a restorative justice activity (writing an apology, writing and reporting what harm occurred), a citizenship class (educating the juveniles about the U.S. judicial system), completing community service hours, and forming a personal improvement plan. This project is restorative in that it holds the offender accountable, focuses on identifying harm to the victim, and assists offenders with competency development. It gives juveniles the opportunity to make educated and healthy decisions, and it fosters a stronger connection between the juvenile and community. While the victim is not intimately involved in the process, since the 33rd Judicial Circuit is a rural and small community, the program sends a victim survey to determine if he/she is satisfied with what the offender has done. Since instituting the program in 2001, recidivism rates in the area have dropped from 25-30 percent to 5.6 percent. Juveniles going through the program also have better school attendance and fewer school infractions.56
Integration of Restorative Justice Principles and Practices into Missouri Juvenile Courts
While many juvenile courts in the state have incorporated some restorative practices, only about one-third of the courts have practices incorporating all three elements of the restorative justice tripod: victim, offender, and community. These practices are generally the most effective in lowering recidivism, promoting victim satisfaction, and promoting community safety. In addition, some of these juvenile courts may have only one restorative practice, and it is quite separate from the normal court response. For the most profound impact to occur, restorative justice principles and practices should be infused into the courts’ response to juvenile offenders.
Two ways that restorative justice principles can be incorporated into juvenile court practice are through legislative initiatives and organic development. For example, in Washington County, Minnesota, the process for systemic change formally began in the mid-1990s, but had been brewing since the 1970s.57 Proponents for restorative justice in Washington County used what was already happening in the county and built off the already existing commitment to community-based services to create restorative justice responses.58
There are also proponents of restorative justice who favor legislation, even if there is no organic growth in the community. These proponents argue that legislation reduces the legal and/or systemic barriers that restorative justice faces.59 Legislation would also create authority, so those who chose to use these practices would not risk being overruled or ignored at sentencing.60 One example of flexible legislation is in Minnesota, where “every county attorney shall establish a pretrial diversion program for offenders.”61 This statute does not require restorative justice practices to be used; however, it does ensure the availability of such programs to allow citizens to choose.
Legislation, some argue, would ensure that juvenile justice is not solely focused on the offender’s rehabilitation. Rather, it would protect the rights of both victims and offenders, and ensure that reparation and accountability be given the same priority as rehabilitation.62 This would also provide credibility to restorative justice, which in turn creates support to generate a structure ensuring that necessary processes and resources are in place.63 Additionally, standards and structures for restorative justice programming would set out guiding principles and a measure of accountability for the judicial courts themselves.64
A bill requiring juvenile courts to respond to delinquency and status offense cases with balanced and restorative justice principles was introduced in the Missouri Senate during the 2006 legislative session.65 The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and received a hearing. Senators on the committee requested that certain changes be made to the bill, clarifying the definition of balanced and restorative justice principles and adding training for juvenile court personnel. However, the session ended before an amended bill could be voted out of committee.
Restorative justice legislation would reinforce practices already occurring in one-third of the juvenile courts in the state, and would promote its increased use in many others. Additionally, the restorative justice approach is consistent with Missouri public policy and recommendations promulgated by the Missouri Supreme Court through the revised Missouri standards for the administration of juvenile justice (“standards”).66
It is the policy in Missouri that a juvenile offender should be given “such care, guidance and control as will conduce to the child’s welfare and the best interests of the state.”67 The policy recognizes that a juvenile offender is not yet fully grown, nor his/her brain fully developed. Providing the offender with care and guidance, while also providing the control necessary to protect society, offers the best opportunity for juvenile offenders to grow into law abiding adults. This policy is wholly consistent with restorative justice principles that focus on healing the harm to the victim, holding the offender accountable, developing empathy in the offender, and building competencies in the offender. Restorative justice, in many ways, integrates the goals of the rehabilitation component that already exists in Missouri’s juvenile justice system.
Restorative justice principles are also consistent with the juvenile system in Missouri, which already recognizes the importance of considering victims. This orientation is explicitly found in the standards, which state that “[v]ictims should be recognized as persons with a legitimate interest in the justice system.”68
In addition, similar to restorative justice, the Missouri juvenile system recognizes the importance of community by explicitly recommending in the standards that: “The child’s family members should be recognized as persons with a legitimate interest in the justice system and the welfare of the child. Juvenile justice professionals should treat family members with dignity and respect while focusing on the safety and well being of the child.”69
Finally, the Missouri Supreme Court explicitly adopts restorative justice principles in the standards:
The victim and family rights standard addresses the role of the victim in the juvenile justice process and reflects themes of restorative justice. This standard explicitly recognizes that the victim has an important role in the justice process and a stake in its outcomes. It ensures that victims are not marginalized and their input is valued, and can help inform recommendations.70
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s standards already incorporate restorative justice principles to a large extent, and these principles are consistent with the policy and goals of the juvenile system. Adopting legislation is consistent with advancing the movement toward incorporating restorative justice principles and practices that is already occurring in Missouri juvenile courts. Additionally, this legislation would further encourage practices that, in comparison to traditional systems, have been proven to provide better outcomes at lower costs. One-third of the juvenile systems in the state are using restorative justice, which results in good outcomes and costs less. Restorative justice principles and practices should be widely adopted by the juvenile courts in Missouri.
Footnotes
1. Judge Burkemper received his B.A. (1988) and M.B.A. (1994) from St. Louis University; his J.D. (1991) from Gonzaga University; and LL.M. (1995) from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Judge Burkemper is an associate circuit judge in Lincoln County in the 45th Judicial Circuit. Nina Balsam, J.D. is the director of restorative justice for the Center for Women in Transition, a diversion and re-entry program for non-violent women offenders in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. She is charged with implementing the Missouri Restorative Justice Initiative. She graduated from Washington University School of Law in 1976. May Yeh is a J.D./MSW candidate who will graduate in December 2008 from the Washington University School of Law and the George W. Brown School of Social Work. She received her BS/BA in finance and English in 2002 from Washington University in St. Louis. Significant research contributions were made by Charla Harbour, alternative dispute resolution program specialist, 45th Judicial Circuit, and Tina Ikpa, a J.D. candidate who will graduate in May 2007 from the Washington University School of Law.
2. In the U.S., restorative justice practices can be found in adult and juvenile courts, correctional systems, schools, and is well known in alternative dispute circles.
3. See Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (Herald Press 1990).
4. The practice is commonly referred to as both victim offender mediation (VOM) and victim offender dialogue (VOD). Typically, a mediation is between two equal parties, neither of whom is necessarily identified as an offender or victim, and is facilitated by a neutral. Inherent in the restorative justice model, however, is the need for these roles to be identified as such. In addition, the word “dialogue” is more palatable to victims because they want to go into the process with an understanding that one person has done wrong, the other has been harmed, and they are there to focus on how to heal that harm. While practitioners disagree on the term to use, we use the word dialogue to avoid the perception that mediation may bring to the proceedings.
5. Mark S. Umbreit, The Restorative Justice and Mediation Collection: Executive Summary, OVC Bulletin July 2000 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications.
6. Mark S. Umbreit, et al., Restorative Justice in the Twenty-First Century: A Social Movement Full of Opportunities and Pitfalls, 89 Marq. L. Rev. 251 at 260 (2005) (citing “Criminal Justice Policy on Victim-Offender Mediation/Dialogue, 1994 A.B.A. Res., available at http://www.vorp.com/articles/abaendors.html.”) (hereinafter Umbreit, Marquette).
7. Community restoration projects can be found in a number of juvenile courts in Missouri, including the 16th Judicial Circuit in Jackson County, the 21st Judicial Circuit in St. Louis County and the 22nd Judicial Circuit in the City of St. Louis.
8. Victim impact panels are used by the Missouri Department of Corrections, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and a number of juvenile courts in the state of Missouri, including the 21st Judicial Circuit in the City of St. Louis and the 32nd Judicial Circuit in Cape Girardeau, Bollinger, and Perry counties.
9. Interview by Nina Balsam with Sr. Rose McLarney, executive director, Center for Women in Transition in St. Louis, Mo. (Dec. 2004).
10. Section 211.083, RSMo 2006. These programs are on the continuum of restorative justice and are categorized as “potentially restorative.” Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice 57 (Good Books 2002).
11. Mark S. Umbreit, et al., The Impact of Restorative Justice Conferencing: A Review of 63 Empirical Studies in 5 Countries 12 (University of Minnesota 2002).
12. William R. Nugent, et al., Participation in Victim-Offender Mediation and the Reoffense: Successful Replications? 11 J. of Research on Soc. Work Pract. 5 at 5 (2001).
13. Mark S. Umbreit, et al., The Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation: Two Decades of Research, 65 Fed. Probation 29, 32 (December 2001).
14. Id. (citing W.R. Nugent, J.B. Paddock, The Effect of Victim-Offender Mediation on Severity of Reoffense, 12(4) Mediation Quarterly 353 (1995)).
15. Genesee Justice Project Report, http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/frameset.html?;dpt/communityservices/progress.html@1 (last visited May 15, 2007). Genesee County estimated that 59,476 jail days were diverted, with the cost of holding an offender in jail at $70 per day. Id.
16. Mark S. Umbreit, Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward Restorative Justice, 53 Federal Probation 52 (1989).
17. Id.
18. Mark S. Umbreit et al., Restorative Justice Dialogue: Evidence- Based Practice, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking (January 1, 2006), available at http://rjp.umn.edu.
19. Mark S. Umbreit & R.B. Coates, Cross-Site of Analysis of Victim-Offender Mediation in Four States, 39 Crime and Delinquency 565 (October 1993).
20. Id.
21. Umbreit, Marquette at 259 (citing “Dean E. Peachey, The Kitchener Experiment, in Mediation & Criminal Justice 14, 14-16 (Martin Wright & Burt Galaway eds., 1989).”
22. Id. at 261. For additional information about restorative justice across the globe go to: http://www.restorativejustice.org.
23. Id.
24. Gabrielle Maxwell & Allison Morris, Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative Justice in Practice?, 62 J. of Soc. Issues 239 (2006). Today, New Zealand’s justice system is almost entirely based on restorative justice. Retributive methods are used for murder and manslaughter. Retributive methods are also used for some offenses (e.g., arson and aggravated robbery) depending on the previous history of the child and seriousness of the crime. Id.
25. Id. at 240.
26. Id. at 244.
27. Willie McCarney, Responding to Juvenile Delinquency: Restorative Justice: An International Perspective, 3 J. of the Center for Fam., Child. & Cs. 15 (1996).
28. Id.
29. Peter Freivalds, Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (BARJ), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DOJ July 1996) available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/91415.pdf.
30. Id.
31. BARJ includes, to the extent possible, the victim, offender, and community affected by the offenses. It focuses on repairing the harm to the victim, holding the offender accountable, and assisting with development of competencies so the offender can become a responsible, productive member of society, and promoting community safety.
32. Marlyce Nuzum, Summaries of State Restorative Justice Legislation, http://www.stopviolence.com/restorative/rjleg-detail.htm.; and Melanie King, Guide to State Juvenile Justice Profiles, http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/asp/list.asp (Click on “Select a state” to view individual state profiles) (last visited May 15, 2007).
Some of these listed states have restorative justice legislation specifically for juveniles. Some of these states have legislation that covers adult and juvenile courts concurrently. States with restorative justice legislation include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Id.
33. Umbreit, Marquette, note 17, at 261.
34. Section 211.081.1, RSMo 2006, § 211.083.1, RSMo 2006, and Rule 113.01.
Section 211.081.1, RSMo 2006 reads:
Whenever any person informs the court in person and in writing that a child appears to be within the purview of applicable provisions of section 211.031 or that a person seventeen years of age appears to be within the purview of the provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, the court shall make or cause to be made a preliminary inquiry to determine the facts and to determine whether or not the interests of the public or of the child or person seventeen years of age require that further action be taken. On the basis of this inquiry, the juvenile court may make such informal adjustment as is practicable without a petition or may authorize the filing of a petition by the juvenile officer.
Section 211.083.1, RSMo 2006 reads:
Whenever an informal adjustment is made under the provisions of section 211.081, the juvenile court may allow the child: (1) To make restitution or reparation for the damage or loss caused by his offense. Any restitution or reparation shall be reasonable in view of the child’s ability to make payment or perform the reparation.
Rule 113.01 reads:
Informal adjustment shall include the giving of counsel and advice to the juvenile and the juvenile’s custodian by the juvenile officer and other appropriate persons and may include, with the consent of the juvenile if fourteen years of age or older and with the consent of the custodian, supervision by the juvenile officer and the temporary placement of the juvenile with persons other than the custodian in a manner consistent with section 453.110.2, RSMo. Referrals may be made to public and private agencies that may provide beneficial guidance or services to the juvenile and the juvenile’s custodian.
35. Section 211, RSMo 2006.
36. Phone Interview with Randall Rhodes, chief juvenile officer, 32nd Judicial Circuit (July 17, 2006) (discussing restorative justice practices in the 32nd Judicial Circuit). Victim impact panels began in August 1988. Id.
37. Based on interviews with the juvenile officers from the 13 circuits, including the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, 16th, 17th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 33rd, 37th, and 45th. For a recent report on restorative justice in Missouri juvenile courts (focused on VODs and CABs) please read: Joanne Katz & Mary Beth Gordon, A Decade of Restorative Justice in Missouri’s Juvenile Courts: Accountability, Restitution & Transformation 11 (Missouri Department of Public Safety 2006) [hereinafter Katz 2006].
38. Missouri juvenile courts using VOD include the 4th, 5th, 7th, 16th, 21st, 22nd, 37th, and 45th circuits.
39. Status offenses include truancy, running away, and disobedience to parents. They are acts committed by a child that would not be considered a crime if committed by an adult, but that subject the child to juvenile court jurisdiction.
40. Delinquency offenses are those committed by persons under age 17, which would be crimes if committed by adults.
41. Section 488.2300, RSMo 2006. This is limited to family courts. Id. One example is the 45th Circuit. See Katz at 46.
42. Katz 2006 at 45-6. Additional methods of funding include: Office of State Court Administrator (OSCA), county funds, local funds, internal funding, and free or low-cost resources. Id.
43. Joanne Katz, Victim Offender Mediation in Missouri’s Juvenile Courts: Accountability, Restitution and Transformation 29 (Missouri Department of Public Safety 2000).
44 .Id.
45. E-mail interview by Charla Harbor with Sara Burge, assistant supervisor of community justice projects in the 22nd Judicial Circuit (November 2005).
46. E-mail interview by Charla Harbor with Kathleen Bird, director of alternative dispute resolution services in Liberty, MO (November 2005).
47. Telephone interview by May Yeh with Doug Oyer, chief juvenile officer in the 17th Judicial Circuit (July 17, 2006).
48. Missouri juvenile courts using community accountability boards include the 5th (community justice center), 16th (community council/conferencing), 17th (community board), 21st (juvenile conference committee), and 22nd (neighborhood accountability boards) circuits.
49. Telephone interview by May Yeh with Sara Burge, assistant supervisor of community justice projects in 22nd Judicial Circuit (June 28, 2006) (emailed 2005 Neighborhood Accountability Board Satisfaction Surveys).
50. Id.
51. Missouri juvenile courts using victim impact panels include the 16th, 17th, and 22nd circuits.
52. Telephone interview by May Yeh with Randall Rhodes, juvenile officer in the 32nd Judicial Circuit (July 17, 2006). Id.
53. Telephone interview by May Yeh with Bonnie Miller, restorative justice group counseling coordinator in the 22nd Judicial Circuit (July 11, 2006).
54. Telephone interview by May Yeh with Stan Smith, chief juvenile officer in the 37th Judicial Circuit (July 17, 2006).
55. Telephone interview by May Yeh with Jeanice Griffin, youth coordinator with the Susanna Wesley Family Learning Center and restorative justice coordinator in the 33rd Judicial Circuit (July 5, 2006).
56. Id.
57. Robert B. Coates, et al., Restorative Justice Change: The Washington County Experience, 68 Fed. Probation 17 (2004).
58. Id. at 22. Employees within the Washington County justice system stated that the systemic change was successful because: 1) there was a focus on gathering support and acceptance of the programs prior to changing the mission statement of the court; 2) participants were committed to communicating and building trust with each other; and 3) when different groups came with their unique concerns, everyone was committed to resolving conflict in a restorative manner. Id.
59. Daniel W. VanNess & Pat Nolan, Legislating for Restorative Justice, 10 Regent U.L. Rev. 53, 56 (1998).
60. Id.
61. Id. at 59 (citing Minn. Stat. § 388.24(2) (1997).
62. Id. at 64.
63. Id. at 61.
64. Id. at 66.
65. S.B. 789, 93rd Gen. Assem., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2006).
66. Rule 111.03, Appx. B.
67. Section 211.011. RSMo 2006.
68. Rule 111.03, App. B.
69. Id.
70. Id.