U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

August 2001

A Message From OJJDPYouth who become involved in thejuvenile justice system at an earlyage are significantly more likely tocontinue offending than their oldercounterparts. Indeed, it is estimatedthat 6 out of every 10 children ages10 to 12 referred to juvenile court willreturn.

The findings of OJJDP’s Study Groupon Very Young Offenders confirm thesignificant implications of early of-fending. The risk of becoming a seri-ous offender, for example, is two tothree times higher for child delin-quents ages 7 to 12 than for youthwhose onset of delinquency is later.

Because very young offenders aremore likely to reoffend and to pro-gress to serious delinquency, effec-tive early intervention is crucial. ThisBulletin features a promising form ofsuch early intervention: restorativejustice conferencing.

Early offenders pose special chal-lenges, but restorative justice offersunique benefits, as the IndianapolisRestorative Justice ConferencingExperiment is demonstrating. Notonly does restorative justice holdyouth accountable for their actions, italso affords them the opportunity torepair the harm they have caused—involving their families and victims inthe process.

Those seeking to deter young offend-ers from further delinquency will ben-efit from the information provided inthese pages.

Recently reported findings of the Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention’s (OJJDP’s) Study Group on VeryYoung Offenders confirm the seriousnessof early offending behavior. Study Groupresearchers report, for example, that therisk of becoming a more serious offenderis two to three times higher for childdelinquents (those ages 7–12) than forlater onset offenders (Loeber, Farrington,and Petechuk, in press).2 Child delin-quents also account for a relatively highproportion of some types of offenses.They represent 1 in 3 juvenile arrests forarson, 1 in 5 juvenile arrests for vandal-ism, and 1 in 12 juvenile arrests for violentcrime (Loeber and Farrington, 2000). Forsome young offenders, early involvementin status offenses and delinquency is astepping stone in a pathway to serious,violent, and chronic offending. Commun-ities should not ignore the delinquentacts and problem behaviors of youngoffenders in the hope that they will “growout of it” (Loeber, Farrington, and Pete-chuk, in press). Because such youngoffenders have a high likelihood of re-offending, communities should developand implement effective early interven-tions for very young offenders.

One form of early intervention involvesthe use of restorative justice conferences.Such conferences, sometimes referredto as “family group conferences,” have

Restorative JusticeConferences as an EarlyResponse to Young Offenders

Edmund F. McGarrell

A number of highly publicized and dis-turbing school shootings and homicidesin several communities across the UnitedStates have focused the attention of thepublic and policymakers on the issuesof youth violence and school safety. Al-though important, these issues tend todivert juvenile justice officials’ attentionfrom a separate problem: delinquencycommitted by very young children. In1999, U.S. police departments reported218,300 arrests of persons younger thanage 13.1 The most recent juvenile courtstatistics available indicate that offendersunder the age of 13 account for about16 percent of all individuals referred tojuvenile courts (Puzzanchera et al., 2000).Earlier research has shown that childrenentering juvenile court at such a youngage have a very high risk of continuedoffending. For example, approximately 60percent of youth ages 10–12 who are re-ferred to juvenile court subsequentlyreturn to court. For youth referred tojuvenile court a second time, the oddsof returning to court again increase tomore than 80 percent (Snyder and Sick-mund, 1995). However, because theseyouth typically have not committed a par-ticularly serious or violent offense, andbecause children this young usually havenot accumulated a long record, they donot generally receive a great deal of atten-tion from juvenile justice officials (Snyderand Sickmund, 1999).

2

from the process. An individual’s reasonsfor committing an offense are regarded asunimportant, and restitution to victimsand the community affected by the crimeis not typically a primary concern (VanNess, 1996). Offenders are sometimes re-quired to perform community service asreparation, but often the service is per-formed for someone not directly affectedby the offense (Van Ness, 1996).

Restorative justice conferences attempt toaddress these shortcomings in the currentsystem. As part of a balanced and restora-tive justice model (Bazemore and Umbreit,1994; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention, 1998), restorative jus-tice conferences are designed to holdyouth accountable, involve and meet theneeds of victims, and build a communityof support around the offending youth.

Restorative JusticeConferencingIn a restorative justice conference, anoffending youth, his or her victim, andsupporters of both the offender and vic-tim are brought together with a trainedfacilitator to discuss the incident and theharm it has brought to the victim and thegroup of supporters. The conference pro-vides an opportunity for victims to ex-plain how they have been harmed and toquestion offending youth. Supportersalso have an opportunity to describe howthey have been affected by the incident.At the end of the conference, the partici-pants reach an agreement on how theyouth can make amends to the victim andthey sign a reparation agreement. Theagreement typically includes an apology,4and it often includes a requirement thatsome type of restitution be made to thevictim. Sometimes agreements requireyouth to perform community service orcall for other actions such as improvingschool attendance, completing home-work, or performing chores at home orschool.

Advocates of restorative justice confer-encing point to its many potential bene-fits. Conferences, for example, are expect-ed to address the emotional needs andtangible losses of victims and hold youthaccountable for misdeeds more effective-ly than the traditional juvenile court sys-tem. Conferences also allow youth tolearn how their offending has negativelyaffected others. Finally, conferencescreate a supportive community foroffending youth.

become common in Australia and NewZealand and are being used increasinglythroughout the world (Thames ValleyPolice, 1999). Although some jurisdictionsuse restorative justice conferences for avariety of offenses, including criminal of-fenses, restorative justice conferencesmay be particularly appropriate for veryyoung offenders. Advocates argue thatthe conferences offer a meaningful re-sponse to youthful offending withoutconsuming significant court resources.

In 1996, OJJDP provided funds to the Hud-son Institute, a public policy researchorganization in Indianapolis, IN, to evalu-ate the use of restorative justice confer-ences for young offenders. This fundingwas awarded through OJJDP’s Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Pro-gram. This Bulletin describes the findingsof the Hudson Institute’s evaluation.

Challenges Posed byVery Young OffendersMore than 30 years ago, a PresidentialCommission Report (Lemert, 1967) criti-cized the Nation’s juvenile courts forwhat it labeled the “1-minute hour.” Ac-cording to the report, a heavy volume ofcases allowed courts to spend only ap-proximately 1 minute on juvenile casesand prevented them from taking the timeneeded to carefully assess cases and linkjuveniles with necessary services (as thejuvenile courts were intended to do).Since that time, the volume of juvenilecases has increased dramatically withouta corresponding increase in resources.The rising tide of juvenile arrests thatbegan in the mid-1980s and continueduntil 1994 (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999)has forced courts into what LawrenceSherman describes as a “triage” system ofconserving scarce resources for the mostserious cases.3 Minor juvenile offendersare often given several “bites of the ap-ple,” meaning that juvenile cases may bedismissed or juveniles may be placed onprobation supervision with overworkedprobation officers until the offenders haveaccumulated a long history of arrests orhave committed a particularly heinousoffense (Bernard, 1992). Advocates of bothsystem reform and youth warn that thecurrent system fails to hold youthaccountable for offenses and sends themessage that offenses are “no big deal.”

Additional challenges facing the systemare the largely passive roles that offend-ers and their parents often play and thefact that victims are typically excluded

In theory, the effectiveness of restorativejustice conferences is based on the princi-ples of control, deterrence, and “reintegra-tive shaming.” From a control perspective,conferences “control” youth’s involve-ment in delinquency by encouraging themthrough socialization to believe in themoral legitimacy of the law. The controleffect depends on youth’s having strongbonds to family and/or conventional insti-tutions such as school or church (Hirschi,1969). If, as advocates contend, restora-tive justice conferences provide a learn-ing opportunity in which the harm causedby offending is directly communicated toyouth and youth’s bonds to family mem-bers and community institutions arestrengthened, conferences become partof the socialization process through whichyouth learn to conform to society’s norms.From a deterrence perspective, if confer-ences hold youth accountable and imposeconsequences more effectively than thetraditional juvenile justice system, then theconferences raise the costs of offendingrelative to the benefits and therefore maydeter youth from committing offenses.

John Braithwaite’s (1989) theory of reinte-grative shaming builds on the principlesof control and deterrence. Braithwaiteargues that people are generally deterredfrom committing crime by two informalforms of social control: fear of social dis-approval and conscience. He contendsthat punishments or reparation agree-ments imposed by family members,friends, or other individuals importantto an offender are more effective thanthose imposed by a legal institution. Formost people, he argues, fear of beingshamed by those they care about is themajor deterrent to committing crimebecause the opinions of family andfriends mean more than those of anunknown criminal justice authority.

Braithwaite also predicts that restorativejustice conferences may be more effectivethan traditional courts because confer-ences include the direct participation ofsupporters of both victims and youthfuloffenders. By including supporters, con-ferences allow youth to be held responsi-ble in the context of a community of care.In such a setting, youth can be held ac-countable for their acts without beingcondemned as people (Sherman, 1993).According to reintegrative shaming theo-rists, this combination of accountabilityand respect is key to keeping an offenderwithin the community (Braithwaite, 1993).

3

The IndianapolisRestorative JusticeExperimentIn 1996, the Hudson Institute, a publicpolicy research organization in Indianap-olis, IN, began working with the Indianap-olis police department, sheriff’s depart-ment, juvenile court, prosecutor’s office,and mayor on a project involving the useof Australian-style restorative justiceconferences as an alternative responseto juvenile offending. Encouraged by re-search from other jurisdictions—yet seek-ing clearer answers about the effects ofconferences—Juvenile Court Judge JamesPayne and Marion County ProsecutorScott Newman agreed to work with theHudson Institute’s research team toimplement an experimental design. Theexperiment was initiated in September1997, and this Bulletin presents what theresearch team refers to as the “StageOne” results of the ongoing experiment.

MethodProgram eligibility. Indianapolis justiceofficials decided to begin using restorativejustice conferences with young, first-timeoffenders. This population was consideredthe most appropriate both because suchyouth were not seen as posing an immedi-ate risk to the community and becauseofficials recognized the need to identifymore effective early interventions forthese youth. The research team hopedthat conferences might provide a moreeffective tool to prevent young, first-timeoffenders from becoming deeply en-trenched in delinquent behaviors.

Consequently, to be eligible for the firstphase of the Indianapolis experiment, anoffender had to meet the following criteria:

◆ Be no older than 14 years of age.

◆ Be a first-time offender (i.e., have noprior adjudications).

◆ Have committed a nonserious, non-violent offense.

◆ Have no other pending charges.

◆ Admit responsibility for the offense.6

With the exception of the age criterion,these requirements are essentially thesame as those that apply to juvenile courtdiversion programs. If deemed eligible forsuch a program, an offender is divertedfrom court and charges are not filed,pending his or her successful completionof the assigned diversion program.

Random assignment procedure. Formalimplementation of the Restorative Jus-tice Conferencing Experiment began onSeptember 1, 1997. Court intake officersscreened youth for eligibility. Eligibleyouth were selected for the programthrough a random assignment procedure.Specifically, when the intake officer deter-mined that a juvenile offender met theprogram’s eligibility criteria, he or shedrew an envelope from a stack preparedby the research team. Each envelope inthe stack contained one of two possibleresponses: “yes” or “no.” If the intake offi-cer selected a “yes,” the youth was as-signed to the restorative justice programand the case was turned over to the coun-ty coordinator. A “no” selection indicatednormal processing, and the youth was as-signed to 1 of 23 other diversion programs.

Sample characteristics. From September 1,1997, to September 30, 1999, 458 youthfuloffenders participated in the IndianapolisRestorative Justice Conferencing Experi-ment. Of these, 232 were assigned to the

Although too limited to provide definitiveanswers, research to date supports thepositive effects of restorative justice con-ferences. The first of two formal experi-ments that have been conducted involvedpolice-run conferences in Bethlehem, PA.That experiment found high levels of vic-tim satisfaction and some evidence ofreduced reoffending for person offensesbut not property offenses (McCold andWachtel, 1998). The second, the Reinte-grative Shaming Experiments (RISE), alsoreported high levels of victim satisfactionand showed positive changes in the atti-tudes of offenders (Strang et al., 1999).The impact of restorative justice confer-ences on future offending remains underinvestigation.5

The promise of the initial findings fromresearch on restorative justice confer-ences, coupled with frustration over then-existing interventions for very young of-fenders, led Indianapolis juvenile justiceofficials to consider an experimental pilotproject.

David had been arrested for vandaliz-ing a school bathroom and causingconsiderable damage. During therestorative justice conference, Davidwas quiet and seemed unrepentant.The conference dragged on withoutmuch progress. Finally, David spokeup. He explained that the reason hehad been so mad on the day of theincident was that his teacher not onlyhad taken away his bag of potatochips but had then eaten the chips infront of the class, which David inter-preted as an attempt to humiliate him.One of the conference participantswas the teacher who had been in-volved in the classroom incident. Theteacher said that David was wrong—the chips she had eaten were fromher own lunch, and David’s chipsremained unopened in her desk. Sheexplained to David that while it wasappropriate for her to take the chipsaway from a student during class, shewould never open the bag and eatthem herself. With this information,David’s demeanor changed immedi-ately, the atmosphere in the confer-ence shifted significantly, and thegroup was then able to move forwardand reach a successful reparation

agreement. The conference endedwith David apologizing to the teacherand with David, his mother, and theschool officials agreeing that Davidwould attend counseling. As a finalcondition to the agreement, Davidagreed to be responsible for carryingnotes back and forth between hismother and his teacher to ensure on-going communication.

Without the active involvement ofDavid’s teacher in the conference, itseems unlikely that the reason for hisanger would have been discovered.Although a forum other than a restora-tive justice conference might haveheld David accountable for his actions,he probably would have remained bit-ter and continued to feel that he hadbeen treated unfairly—first by theteacher in the classroom and then bythose who held him responsible forthe damage he had caused. IncludingDavid and his teacher in the confer-ence and providing an opportunity fordialog had several benefits: Davidgained insight into the teacher’sactions, the group came to understandDavid’s behavior, and David had theopportunity to make amends to thoseharmed by his actions.

Case Study: Clearing Up an Offender’s Misunderstanding

4

restorative justice treatment group andthe remaining 226 to the “control group.”Tables 1 through 3 provide descriptivecharacteristics of both groups.

Table 1, which reports the racial composi-tion of the two groups, shows that thecontrol group included slightly more non-white youth (63 percent) than the restora-tive justice group (58 percent), thoughthe difference was not statistically signifi-cant. These percentages are consistentwith the racial composition of the generalpopulation of Indianapolis youth adjudi-cated delinquent in 1998—62 percent ofwhom were nonwhite (Marion SuperiorCourt Probation Department, 1999).

The percentages of male and femaleoffenders in the two groups also indicatethat the sample was representative of thegeneral population of juveniles adjudicat-ed delinquent in Indianapolis. For exam-ple, approximately 65 percent of adjudi-cated juveniles in Marion County in 1998were male, compared with 63 percent ofthose in the experimental sample (confer-ence and control group combined) (seetable 2). The restorative justice group,however, included more males (68 per-cent) than the control group (57 percent).Although in early analyses researcherswere concerned about overrepresentationof males in the restorative justice group,the relative distribution became moreeven between the two groups as the sam-ple size increased, suggesting that therandomization process is “smoothing out”the initially uneven distribution.

The median age of youth in both groupswas 13.0 years. The age distributions ofyouth in the restorative justice and con-trol groups were also quite similar. Ap-proximately 32 percent were age 14, justover 26 percent were age 13, and approxi-mately 40 percent were age 12 or young-er. Previous research has suggested thatthese young age groups have high ratesof reoffending (Snyder and Sickmund,1995).

Table 3 reports the frequency of primaryoffenses committed by youth in the re-storative justice and control groups. Asindicated in the table, conversion (shop-lifting) was the most common offense,followed by battery, theft, and criminalmischief. The control group includedslightly more youth whose primaryoffense was conversion, whereas therestorative justice group included moreyouth charged with theft. Percentages ofyouth in the two categories combined,

however, are almost equivalent for thetwo groups. Battery (assault) chargesaccounted for one-quarter of youth inboth groups.

Measures. The study had process andoutcome measures, including conferenceobservations conducted by trained

researchers using an observational check-list; interviews of offending youth, theirparents or guardians, and victims; andchecks of court records to determinewhether participating youth had beenrearrested for subsequent offenses.

Table 1: Racial Composition of the Restorative Justice and Control Groups

Restorative Justice Control Group Both GroupsGroup (n=232) (n=226) (n=458)

Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Nonwhite* 135 58 143 63 278 61White 97 42 83 37 180 39

Note: The chi-square comparison was not significant, meaning that the observed difference betweenthe treatment and control groups was likely produced by chance.

* Because the groups included only three Hispanics and one “other” categorized respondent, thesefour respondents were grouped in the nonwhite category. The remaining respondents in the nonwhitecategory are African American.

Table 2: Gender of Youth in the Restorative Justice and Control Groups

Restorative Justice Control Group Both GroupsGroup (n=232) (n=226) (n=458)

Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Male 159 68 129 57 288 63Female 73 32 97 43 170 37

Note: Chi-square significant at ≤0.05, meaning that the difference between the treatment and controlgroups was greater than that expected to be produced by chance.

Table 3: Primary Offenses Committed by Restorative Justice and ControlGroup Participants

Restorative Justice Control Group Both GroupsGroup (n=232) (n=226) (n=458)

Offense Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Conversion(shoplifting) 84 36 105 46 189 41

Battery 59 25 56 25 115 25Theft 36 16 22 10 58 13Criminal

mischief 26 11 17 8 43 9Disorderly

conduct 14 6 18 8 32 7Trespass 7 3 5 2 12 3Other 5 2 3 1 8 2Intimidation 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.2

Primary

5

ResultsObservations of conferences. In observ-ing restorative justice conferences, re-searchers examined the length of theproceeding; the role of the conferencecoordinator; the involvement of the of-fender, youth supporter(s), victim(s),and victim supporter(s); expressions ofshame, apology, and acceptance of re-sponsibility by the offender; and elementsincluded in the reparation agreement.

Between September 1, 1997, and Septem-ber 30, 1999, 182 conferences were con-ducted. Of these, 157 conferences (86 per-cent) were observed by 1 of 15 trainedobservers.

Length of proceeding. Restorative justiceconferences lasted an average of 43 min-utes. The reintegration ceremony, duringwhich conference participants mingledinformally and shared refreshments, aver-aged 10 minutes from the close of theconference.

Role of conference coordinator. Generally,conference coordinators followed theprinciples of restorative justice confer-encing. Observers noted that coordina-tors maintained a distinction between theoffending youth and his or her behavior(i.e., treating him or her as a valued mem-ber of the community while condemningthe act). Coordinators also focused thediscussion on the incident and rarely lec-tured the offending youth. Coordinators

Case Study: A New Approach to Juvenile Offending

An Opportunity To SpeakThirteen-year-old Jason’s face wasgrim as he looked around at thoseattending the restorative justice confer-ence and struggled to answer the co-ordinator’s question. “How were youinvolved in this incident?” Quietly,Jason began his story. He and hisfriend Michael were on their way toJason’s house that afternoon and cutacross the shopping center’s parkinglot. The car was there. They could seethe speakers, and with Michael aslookout, Jason crawled in the car andbegan pulling out wires. The owner ofthe car (Rhonda) came out of her of-fice and yelled at them to stop. Jasondropped the speaker, and he andMichael began running. Later that day,Jason heard the sheriff’s officer knockon his door and talk to Jason’s mother.After the officer questioned Jason andhis friend, the boys were handcuffedand taken to the juvenile detentioncenter.

When asked what he was thinking atthe time of the incident, Jason replied,“Nothing, just that I saw the speakersand wanted them.” Jason struggledwhen asked who had been affected byhis actions, telling the group that hehad been affected—by being taken to“juvenile.” “What about the owner ofthe car?” asked the coordinator. “Well,I guess because she got her speakersmessed up, she was affected.” Paus-ing for a moment, Jason looked at hismother and whispered that she toohad been affected by his behavior.

Jason’s friend Michael gave his ac-count of what happened, admittingthat he wasn’t thinking at the time andnow knows he made a big mistake.The person most disappointed inMichael, he explained, was his

younger brother, and that was theworst part of all this—losing his broth-er’s trust.

Rhonda next described the incident,explaining that she heard the two boysin the parking lot and ran out to seewhat was happening. “I saw the oneboy in my car holding the speaker—Iyelled at him to stop and he dropped itand ran.” When asked what she want-ed to receive from the conference,Rhonda said she wanted to know whythe boys had attempted to steal herspeakers. She also wanted the boys tounderstand how she felt and askedthem how they would feel if someonetook their possessions.

Moving around the circle, the confer-ence coordinator asked the boys’mothers how the incident had affectedthem. Jason’s mother said that at firstshe was shocked and had a hard timebelieving her son would be involvedin something like this. Jason, she ex-plained, has money from an allowanceand doesn’t need to steal anything.Michael’s mother told the group howdisappointed she was that her son hadparticipated in the incident. She hadalways tried to raise her boys to knowthe difference between right andwrong, and it would take a while torestore her trust in Michael.

Drafting a ContractAfter each participant had an opportu-nity to speak, the contract draftingphase of the conference began. Theparticipants discussed and outlinedsteps the boys needed to take to makethings right. The coordinator asked theboys if they had anything they wantedto say to the victim. Each made a sin-cere apology for trying to steal Rhon-da’s speakers. Rhonda said that she

believed the boys were remorseful andthought they had learned from theirmistake.

When asked if there was anything elseshe wanted to add to the contract,Rhonda explained that because thespeakers were replaced and her carhad no permanent damage, restitutionwas not necessary. She suggested,however, that the boys perform commu-nity service work. Following Rhonda’ssuggestion, the conference participantsjoined in and traded ideas on what typeof work would be appropriate and howmany hours would be fair. The boyswere asked whether they would agreeto community service and whether theyknew of any work that was neededaround their neighborhood. Finally, theparticipants agreed that Jason andMichael would perform 20 hours ofservice at a community center to earnmoney to pay their court fees. The co-ordinator wrote up the contract, andall of the participants signed it, puttinga formal end to the incident.

Benefits of the ProcessAs the conference participants rose toleave, Jason and Michael shook handswith everyone in the group. Althoughthe boys had been held accountablefor their behavior, they knew that peo-ple still cared about them and hadworked to help them learn from theirmistakes. Having received an apologyand learned why the boys did whatthey did, Rhonda felt that she couldput the incident behind her. The boys’parents had a chance to express howthey felt about their sons’ actions, theyreceived support from the group, andthey helped point their children back inthe right direction.

6

were seen as doing an effective job of elic-iting the involvement of all conferenceparticipants.

Involvement of offender, victim, and sup-porters. Observers reported that all con-ference participants tended to displayrespect toward the offending youth. In alarge majority of conferences, the offend-ing youth also was seen as conveyingrespect toward the victim. In approx-imately 22 percent of conferences, ob-servers did not believe the offendingyouth had been respectful of the victim.

In nearly all conferences, group partici-pants expressed disapproval of the of-fense. In more than 80 percent of the con-ferences, observers reported that theyouth had apologized to his or her victim,and in half of the conferences, the youthapologized to his or her own supporters.Observers also noted that most offendingyouth expressed remorse (76 percent) andunderstood the injury or harm they hadcaused (66 percent). Although observerscould not tell with certainty whether a vic-tim and other group participants had for-given an offender, observers reported thatmore than 80 percent of the conferencesappeared to include the victim and thegroup forgiving the offending youth. Inthree-quarters of the conferences, the ob-server reported a strong sense of re-integration at the conference close.

In all of the conferences, every partici-pant signed the reparation agreement.Victims appeared satisfied in more than80 percent of the conferences, and ob-servers described 77 percent of the con-ferences as positive. Observers also re-ported that in more than 80 percent ofthe conferences, a volunteer was appoint-ed to hold the youth accountable to theterms of the reparation agreement. Thatis, rather than have a court official moni-tor the agreement, the group designatedsomeone from the community of supportto hold the youth accountable. This per-son was then contacted by the MarionCounty Restorative Justice Coordinator toverify the youth’s completion of theagreement.

Elements of reparation agreement. Apologywas the most common element includedin reparation agreements (62 percent). Tosome extent, however, this percentageunderrepresents the frequency of apolo-gies. Because many conferences hadalready included an apology, it may nothave been written into the formal agree-ment. Other common elements includedmonetary restitution, personal service,

and community service. More than half ofthe reparation agreements included stillother elements (typically activities thatthe group had tailored to the specific cir-cumstances involved). Examples includedimposing a nightly curfew and requiringthat the youth improve his or her gradesand school attendance or participate inafterschool programs.

Interviews of conference participants.A significant part of the Indianapolis re-storative justice study was assessing howvictims, offenders, and supporters feltabout restorative justice conferencing asan alternative to traditional court-orderedprograms. The goal was to collect data onparticipants’ attitudes and beliefs abouthow their cases were handled and ontheir sense of justice.

Initially, the Hudson Institute encountereddelays in implementing the interview pro-cedures. Consequently, the sample sizefor the interviews is smaller than that of

the total sample of conference and con-trol group cases.7 Thus, the results fromthe interviews come principally fromcases occurring during late 1998 and1999. Given the small sample sizes, theresearchers report descriptive findingswithout assessing the statistical signifi-cance of the findings. More detailedassessments will be included in thesecond stage of the project.

Satisfaction. When respondents wereasked how satisfied they were with theway their cases were handled, a signifi-cant difference emerged between vic-tims in the control group and victims inthe conference group. More than 90 per-cent of victims in the conference group“strongly agreed” or “agreed” that theywere satisfied, compared with 68 percentof victims in the control group (see figure1). Satisfaction levels of youth and par-ents in both groups were similar. Overall,both groups expressed high levels of sat-isfaction, but youth and parents in the

Program is a goodway to addresscertain types of

juvenile crime

0 20 40 60 80 100

Control group parents

Percentage

Would recommenddiscontinuing

program*

Would recommendprogram to a friend

Satisfied withthe way casewas handled

Conference group parents

Control group youth

Conference group youth

Control group victims

Conference group victims

Indi

cato

rs o

f Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Figure 1: Reported Levels of Satisfaction

Note: For the first, second, and fourth indicators, the figure reflects the percentage of respon-dents who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement. For the third, the figure shows thepercentage who responded “yes.”

* No conference group victims recommended discontinuing the program.

7

Program helpedsolve problems

Control group parents

Percentage

Outcome was fair

Had opportunityto express views

Felt treatedwith respect

Conference group parents

Control group youth

Conference group youth

Control group victims

Conference group victims

Indi

cato

rs o

f Effe

ctiv

enes

s, F

airn

ess,

Invo

lvem

ent,

and

Res

pect

0 20 40 60 80 100

Felt involved

Figure 2: Reported Perceptions of Effectiveness, Fairness,Involvement, and Respect

Note: For the third, fourth, and fifth indicators, the figure reflects the percentage of respondentswho “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement. For the first, the figure shows the percent-age who “definitely” or “somewhat” agreed with the statement. For the second, the figure indi-cates the percentage who responded “yes.”

control group were slightly more likely toexpress satisfaction. This difference mayreflect the extra demands (e.g., time,accountability) that conferences place onyouth and parents.

In measuring participant satisfaction, thestudy also examined whether participantswould recommend the program to a friendinvolved in a similar situation. Again, thegreatest difference between the controland conference groups was for victims.Nearly all victims involved in conferences(98 percent) said that they would recom-mend the approach, compared with 24percent of victims in the control group.Offending youth in the conference groupwere also more likely to recommend theapproach (85 percent, compared with 38percent of youth in the control group).The study found no significant differencebetween parents in the two groups forthis item (see figure 1).

Another indication of participants’ satis-faction is whether they would recommenddiscontinuing the program. Most partici-pants did not recommend stopping theconferences or the control group pro-grams. Conference participants, however,were most likely to endorse continuationof the conferencing program. For exam-ple, no victims in the conference grouprecommended discontinuation. Just overone-fifth of victims in the control group,however, agreed that the program shouldbe stopped. Similarly, 19 percent of youthin the conference group recommendeddiscontinuing the program (comparedwith 36 percent of those in the controlgroup), and 17 percent of conference par-ents recommended discontinuation (com-pared with 25 percent of control groupparents) (see figure 1).

The final indicator of participant satisfac-tion examined was whether participantsbelieved the program was a “good” wayto address certain kinds of juvenile crime.Here, both conferences and other courtprograms received strong endorsements.For victims and parents, the study foundlittle difference between conference andcontrol group participants. Youth in thecontrol group were more likely than thosein the conference group (85 percent ver-sus 71 percent) to agree that the programthey participated in was a good one (seefigure 1).

Perceptions of respect and involvement.Participants in both conference and con-trol group programs felt they had beentreated with respect. The study foundno significant differences between

participants (victims, youth, and parents)in the treatment and control groups interms of perceptions of respect (seefigure 2).

None of the victims in the conferencegroup reported feeling pushed around.However, approximately 20 percent ofyouth and 15 percent of parents in theconference group felt they had beenpushed around. These percentages arelower than those reported by youth andparents in the control group (44 and 38percent, respectively).8

The study found differences in the twogroups’ feelings of having been involvedin the process. Restorative justice confer-ences are built on the principle that af-fected parties should participate in theprocess, and results indicate that thisprinciple is being achieved in the Indi-anapolis experiment. Nearly all victims in

the conference group (97 percent) agreedthey had been involved, compared with38 percent of victims in the control group.Offending youth in the conference groupwere also much more likely than those inthe control group to feel they had beeninvolved (84 percent versus 47 percent).Nearly 80 percent of parents in the con-ference group agreed they had been in-volved, compared with 40 percent of par-ents in the control group (see figure 2).

Participants in the conference group werealso more likely to report having had anopportunity to express their views. Forexample, 95 percent of victims in the con-ference group agreed they had such anopportunity, compared with 56 percent ofvictims in the control group. Similarly, 86percent of offending youth and 90 per-cent of parents in the conference groupagreed they had the opportunity toexpress their views, compared with 55

8

percent of youth and 68 percent of par-ents in the control group (see figure 2).

Perception of outcomes. A large majorityof participants in both the conferencegroup and the control group believed theoutcome of their case was fair (see fig-ure 2). Victims in the conference groupwere more likely than their control groupcounterparts to describe the outcome aslenient (36 percent and 14 percent, re-spectively). Conference group youth wereslightly less likely than control groupyouth to describe the outcome as lenient,whereas conference group parents weresomewhat more likely than control groupparents to describe the outcome aslenient.

Participants in the conference group weremore likely than those in the control groupto report that the program had helped tosolve problems. More than three-quartersof victims in the conference group reportedthis benefit, compared with one-half ofthose in the control group. More than 80percent of conference group youth and

parents reported that the program hadhelped to solve problems, compared with57 percent of control group youth and 72percent of control group parents (seefigure 2).

Analysis of program completion dataand rearrest records. The results de-scribed thus far indicate that restorativeconferences were implemented in a fash-ion consistent with the philosophy andprinciples of restorative justice, that theywere more effective than many othercourt programs in addressing victimneeds, and that both parents and offend-ing youth felt very much involved in theprocess. For many policymakers, however,the fundamental issue is the program’simpact on future offending. To addressthis issue, the study compared programcompletion data and recidivism rates ofrestorative justice conference participantswith those of youth in the control group.9(Recidivism was defined as a rearrest afterthe initial arrest that brought the youth tothe juvenile justice system, and recidivism

analysis was conducted for both groups at6- and 12-month intervals.)

Program completion. Youth participatingin restorative justice conferences demon-strated a significantly higher completionrate (82.6 percent) than youth in the con-trol group, who were assigned to otherdiversion programs (57.7 percent). Themajority of the 29 youth in the conferencegroup who failed to complete the programwere rearrested before attending the con-ference. In contrast, most of the 71 con-trol group youth who failed to completetheir assigned programs failed because ofjuvenile waiver from the program. In suchcases, juvenile court staff closed the casewithout requiring the youth to completethe assigned program.

Six-month rearrest rates. Table 4 shows 6-month rearrest rates for all youth whohave reached the 6-month stage. As therates for the full sample reflect, the re-storative conference group included fewerrecidivists than the control group by amargin of 13.5 percent. This statisticallysignificant difference represents a 40-percent reduction in rates of rearrest.10

(The reduction was calculated by dividingthe difference between the control andthe treatment group rates by the controlgroup rate: (33.9–20.4)/33.9=39.8.)

Researchers also conducted an analysislimited to youth who had successfullycompleted a treatment (either the restora-tive conference program or one of thecontrol group diversion programs). Be-cause, as noted above, youth in the con-ference group were significantly more like-ly to complete their program than youthin the control group (many of whom werewaived out of their programs), the portionof high-risk youth remaining among pro-gram completers presumably was higherfor the conference group than the controlgroup. In other words, the higher dropoutrate for youth in the control group likelyresulted in a group of lower risk youthamong those who actually completed theprogram. Thus, limiting the recidivismanalysis to program completers providesa conservative estimate of the conferenceprogram’s effectiveness. This analysisalso found a significant difference in re-arrest rates for conference and controlgroups: 12.3 percent and 22.7 percent,respectively. This statistically significantdifference represents a 46-percent reduc-tion in rates of rearrest.11

Twelve-month rearrest rates. Table 4 shows12-month rearrest rates for all youth who

Case Study: Better Addressing the Needs of Victims

When setting up the restorative justiceconference, the coordinator talkedwith 17-year-old Richard about thepurpose of the meeting. Richardadmitted that he had broken into hisneighbor Sue’s car and taken hertape player and several other items.Richard agreed to participate in theconference and indicated a willing-ness to make amends.

On the day of the conference, howev-er, Richard’s attitude seemed to walkinto the room in front of him, and theother participants sensed that theconference might not go as expected.Sue, the car’s owner, nonethelesswanted to proceed.

When the coordinator questionedRichard about the incident, Richardskirted the issue of his responsibilityand did not appreciate that so manypeople had attended the conferenceto help give him a second chance.When it was Sue’s turn to speak, shedescribed how she had felt when shediscovered someone had broken intoher car and stolen her personal prop-erty. Looking directly at Richard, Sueasked him why he had chosen hercar. After all, she thought they hadbeen friends.

After Richard and Sue described theincident, other participants had anopportunity to speak. Gary, a friendof Sue’s attending the conference asa victim supporter, explained howRichard’s behavior had affected Sue.One of Richard’s neighbors told thegroup that she had always trustedRichard (e.g., allowing him to work inher yard), but now her trust in him hadbeen broken and she wasn’t sure howshe felt about Richard. Richard’s momtold the group that she hadn’t raisedher son to steal from others but didn’tknow how to help him change.

Once each participant had spoken, acontract was written. Under the termsof the contract, Richard agreed to payfor damage to Sue’s car and replaceher personal items. After Richard leftthe conference, Sue commented thatshe didn’t know if she would ever seethe restitution payment. She assuredher friends and the conference coordi-nator, however, that the conferencehad been worth it to her. The mostimportant part, she explained, was theopportunity to tell Richard face-to-facehow he had hurt her—that he haddestroyed the trust that she had inhim, disrupted her sense of safety,and generally made her life miserablefor a while.

9

Table 4: Rearrest Rates at 6 and 12 Months

Total Number of Youth Who WereYouth in Sample Rearrested (%)

Restorative RestorativeFollowup Interval Conference Control Conference Control p Value

6 monthsFull sample* 167 168 20.4 33.9 0.005Participants who

completed program 138 97 12.3 22.7 0.036

12 monthsFull sample* 156 156 30.1 42.3 0.025Participants who

completed program 125 93 23.2 29.0 0.330

Note: A p value of ≤ 0.05 indicates that chi-square is statistically significant, meaning that the difference between the treatment and control groups wasgreater than that expected to be produced by chance.

* The smaller sample sizes reported in this table reflect the fact that at the time of the analysis, not all of the study group youth had reached the 6- and12-month followup stages. These cases are being tracked in the ongoing study.

have reached the 12-month stage. Of thefull sample of youth participating in therestorative conference program, 30.1percent had been rearrested within 12months, compared with 42.3 percent ofyouth in the control group. This statisti-cally significant difference represents a 29-percent reduction in recidivism.12

When researchers examined rearrestrates at 12 months for only those youthwho had successfully completed a pro-gram, they found a pattern that was con-sistent with their other results, but thedifference in rearrest rates for the confer-ence and control groups did not achievestatistical significance. Specifically, 23.2percent of youth who successfully com-pleted the restorative conference pro-gram had been rearrested at 12 months,compared with 29 percent of youth whosuccessfully completed another diversionprogram. This represents a 20-percentreduction in rearrest rates, which is notstatistically significant.

The lack of statistical significance proba-bly is attributable to two factors: (1) im-plementation problems in the earliestphase of the experiment, which frequent-ly caused delays in scheduling confer-ences; and (2) the small number of pro-gram completers, particularly in thecontrol group, included in the 12-monthanalysis. The Hudson Institute continuesto monitor these findings to determinewhether 12-month rearrest differences forprogram completers reach statistical sig-nificance when the sample size is larger.13

Rearrest rates by offense, sex, and race.Researchers conducted limited analysesof 6-month rearrest rates for selected sub-groups of offenders.14 Youth who commit-ted offenses against property had lowerrearrest rates than youth who committedoffenses against persons, and this differ-ence was comparable for conference andcontrol group youth. Both males and fe-males in the conference group experi-enced lower rearrest rates than theircounterparts in the control groups; thedifference was greater for females thanfor males. There were no racial differ-ences in rearrest rates for conference andcontrol group youth, and the overall re-duction in rearrest rates found for con-ference group youth was the same forwhites and nonwhites. These findings,although preliminary, suggest that theeffects of conferences appear consistentfor youth across groups based on offense,sex, and race. These results should beconsidered preliminary, however, untilfurther analyses based on larger samplesizes can verify findings.

ConclusionRecent years have witnessed consider-able interest in restorative justice ap-proaches in general and conferences inparticular. The current study and earlierresearch provide support for continueddevelopment of the restorative justiceconference approach and experimenta-tion with its use.

One of the basic findings of the experi-ment described in this Bulletin is thatrestorative justice conferences can besuccessfully implemented in an urban U.S.setting. More than 80 percent of youthwho were referred to a conference attend-ed the conference and completed theterms of their reparation agreement. ForIndianapolis, this rate compares veryfavorably with that of other court-relateddiversion programs.

Trained observers reported that confer-ences in Indianapolis appeared to incor-porate restorative justice principles suchas inclusion of affected parties, respectfor all participants, and emphasis onproblem solving. Victims received apolo-gies, and reparation agreements includ-ed other mutually agreed-upon actions.These characteristics translated into highlevels of satisfaction among victims.

Interesting patterns emerge in this study’sinterview data. Overall, the data indicatereasonably high levels of satisfactionamong participants in both conferencesand other court-ordered diversion pro-grams (i.e., control group programs).Thus, the Indianapolis experiment doesnot involve a comparison of restorativejustice programs and court-ordered pro-grams that are perceived as failing.

The interview data suggest that the con-ference approach makes a positive differ-ence for victims. When compared withvictims participating in other diversionprograms, victims in the conference pro-gram were more satisfied with how their

10

cases were handled and much more likelyto recommend the program to a friend.Victims in the conference program alsofelt they were treated with respect.Consistent with the principles of restora-tive justice, victims participating inconferences were much more likely thanthose participating in other programs toreport that they were involved in theprocess and that they had the opportu-nity to express their views.

The conference approach also appears tomake a difference for parents and youth.Although responses to some interviewquestions revealed no differences betweenthose who participated in conferencesand those who participated in other diver-sion programs, responses to questionsrelating to the core principles of restora-tive justice revealed significant differ-ences. For example, youth and parentswho participated in conferences weremore likely than control group partici-pants to feel they were involved, had a“say in the matter,” and had problemssolved.

Study results relating to reoffending aresimilarly promising. In comparisons forthe total sample and for youth who suc-cessfully completed their diversion pro-gram, youth who attended conferenceswere significantly less likely than youthwho attended other diversion programsto be rearrested during the 6 months afterthe incident that initially brought them tothe attention of the court. Similar findingswere observed at 12 months for the totalsample; 12-month findings for programcompleters were limited by small samplesizes and were less conclusive.

In subsequent stages of this project,researchers will seek to confirm initialresults with larger samples. Larger sam-ples will also allow researchers to ad-dress theoretical questions by relatingfindings from reoffending rates to inter-views of youth, parents, and victims. Forexample, such questions may addresswhether it is the deterrent effect of in-creased accountability, the reduced stig-matization, or a combination of the twothat is generating decreases in offending(Braithwaite, 1989). In addition, largersamples will allow a more thorough exami-nation of results for various subgroups ofoffenders (e.g., those based on sex, race,age, and offense type). Researchers planto address the issue of the role of policeas conference facilitators, including therelated question of whether it makes adifference for victims or offenders if the

facilitator is a uniformed police officer ora civilian. Finally, the Hudson Institutehopes to extend its experiment to a broad-er range of offenses and to youth withprior court experience, thereby allowingthe Institute to measure the extent towhich these promising initial results applyto more serious offenders. The Institutealso perceives a clear need to extend theresearch to the use of conferences witholder youth.

Consistent with earlier research, the find-ings of the Indianapolis study suggestthat restorative justice conferences suc-cessfully address the needs of many vic-tims of offenses committed by youth. Inaddition, findings show that conferencesare a promising early intervention foryoung, first-time juvenile offenders. Giventhe high rate of reoffending among veryyoung children who enter juvenile court,these findings are encouraging and sup-port the need for continued experimenta-tion with and assessment of the restora-tive justice conference approach.

Endnotes1. (H.N. Snyder, personal communication,2000.) Dr. Snyder provided these statis-tics, based on his analysis of 1999 arrestdata from the Federal Bureau of Investi-gation, to the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

2. As used in this Bulletin, the term “childdelinquents” refers to juveniles betweenthe ages of 7 and 12 who have committeddelinquent acts, as defined by criminallaw. This group of juveniles is the focusof OJJDP’s Study Group on Very YoungOffenders.

3. (L.W. Sherman, personal communica-tion, 1996.) The author and ProfessorSherman collaborated on a grant proposalin the early stages of this project, andSherman’s thinking is reflected in thisBulletin.

4. A restorative justice program, however,should not force an offender to apologizeto his or her victim. Nor should the vic-tim be forced to accept an apology. Anoffender’s apology should be sincere; itshould not be viewed as a “quick fix” forthe offender.

5. Research other than these two formalstudies has reported declines in reoffend-ing and high levels of victim satisfaction.This research, however, was not based onrigorous research designs. See Thames

Valley Police, 1999; Braithwaite, 1999;Moore and O’Connell, 1994.

6. Restorative justice conferences arenot fact-finding hearings. If a youth chal-lenges the allegations, the matter shouldproceed to court. This criterion seeks toprevent the “revictimization” of a victimthat could occur if the alleged offenderfailed to take responsibility for the act.

7. The sample size for the interviews wasas follows: victims in conference group,n=42; victims in control group, n=50;youth in conference group, n=52; youthin control group, n=47; parents in confer-ence group, n=52; and parents in controlgroup, n=47.

8. Because control group victims were notasked if they felt they had been pushedaround, this measure of perceived in-volvement and respect is not included infigure 2.

9. At the time of the comparison, programcompletion data were available for only167 youth in the restorative conferencegroup and 168 youth in the control group.

10. Chi-square statistically significant at≤0.01. This level of significance indicatesthat a difference of the observed magni-tude would only be expected to occur in1 out of 100 samples.

11. Chi-square statistically significant at≤0.05.

12. Chi-square statistically significant at≤0.025.

13. Additionally, in later stages of the proj-ect, researchers will consider issues suchas the length of time elapsing betweenprogram completion and rearrest and theseriousness of subsequent offending.

14. Analyses by subgroup at this stageof the study are limited because samplesizes at this stage become very smallwhen conference and control groups arefurther divided by characteristics such asoffense, sex, and race. In the second stageof the project, when sample sizes are larg-er, researchers will carefully considerwhether the restorative conference ap-proach has different effects on differentcategories of youth.

ReferencesBazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. 1994.Balanced and Restorative Justice. Sum-mary. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

11

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Bernard, T.J. 1992. The Cycle of JuvenileJustice. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Braithwaite, J. 1989. Crime, Shame, andReintegration. Cambridge, England: Cam-bridge University Press.

Braithwaite, J. 1993. Juvenile offending:New theory and practice. In NationalConference on Juvenile Justice, ConferenceProceedings No. 22, edited by L. Atkinsonand S. Gerull. Canberra, Australia: Aus-tralian Institute of Criminology, pp. 35–42.

Braithwaite, J. 1999. Restorative justice:Assessing optimistic and pessimisticaccounts. In Crime and Justice: A Reviewof Research, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–127.

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency.Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Lemert, E.M. 1967. The juvenile court—quest and realities. In Task Force Report:Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime,edited by the President’s Commission onLaw Enforcement and Administration ofJustice. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, pp. 91–106.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 2000. ChildDelinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., and Pete-chuk, D. In press. Child Delinquency:Intervention and Prevention. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Marion Superior Court Probation De-partment. 1999. Marion County JuvenileProbation Annual Report. Indianapolis, IN:Marion Superior Court ProbationDepartment.

McCold, P., and Wachtel, B. 1998. Restor-ative Policing Experiment: The BethlehemPennsylvania Police Family Group Con-ferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Commu-nity Service Foundation.

Moore, D., and O’Connell, T. 1994. Familyconferencing in Wagga Wagga: A commu-nitarian model of justice. In Family Con-ferencing and Juvenile Justice, edited byC. Alder and J. Wundersitz. Canberra,Australia: Australian Institute of Crimi-nology, pp. 45–74.

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. 1998. Guide for Implementingthe Balanced and Restorative Justice

Model. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A.L., Finnegan,T.A., Snyder, H.N., Poole, R.S., and Tierney,N. 2000. Juvenile Court Statistics 1997.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Sherman, L.W. 1993. Defiance, deterrence,and irrelevance: A theory of the criminalsanction. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 30:445–473.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1995. Ju-venile Offenders and Victims: A NationalReport. Pittsburgh, PA: National Centerfor Juvenile Justice.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999.Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999National Report. Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,chapter 6.

Strang, H., Barnes, G.C., Braithwaite, J.,and Sherman, L.W. 1999. Experiments inRestorative Policing: A Progress Reporton the Canberra Reintegrative ShamingExperiments (RISE). Canberra, Australia:Australian National University.

Thames Valley Police. 1999. Restorativejustice. Unpublished manuscript. ThamesValley, Great Britain: Thames Valley PoliceDepartment.

Van Ness, D. 1996. Restorative justice andinternational human rights. In RestorativeJustice: International Perspectives, editedby B. Galaway and J. Hudson. Monsey, NY:Criminal Justice Press, pp. 17–35.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-ber 96–JN–FX–0007 from the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-partment of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

AcknowledgmentsEdmund F. McGarrell, Ph.D., is Director of the Crime Control Policy Center atthe Hudson Institute and an Associate Professor in the Department of CriminalJustice at Indiana University, Bloomington. Research for the Indianapolis Re-storative Justice Conferencing Experiment is supported by OJJDP and grantsfrom the Lilly Endowment, Donner Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation,and Indiana Criminal Justice Institute.

Share With Your ColleaguesUnless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5600 (fax)E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 187769Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300