THE EFFECT OF VICTIM OFFENDER MEDIATION PROGRAMS

ON CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM

by Amy M. Rohalla,  Illinois Wesleyan University intern at Collaborative Solutions Institute, Spring 2005

Abstract

This study assessed the effects of a victim offender mediation program called RESOLVE, at Collaborative Solutions Institute in Bloomington, Illinois, on a reduction in offenders’ crime rates.  Seventy-six offender participants in the mediation program were included in the study.  Data was obtained using public access data from the McLean County, Illinois government website.  A significant reduction in crimes was found for the number of crimes following mediation.  There was a significant effect in reduction of total crime as well as a significant reduction in major crimes (all crimes excluding minor traffic violations such as speeding) after mediation.  These results suggest that the mediation program had a positive influence on reducing criminal acts for offenders who participated. 

The Effect of Victim Offender Mediation Programs on Criminal Recidivism

            Crime inherently causes pain and frustrations for individuals as well as communities.  Often, criminal justice systems leave the victims of crime out of the justice process, inhibiting their right to resolve issues they may have concerning the crime.  In addition to this, the justice system does not alter criminal behavior.  It simply turns criminal concerns over to correctional authorities, leaving criminals to never fully understand the impact of their actions.  The current model of corrections called the “accountability model” includes only a minor contribution from the victim during the justice process through what is called a victim impact statement (Umbreit, Coates & Vos, 2001).  In an impact statement, victims can recount the physical and emotional losses and damages experienced by themselves and those around them due to a crime.  These impact statements may influence the outcome of a criminal justice case; however, they are not currently a widespread tool used in sentencing (Umbreit, et al. 2001).  This model of corrections is lacking in that it does not lead to any acknowledgement of harm done to the victim or repentance from the offender.  Due to this recognized deficit in the justice system, the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) began to explore alternative systems of justice (Umbreit, et al 2001). 

            Ideas formulated by NOVA developed into a concept currently referred to as “restorative community justice” (Umbreit, et al 2001).  This new justice process allowed victims to be involved in the criminal justice process if they chose to be.  The restorative community justice process involves three parties: crime victims, offenders, and community members (Umbreit, 2001).  The programs are focused on holding offenders accountable for their behavior through restitution and remorse, providing an opportunity for dialogue between the victim and the offender, and ultimately leading to conflict resolution and closure for all of those involved (Umbreit, 2001).  The most common type of restorative justice in North America is referred to as “victim offender mediation” (Umbreit, et al 2001). 

            Victim offender mediation, commonly referred to as VOM, is an approach to restorative justice that provides both the victims of crime and community members the ability to work with offenders to hold them accountable for their crimes and reintegrate them into the community (Umbreit et al. 2001).  The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not victim offender mediation programs have a significant effect on a reduction in offenders’ crime rates following mediation.

            As of 2001, there were thirteen hundred victim offender mediation programs in North America (Umbreit, 2001).  The purpose of these programs is to provide a restorative process that actively involves both the victim and the offender in trying to repair the emotional and material harm caused by the crime (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000). Generally, VOM is used in cases of property crimes and minor assaults.  It is also used predominantly in juvenile justice systems, although it is becoming increasingly used within the adult criminal justice system as well (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000).  VOM allows victims to talk to their offenders and understand the motivations behind their crimes.  It allows victims to understand the crime more thoroughly by receiving details about the offense from the offender.  In addition, the offenders are able to receive restoration by learning the impacts of their crimes on their victims, and can then begin to make amends.

Despite these benefits, the programs are often met with resistance from victims’ communities (Umbreit, 2001).  This resistance is often based on misunderstandings and fears about the process which have arisen from situations in which criminal justice professionals have attempted the mediation process without following proper guidelines or providing a training program for mediators (Umbreit, 2001).  The programs are also met with resistance when people assume that mediation will be applied to all cases.  However, it is generally recognized that victim offender mediation programs and restorative justice programs in general are successful only when both the victim and the offender participate voluntarily (Umbreit, 2001). 

            Umbreit reports on a large cross-site analysis of victim offender mediation programs conducted in the United States.  The analysis examined VOM data across variables such as client satisfaction, restitution completion, and recidivism (Umbreit, 2001).  The study found that the immediate outcome of VOM was most often a successful negotiation of a restitution agreement, which focused mainly on the payment of financial restitution to the victim (Umbreit, 2001).  Nine out of ten victims and offenders were found to be satisfied with the outcome of the mediation sessions, and made comments such as “It was helpful to see the victim as a person and to have a chance to talk and make up for what I did,” and “It gave us a chance to see each other face to face and to resolve what happened” (Umbreit, 2001). 

            In addition to high satisfaction with the mediation, offenders who negotiated restitution agreements with their victims during mediation were found to be “significantly more likely to complete their restitution obligation than similar offenders who were ordered by the court to pay a set amount of restitution” (Umbreit, 2001).  Recidivism is the question of whether or not the victim offender mediation process will reduce further criminal behavior of offenders who participate in VOM programs.  It was found that juvenile offenders who went through the VOM process committed significantly fewer crimes within the year following the mediation than offenders in a comparable control who did not go through a VOM program (Umbreit, 2001).  It was also found that those crimes committed after mediation were of a less serious nature than the original offenses for which the offenders had been referred to the program (Umbreit, 2001). 

            A study by Umbreit, Coates, and Vos which examined the impact of victim-offender mediation programs over two decades of research, provided similar results.  This study found a high level of client satisfaction, likely based on the fact that participation in a mediation program is a “highly self-selective process” (Umbreit, et al. 2001).  Umbreit et al. reports that recidivism findings at a large number of VOM program sites indicated that there was a sizeable reduction in crimes and seriousness of crimes for those offenders who participated in the mediation process, particularly for youth offenders going through the program (Umbreit et al., 2001).

This study will focus on the construct of recidivism for crimes committed by offenders in the RESOLVE victim offender mediation program.  The study will assess whether or not there was a significant reduction in all crimes and in major crimes after mediation.  Major crimes include all crimes except for the minor traffic violations of speeding, not wearing a seatbelt while driving, and having squealing tires.  Analysis will use data collected from public access of the McLean County, IL government web site. 

Method

Subjects

            Subjects for this study came from a group of participants in the victim offender mediation program, RESOLVE, offered at Collaborative Solutions Institute in Bloomington, IL.  The subjects had all admitted guilt to a crime and participated in the program as an alternative to handling their case through the criminal justice court system.  Most of the criminal cases referred to the VOM program were for property damage and theft/retail theft cases, these cases accounted for 70% of all cases.  A graph outlining the crimes for which the offenders were referred to the VOM program can be found in Chart 1.  All participation in the RESOLVE program was optional. 

Measures

            All Crimes.  Subjects were assessed on how many total crimes they had committed from their mediation date until March, 2005.  This was compared to the number of crimes they had committed within the same time frame prior to their mediation.  The number of months before and after the mediation date that crimes were collected varied according to date of mediation.  The number of months data was collected from ranged from 37 months before and after mediation to 13 months before and after, with an average mean time of 26 months. 

            Major Crimes.  An analysis was performed to determine whether there was a significant decrease in those crimes classified as “major” after mediation.  Major crimes included all crimes except minor traffic violations (speeding, driving without a seatbelt, or squealing tires).  Traffic violations of a more serious nature were included in the data.  These crimes included reckless driving, operating an uninsured motor vehicle, driving without having been issued a license, drag racing, driving under the influence of alcohol, and repeated registration expirations. 

Procedure

            Subject information, which included the offense for which the offender was participating in the mediation program and the mediation date, was obtained from the victim offender mediation program files at Collaborative Solutions Institute in Bloomington, IL.  Information about crimes and dates of crimes committed before and after mediation was obtained through public access data on the McLean County, Illinois government website.

Results

            On the measure of All Crimes, analysis revealed that subjects had committed significantly more crimes in the period before mediation (M = 1.59, SD = 1.09) than in the period after mediation (M = .55, SD = 1.00), t(75) = 6.86, p < .001.  A representation of the data concerning All Crimes committed before and after mediation can be found in Chart 2.   

            A significant reduction in crimes was also found for the construct of Major Crimes.  Through analysis, it was found that significantly more major crimes had been committed before mediation (M =  1.25, SD = .59) than in the period following mediation (M = .18, SD = .71), t(75) = 9.57, p < .001.  A representation displaying the number of major crimes committed before and after mediation can be found in Chart 3. 

Discussion

            It was expected in analyzing this data that there would be a significant reduction in the total number of crimes committed in the period after mediation, in addition to a significant reduction in the number of those crimes labeled as “major”.  The data supported this hypothesis.  The findings of this study were consistent with the findings of previous studies that have found that voluntary participation in victim offender mediation programs lead to a reduction in offender recidivism of criminal activity.  As Umbreit’s study suggested, this data followed that offenders had not only a reduction in the number of crimes committed, but also in the seriousness of the crimes that were committed (Umbreit, 2001).

            One of the limitations of this study was the fact that there was no control group of similar offenders who did not go through the mediation process to compare the subject group to.  It is probable that there is a fundamental difference between those offenders who choose to participate in the mediation program versus those who do not.  Those who are willing to participate in the program may be more likely to have single accounts of criminal activity rather than repeated accounts and may by nature be less likely to repeat similar crimes in the future.  The current data provides local value, however it would be beneficial to further this study through the use of a comparative control group in order to generalize the findings. 

            Another limitation of this study was the data source.  It is possible that offenders committed crimes which they were not officially charged with and therefore were not reported on public access.  The public access data was also limited in the fact that it only included offenses committed within McLean County, IL, where the original offense that led to the mediation took place.  Any crimes committed outside of McLean County by the offenders would not have been recorded in the data.  It may also be beneficial for future research to examine the construct of age to determine whether the age of the mediation program offender participant influences whether or not there is a significant decrease in criminal activity after mediation.  

            Future studies may prove important in leading to a greater understanding of the outcomes of victim offender mediation programs.  More research on this topic is necessary in order to discover the true variables and effects which influence and determine not only the reduction in recidivism of crime but other benefits offered by VOM programs as well.

 Chart 1

Subjects’ original offenses for referral to the VOM program.

Note. Other offenses include Resisting/Obstructing Peace officer, False Bomb/Gas Alarm, Attempted Burglary, Reckless Driving, Attempt False Information on Charge Slip, and Phone Harassment. 

Chart 2

All Crimes committed before and after mediation.

 Chart 3

Major Crimes committed before and after mediation.

References

Umbreit, M.S. (2001).  The Handbook of Victim Offender Mediation.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Umbreit, M.S., Coates, R.B., & Vos, B. (2001).  The Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation:  Two Decades of Research.  Federal Probation, 65.

Umbreit, M.S. & Greenwood, J. (2000).  Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. 

McLean County, IL Government Website Public Access.  Retrieved March, 2005, from http://www.mclean.gov/circuitclerk/PA_main.htm