Victim/Offender Mediation in St. Louis: An Assessment

• Author: Lynn S. Urban,Sara E. Burge
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.8.2.2006.89
• Date: 01 December 2006
• Published date: 01 December 2006
• Subject Matter: Article

VOM in St. Louis • 89

* Victim/Offender Mediation in St. Louis: 

An Assessment

Lynn S. Urban

University of Central Missouri

Sara E. Burge

Victim/Offender Mediation Coordinator

St. Louis City Family Court

* Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Victim/Offender Mediation program in

St. Louis, Missouri, and assess whether those juveniles who participate in the pro-

gram have fewer subsequent referrals to the court. Data were collected from juvenile

court records, and independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess differences

between those who participated in VOM and those who did not. Results indicate

that juveniles who participated in VOM reoffended at a signicantly lower rate than

juveniles who had no contact with the program.

This research was supported by the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant administered by

the Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a component of the

Ofce of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this

document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the ofcial position

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The authors wish to thank Scott Decker and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful

comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2006

© 2006 Justice Research and Statistics Association

90 • Justice Research and Policy

VOM in St. Louis • 91

* Introduction

Victim/offender mediation (VOM) is one of many programs started since the

1970s to deal with juvenile offenders in a new way. An alternative adjudication

strategy was sought after consistent empirical evidence showed the failure of

earlier welfare (treatment) and justice (punitive) models (Braithwaite, 1999).

New programs were developed on the basis of labeling and role-taking theories,

as well as aboriginal and ancient practices that were adapted to handle offend-

ers in both the adult and juvenile systems (Braithwaite, 1999; Van Ness, 1986).

These new programs were based on the paradigm of restorative justice.

The main goals of the restorative justice model are to recognize crime as

harm, encourage offenders to understand that harm, and include all of the pri-

mary actors involved in the incident (Zehr, 1997). This model was developed

for several reasons, including addressing the role of the victim and the role of

punishment itself. Traditional criminal and juvenile justice systems operate on

the concept that the state is the victim, with the true victim often playing only

a secondary role in the justice process (Zehr, 1997; Umbreit, 1998; Bazemore,

1998). Restorative justice programs, such as victim/offender mediation, allow

the victim a more active role in the justice process by recognizing the harm that

was caused and giving the victim a voice in repairing that harm. In addition,

punitive punishments are the traditional consequence for offenders, but they

usually have no bearing on the actual crime committed, nor do they directly

benet the victim (Zehr, 1997; Bazemore, 1998). Incapacitation or a ne paid to

the state does not help the victim repair damaged items or feelings. Restorative

justice programs seek to actively include both offenders and victims in the justice

process. In the case of mediation, victims are allowed to personally interact with

the juvenile, to share their thoughts and feelings, and to help offenders realize

the consequences of their actions.

Thus the intent of the restorative justice model is to shift the focus away

from punitive punishment of offenders and toward accountability and reconcili-

ation. The recent trend in juvenile justice sentencing has been to focus on the

offense and how to punish that offense rather than on the offender (Feld, 1999).

Restorative justice programs also focus on the offender, but on ways to restore

the juvenile into society and involve other stakeholders in the process. Victims,

offenders, and communities are all stakeholders when it comes to crime, and the

restorative model allows for all to have a voice in repairing the harm.

Implementing the restorative paradigm is a challenging task for any jurisdic-

tion. Not only does it involve changes in procedures, but also changes in think-

ing about how to handle offenders. This has been a slow but steady process for

the St. Louis City Family Court, with current programs such as Victim/Offender

Mediation (VOM) progressing from punitive to more restorative sentences.

Retributive goals are still held by many in the court and in the community, how-

ever, and changing their pattern of thinking will take time. Involving the com-