Indianapolis Family Group Conferencing Experiment (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Indianapolis Family Group Conferencing Experiment

Intervention:

The Indianapolis (Indiana) Family Group Conferencing Experiment, also known as the Indianapolis Restorative Justice Conference Project, was a restorative justice diversion program for young, first-time juvenile offenders. The goal was to break the cycle of offending before it reached the stage of repeat offending. The criteria used to determine eligibility for participation in the project required that a youth

Be no older than 14
Be a first-time offender (that is, no prior adjudications)
Have committed a nonserious, nonviolent offense
Have no other pending charges
Admit responsibility for the offense

The eligible charges included assault, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, shoplifting, and theft.

Family group conferencing is based on principles of restorative justice and draws on several criminological theories, including Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming (1989). Restorative justice practices differ from traditional court process in many ways. While traditional courts take an adversarial approach, key elements of restorative justice practices include community empowerment and participation as well as a meaningful focus on the victim (or victims) of the crime. Traditional courts are often criticized for ignoring the victim while determining a punishment for the offender that does not necessarily have anything to do with the crime.

Once the case was found to be eligible for a restorative justice family group conference, it was assigned to a conference coordinator who proceeded to contact the offender, his or her parent (or parents), and the victim (or victims) to assess the willingness of the parties to participate in a conference. A conference was then scheduled to bring every party to the incident together to discuss it.

The conference generally included not only the offender and victim but also a group of supporters. This typically involved parents/guardians, siblings, grandparents, other relatives, friends, and neighbors. But it may have also included teachers, athletic coaches, and other important figures in the youth’s life. During the conference, the coordinator guided the juvenile offender through a series of questions to decipher the events that led to the incident. Questions such as how the youth was involved, what the youth was thinking about at the time, and whom the youth thinks the offending behavior has affected were intended to help the youth accept responsibility for the behavior. The questions also were designed to help the youth understand how the behavior has affected the victim, the families, and the community.

After everyone has had an opportunity to speak, the juvenile was asked if there is anything he or she would like to say to the victim. It was usually at this point that the juvenile would apologize to the victim and to the group. The group then began the process of agreeing to a plan that would allow the offender to repair the harm that was caused by the crime. This agreement may have included restitution, community service, or other elements to address the specifics of this case. The final agreement that outlines the group’s recommendations was prepared and signed by all the participants.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
McGarrell and Hipple’s 2007 evaluation of the Indianapolis (Ind.) Family Group Conferencing Experiment used an experimental design that allowed for comparisons among victims, offending youths, and parents involved in conferences and those involved in other court-ordered diversion programs. Court intake officers screened youths for eligibility. Eligible youths were selected for the program through a random assignment procedure.

This 2007 study extends the follow-up period of an earlier study by McGarrell and colleagues (2000). Beginning Sept. 1, 1997, 782 juvenile offenders participated in the experiment. Of these, 400 youths were assigned to the Family Group Conferencing (FGC) treatment group and 382 youths were assigned to the control group. Three hundred twenty-two youths completed the FGC treatment program, and 233 control youths finished the assigned diversion program (which included teen court, a shoplifting program, community service, and victim–offender mediation). All youths were included in the analysis.

The groups were comparable on gender, initial arrest type, and arresting agency. However, the proportion of nonwhite sample members was higher in the control group (63.6 percent) than in the FGC treatment group (57 percent)—a difference that approached significance. The average age of offenders in the FGC treatment group was 12.49, compared with 12.71 for the control group. The FGC treatment group also had a wider age range, with offenders younger than in the control group.

The effect of the FGC program on time until failure was evaluated primarily through survival analysis, which examines the relationship among offender characteristics, intervention type, offense-related variables, and failure (or time until first arrest). Life tables and Cox regression were used to conduct survival analyses. The difference in hazard rates (which is the risk of failure at a specific point in time) at various points in the follow-up was also examined. Finally, a count regression model of incidence was conducted to assess the incidence of reoffending. Each youth was followed for a 2-year period, beginning at the youth’s qualifying arrest date.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
Time to Recidivism
McGarrell and Hipple (2007) found that just less than half of the Indianapolis (Ind.) Family Group Conferencing (FGC) Experiment study sample (49 percent) survived until the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Although a greater proportion of the FGC treatment group (51.8 percent) than the control sample (46.1 percent) survived, the difference was not significant.

A second analysis using the life tables found a significant difference in the cumulative proportion of each sample surviving. While both samples failed at the same rate during the first 12 weeks, the control sample henceforth failed at a faster rate, especially in weeks 14–32. The effect of the FGC treatment program was most significant in weeks 13–26. During this period, 8 percent of the FGC treatment group was rearrested, compared with 15 percent of the control group—a difference that was significant.

Additional analysis found that assignment to the experimental group decreased the hazard rate of failure by 17.4 percent. When race, age, and offense type were controlled for, however, the relationship between group assignment and risk of failure was no longer significant.

FGC treatment participants were significantly more likely than control group participants to complete their program. Overall, a lower risk of failure for all participants was associated with being arrested by a municipal police officer (as opposed to a school officer), with completing the diversion program, and with being younger.

Number of Rearrests
The analysis of incidence rates indicated that juveniles in the FGC treatment group had, on average, fewer rearrests than juveniles in the control group. The treatment group had an average of 1.29 rearrests during the follow-up period, compared with the average of 1.67 rearrests for the control group. Additional analysis showed that being in the FGC treatment group significantly decreased the average number of rearrests by a factor of 0.77. Put another way, juveniles in the FGC treatment group have an incidence rearrest rate 23 percent lower than juveniles in the control group.

Other Information:

Implementation: Discussion about the implementation of the restorative justice conferences in Indianapolis, Ind., and the involvement of several key players (including representatives from the juvenile court, the prosecutor’s office, the Indianapolis Police Department, the Marion County [Ind.] Sherriff’s Department, the mayor’s office, youth service providers, the schools, and neighborhood groups) is provided in the 2000 report by McGarrell and colleagues.

References:

Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

McGarrell, Edmund F. 2001. “Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early Response to Young Offenders. Bulletin.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

McGarrell, Edmund F., Kathleen Olivares, Kay Crawford, and Natalie Kroovand. 2000. Returning Justice to the Community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hudson Institute, Crime Control Policy Center.

McGarrell, Edmund F. and Natalie K. Hipple. 2007. "Family Group Conferencing and Re-Offending Among First-Time Juvenile Offenders: The Indianapolis Experiment." Justice Quarterly 24(2):221–46.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Promising

Re-reviewed Date:

May 2012

Program Type:

Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills

Diversion

Restorative Justice

Ethnicity:

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

African American

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

11 - 14

Special Populations:

First-Time Offenders

Less Serious Offender

Young Offender

Target Settings:

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Delinquency

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Protective

Additional Information:

Status:

Program is NOT in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Restitution/Community Service
Restorative Justice
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Diversion
Restorative Justice
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
DeShawn Easley, Juvenile Diversion Program Manager
Reach for Youth, Inc.
3505 North Washington Boulevard
Indianapolis, IN 46205
Phone: 3179205900
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Training & TA Provider:
Julie Deckard, Juvenile Diversion Program Manager
Reach for Youth, Inc.
3505 North Washington Boulevard
Indianapolis, IN 46205
Phone: 3179205900
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Program Locations:
Julie Deckard, Juvenile Diversion Program Manager
Reach for Youth, Inc.
3505 North Washington Boulevard
Indianapolis, IN 46205