Study
As part of a cross-site evaluation of victim–offender mediation programs, the Minneapolis Center for Victim–Offender Mediation, along with three other victim–offender mediation programs, was evaluated by Umbreit and Coates (1992) to investigate the effectiveness of victim–offender mediation programs in terms of the mediation process and outcomes, client satisfaction, perceptions of fairness, restitution completion, and recidivism. The Center was chosen for a multitude of reasons, including its regional and program development diversity, its similarity to the other sites selected, and the permission granted by the director to access the records of those in the study group as well as contact the subjects.
A quasi-experimental design was employed in this study. All individuals that were referred to the Minneapolis Center for Victim–Offender Mediation between 1990 and 1991 were eligible to participate in the study. Of the 658 juveniles referred during this 2-year period, 81 participated in the study. Of the 633 victims referred during this 2-year period, 96 participated. Taken together the participants and victims made up the experimental group. Two comparison groups were used in this study. The first comparison group consisted of people and their victims who were referred to the Center, but declined participation, known as “referred but no mediation.” The study authors noted that no significant differences were found between the offenders and victims that chose to participate in the study and those who declined participation. The second comparison group was comprised of a sample of similar individuals and their victims from the same jurisdiction that were not referred to the mediation process, known as “non-referral to mediation.” The study authors noted that those in the second comparison group were matched on age, sex, race, and offense variables with those in the experimental group. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the difference between the experimental group and the “nonreferral to mediation” comparison group.
Between 1990 and 1991, 658 juveniles and 633 individual victims were referred to the Minneapolis Center for Victim–Offender Mediation. The ages ranged from 10–18, with an average age of 15. The majority of participants were male, comprising of 85 percent of the sample. Furthermore, 70 percent of the sample was white, 23 percent Black, 2 percent Hispanic and 5 percent was comprised of other minorities. Of the 903 referrals over the 2-year study period, 72 percent were diversionary, or pre-adjudication, referrals. Of the offenses, 89 percent were property-related, and 11 percent were offenses against the person. The most common property offense was vandalism, and the most common violent offense was assault.
To investigate the effectiveness of the Minneapolis Center for Victim–Offender Mediation, both quantitative and qualitative research techniques were used in this study. Interviews were conducted prior to and following the mediation. All pre-mediation interviews and all interviews with the comparison groups were conducted over the phone. Almost all post-mediation interviews with the experimental group were conducted in person, lasting approximately 45 to 60 minutes. Quantitative research techniques were used when investigating program cost issues, recidivism, and restitution completion rates. Using both research techniques, the following outcomes were investigated: recidivism, restitution completion, victim satisfaction, and offender satisfaction. No subgroup analyses were conducted.
