The study, conducted by Jo-Anne Wemmers and Katie Cyr, was based on interviews with victims who were given the option of participating in a restorative justice programme for juvenile offenders in a large metropolitan city.

The working hypothesis was that “victims consider the mediation process fair not because it allows them to make demands but because it offers them recognition and respect through consultation.” The study supported that hypothesis.

The interview questions were structured to test victims’ perceptions of fairness based on a procedural justice framework testing impact of the elements voice, respect, neutrality and trust on the victims’ perception of fairness.  The results showed that victims described the process as fair when:

• They were sufficiently able to communicate their point of view and feel it was accepted.
• They felt that they “were not hindered in making certain demands.”
• They felt understood by the mediator.
• They had faith in the mediator.

The study also showed that the “quality of interactions with project staff is also important to victims’ perceptions of fairness.” Interestingly, this finding was not related to the length or number of contacts with project staff but with the quality of the interactions with relatively short interactions proving to be effective for establishing trust with the victims in the sample. According to the study authors it is important for project staff to:

• Allow victims’ sufficient opportunity to express him/herself
• Give the victim the feeling that he/she has been heard
• Communicate that they (project staff) understand the victim’s point of view
• Establish trust with the victim while remaining neutral and impartial

The research studied victims who had been invited to participate in VOM between 1997 and 2000. Of the 225 victims, the research team located 110. Of this group, 59 agreed to participate in the study. Thirteen had declined participation in restorative justice, 7 had participated in indirect mediation, and 39 in direct mediation.  54% of the crimes represented were personal crimes (assault, robbery threats) and 46% were property crimes (theft, theft of a motor vehicle, vandalism).

The complete study is available online.

May 2007