The article describes an evaluation of New Zealand’s Youth Justice Family Group Conference process from the perspectives of Youth Justice Co-ordinators. The study aimed to understand the development of practice, to identify factors constituting best practice and areas of process weakness. Data was obtained from semi-structured interviews with Youth Justice Co-ordinators (n = 19) with at least 12 years’ experience (Project One) and four broader focus groups (n = 27) (Project Two).
Findings
The Youth Justice Family Group Conference process was reported by participants to be effective for the majority of young people, but inadequate for recidivist, high-risk offenders. Best practice included: aligned professional approaches to conference philosophy and practice, service delivery by trained Youth Justice Co-ordinators, conference preparation quality, victim inclusion, and determining a strengths-based personalised plan for the young person. Several process weaknesses were identified.
Applications
Recommendations for process improvement included: addressing Co-ordinator training and service leadership, reviewing the process for recidivists, enhancing professional collaboration and Police training.
Bazemore, G., & Stinchcomb, J. B. (2000). Restorative conferencing and theory-based evaluation. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds), Family Group Conferencing: New directions in community-centred child & family practice (pp. 284–297). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
2.
BecroftA.ThompsonR. (2007) Restorative justice in the Youth Court: A square peg in a round hole? In: MaxwellG.LiuJ. H. (eds) Restorative justice and practices in New Zealand: Towards a restorative society, Wellington, New Zealand: Institute of Policy Studies, pp. 69–94.
3.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
4.
Campbell, C., Devlin, R., O’Mahony, D., Doak, J., Jackson, J., Corrigan, T., & McEvoy, K. (2005). Evaluation of the Northern Ireland youth conference service. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Statistics and Research Branch of the Northern Ireland Office.
5.
CaseS. (2007) Questioning the evidence of risk that underpins evidence-led youth justice interventions. Youth Justice7(2): 91–105. doi:10.1177/1473225407878771.
6.
ConnollyM. (2006a) Fifteen years of family group conferencing: Coordinators talk about their experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social Work36(4): 523–540. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch273.
7.
ConnollyM. (2006b) Up front and personal: Confronting dynamics in the family group conference. Family Process45(3): 345–357. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch273.
8.
Daly, K. (2001). Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, research findings and prospects. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell (Eds), Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, mediation & circles (pp. 59–84). Portland, OR: Hart.
9.
DaviesD. (2004) Child development: A practitioner’s guide, 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
10.
JacksonS. E. (1998) Family group conferences in youth justice: The issues for implementation in England and Wales. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice37(1): 34–51. doi:10.1111/1468-2311.00076.
11.
Kemp, S. P., Whittaker, J. K., & Tracy, E. M. (2000). Family group conferencing as person-environment practice. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds), Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centred child & family practice (pp. 72–85). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
12.
Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
13.
LevineM.EagleA.Tuiavi’iS. (1998) Creative youth justice practice, Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy Agency and Department of Child, Youth and Family.
14.
LevineM.WynH. (1991) Orders of the Youth Court and the work of Youth Justice Co-ordinators, Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Social Welfare.
15.
MacRaeA.ZehrH. (2004) The little book of Family Group Conferences: New Zealand style, Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
16.
MaxwellG. (2007) The defining features of a restorative approach to conflict. In: MaxwellG.LiuJ. H. (eds) Restorative justice and practices in New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand: Institute of Policy Studies, pp. 5–28.
17.
MaxwellG.KingiV.RobertsonJ.MorrisA.CunninghamC. (2004) Achieving effective outcomes in youth justice: Final report to the Ministry of Social Development, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
18.
MaxwellG.MorrisA. (1993) Family, victims and culture: Youth justice in New Zealand, Wellington, New Zeland: Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington.
19.
MaxwellG.MorrisA. (2006) Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative justice in practice?Journal of Social Issues62(2): 239–258. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00449.x.
20.
Ministry of Justice (2009) Child and Youth Offending Statistics in New Zealand: 1992–2007, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.
21.
Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Development (2002) Youth offending strategy: Preventing and reducing offending and re-offending by children and young people: Te Haonga, Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
22.
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149.
PattonM. Q. (1997) Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
RenoufJ.RobbG.WellsP. (1990) Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989: Report on its first year of operation, Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Social Welfare.
26.
Schmid, D. J. (2001). Family group conferences. New Zealand Law Journal, (September), 317–318.
27.
Stewart, T. (1996). Family Group Conferences with young offenders in New Zealand. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds), Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on policy & practice (pp. 65–87). Leichhardt, Australia: The Federation Press and Willow Tree Press.
28.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
