Victim-offender mediation

1. Introduction

Version followed: the humanistic, victim-sensitive model of Umbreit and Greenwood (Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of Minnesota School of Social Work), Criteria for Victim-Sensitive Mediation & Dialogue with Offenders (1997), prepared for the US Office for Victims of Crime and later published as Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue (OVC, April 2000) [uncertain: differences between the 1997 and 2000 texts not verified]. Safeguards are taken from the UN Basic Principles as set out in the UNODC Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2nd ed., 2020), Article 12 of EU Directive 2012/29/EU, and the Scottish Government's Guidance for the delivery of restorative justice in Scotland (2017).

Victim-offender mediation (VOM; also called victim-offender reconciliation or dialogue, and "penal mediation" in parts of Europe) is a restorative justice process, not a psychotherapy. A trained, impartial facilitator offers the person harmed and the person responsible a direct (face-to-face, sometimes by video) or indirect (shuttle messages, letters, audio or video recordings) dialogue about the offence, its effects and what can be done to repair them [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 24-25; Scottish Government 2017, Part A]. UNODC describes VOM as among the earliest restorative programmes and the most commonly reported type [source: UNODC 2020, p. 24]. Its modern origin is usually traced to the 1974 "Elmira case" in Ontario, where a Mennonite Central Committee volunteer working with the local probation office, Mark Yantzi, suggested that two teenagers who had vandalised property meet their victims to apologise and agree restitution; the organisation Community Justice Initiatives followed in 1978 [source: University of Waterloo, Conrad Grebel 2004 profile of Mark Yantzi; Kitchener as the setting is uncertain: not verified].

Core idea of change, as Umbreit and Greenwood state it: people have inner resources to solve their own problems; a safe, structured, respectful space lets victim and offender tell their stories, ask and answer questions, express feelings and agree a plan to address the harm, which can bring a greater sense of closure; telling and hearing personal stories can build empathy and be healing for both [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Purpose and Underlying Principles]. The UN framing centres the harm to the victim rather than the breach of law, with possible outcomes of victim empowerment, acknowledgement of harm by the offender and forward-looking reparation [source: EFRJ 2020 brief on the UNODC Handbook].

The psychotherapist's place: facilitators are expected to know how restorative justice differs from counselling and advocacy [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A], and programmes routinely refer participants to other services for support [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25]. A therapist's usual work is therefore to help a client (the person harmed, or the person responsible) decide whether to take part, prepare, stay safe, and make sense of what happens, in coordination with the programme. Running the mediation itself requires the programme's facilitator training [synthesis].

Evidence status in one line: UNODC reports that rigorous evaluations are few but that findings overall suggest restorative processes can outperform standard justice in resolving conflict, holding offenders accountable and meeting victims' needs [source: UNODC 2020, p. 8]; the Campbell review by Strang et al. (2013) concerns face-to-face conferencing rather than VOM specifically [source: UNODC 2020, p. 8] [uncertain: not verified].

Cross-references: family group conferencing (066 in this family; V 148); restorative conferencing and circles in this family.

2. Framework

The stages below combine Umbreit and Greenwood's sequence with the Scottish step list (A-I) and UNODC's description. Programmes set their own eligibility (offence type, youth or adult, first or repeat offence) and use case-by-case judgement at each step [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Case referral]. The sources give no standard number of preparation meetings or session length; the guidelines insist on no arbitrary deadlines and on not scheduling a meeting until each party feels ready [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice; Victim and offender preparation].

Stage 1. Referral. Referrals come from police, prosecutors, courts, defence counsel or probation, sometimes at a victim's or offender's request; VOM can run pre-charge, pre-trial, after charge, after sentence and in custody [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25]. Member States should facilitate referral where appropriate [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(2)].

Goal: an appropriate case reaches a programme. Therapist's part: a client may ask about it, or the therapist may learn a client has been approached [synthesis].
Move on when: the case meets the programme's criteria.

Stage 2. Appropriateness and risk assessment. Four preconditions in UNODC: the offender accepts, or at least does not deny, responsibility; both agree on the basic facts; both understand the process and are willing; both consider it safe [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25]. Scottish guidance: no sign of acknowledging harm means the process should not proceed; an initial formal risk assessment is kept under review, with concerns recorded and referred to partner agencies including child protection [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, A and C].

Goal: decide whether a safe, voluntary process is possible.
Move on when: preconditions are met and risk is judged manageable; stop when risk becomes unacceptable.

Stage 3. First contact and informed choice. The mediator usually meets the offender first, so as not to raise a victim's hopes that are then dashed if the offender declines; the victim is then visited in person, usually at home, with other venues offered [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, First contact; Pre-mediation visit]. Before agreeing, the victim receives full, unbiased information about the process, possible outcomes and how any agreement will be supervised [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(b)].

Goal: an informed, unpressured decision to take part or not.
Move on when: the person decides freely to proceed.

Stage 4. Preparation. Separate preparation of each party: reality-testing expectations, identifying losses and needs, thinking about restitution, choosing support persons, venue, seating and speaking order; for the offender, reflecting on the offence and the victim's likely experience [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim preparation; Offender preparation; Scottish Government 2017, Part B, E].

Goal: both parties ready, with realistic expectations and a safety plan.
Move on when: each feels ready; the meeting is not scheduled before that.

Stage 5. Communication: direct meeting or indirect exchange. Ground rules let each party speak without interruption; the mediator then becomes non-directive and guards the process, allows time for narrative and silence, and avoids rushing to agreement; caucus, pause or ending is available if anyone becomes unsafe or uncomfortable [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Humanistic model; Victim safety]. Scottish guidance adds managing arrivals so participants do not wait together, guiding discussion through facts, effects and the future, and monitoring wellbeing and manipulation [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, G].

Goal: safe dialogue in which the victim's experience is fully heard.

Stage 6. Agreement. Written agreements are important but secondary to the conversation, and some meetings meet needs without one [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Underlying principles]. Agreements must be voluntary with reasonable, proportionate obligations; failing to agree cannot be used against the offender [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 16-17].

Stage 7. Follow-up and closure. The mediator monitors the agreement, tells the victim when it is fulfilled or when circumstances change, arranges further meetings if either party asks, keeps contact for a period and surveys satisfaction [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Follow-up; Scottish Government 2017, Part B, I].

Therapist's part throughout: assessment, preparation support, debriefing and longer-term integration in therapy [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

Voluntary and revocable consent. Participation rests on free, informed, ongoing consent that can be withdrawn at any time; no coercion or unfair inducement [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 5, 16; Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(a)]. Practical meaning: never encourage a client towards mediation; treat "I've changed my mind" as a legitimate outcome.
Safety is the fundamental guideline. The mediator continually asks whether anything threatens the victim's well-being and is ready to pause, end or escort the victim out [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim safety]. Practical meaning: the therapist's own risk formulation (psychological and physical) feeds into, but does not replace, the programme's.
Victim's interest first. Services are used only when they serve the victim's interest [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(a)]. Practical meaning: if a client is the responsible person, their wish to apologise does not entitle them to contact.
Victim choice restores control. Choices about participation, support persons, time, place, seating, who speaks first, ending and forms of restitution are offered throughout [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice]. Practical meaning: help a victim-client work out their own preferences so they can state them to the facilitator.
Acknowledgement of basic facts. The offender must acknowledge the basic facts [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(c); Scottish Government 2017, Part A, Honest]. Practical meaning: active denial or victim-blaming is a stop sign.
Honest information and reality-testing. Unbiased information about process, outcomes and legal implications [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(b); Scottish Government 2017, Part B, D]. Practical meaning: correct inflated hopes (full healing, transformation of the offender) before the meeting.
Non-prescriptive language. Avoid "you should", and avoid prescribing forgiveness or reconciliation; "healing" and "being made whole" can raise unrealistic expectations [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim-sensitive language]. Practical meaning: the therapist adopts the same restraint.
Dialogue over agreement. The conversation matters more than the written outcome [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Underlying principles]. Practical meaning: do not frame "success" as getting a restitution contract.
Structure offsets power. Neutral facilitation, ground rules and seating can offset differences in status and power; power imbalances and cultural differences must be considered [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997; UNODC 2020, p. 16]. Practical meaning: name power differences in assessment and pass them, with consent, to the facilitator.
Confidentiality with legal limits. Non-public discussions stay confidential unless the parties agree or national law requires disclosure for an overriding public interest; participation is not evidence of guilt [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(e); UNODC 2020, pp. 16-17]. Practical meaning: clarify how the therapist's own records and the programme's records differ.
Appropriateness to the offence. Restorative justice will very rarely be appropriate for domestic abuse, sexual offences, trafficking, stalking or exploitation, especially after prolonged coercion [source: Scottish Government 2017, Parts A and B]; CEDAW asks that alternative processes for gender-based violence be strictly regulated, follow specialist evaluation and never be mandatory, and the Istanbul Convention bars mandatory mediation [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 19-20]. Practical meaning: these cases need specialist services, not a generic referral.
Accessibility. Processes must not exclude people with additional support needs; indirect methods suit age, disability and language [source: Scottish Government 2017, Parts A and B, F]. Practical meaning: raise communication needs early.
Children's rights. Children have the right to a parent or guardian and the protections of the CRC [source: UNODC 2020, p. 16]. Practical meaning: assent from the young person plus parental consent, and safeguarding duties stay with the therapist.
Competent facilitation. Programmes must provide trained, competent facilitators, with added expertise for serious harm [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A; EFRJ 2020 brief]. Practical meaning: the therapist checks the programme's training standards before encouraging a referral [synthesis].
Role clarity. Restorative justice is distinct from counselling and advocacy [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A]. Practical meaning: the therapist supports the client and does not mediate, advocate in the meeting or relay messages for the programme [synthesis].
Dependability. Mediators must follow through on every commitment [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Follow-up]. Practical meaning: the therapist keeps sessions available around key dates (meeting, agreement completion) [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

The sources describe the mediator's procedures; they do not describe a psychotherapist's role beyond noting that participants are referred to supporting services and may consult trusted people, including victim advocates and clergy [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice; UNODC 2020, p. 25; Scottish Government 2017, Part A]. The entries below therefore translate the programme's own steps into therapist-side procedures; where a step comes from the programme literature it is cited, and the therapist adaptation is marked [synthesis]. Items 1-13 are for a client who was harmed; items 14-18 are for a client who caused harm; items 19-25 apply to either.

1. Orienting the client to VOM and their options

Purpose: the client has been approached by a programme, or raises the idea; they need accurate, unbiased information to make a free choice [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(b); Scottish Government 2017, Part B, D].
Steps: (1) Ask what the client has already been told and by whom. (2) Explain in plain terms what VOM is: a trained, impartial facilitator; separate preparation; a direct meeting or indirect exchange; a possible agreement; follow-up [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 24-25]. (3) Name the client's rights: to decline, to withdraw at any point, to choose support persons, venue and timing, and to independent advice [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997; Scottish Government 2017, Part B, D]. (4) Note that the programme should provide written information and that questions about the legal case are for the programme or a lawyer [synthesis]. (5) Agree that no decision is needed today.
Example language (illustrative): "This is an offer, not an obligation. You can say no now, say yes and change your mind later, or ask for a different way of communicating, such as a letter."
Watch for: the client hearing the offer as an expectation from police, court or family; confusion between mediation and the court case. Working if the client can restate the options in their own words and names at least one thing they would want to know before deciding.

2. Readiness assessment for the person harmed

Purpose: programmes assess whether the victim can represent their interests and express needs [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Case referral and screening]; the therapist knows the client's current state better than the programme can [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Review current symptoms (intrusions, avoidance, hyperarousal, dissociation, low mood, substance use, suicidality) using your usual assessment [synthesis]. (2) Ask what the client hopes contact would give them and what they fear. (3) Ask what has helped them cope with reminders so far. (4) Judge whether they can stay within their window of tolerance when talking about the offence in session; if not, prioritise stabilisation and say so [synthesis]. (5) With consent, share a brief, functional summary with the facilitator (needs and supports, not clinical detail) [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Let's look at how you are right now, not how you think you should be. If talking about that night in here still knocks you off your feet for days, we might do some groundwork first, and the offer can wait."
Watch for: urgency driven by court dates or others' timetables; the guidelines warn against arbitrary deadlines [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice]. Working if the client describes readiness in their own terms and can tolerate imagining the meeting without prolonged destabilisation.

3. Safety and contraindication screening

Purpose: identify cases where contact is very rarely appropriate or where risk is unmanageable.
Steps: (1) Ask about the relationship to the person responsible: intimate partner, family member, carer, employer, someone they still see [synthesis]. (2) Screen for domestic abuse, sexual offences, stalking, trafficking or exploitation, especially any prolonged course of coercion, where restorative justice will very rarely be appropriate [source: Scottish Government 2017, Parts A and B]. (3) Listen for features that Austria's programme treats as exclusions or as triggers for further risk assessment: the offender blaming the victim, minimising or denying, a serious power imbalance, a history of violence, or the victim's emotional instability [source: UNODC 2020, p. 26]. (4) Check for coercive and controlling behaviour; the Restorative Justice Council states that practitioners in domestic abuse cases need specialist training, particularly on coercive control [source: Restorative Justice Council, Using Restorative Justice in Cases of Domestic Violence]. (5) If any of these are present, tell the client plainly, involve specialist domestic or sexual violence services, and, with consent, inform the programme so its own risk assessment can take it into account [synthesis]. (6) Follow your safeguarding and child protection duties; the Scottish guidance expects concerns to be referred to partner agencies, including child protection [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, C].
Example language (illustrative): "Because this person has had control over your life, a meeting can carry extra risks, even when they seem sorry. Before anything goes ahead, I'd like us to talk with a specialist service, and the programme will want to do its own careful check."
Watch for: a client asking for contact to placate or protect themselves; pressure from the responsible person or their family; post-meeting contact being used to resume control. Working if risk information reaches the people who need it and the client experiences the screening as protection, not refusal.

4. Stabilisation before contact

Purpose: preparation is designed to prevent revictimisation [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25]; a client with active trauma symptoms may need affect-regulation skills first [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Teach or refresh grounding and arousal-regulation skills already in your repertoire [synthesis]. (2) Build a personal early-warning list (body signs, thoughts) that signal overwhelm. (3) Rehearse using those skills while describing the offence briefly in session. (4) Link the skills to concrete meeting options: asking for a break, a private caucus with the mediator, or ending the session, all of which the humanistic model allows [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim safety; Humanistic model]. (5) Review readiness again (item 2).
Example language (illustrative): "In the meeting you can ask for a break at any time. Let's practise noticing the moment you'd want one, and what you'd do in the corridor."
Watch for: skills used as avoidance of all emotional content; worsening sleep or nightmares as the date nears. Working if the client can name their warning signs and a specific action for each.

5. Decision support: weighing benefits and risks

Purpose: the mediator helps the victim weigh risks and benefits and reach a decision, and victims may consult trusted people [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Pre-mediation visit; Victim choice].
Steps: (1) List with the client what they might gain (answers, being heard, having a say in repair) and what they might lose or risk (disappointment, distress, renewed contact). (2) Include the option of indirect communication and of doing nothing. (3) Separate the client's wishes from what others want for them. (4) Leave the decision with the client and record that it is theirs [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Whatever you choose, I'll support it. Let's put your hopes on one side and your worries on the other, and see what stands out."
Watch for: the therapist's own view leaking in (enthusiasm for restorative justice, or protectiveness); the client trying to please the therapist. Working if the client can give a reason for their choice that is clearly their own.

6. Reality-testing expectations

Purpose: victims may expect too much, such as reconciliation, complete healing, rehabilitation of the offender or full repair; the guidelines ask for realistic information and the reminder that each case is unique and unpredictable [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim preparation].
Steps: (1) Ask the client to describe the best, worst and most likely meeting. (2) Explore what they would do if the offender is defensive, flat or tearful. (3) Explore what they would do if they feel nothing, or feel worse, afterwards. (4) Reframe the aim as communication and repair as far as possible, not cure [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "What if they say the words you want to hear, but they don't sound sincere to you? What would you need then?"
Watch for: an imagined apology that must arrive in a particular form; hopes that the meeting will end symptoms. Working if the client holds more than one possible outcome and can say what would still make it worthwhile.

7. Mapping losses and needs

Purpose: the mediator helps victims identify tangible losses (out-of-pocket costs) and intangible ones (sense of safety, connection, community) [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim preparation].
Steps: (1) Draw two columns with the client: practical and financial losses; emotional, relational and safety losses. (2) For each, ask what would help, from anyone, not only the offender. (3) Mark which needs the meeting could plausibly address and which belong in therapy, victim services or elsewhere [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Besides the broken window, what else changed for you? How you walk home, who you trust, how you sleep?"
Watch for: shame about "small" losses being so disruptive; needs only the client's own recovery can meet. Working if the client sees which needs the meeting can serve and which it cannot.

8. Preparing the client's questions and what they want to say

Purpose: victims can ask for information about the crime and tell the offender how they were affected [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25].
Steps: (1) Brainstorm questions (why me, what happened, was I watched, what has happened since). (2) Rank them; mark those whose answer could be distressing and plan how to receive it. (3) Help the client draft, in their own words, a short account of the impact; they may bring notes [synthesis]. (4) Decide whether they want to speak first or last, which the guidelines leave to the victim [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice].
Example language (illustrative): "Which question would you most regret not asking? Let's make sure that one is near the top of your list."
Watch for: rehearsal turning into scripted confrontation; questions whose honest answer the client is not ready for. Working if the client can say, in a few sentences, what happened to them and what they want to know.

9. Choosing the format: direct, indirect or not at all

Purpose: face-to-face meetings best meet VOM's objectives, but direct contact is not always possible or wanted; shuttle mediation, letters, audio or video messages are widely used [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 24-25, 27]. Indirect methods should suit the person's age, disability and language [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, F].
Steps: (1) Describe the options the programme offers. (2) Explore what each would protect and what it would cost (for example, a letter keeps distance but loses the chance to judge sincerity in person) [synthesis]. (3) Note that starting indirect does not rule out a later meeting, if the programme allows it [uncertain: programme-specific].
Example language (illustrative): "Some people start with a letter to see how it feels. That's a real choice, not a lesser one."
Watch for: a format chosen to satisfy the offender or the programme. Working if the client chooses a format they can explain.

10. Planning the client's choices about the meeting

Purpose: victims choose support persons, time, venue (e.g. community centre, library, place of worship, office, home or even a detention facility), seating and speaking order, and the mediator should prepare support persons [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice].
Steps: (1) Go through each choice and what would make the client feel safer (for example, a seat near the door). (2) Help them choose a support person who will be calm and will not speak over them; UNODC notes supporters often attend without speaking [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25]. (3) Note arrival arrangements so the parties do not wait together, which the Scottish guidance expects [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, G]. (4) Encourage the client to tell the facilitator these preferences directly.
Example language (illustrative): "You're allowed to ask for the room to be set up in a way that feels right to you. What would that look like?"
Watch for: choosing a support person who is angrier than the client, or who would take over [synthesis]. Working if the client gives the facilitator a clear list of preferences.

11. Thinking about repair and restitution

Purpose: victims may ask for restitution beyond out-of-pocket costs, including personal or community service, a letter of apology, the offender attending treatment, or other creative options within legal limits; victims should also learn of any public compensation funds [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice; Victim preparation].
Steps: (1) Ask what would feel like a fair, realistic step towards repair. (2) Distinguish symbolic repair from financial repair. (3) Check proportionality: agreements must contain only reasonable, proportionate obligations [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 16-17]. (4) Suggest the client ask the programme or victim services about compensation schemes [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "If something could be done to make this a bit more right, what would it be? It doesn't have to be money."
Watch for: demands that function as punishment and are likely to fail; the client feeling greedy for asking for anything. Working if the client names at least one concrete, achievable request or chooses consciously to ask for none.

12. Coordinating with the facilitator and programme

Purpose: facilitators should identify services that can support participants during the process or as an alternative, and risk assessments consider the need for support [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A]; programmes refer parties to other services [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25].
Steps: (1) Obtain written consent specifying what you may share and receive, and for how long [synthesis]. (2) Share only what helps safety and preparation: support needs, communication needs, risk concerns. (3) Ask the programme about its facilitator training, supervision, complaints route and confidentiality rules; some countries have ethics commissions that handle complaints [source: UNODC 2020, p. 21]. (4) Agree who contacts the client about scheduling, so the client is not chased by two people [synthesis]. (5) Keep your therapeutic role separate from the programme's process.
Example language (illustrative), to a facilitator: "With my client's consent, I can tell you that loud voices are a strong trigger for her and that she would like to bring her sister. She'll tell you herself what else she wants."
Watch for: requests to assess the offender, give a view on whether the meeting should proceed, or pass on information beyond consent [synthesis]. Working if communication is brief, consented and the client knows what was said.

13. Deciding whether the therapist attends

Purpose: victims may bring one or two support people [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim safety]; whether the therapist should be one of them is not addressed in the sources [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Ask what the client thinks the therapist's presence would add. (2) Consider dual-role issues: the therapist becomes a witness to material outside the therapy frame and may be seen by the other party (APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 on multiple relationships applies to psychologists) [source: APA Ethics Code; synthesis]. (3) Check programme policy and confidentiality agreements; observers are admitted only with consent and confidentiality agreements in the Scottish guidance [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, G]. (4) Usually prefer a session before and soon after the meeting instead [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "I think I'll be most useful to you before and after, where we can talk freely. Who could sit with you on the day?"
Watch for: the client feeling abandoned; the therapist wanting to be present to control the outcome. Working if the client has a support person and a booked debrief.

14. Assessing voluntariness in a client who caused harm

Purpose: offenders must take part voluntarily throughout and, even under court pressure, be told clearly that they can decline; involuntary participation can leave victims feeling harmed [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Offender participation].
Steps: (1) Ask who suggested mediation and what the client believes will happen if they refuse. (2) Explain, or ask the client to check with their lawyer, that under the UN Basic Principles failure to reach agreement cannot be used against them and failure to carry out a non-judicial agreement should not justify a harsher sentence [source: UNODC 2020, p. 17]. (3) Explore motives: sentence advantage, wish to apologise, curiosity, guilt, family pressure [synthesis]. (4) If the main motive is legal benefit, say so openly and explore whether a more genuine motive exists alongside it.
Example language (illustrative): "It's fine that a lighter outcome is part of why you're interested. The question is whether there is also something you want to say to them, for their sake."
Watch for: compliance without engagement; manipulation aimed at the victim. Working if the client can describe a reason to take part that centres the person harmed.

15. Working on responsibility and acknowledgement

Purpose: the offender must accept, or at least not deny, responsibility and agree the basic facts [source: UNODC 2020, p. 25; Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(c)]; the mediator may ask offenders to recall their own experiences of being victimised and then consider what the victim might feel or want [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Offender preparation].
Steps: (1) Ask the client to give their account of the offence; note minimising, blaming or excuses without arguing [synthesis]. (2) Invite them to recall a time they were harmed and what they needed afterwards [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997]. (3) Ask them to imagine the victim's days since the offence. (4) Help them separate explanation (context) from excuse [synthesis]. (5) If they deny the basic facts, tell them honestly that the programme is unlikely to proceed, and continue the work in therapy [synthesis; source for stop rule: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, A].
Example language (illustrative): "When someone took something of yours, what did you most want from them? What might this person want from you?"
Watch for: shame spiralling into self-attack, which can lead to defensiveness in the room; scripted remorse. Working if the client can describe the effects of their actions without being prompted, and without making the victim responsible.

16. Reality-testing the apology

Purpose: offenders may expect an apology to erase the harm or calm the victim's emotions at once, and their disappointment can leave the victim feeling guilty or angry [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Offender preparation].
Steps: (1) Ask what the client expects to happen when they apologise. (2) Explore their reaction if the victim stays angry, cries, or does not accept it. (3) Remind them that the victim's experience needs full hearing, and that the guidelines warn against remorse drowning it out [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice]. (4) Practise listening without defending [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "An apology is something you give. What the other person does with it is theirs. Can you give it without needing anything back?"
Watch for: an apology that asks for forgiveness; the client planning to explain at length. Working if the client can tolerate imagining an unaccepting response.

17. Planning practical repair (client who caused harm)

Purpose: offenders are guided to consider the victim's losses and to brainstorm repair, drawing on income, possible jobs and skills they could offer [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Offender preparation].
Steps: (1) List the losses the client believes they caused. (2) List what they can realistically offer and by when. (3) Test proportionality and feasibility; reparation should match the harm and the person's capacity [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A, Proportionate]. (4) Plan supports that will help them complete it; supporters can later remind them of commitments [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Offender participation].
Example language (illustrative): "Let's only put things on the list that you're sure you can do. A promise you break would be another harm."
Watch for: over-promising to win approval. Working if the plan is concrete and the client identifies who will help them keep it.

18. Supporting completion of the agreement

Purpose: the mediator monitors the agreement and informs the victim when it is fulfilled or circumstances change [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Follow-up; Scottish Government 2017, Part B, I].
Steps: (1) Ask the client to bring the written agreement if they wish (they receive a written record unless they decline one [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, H]). (2) Review progress in sessions. (3) If they are falling behind, encourage early contact with the programme rather than silence [synthesis]. (4) Explore what completion means to them.
Example language (illustrative): "If the payments get hard, the programme would rather hear it from you now than find out later."
Watch for: avoidance and shame around missed commitments. Working if the client contacts the programme themselves.

19. Meeting-day plan

Purpose: the victim may need to pause, caucus or end at any time and the mediator must be ready to act [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim safety]; the therapist helps the client plan for this [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Plan the journey there and back, and who is with the client before and after. (2) Agree the client's signal to the mediator for a break or caucus. (3) Plan the hours after the meeting: who they will see, what they will avoid (for example, alcohol, being alone) [synthesis]. (4) Book a session soon afterwards. (5) Give crisis contacts (in the US, 988; in the UK and Ireland, Samaritans on 116 123) if risk has been present [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "After it's over, a lot of people feel wiped out, or strangely flat, or elated. Let's plan for any of those."
Watch for: plans that leave the client alone that night. Working if the client has a written, specific plan.

20. Debriefing after the meeting or exchange

Purpose: mediators check in with each party before and after the meeting [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Humanistic model]; the therapist offers a deeper, confidential space to process it [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Ask for the client's account in their own sequence; do not lead with "was it good?" [synthesis]. (2) Ask what surprised them, what they needed and did not get, and what they got that they did not expect. (3) Screen for symptom spikes in the following days. (4) Separate the client's experience from the outcome agreement. (5) Note anything they want to say to the programme, including the option of a further meeting, which may be arranged if either party asks [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Follow-up].
Example language (illustrative): "Take me through it from when you walked in. Stop wherever you want."
Watch for: delayed distress, intrusive replays of the offender's words, or self-blame for what they did or did not say. Working if the client can place the meeting within their wider story of the offence.

21. Supporting a decision not to proceed, or a process that stopped

Purpose: Scottish guidance asks facilitators to support people who decide not to proceed, and to end a process safely if risk becomes unacceptable [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, C and E]; offenders may decline, which is why mediators usually contact them first [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, First contact].
Steps: (1) Name the decision or outcome as legitimate. (2) Explore what the client had hoped for and grieve it where needed. (3) Look for other routes to the same needs (victim services, writing an unsent letter in therapy, legal routes) [synthesis]. (4) For a client who caused harm, reassure them that, under the Basic Principles, this should not count against them, and suggest checking with their lawyer [source: UNODC 2020, p. 17].
Example language (illustrative): "The other person saying no tells us about them, not about you or what you deserved."
Watch for: feelings of rejection or a second injury; offender-clients feeling their efforts were wasted. Working if the client can name what they still want and a way to pursue it.

22. Working with forgiveness, reconciliation and meaning

Purpose: the guidelines advise avoiding talk of forgiveness and reconciliation, which can prescribe feelings, and say any reconciliation must arise spontaneously [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim-sensitive language].
Steps: (1) Follow the client's own words for what they want. (2) If the client raises forgiveness, explore what it means in their values, faith or culture, without steering [synthesis]. (3) If faith is central and the client wishes, consider collaborating with their religious leader; victims may consult clergy [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice]. (4) Hold space for anger, which needs no resolution to be valid [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "You've mentioned forgiving him twice. Is that something you want, or something people expect of you?"
Watch for: the therapist or family treating forgiveness as the goal. Working if the client's account of the meaning of the offence becomes their own.

23. Confidentiality and legal implications

Purpose: discussions in non-public restorative processes stay confidential except by agreement or where national law requires disclosure; participation is not evidence of guilt; parties have a right to legal advice [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(e); UNODC 2020, pp. 16-17].
Steps: (1) Ask the programme to explain its confidentiality rules and record-keeping in writing; they should be explained before consent [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, D]. (2) Explain how your own records and limits of confidentiality differ from the programme's [synthesis]. (3) For clients in criminal proceedings, recommend advice from their lawyer before taking part [synthesis; source for right to counsel: UNODC 2020, p. 16]. (4) Do not pass therapy content to the programme without explicit consent.
Example language (illustrative): "What you say in the meeting is covered by the programme's rules. What you say here is covered by mine. Let's check where those differ."
Watch for: assumptions that "everything is confidential". Working if the client knows who will see what.

24. Children and young people

Purpose: children have a right to a parent or guardian and CRC protections; UN Model Strategies urge caution with informal justice for violence against children [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 16, 19].
Steps: (1) Obtain the young person's assent and a parent's or guardian's consent, and check they are not in conflict [synthesis]. (2) Use developmentally suited explanations and, where needed, indirect methods suited to age [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, F]. (3) Keep safeguarding and child protection duties at the front [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part B, C]. (4) Watch for adults steering the young person in either direction.
Example language (illustrative), to a young person: "You get a say in this, and so does your mum. If you don't want to do it, you can tell me and we'll work out how to say so."
Watch for: parental pressure; a young person agreeing in order to end the matter quickly. Working if the young person can explain the choice in their own words.

25. Therapist who also trains as a facilitator

Purpose: some therapists train to facilitate. Programmes must provide trained, competent facilitators, with added expertise for complex cases [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A]; in Austria, mediators are social workers, lawyers or psychologists with special training and a relevant qualification [source: UNODC 2020, p. 26]; mediator training should cover victims' experiences, communication skills, victims' rights and victim-sensitive guidelines, with input from victim advocates and victims [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Mediator training].
Steps: (1) Train with a recognised programme and work under its supervision and complaints arrangements [synthesis]. (2) Never facilitate for a current therapy client or someone connected to them (APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05) [source: APA Ethics Code; synthesis]. (3) Keep impartiality: in the facilitator role you are not the victim's or offender's therapist [source: UNODC 2020, p. 24, impartial third party]. (4) Check insurance and scope with your professional body and the programme [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative), to a client: "I do some facilitation work, but I won't do it for you, because I'm your therapist. I can help you find a programme."
Watch for: role drift and pressure to "just help with this one". Working if roles stay separate and clients understand why.

5. Handling problems

Client feels pressured to take part (by police, court, family, community or faith group). Restate that participation must be voluntary, with no coercion or unfair inducement, and that it can be declined or withdrawn at any time [source: UNODC 2020, pp. 5, 16; Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(a)]. Help the client draft a short refusal or a request for more time; the guidelines oppose arbitrary deadlines [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim choice]. [synthesis for the drafting step]
Client is ambivalent and stuck. Return to the benefits and risks list (item 5); suggest indirect communication as a lower-stakes step (item 9); allow the question to be parked without a deadline [synthesis].
Overwhelm during preparation. Pause preparation, return to stabilisation (item 4), and tell the programme, with consent, that the client needs more time; the meeting should not be scheduled until the victim feels ready [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim preparation; synthesis for the clinical steps].
Domestic abuse, sexual offences, stalking or exploitation emerge mid-process. Treat as a safety review, not a scheduling problem: restorative justice will very rarely be appropriate in these cases [source: Scottish Government 2017, Parts A and B]; specialist training in coercive control is needed [source: Restorative Justice Council]. Involve specialist services, follow safeguarding duties, and support the client if the process stops [synthesis].
The responsible person denies, minimises or blames the victim. Under Austria's criteria and Scottish guidance this is a reason not to proceed [source: UNODC 2020, p. 26; Scottish Government 2017, Part B, A]. With a victim-client, help them understand that this is the offender's limitation; with an offender-client, continue responsibility work in therapy (item 15) [synthesis].
Client who caused harm is "resistant" or only wants a sentencing benefit. Name the mixed motive openly; explore whether any victim-centred motive exists; if not, support a decision not to proceed, since involuntary participation can harm victims [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Offender participation; synthesis for the clinical response].
Re-traumatisation after the meeting. Increase session availability, assess for worsening PTSD symptoms and suicide risk using standard practice, and treat the meeting material as part of trauma work; consider whether the programme's follow-up can address unanswered questions or a further meeting [source for further meetings: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Follow-up; synthesis for the clinical response]. Crisis contacts: 988 (US); Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland).
Disappointing meeting (flat, defensive, or insincere-seeming offender). Normalise; return to item 6's "most likely" outcome; separate what the meeting showed about the offender from the client's worth; explore what still matters to them [synthesis].
Unexpected positive feelings towards the offender, or guilt for feeling them. Validate without steering towards reconciliation; reconciliation, if it occurs, is meant to arise spontaneously [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim-sensitive language]. Explore loyalty conflicts with family or friends who disapprove [synthesis].
Agreement not kept. The programme should inform the victim when circumstances change [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Follow-up]. Help a victim-client voice their response to the programme; help an offender-client contact the programme early (item 18). Failure to carry out a non-judicial agreement should not justify a harsher sentence under the Basic Principles [source: UNODC 2020, p. 17].
Unwanted contact after the process. Treat as a safety issue: record it, inform the programme and, where relevant, police or the client's advocate; agreements may address future contact [source for agreements on future contact: Scottish Government 2017, Part A, Future-focused; synthesis for the response].
Rupture with the therapist (client feels the therapist pushed for or against mediation). Acknowledge your influence, invite the client's view, and restate that the decision is theirs [synthesis].
Confidentiality breach or disclosure obligations arise (new offences disclosed, risk to children). Follow your own legal and safeguarding duties; programme confidentiality does not override national law where disclosure is required [source: Directive 2012/29/EU, Art. 12(1)(e); synthesis].
Programme quality concerns (untrained volunteers, rushed preparation, no follow-up). Raise with the programme's manager or complaints route; where volunteers are used, staff should oversee them closely [source: Umbreit & Greenwood 1997, Victim safety]. If concerns persist, advise the client that they may withdraw at any time [synthesis].
Accessibility barriers (language, disability, literacy). Ask the programme to adapt; processes must not exclude people with additional support needs [source: Scottish Government 2017, Part A, Accessible].
Dual-role pressure (asked to attend as a support person or to give an opinion on suitability). See items 12, 13 and 25; decline roles that compromise the therapy [synthesis].

Sources

← Previous · XV-064Restorative justice conferencing Next · XV-066 →Family group conferencing