Conferencing is a restorative justice practice which has started developing quite consistently since the 1990s, in majority in Anglophone countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the USA, Canada or the UK and in particular with consistently promising results for juvenile justice in Northern Ireland. Some continental European, Latin American and African countries are also starting to introduce this alternative to traditional criminal justice, especially in the case of juvenile justice, with some equally promising results. This article presents up-to-date information about the state of conferencing in the world and discusses some of the major conclusions that have come out of a European research project and book.

Utrecht, the fourth largest city of The Netherlands, is addressing resolving social conflict by promoting schools to adhere to the Peaceful School Program and civilians and professionals to join the Peaceful Neighborhood Program. The Peaceful School Program is designed to address problematic behavior of youth in primary, secondary and high school education and evolved into a democratic and participatory citizenship program. The Peaceful Neighborhood Program is involving important organizations that are active within the neighborhood, members of the community and stake-holders to adapt peaceful attitudes in daily life, including a mind-set that addresses conflicts by resolving them (together).
These two programs are in the process of ‘conquering’ the whole of the city of Utrecht and every single neighborhood. The so-called Utrecht Model for Mediation is supporting these Peaceful Programs, through empowering citizens and professional to enhance their ‘peaceful skills’ and skills for conflict resolution. Citizens and professionals are being trained to develop this mindset. The Utrecht Model for Mediation is organizing a community of mediators that can be of help. A pool of volunteer mediators is being formed to help organizations, professionals, parents, students and members of the community in case of problems, tensions, problematic behavior of youth groups, etcetera. Professional mediators intervene in case of escalated conflicts and penal cases.

Some ten years ago, victim-offender mediation was introduced for the first time in EU-legislation through article 10 of the 2001 framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. In 2012 this framework decision was replaced by a more extensive directive establishing minimum standards for victims of crime. This article examines the position of restorative justice in this new legal instrument. The outcome is mixed. The emphasis on safeguards in case restorative justice is applied is a positive move towards good practices, but it is disappointing that a right to access restorative justice services was not adopted.

The diversity of institutional contexts within which restorative justice has been implemented worldwide has raised the question whether this aspect may have an influence on the experience of victims of crime. Some are of the opinion that certain institutional settings (such as probation) could relegate victims, once more, to a secondary place. This article discusses the results of a two-year research project (2011-2012) that addresses this question. One single questionnaire was administrated in three different countries (Netherlands, Austria and Finland) whose mediation programmes differ in terms of the institutional setting in which mediation is implemented. Our findings suggest that the institutional context does not matter for victims’ levels of satisfaction, but it does in terms of victims’ expectations and experiences.