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.

At the end of 2000, a pilot project began in Flanders (Belgium) to offer family group conferencing for juvenile offenders. Since June 2006, this restorative practice – together with victim-offender mediation – has been inserted in the new Youth Justice Act, making conferencing available in all judicial districts in Flanders. Five years later, however, the mediation-services had to conclude that the number of referrals for conferencing remains rather limited. This observation inspired the mediation services to take actions to bring conferencing more to the attention. This article reports on the findings of a study that was part of this process. Based on (1) an analysis of all conferencing-files that were referred between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 31, (2) focus groups with youth court social workers and criminologists working at the level of the public prosecutor and (3) surveys conducted with youth judges, the study aimed to identify and discuss barriers and obstacles within the current referral practice of conferencing in Flanders.

This article sketches an experiment initiated by a local mediation service in Flanders (BAL) with regard to the role of a supporting volunteer in the context of family group conferencing. Engaged as researchers in this experiment, the authors reconstruct the conceptual challenges of this project and the solution proposed by the team of mediators. One of these challenges revolves around finding an appropriative account of restorative justice that fits with the aims of the Belgian conferencing practice and clarifies the role of the supporting volunteer. Another comes down to distinguishing this role with the essential tasks of the moderator, and formulating deontological devices. In the last part of this contribution a few learning points are formulated with regard to the process and results of the experiment. One of these points is the need to rethink how successfully offering the possibility of engaging a supporting volunteer to the stake holding parties.

The article reflects on the conceptual work undertaken during the first year of ALTERNATIVE, a project coordinated by KU Leuven. The overall objective of the project is to provide an alternative and deepened understanding of justice and security based on empirical evidence of how to handle conflicts within intercultural contexts, mainly through the active participation of citizens. The paper focuses mainly on the relation of the concept of citizenship with restorative justice, especially as viewed and enacted in the four intercultural settings of the ALTERNATIVE project. Several issues are discussed: the concept of participatory citizenship in relation to crime and conflict; the claim of the discourse of restorative justice to the concept of participatory citizenship and democracy and the challenges in the restorative justice discourse that complicate its relationship to participatory citizenship. Next, insight is provided in the ways the ALTERNATIVE project tries to tackle some of these challenges, by exploring and strengthening the relationship between the concept of active citizenship and justice in Europe. By targeting the intercultural field the ALTERNATIVE aims to explore the potential of mediation services and restorative justice models to engage with macro societal conflicts that are not referred to these services by the criminal justice system, and on the other hand expand the way some of the crimes referred by the criminal justice system are handled by the mediation services alternatively by fostering alliances with various civil society organisations. Employing ‘action research’ methodology, it is argued that the concept and framework of ‘nodal governance’ (Shearing and Wood, 2003) can serve to support participatory modes of conflict regulation. Interactive settings are created, which allow for spaces between informal and formal justice, and between justice mechanisms at the individual and at the societal level (Aertsen, 2001, 2008). Arguments are provided in support of the need to promote broader models of restorative justice which are able to address social and systemic crimes and conflicts, and which will help the theory and practice of RJ to move beyond the individualisation of crime and its remedies.

The Eigen Kracht Centrale is striving for a society based on participation and mutual self reliance of citizens, where citizens remain in charge of their own life, especially when dealing with organizations and government bodies. It is important, in the Eigen Kracht Centrale vision, that everyone is part of society and everyone can participate, everyone has a say and remains in charge of his or her own life, everyone gets support from their own social network: family, friends, neighbors, etc.
Especially when problems arise that might lead to involvement of various (social care) institutions.
To implement this vision in daily life, the Eigen Kracht Centrale has introduced the Family Group-conference as a decision making model. This model appears to be effective for citizens to make their own plans. When given responsibility for the situation and the solution, citizens, in every situation thinkable, create, according to themselves and professionals as well, save and creative plans that fit.
In this article the FG-c for a group, district or neighbourhood is discussed and is illustrated by real life examples. Even when people don’t know each other, they can make a plan to solve conflicts in their street or neighbourhood: they all have a strong interest in living in safe, comfortable surroundings. Although the experience with this variant of FGC is limited in The Netherlands: what are they, what lessons can be learned?

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.

Victims of crime entertain various wishes regarding the criminal justice system. This paper present the results of a study that made use of vignettes. Victim wishes regarding the goals of punishment were examined, and the relation with degree offender intent (intent, negligence) has been established. The results show that when the perpetrator acted intentionally, victims have a greater wish for retribution and the other punishment goals, but they have a smaller need for restoration. Victims wish to be compensated and to receive apologies from the offender, but generally are reluctant to meet with the perpetrator in person.