How Surrogate Impact Panels Function in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study

ABSTRACT

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be an urgent social problem, despite decades of intervention and prevention efforts. Restorative justice programs (e.g., victim impact panels) may be a useful addition to intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention, but it is unclear how these panels operate and to what extent they are consistent with restorative justice models. This naturalistic study of IPV surrogate impact panels used ethnographic observation of panels (n = 18), archival analysis of audience responses to the panel (N = 287), and focus groups and interviews (k = 4) with IPV survivors, an audience member, and batterer intervention providers to investigate these gaps. Findings suggest the panels manifest interactional processes consistent with restorative justice principles. Implications, limitations, and future aims of research on these panels are discussed.     

On evaluating mediators

Conclusion Evaluating mediators is a complex process, but not an impossible one. While no single solution is likely to be found, a set of options is emerging. Any new refinement, admittedly, brings with it new difficulties, and the options laid out here are themselves complex to administer. An adroit program management may be able to put together relatively quickly a workable, efficient, and fair approach to evaluation that is tailored to its own circumstances. But most likely, the process of developing evaluation tools will require sustained effort, justified partly by recognition that only trial and error will eventually produce a result keyed to the program's, the parties', and the mediators' diverse needs.Nevertheless, it should be apparent that avoidance of the problems is no longer an acceptable strategy. In an era when rational standards for judging the elements of mediators' effectiveness are becoming more refined, and when mediation itself is becoming an increasingly common option for resolving all kinds of disputes, retaining public confidence in any program will demand that the program devote time and effort to evaluating and strengthening its most important resources. Christopher Honeyman has played a variety of dispute resolution roles including mediator, arbitrator, and administrative law judge in cases involving labor and environmental issues, for the State of Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (P.O. Box 7870, Madison, Wis. 53707-7870) and for other programs.An earlier version of this article was presented under the title Problems in Evaluating Mediators, at the North American Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, Montreal, Quebec, March, 1989.Christina Sickles Merchant, Byron Yaffe, Stephen Goldberg, Jeanne Brett and Martha Askins offered detailed and helpful critiques of earlier drafts of this work. I am particularly grateful to the mediators of Maine's Court Mediation Service and to its directors, Jane Orbeton and the late Lincoln Clark, for their willingness to take the risks of applying an untried theory and their help in developing it. And once again, my colleagues at the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission provided numerous and significant comments and criticisms which have corrected my thinking on a number of points. However, the opinions expressed here are the author's, and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the WERC.