Spring 1999, Number 2

ften, when programprofessionals are asked whatthe greatest challenge to

spreading Restorative Justice practice andphilosophy is, whether through VOM, groupconferencing, circles, boards or otherinitiatives, the answer is invariably “we needmore money.” In order to support VOMAmembers in their fundraising efforts, this issueof VOMA Connections features several articleson the theme of fundraising.

• VOMA Connections obtained copyrightpermission to provide our members with afundraising matrix (Wright, 1991) that tellsyou everything you need to know aboutfunding sources. The matrix gives a goodoverview of funding sources and theirrespective advantages, disadvantages,motivations, resources required, specialtips and role in funding.

• Duane Ruth-Heffelbower from Fresno, CAsuggests a series of ideas on how to use theInternet for identifying fundraisingresources.

• The “Sustaining Friends Program” is agroup of 45 Sustaining Friends churcheswhom support the local Fresno, CA VORPprogram in many ways.

• Kathleen Bird, who works in Liberty, MO,offers a crash course in seeking specificfunding that originates with the U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) and is channeled to state agenciesfor distribution.

Fundraising for the FutureLooking for Resources Beyond 2000

OPrimary Sources of Funding for

Victim Offender Mediation Programs

Source of Funding Number of Percent of Responses Responses

Local Government 43 27%State Government 39 24%Foundations 20 13%Churches 16 10%Individual Contributions 15 9%Federal Government 10 6%United Way 9 6%Fundraising Projects 4 3%Miscellaneous Fees 4 3%

In This Issue

National Survey of Victim Offender Mediation Programs in the United States, 1996-97, by Jean E. Greenwood, M.Div.and Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D. The survey was conducted by the Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation, Universityof Minnesota, School of Social Work. See http://ssw.che.umn.edu/ctr4rjm for the complete survey

• Information to obtain an excellent how-tomanual on program planning and proposalwriting from The Grantsmanship Center.

• The Community Dispute Resolution Centerof Portland, Maine, has received Victims ofCrime Act (VOCA) Funding.

• Writing a Grant Proposal? ThePhilanthrofund of Minnesota provides tenpractical tips for grantwriters.

Member Connections 2-5Fundraising Articles 6-7Overview of Funding

Sources Matrix 8-9More Fundraising Articles 10Humanistic Mediation 11

California RestorativeJustice Project 12

“In Memory of Roy Allen” 13“Conflict Transformation”

Theory 14Victim Sensitivity

Awareness Training 15

Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, Co-ChairRegion III/VIIMCC Office on Crime and Justice2501 Allentown RoadQuakertown, PA 18951215/536-2733; fax 215/536-2783email: amstutz@fast.net

Jan Bellard Region IVMediation Network of North CarolinaP.O. Box 705, Brevard, NC 28712828/877-3728; fax 828/877-5060email: janbellard@citcom.net

George Dash Region I87 Mackenzie WayRegina, Saskatchewan S495M8306/693-0780; fax 306/787-0088email: gdash@justice.gov.sk.ca

Dave Doerfler Region VTexas Dept. of Criminal Justice Victim Services Div.P.O. Box 13401, Capitol StationAustin, TX 78711512/406-5441 or 800/848-4284; fax 512/452-0825david.doerfler@tdcj.state.tx.us

Kathy Elton Region VIMediation Programs CoordinatorAdministration Offices of the CourtP.O. Box 140241Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0241801/578-3984;fax 801/578-3843 email: kathye@email.utcourts.gov

Kathy Hall, Secretary Region IIIowa Mediation Service1025 Ashworth Road, Suite 202West Des Moines, IA 50265515/223-2318; fax 515/223-2321email: amh335@aol.com

Bruce Kittle, Co-Chair Region IIThe Restorative Justice ProjectUniversity of Wisconsin Law School975 Bascom MallMadison, WI 53706608/262-4013; fax 608/263-3380email: bakittle@facstaff.wisc.edu

Mike Llado Region IV2072 Mistletoe CourtTallahassee, FL 32311850/656-3379 email: Peaceworks@planetdirect.com

Doris Luther Region IIIP.O. Box 335Cumberland, ME 04021207/829-5775; fax 207/829-6894email: dluther@igc.org

Carolyn McLeod Region ICommunity Justice Prog., Washington Co. Court Serv.P.O. Box 6Stillwater, MN 55082-0006651/430-6948; fax 651/430-6947email: mcleod@co.washington.mn.us

Beverly Moore Region VIRestorative Justice Program/Community Mediation Services44 W Broadway, Suite 202Eugene, OR 97401541/344-5366; fax 541/687-8392email: mediate@efn.org

Marty Price Region VIVORP Information and Resource Center19813 N.E. 13th StreetCamas, WA 98607360/260-1551; fax 360/260-1563email: martyprice@vorp.com

Ann Warner Roberts Region ICenter for Restorative Justice & MediationUniversity of Minnesota, School of Social WorkDakota Co. Community Corrections1406 Palace AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55105Tele/fax: 651/699-4532email: annwarnerroberts@compuserve.com

Barbara Schmidt Region VKINnections ProgramKansas Children’s Service League1365 N. CusterWichita, KS 67203316/942-4261; fax 316/943-9995email: bschmidt@kcsl.org

Sue Wiese, Treasurer Region IIMediation Services - Franciscan SkempLaCrosse County Administration Center400 N. 4th St., Suite B01LaCrosse, WI 54601608/784-7322; fax 608/784-5910email: wiese.susan@mayo.edu

VOMA AdministratorsBill & Wendy Preston4624 Van Kleeck DriveNew Smyrna Beach, FL 32169904/424-1591; fax 904/423-8099email: voma@voma.org

This is the second edition of VOMAConnections with an all-new look...new layout,logo, regular columns/features. In addition tothe improved graphics and layout, we arebroadening the content to meet the needs ofyou, our members/readers.

As we work towards a new improvedversion of the VC newsletter, we want yoursuggestions on how to make it better. We alsoseek your contributions in policy or research,editorials, innovative practice ideas or pilotprograms, and issues for discussion. Also,please be on the lookout for good articles,photos, graphics and promotional materialsfrom your own program or others.

Editors’ Note

2 MEMBER CONNECTIONS

1998-99 VOMA Board of Directors

VOMA has recently submitted a letter ofintent to explore funding to increase memberservices and for capacity-building from anational foundation. As stated in our formalletter of intent “ [this is]...a critical time for theVictim Offender Mediation Association and forvictim offender mediation within theRestorative Justice movement and... [we need]thoughtful, strategic actions ...in order to keeppace with the needs and challenges of a victim-offender mediation field experiencingsignificant growth.”

The letter suggests a “number of actionsthat must take place to position theorganization for a strong future” including:

• expand membership;• support growth of regional networks;• promote high standards of quality and

ethics;• offer additional resources and capacity

building for all levels of programsophistication;

• develop group conferencing, circles,boards and other Restorative Justiceinitiatives in addition to traditional VOMpractice;

• provide broader training and conferenceopportunities such as fostering minorityleadership, dissemination of up-to-datefindings and developing distance-conferencing and other technologies.

(A special thanks to Gerry Graham, an independentgrantwriting consultant from Elk River, MN, forvolunteering to write VOMA’s letter of intent.)

VOMA SeeksSustainability

3

VOMA has developed regional networks tobetter serve its members. Following is theUnited States, Canada and the world divided intoseven Regions. After each Board member’sname in the Directory on the preceding page,the assigned Region is listed.

Region ISaskatchewan, Manitoba, North Dakota, South

Dakota, Nebraska, and Minnesota

Region IIWisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan,Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and

Tennessee

Region IIIOntario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine,Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,

Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York,Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,

and Washington D.C.

Region IVVirginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida

Region VArkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas,

Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona

Region VICalifornia, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho,

Oregon, Montana, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii,Alberta, and British Columbia

Region VIIInternational Members

VOMA by Region

Michael Baird ORNeighbor-to-Neighbor

Community Mediation ServicesBarry Lee Burnside GA

Victim Offender ServicesSusan Charlton AZRandy Dickson TX

Greg Hessel NHCheshire Mediation

Buzz Hoffman IAFifth Judicial District

Dept. of Correctional ServicesPatricia Peagler Lewis OH

Petra Maxwell CA Martha Mills IL

Allen Moragne CAGene Oulette Saskatchewan CANADA

Saskatoon Tribal CouncilCarmen G. Peterson FLDispute Resolution Services

Ninth Judicial DistrictAnn Pikus IL

Northwestern UniversityJean & Burton Roberts CA

Ann W. Sanford TNVictim Offender Reconciliation Program

Ann L. Schrader COVORP of Denver, Inc.

Andrew R. Sherriff, Jr. CTEric Stutzman AB CANADA

EVOMSSara Weeks NY

Broome County AccordLori Williams MN

Jon Wilmot MIBethany Christian ServicesTricia Winslow CO

University of Denver

Welcome toNew Members

VOMA Connections is published by theInternational Victim Offender MediationAssociation. VOMA’s mission is to provideinspiration, leadership and information-sharingin the development and support of variousmodels of justice which create opportunities fordialogue between victims, offenders and theircommunities for the purpose of healing andrestoration.

Submissions of articles, literature reviews, casestudies, program news, and other interesting infoare welcome for review. Send submissions toeither:

Beverly MooreRestorative Justice Program Community Mediation Services44 West Broadway, Suite 202Eugene, OR 97401541/344-5366; fax 541/687-8392email: mediate@efn.org

or

Annie RobertsCenter for Restorative Justice and MediationUniversity of MinnesotaDakota County Community Corrections1406 Palace AvenueSt. Paul MN 55105tel/fax: 651/699/4532email: annwarnerroberts@compuserve.com

Victim OffenderMediation Association4624 Van Kleeck Drive

New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169tel: 904/424-1591fax: 904/423-8099

email: voma@voma.orgon-line @ www.voma.org

VOMA Connections

MEMBER CONNECTIONS

4 MEMBER CONNECTIONS

The VOMA Board of Directors held the1999 mid-year retreat in Asheville, NorthCarolina. Thanks to our gracious host Kim Fink-Adams, a former VOMA Board member, and JanBellard, who added a great deal of assistance.

During the retreat, discussions focused onhow VOMA can fulfill the Mission Statementadopted by the membership in Tucson (1998Conference and Training Institute), and howVOMA can provide benefits to VOMA membersthat will strengthen and expand support to thevictim offender mediation field. Our finaldiscussion focused on the critical role thatVOMA plays in the field of victim offendermediation.

In our discussions, we noted that ourMission Statement purposely leaves out thewords “restorative justice,” although many of usare working within the broader vision ofrestorative justice. We agreed that VOMA needsto remain focused on providing leadershipspecifically within the context of victim offendermediation and conferencing, and that althoughwe find it difficult at times to stay focusedbecause of the broader implications ofrestorative justice, it is imperative that westrengthen our unique niche. The Boarddetermined that at this point our unique nichemeans focusing on the annual Conference andTraining Institute, the VOMA Connectionsnewsletter and on what is happening withinprograms implementing victim offendermediation.

This year, VOMA held the mid-year Board Retreat in the Parish House at St. Matthias EpiscopalChurch in Asheville, North Carolina. St. Matthias is believed to be Asheville’s oldest historically Blackcongregation. The congregation has been meeting since before the end of the Civil War. St. Matthiaswas entered on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979.

VOMA extends a warm thank-you to mid-year Board Retreat hostess Kim Fink-Adams, JanBellard, Glenda McDowell, Warren Wilson College, Jamie Howard (a volunteer mediator), PeterMcDowell, Jasper Adams, Elizabeth St. Amand, and Kathy Hall. All were extremely, extremelyinstrumental in helping set things up and making the weekend most comfortable for Boardmembers.

VOMA Mid-Year Board Retreat atSt. Matthias Episcopal Church

Board members joined together at the mid-year retreat to work on VOMA’s busy agenda.From left, Kathy Hall, Carolyn McLeod, Dave Doerfler, Sue Wiese, Lorraine StutzmanAmstutz, Barbara Schmidt, Jan Bellard, Kathy Elton, Doris Luther, Beverly Moore, AnnWarner Roberts

ExecutiveCommittee Reportby Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, Co-Chair

5MEMBER CONNECTIONS

VOMA has three different ways members canelectronically communicate and acquireInformation using e-mail and the Internet:

1. VOMA maintains a web site atwww.voma.org. The web site containsinformation on the Association, upcomingtraining and conferences, current and pastissues of VOMA newsletters, and links torelated sites. If you join VOMA as an agency,you are entitled to a free web page on theVOMA web page. To take advantage of thisbenefit send your agency information toduanerh@fresno.edu.

2. VOMA provides a list-serve, intended toprovide a medium for networking and sharingof relevant information, resources, anddiverse ideas between VOMA members. Thelist-serve is an e-mail based discussion groupin which list-serve subscribers receivemessages sent by all subscribers. This forumallows VOMA members to discuss issuesrelated to victim-offender mediation/conferencing, restorative justice, and activitiesof VOMA. The VOMA list-serve is a benefit formembers only. To subscribe to the VOMA list-serve, send an e-mail to duanerh@fresno.eduwith the message: subscribe vomalist.

3. VOMA offers members with e-mailaddresses the opportunity to receiveannouncements and information from theAssociation and Board of Directors via e-mail.To subscribe to the e-mail announcement listsend e-mail to duanerh@fresno.edu with themessage: subscribe VOMA e-mailannouncement list.

VOMA On-Line

1999 VOMA Training Institute and Conference Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

September 14-18

VOMA is especially excited about the 1999Conference and Training Institute inPennsylvania, September 14-18. During thisyear’s conference, VOMA will celebrate the 25thanniversary of the first VORP. The Conferencewill provide an opportunity for us to take a lookat our past as well as our future. We lookforward to seeing you in Harrisburg, PA!

Here are some highlights of the upcomingTraining Institute and Conference:

• John Paul Lederach will be our keynotespeaker for the Conference on Fridayevening. John Paul is Professor of Sociologyand Conflict Studies at Eastern MennoniteUniversity and Director of the InternationalConciliation Service of the Mennonite CentralCommittee. John Paul has traveledworldwide as a mediation trainer and conflictresolution specialist.

• “Introduction to Victim Offender Mediation,” a3-day intensive training conducted by EricGilman. Eric, the Training and EducationCoordinator from Langley, BC, provided thisexcellent training at the VOMA Conferencethree years ago in Texas.

• Mark Yantzi (who along with Dave Worth hadthe vision of bringing together victims andoffenders of crime in Kitchener, Ontario) hasagreed to provide a two-day training on“Dealing with Sexual Abuse Restoratively.”Mark has been working in this area for thepast 10 years and has recently published abook dealing with the topic.

• The Training Institute will also have eightadditional trainings, including “Starting aVOM,” “Incorporating Transformative

Mediation Theory in VOM,” “RestorativeJustice in Communities of Color,”“Implementing RJ in Corrections,” as well asthe Pennsylvania model of “Impact of CrimeClass.”

• During the Conference VOMA will present 27workshops on topics that include“Community Mediation and VOM,”“Volunteer Recruitment and Care,”“Mobilizing the Faith Community,” “GrantWriting,” “Cultural Bias Issues,” “Circles ofAccountability,” and “Community Buildingand VOM in Education,” to name only a few.

We are very grateful to the Commonwealthof PA for their significant contribution andsupport of VOMA. The PA Commission on Crimeand Delinquency and the Victim Service AdvisoryCouncil have each provided VOMA with $6,000toward the costs for speakers and trainers at theconference.

This year’s Conference will be at the HolidayInn Harrisburg East and is located 6 miles fromHarrisburg International Airport with courtesyshuttle service. For those of you wanting a“flavor” of the surrounding country, Harrisburgis located about 15 minutes from Hersheyparkor Chocolate Town USA. Reading outletshopping and the Lancaster County Amishcommunity are 45 minutes away.

The Conference Brochure will bein the mail by May 1st.

More information and details on the 1999 VOMATraining Institute and Conference will be available

on VOMA’s website www.voma.org

6

How to connect with

information sourcesand find money

State and federal fundingagencies post their RFPs

and funding policies on the web.

So do most private foundations and

corporations.

Researching a funder is easily done through their web site or public

information sites.

For the past year, Northland CommunityConciliation Center, in the metropolitan KansasCity area, has operated a victim offendermediation program for juvenile offendersthrough a grant funded under the federalJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention act.The Act is administered by the U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP), whichdistributes funds to the states and U.S. territoriesfor grant activities.

A JJDP grant is particularly suited to victimoffender pilot projects that need support duringtheir initial development. The programemphasizes provision of direct services tojuveniles under the age of 17. Technicalassistance is available to conceptualize, supportand refine projects. The evaluation of projecteffectiveness is also stressed, which is helpful instrengthening the quality and viability of theproject.

Victim offender mediation programs in thejuvenile justice system are particularly suited tofunding through a JJDP grant because of theircommon goals. The JJDP Act requires that thestates pursue a number of mandates, includingrehabilitation, decreased recidivism andinitiating community-based alternatives(diversion programs) to incarceration ofoffenders.

The Department of Justice has beenparticularly active in exploring restorative justicemodels in the past five years. A good summary ofthe restorative justice philosophy for the juvenilejustice system can be found in the OJJDP

publication “Balanced and RestorativeJustice for Juveniles: A framework forJuvenile Justice in the 21st Century” (August1997, Gordon Bazemore and Mark Umbreit).

Units of local government, law enforcementagencies, and non-profit organizations areeligible to receive funding through the stategrant programs. Collaboration betweencommunity-based groups, the juvenile justicesystem and law enforcement agencies has beenemphasized by Congress in approving funding inthe past few years. The grant cycle is based onthe federal fiscal year, October 1 - September 30.Grants are made for one-year periods with thepossibility of funding for a second and third year.

Further information about JJDP grants inyour state can be obtained by contacting yourstate advisory group. The name and address ofthe advisory group and juvenile justice specialistfor your state can be obtained by contacting yourgovernor or The Coalition for Juvenile Justice,111 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 414,Washington D.C. 20036. Phone: (202) 467-0864 or fax: (202) 887-0738.

Kathleen Bird, J.D., is Director of Mediation Programs forClay County Family Courts in metropolitan Kansas City.Kathleen was instrumental in developing the RESPECTjuvenile victim offender program that was funded witha grant from the Missouri Department of Public Safetyand the U.S. Department of Justice. She is the formerchair of the Arkansas Coalition for Juvenile Justice (JJDPstate advisory group).

Juvenile Justice Grants Particularly Suitedto Initial Program Development

JJDP Pilot Program for VOM

FEATURE ARTICLE

by Kathleen Bird, J.D.

“Program Planning and ProposalWriting,” by Norton J. Kiritz and Jerry Mundelis an excellent “how-to” manual for anyone whowrites grants. This12-page booklet provideseasy-to-read, step-by-step information on howto develop a grant proposal. Informationincludes how to develop a problem statement,program goals and objectives, methods,program evaluation, future funding, andbudget. Reprints are available from TheGrantsmanship Center for $6 for a single copy.In addition, The Grantsmanship Center alsopublishes The Grantsmanship Center Magazine,which is free to staff of nonprofit organizationsand government agencies who receive it at theirOFFICE address. For reprints of “ProgramPlanning and Proposal Writing” or subscriptioninformation contact:

The Grantsmanship Center Publications Dept.P.O. Box 17220

Los Angeles, CA 90017tel: 213-482-9860

fax (213) 482-9863email: marc@tgci.com

How-To Manual forGrant Writing Available

The Center for Peacemaking & ConflictStudies in Fresno, California, encourages andassists churches in their mission of providing aninvitation to and an opportunity forpeacemaking. The Fresno Victim OffenderReconciliation Program provides local churcheswith the opportunity to fulfill their biblicalmandate for doing justice. Sustaining Friends isa program to formalize their relationship withChristian Churches. The Fresno VORP has 45Sustaining Friend churches supporting itthrough prayer, volunteers, finances, and use oftheir buildings for mediations and trainings. Formore information contact:

Ron Claassen, or Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerCenter for Peacemaking & Conflict Studies

1717 S. Chestnut Ave. Fresno, CA 93702

tel: (209) 455-5840fax (209) 252-4800

e-mail duanerh@fresno.edu web page: www.fresno.edu/dept/pacs

Sustaining FriendsChurch Support for

VORP

The Community Dispute Resolution Centerin Portland, Maine has received notice that theyhave been selected for a grant from the Victimsof Crime Act (VOCA). The grant amount will be$10,000. The focus of the project will be toprovide information to adult and juvenile victimsof crime about the Center’s services, and how

they can participate in Victim OffenderMediation or Family Group Conferencing.

For additional information, contactCommunity Dispute Resolution CenterP.O. Box 11029, Portland, Maine 04104,

Tel:. (207) 829-4070

Maine VOM Program Receives VOCA grant

7FEATURE ARTICLE

The Foundation Center has a large collection of

resources for grant seekers, and provides workshops

around the country

The Internet Prospector site has lists of grantmakers

and links to other resources

The Society of Research Administrators web page is at

www.fie.com/cws/sra/resource.htm

The Grantsmanship Center has a full range of resources at

www.tgci.com

www.foundationcenter.org

Fundraising for the Future

Overview of

8

Advantages

Disadvantages

Motivations

ResourcesRequired

Special Tips

Role inFunding

♦ Large grants – can takeon major projects

♦ Often multi-year funding

♦ Applications are massiveand complex

♦ Extensive reportingrequirements

♦ Federal policies mayrestrict/specify agencypolicies

♦ Address a “publicconcern”

♦ Accountable to Congresson results obtained andtechniques used

♦ Grantors likely to beknowledgeable in thefield

♦ Ability to track data andevaluate impact ofprogram

♦ Staff with professionalcertification

♦ Like “demonstration,”replicable programs

♦ Use technical languageand research-basedapproach

♦ Political support fromCongressionalrepresentatives a help

♦ Include percentage foroperating costs

♦ Start-up for major newprograms

♦ Provides percentagesubsidy for operatingcosts

Federal

♦ Can provide largeamounts of support

♦ One of few sources forlong term support

♦ Advocacy can impactfunding

♦ Funding can bepolitically vulnerable

♦ Extensive reportingrequirements

♦ Funding onreimbursement basis:delays common

♦ Funding levels dependon tax revenue levels

♦ Accountable to statelegislature and public forresults obtained andtechniques used

♦ Grantors likely to beknowledgeable in thefield

♦ Ability to track data andevaluate impact ofprogram

♦ Staff with professionalcertification

♦ Try to arrange a directsupport relationship,rather than a competitivebid

♦ Use technical languageand research-basedapproach

♦ Include percentage foroperating costs

♦ Ongoing support formajor service andeducation programs

State

♦ Can provide largeramounts of support

♦ Can provide ongoingfunding

♦ Can add toorganizational credibility

♦ Advocacy can impactfunding

♦ Funding can bepolitically vulnerable

♦ Extensive reportingrequirements

♦ Funding onreimbursement basis:delays common

♦ Funding levels dependon tax revenue levels

♦ Accountable to citycouncil/county board forresults obtained andtechniques used

♦ Ability to track data andevaluate impact ofprogram

♦ Somewhat more likely tohave direct support,rather than facing anRFP process

♦ Tie language and formatto existing city/countyprograms

♦ Include percentage foroperating costs

♦ Often moderately sizedongoing support forservice and educationprograms

City/County

♦ Funding adds credibilityand creates importantsupporters

♦ Funding is usually paid inone check up front

♦ Simpler application andreporting requirements

♦ Often more difficult toaccess especially in ruralareas

♦ Usually prefer giving “seedmoney”; wary ofsignificant ongoingsupport

♦ Broad “community needs”perspective – addressmany concerns

♦ Visibility may or may notbe desired

♦ Not likely to beknowledgeable aboutnuances of your issue

♦ Connection withfoundation staff or boardmay be very helpful oreven necessary

♦ Tie proposal to largercommunity values andissues

♦ Don’t use technicallanguage or jargon

♦ Keep proposal to 3-5pages. Fancy packagingwon’t help and may hurt

♦ Ask for 2-3 years ofsupport

♦ Start-up new programs♦ Support for special

programs not supportedelsewhere

♦ General operating funds(in smaller amounts)

♦ Don’t generally fundevents

Foundation

♦ Visibility♦ Credibility♦ Builds important

supporters

♦ May be reluctant to getinvolved in controversialissues

♦ May have heavy publicrelations requirementsattached to grants

♦ Often not significantamounts

♦ Both Altruism and self-interest

♦ Building a good image inthe community

♦ Marketing♦ Not likely to be

knowledgeable aboutnuances of your issue

♦ Connections withincompany managementmay be necessary or atleast helpful

♦ Like high visibility “jointventure” projects

♦ Get a personalappointment

♦ Be brief with a basicoutline in 3-4 minutes

♦ Nice packaging is normallya plus

♦ Keep proposal under 3pages/bullet formatting

♦ Visible projects/lesscontroversial projects

♦ May support events (checkpolicy before asking)

♦ In-kind contributionspossible (printing, design,computers, furniture, etc.)

Corporate

FEATURE ARTICLE

9

♦ Long term supportCredibility

♦ Builds importantsupporters and networks

♦ Long and politicalapplication process

♦ Heavy reportingrequirements

♦ May restrict yourcorporate or major eventsfundraising for all or partof year

♦ Altruism♦ Broad “community

needs” perspective♦ Less likely to be

knowledgeable aboutyour issue

♦ If your organization iscontroversial, can bereluctant to get involved

♦ Broad visibility♦ Ability to track and

evaluate date♦ Staff time for record

keeping and networking

♦ Even if your are not a“member agency,” youmay be able to receivedesignated funds

♦ Individual designationscan help show supportfor your group/issue

♦ Ongoing support forcontinuing programs notlikely to be publiclyfunded

Federated DrivesUnited Way

♦ Bring in newsupporters with adirect experience

♦ Making a visiblestatement aboutimportance of an issueand organization

♦ Builds visibility andcredibility

♦ Large expenditures oftime and often money

♦ Risk of small gain oreven loss of event

♦ Participating in event♦ Supporting your cause♦ May or may not know

about yourissue/group

♦ Start-up funds♦ Lots of volunteer time

and staff time andmoney

♦ Be very cautious ofhigh cost/risk events ifyou don’t have a trackrecord with them

♦ Keep event participantlists separate fromdonor lists -–they arereally prospect lists

♦ Funding for areas ofgreatest need oroperating support

♦ Funding for a specificprogram/purpose withstrong appeal

♦ Direct access to manypeople

♦ Bring on new supportersand builds donor basefor future renewal /major gifts

♦ Gets the word out aboutyour organization

♦ If not well targeted, maymake little or no profitabove mailing costs

♦ Both mailings andtelemarketing areexpensive ways to raisemoney

♦ Altruism and communityconcerns

♦ Give back and helpothers

♦ Start-up funds forprinting and mailingcosts

♦ Computer software withdata/text merge function(or access to such) forpersonalized mailings.

♦ Process for generatingthank-you’s within oneweek

♦ Make sure your lists areup-to-date and free ofduplicate entries beforebeginning

♦ Ask donors to “doubletheir gift for free” byhaving their employersmatch their gifts

♦ Support for overallagency/programoperations

♦ Support for areas ofspecial/greatest need

♦ Build long-term andincreasingly profitablerelationships

♦ Can fund creative orcontroversial projects orspecial needs less likelyto be supported byconventional funders

♦ Donor cultivation cantake a major investmentof time before resultsoccur

♦ Donors may expect toinfluence program orpolicy directions

♦ Desire to belong to thevision of yourorganization

♦ Often have a high degreeof personal involvementwith the issue

♦ Time to build andnurture relationships

♦ Funds for donorappreciation events canbe helpful

♦ Donor clubs may helpyou recruit, reward andcontinue to involvemajor donors

♦ Publicize new donors inyour newsletter

♦ Support for areas ofspecial/greatest need

♦ Capital/equipment needs♦ Operating reserves♦ Seed or planning funds

♦ Can be sizeable gifts♦ Little solicitation effort

required♦ Opportunity to gain

their support forfuture gifts

♦ Memorial donors mayor may not bedonating to supportyour organization

♦ Sorrow♦ Anger/Protests♦ Social obligation♦ Guilt♦ Support for a friend

♦ Minimal printing costsfor gift envelopes,special thank-youcards, letters

♦ Keep memorial donorlists separate fromregular donor lists

♦ Publicize memorialgifts in yournewsletter

♦ General support♦ Areas of

special/greatest need♦ Funding for a specific

program or purposewith strong appeal

♦ Generally the largestindividual gifts

♦ Planned givingarrangements may beable to assist thefinancial needs ofdonors

♦ Usually need ongoingrelationship with donor

♦ Association with deathmay make solicitationsensitive

♦ Giving back/helpingothers

♦ Desire to put financialaffairs in order

♦ Desire to leave a lastinglegacy or make a realdifference

♦ Brochure or infoexplaining how to makea planned gift ofproperty, etc.

♦ Let people know aboutthe option-volunteers,board members,financial planners, andestate attorneys

♦ Publicize the impact ofyour first planned gift inyour newsletter

♦ Publicize the option ofplanned gifts to yourorganization toprofessionals advisingpotential donors –financial planners,estate attorneys

♦ Operating reserves♦ Endowment♦ Support for areas of

special or greatest need

Special EventsMailings/

Telemarketing Major Donors Memorials Planned Gifts

FEATURE ARTICLE

Funding Sources by Karen Wright

10

The Foundation Center has asearchable list of privatefoundations on the web.

http://fdncenter.org/grantmaker/corp.htm

They also have a list ofcorporate grantmakers.

http://fdncenter.org/grantmaker/corp.html

Nearly all donors of any sizeare on the web, often with

complete applicationinformation and forms.

National Institute of Justicefunding opportunities including

OJJDP opportunities.www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nig/funding.html

Each State government has several sites for its

criminal justice programs. Use any search engine to find them. Many include

e-mail notification of changes to the site.

FEATURE ARTICLE

1. Do Your Research. Make sure thefoundations or corporations you areapproaching have stated goals andobjectives that are consistent with yourgrant request.

2. Contact The Grantmaker beforesubmitting your request. Telephone orwrite them and request their specificgrant-making guidelines and applicationinstructions.

3. Study Other Agencies Or Projectsthat the foundation has funded. Contactcolleagues from these successful agenciesand ask them why they think theirproposal was successful.

4. Write Clearly And Concisely andavoid jargon. Use short sentences - theymake your proposal easier to read.

5. Follow The ApplicationInstructions clearly and make sure youanswer every question in the order listed.

6. Keep The Proposal Short, nolonger than three pages if that is possibleand if it is consistent with the funder’sguidelines.

7. Avoid The Temptation to list theproblems your agency or project faces.Focus on opportunities.

8. List Your Credentials. Let the funderknow that you are qualified to do whatyou are proposing.

9. Always Include a Cover Letter, evenif the guidelines make it optional. Use theletter to introduce your organization andto link your specific request to thefunder’s mission and grant guidelines.

10. Proofread - not only for typos andgrammar, but to ensure that all theinformation you include is accurate andrelevant to the funder.

Writing a Grant Proposal?Here Are 10 Practical Tips:

From the PhilanthroPress (June 1998),a publication of Philanthrofund, MN, USA.

www.scc.net/~philanth

Overview of Funding Sources Previous PagesThe matrix on pages 8-9 is designed to provide general background information on specific types of funders (noton any individual funder). It was first published for the manual “AIDS Fundraising” published by the FoundationCenter in 1991. It has been revised for more general applications to non-profits, and to a lesser degree, publicorganizations. VOMA hopes that the matrix will be useful for members working on fundraising.

Karen Wright has served as program manager and development director for non-profit service and artsorganizations in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, as well as a grant review consultant to local foundations andcorporations. She holds a CFRE from the National Society of Fundraising Executives. She is currently completinga Ph.D. at the London School of Economics examining predictors of charitable giving in the US and UK, where shehas also done consulting and training on fundraising and development.

11FEATURE ARTICLE

Humanistic mediation represents a “dialogue driven” rather than “settlement driven” form of conflict resolution. It emphasizes the importanceof meeting with the parties individually and in person prior to the joint mediation session in order to listen to their story, build rapport, and explainthe process and prepare them for engagement in a mediated dialogue. It provides a non-directive style of mediation in which the parties are primarilyspeaking to each other with minimal intervention by the mediator; and a mediator attitude of unconditional positive regard and connectedness withall parties while remaining impartial (e.g. not taking sides).

While the focus of the mediator’s work is upon the creation of a safe, if not sacred, place to foster direct dialogue among the parties about theemotional and material impact of the conflict, written settlement agreements often occur but are not central to the process. Humanistic mediation isa specific practice application of the broader theory of transformative mediation. It is grounded more in a paradigm of healing and peacemaking thanproblem-solving and resolution. The telling and hearing of each other’s stories about the conflict, the opportunity for maximum direct communicationwith each other, and the importance of honoring silence and the innate wisdom and strength of the participants are all central to humanistic mediationpractice.

Potential BlockagesTo Creating a Safe Place for Dialogue

“Good intentions, sometimes opposite impact”

• Touch— Holding hands— Any form of touch— Hugging

• Religious Ritual— Using a specific religious ritual or prayer

from a dominant religion— Using a specific religious ritual or prayer

from an indigenous or non-westerntradition

• Language— Reference to spirituality and religion— “Spiritual” as synonymous with “religious”— Language that communicates judgement

• Assumptions— “My understanding of spirituality or religion

is shared by those present”— “What makes me centered or safe works for

others”

Key Elements of HumanisticMediation

• Continual centering of the mediator

• Deep compassionate listening - Importance ofstory telling

• Pre-mediation in-person separate meetings

• Connecting with parties, but impartial

• Creation of safe, if not sacred, space

• Dialogue driven - between parties

• Non-directive style of mediation

• Mediator “gets out of the way”

Key Elements of Creating a Safe, if NotSacred, Place for Dialogue

• Non-Judgmental Attitude— Unconditional positive regard to all parties

• Preparation of the parties (in-person andseparate)— Listening to their stories and needs— Explaining the process - no surprises— Preparing for the dialogue— Role of mediator as guardian of process

• Presentation of Choices— When to meet, where to meet— Who to be present, snacks

• Centering of Mediator— Deep belly breathing, meditation or prayer— Separating “our stuff” from “their stuff”— Caring deeply for all but remaining impartial

• Setting the Tone— Eliminating distractions— Soft music in background as people gather— Beginning with moment of silence, ritual or

prayer (if meaningful to all parties)

For more information contact:Mark Umbreit, Ph.D..

Center for Restorative Justice and MediationSchool of Social Work

University of Minnesota386 McNeal Hall

1985 Buford AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55108-6144

612/624-8224fax 612/625-8224

Creation of a Safe, if not Sacred, Place canFoster Direct Dialogue among the Parties

Humanistic Mediation

by Mark Umbreit, Ph.d..

12

Between 1985-1994, Santa Clara County,California, experienced a 321% increase inviolent juvenile offenses, and a 333% increase inweapons offenses — five times the national rate.This increase in juvenile crime has been linkedto “child poverty zones” within the county thatreflect a deterioration of neighborhoods andsocial disorganization.

In response to the dramatic escalation ofjuvenile crime, San Jose City neighborhoods andthe town of Gilroy (all in Santa Clara County)were delegated as sites to begin implementingstrategic prevention and intervention efforts,including Neighborhood Accountability Boards(NABs). Three of the selected sites were part ofa “demonstration project,” funded by a three-million-dollar Challenge Grant from theCalifornia Department of Corrections.

The Restorative Justice Project of the SantaClara County Juvenile Probation Department isentering its second year of operation, and isbeginning to reflect the values and principles ofa balanced and restorative approach to juvenilejustice. Through the use of NABs and theadoption of an asset and strength-basedapproach that views individuals as innatelyresilient, the underlying roots of delinquentbehavior are being addressed by building on thehealthy aspects of youth, their families andcommunities.

The transition has not been easy. One of theearly challenges encountered was theunderestimation of the time necessary to lay thefoundation to begin an extensive community-based project. As a result, unexpectedbureaucratic obstacles occurred including

working toward opening up a bureaucracy tocommunity participation. In addition, challengesto recruit and hire staff, create new data systems,recruit community members, and train projectstaff and volunteers resulted in a slow start-up.

Another challenge the project faced was thatstaff members had no initial understanding ofthe underlying core principles and values of thebalanced approach mission, nor were victimsincluded in the initial planning efforts.

Since the implementation of the RestorativeJustice Project, three other Santa Clara Countydistricts have began using NABs. To date, 600youth have appeared before NABs. The processused by NABs has been revised to include acircle/conferencing approach during which theyouth and his or her parents participate in thecreation of a contract, focus on accountabilityand the repair of harm, and determinecompetency development. Whenever possible,NAB members, youth and their parents try tocreate accountability activities that have a dualpurpose of repairing harm and building on theyouth’s strengths and assets.

Steps are presently being taken to bring thevictim “voice” to the NAB conference throughthe use of “surrogates.” Focus groups thatinclude persons who have been victimized byjuvenile offenses, shop and business owners,school personnel, and parents who have hadkids involved in the juvenile system are nowbeing conducted for the purpose of creating aprocess and system that addresses theirindividual needs. Some of the strategies that arebeing recommended include:

• implementation of a youth service projectthat responds to victims immediately aftera crime has been committed,

• merchant panels for cases of shoplifting,trespassing, loitering, and graffiti, and

• parent/family panels consisting of familieswho have previously been seen by the NABfor the purpose of giving support tofamilies, and helping youth understandhow their parents may have been affectedby their actions.

Collaborative efforts with Social Servicesand the use of Family Group Conferencing,Human Relations and Mediation Services,schools and other local government andcommunity agencies are continuing in order tocreate comprehensive service delivery.

Today, there is a large glimmer of hope andexcitement as project staff, NAB and communitymembers begin to understand the values andprinciples of restorative justice, and see,firsthand, the results of using this philosophyand approach. One of the strongest features ofthe project to date is community protection.Strong efforts have been taken to mobilizeneighborhoods and the agencies serving themand to improve community protection.Implementation teams of community membersand service providers have been set up toimprove safety and abatement services.

Each site has a Community Coordinator,whose role is to help pull together communitymembers to create a paradigm shift.

California Restorative Justice ProjectStrategic Prevention and Intervention Efforts BuildHealthy Aspects of Youth, Family and Community

by Carol Sullivan

See California on Page 15

FEATURE ARTICLE

13

Note from the Author: Ten years ago, Ifacilitated a support group for parentsexperiencing the death of a child. (In 1986 myson was killed in a bike/car accident, at age 19.)I met a couple who lost their only child in adrunk-driving accident. Their confusion over thedriver’s attitude and their own feelings in themonths after the accident gave me theopportunity to suggest a victim-offendermeeting. The experience left a deep impact onme.

It was ten years later that a similaropportunity arose for me. The privilege to workon the following case arose because: the victim’smother pressured the Oregon Youth Authority tolet her speak to the young man responsible for thedeath of her son; the Director of VORP/MediationServices of Linn County trusted me to do it; andmy schedule allowed me to donate the majorblock of time needed to bring the parties together.

I don’t believe these meetings should becalled “mediation.” There is nothing to mediate -only an opportunity to vent, ask questions, listenand hear, and hopefully to heal. I look forward tomore opportunities of this type ofvictim/offender meeting in the future.

It was summertime and Roy, 15, and hisfriend Jesse, 14, were hanging out at Jesse’sfather’s home. As they lounged in the livingroom, an empty gun case peeked from under thecouch. Roy asked Jesse where the gun was, andJesse left the room to find it under his father’sbed.

He assumed the gun was not loadedbecause he had played around with it onprevious days, so when he came out of thebedroom, Jesse pointed it at Roy to scare him.Too late he realized that the gun was loaded, andRoy was dead.

Jesse was charged with criminally negligenthomicide in the accidental shooting death of RoyAllen. In April 1995, Jesse was sentenced to fiveyears under Oregon Youth Authority (OYA)supervision.

While Jesse had made good progress inrehabilitation while incarcerated, the OYA staffwanted him to meet with Roy’s family to makecertain he understood the impact of his action.OYA staff called our agency, and asked whetherVORP could facilitate such a meeting. Theprogram staff offered me the opportunity to takethe case.

Jesse was incarcerated at the Albany OakCreek facility at that time, so I met with him thereseveral times, and became convinced his attitudewas such that a meeting with Debbie, Roy’smother, and her daughters would work out.

My contacts with Debbie were initially byphone. In consultation with her and the OYA, wedecided to set up the face-to-face meeting duringthe week of January 18th. On Monday, I traveledby bus to Baker City. On Tuesday the OYAtransported Jesse to Hilgard, a small work campoperated by the OYA.

On Tuesday Morning I had a lengthyconversation with Kimberly, 21, Roy’s oldersister, and in the afternoon met with Debbie andher younger daughter, Crystal, now 15. They toldme that 5 years was not a long enoughincarceration for Jesse. They believed he hadkilled Roy intentionally.

Wednesday morning I drove from BakerCity to Hilgard to meet with Jesse and preparehim for the face-to-face meeting later that day.Hilgard staff brought him to Baker City.

It was a tense moment when Debbie,Kimberly and Crystal walked into the roomwhere Jesse and I were waiting. They asked himlots of questions. He answered clearly andwithout making excuses. He took fullresponsibility for his actions.

They asked him whether his sentence waslong enough, and were really moved by hisstatement that no amount of years in prisonwould be adequate to make up for the death ofRoy.

The meeting lasted three hours, andKimberly told Jesse that if what he was saying wastrue they wanted him to become part of theirlives. When the meeting concluded the threeeach hugged Jesse. I felt that I had been on holyground.

The next day, Thursday, I met with theparties separately for a debriefing. When I askedfor permission to tell their story, Debbieassented, asking that when I tell the story itwould always be “in memory of Roy Allen.”

They were pleased and relieved that theyhad been able to talk to Jesse. Kimberly said shehad slept well, and no longer felt depressed. Infollow-up phone calls ten days later, I got thesame responses. Jesse also felt a great sense ofrelief to be able to answer their questionsdirectly, and to realize that they believed him.

By Lois Kenagy

“In Memory of Roy Allen”A Negligent Homicide Case Study

Lois Kenagy is a life-long pacifist and peace activist.Almost 20 years ago, she had the vision to develop VORPsin Oregon. She has been working as a volunteermediator, and often board member, ever since.Currently, Lois is a Commissioner with the OregonDispute Resolution Commission. She focuses herenergies on development of community disputeresolution centers throughout the state.

FEATURE ARTICLE

14

Transformative Justice Australia (TJA)currently utilizes an interdisciplinary theory of“conflict transformation” to address workplaceconflict. Interventions have taken place insectors ranging across heavy industry,construction, transport, retailing, entertainment,information technology, hospitals and medicalresearch. From this conflict transformationusing “workplace conferencing,” the logical nextstep was to consider how sources of conflictmight be addressed without waiting for somespecific incident to prompt a reactive outsideintervention.

TJA currently works with organizations toconvene a “transition workshop,” a process ofeffective proactive intervention in the workplace.After significant preparation,the workshop brings togethertwenty to thirty-five colleaguesover two to three days.Workshops are structured sothat the psychosocialdynamics of the group areguided toward cooperation.Participants conduct an auditof relations within theirorganization, and then move towards a plan ofaction for change.

TJA’s current mix of work combines variousworkplace interventions in Australia withconference facilitator training workshops and(workplace) transition workshops in Australiaand North America. In addition, TJA hasestablished schools-based conferencingprograms that appear to be halving the rates ofsuspension and expulsion in the participatingschools.

A series of analytical distinctions have ledto TJA’s current formulation of conferencing andrelated processes as examples of conflicttransformation. Of particular importance is:

• to distinguish between specific disputes(about facts) and general conflicts(emotionally-based);

• to distinguish between the task ofmediating disputes and the task offacilitating a conference for “people inconflict;”

• to distinguish between the followingthree categories of possible outcomesthat deal with situations of conflict;

1. conflict maximization;2. conflict minimization; 3. conflict transformation.

Within the sphere of civil law, TJA uses thephrase “transformative justice” to distinguishour work from alternative dispute resolution(ADR) processes. As we understand it, manyADR processes offer conflict minimization as analternative to the conflict maximizing approachof an adversarial court system. The logic of ADRis that optimal resolution disputes are most

accessible if the general conflict betweendisputants is minimized.

The theory works well in practice unless thegeneral conflict has become more important tothe disputants than have the facts of the dispute.At such a point, minimizing the conflict tends tobe counter-productive. The conflict needsinstead to be acknowledged and transformed ina carefully structured process. That processshould focus less on the detailed facts of thedispute and more on the sources of conflict.

TJA also uses the phrase “transformativejustice” within an adversarial system of criminallaw. We use the phrase to distinguish our work

from those practices thatemphasize conflictminimization as analternative to the conflictmaximizing approach ofthe courts. In addition,we are tending toarticulate the generaltheoretical base of ourwork less as a theory of

transformative justice and more as a theory of“conflict transformation.” (The necessity of thisshift has become clearer as the proportion ofour work outside the formal justice system hasincreased.)

The intention behind these distinctions isnot to set up some invidious comparisonbetween the three approaches to conflict. Thepractices of negotiation, mediation, conciliation,arbitration and adjudication can be located on aspectrum that runs from conflict minimization to

“Conflict Transformation” TheoryAustralian Community Conferencing ModelMoves Into the Workplace

TJA is working to dramatize their work in theatre andtelevision - most notably with prominent Australian playwrightDavid Williamson. David’s play “Face to Face” is the first of aplanned trilogy inspired by a series of TJA case studies. TJA isconfident that this and other artistic representations willincrease awareness in the search for justice.

by David Moore

FEATURE ARTICLE

15

Mediation Services, A Community Resourcefor Conflict Resolution, in Winnipeg, Manitobahas received funding from the Manitoba JusticeDepartment to pilot a victim sensitivity training.The two-day training, April 20th and 21st, 1999,is presented in cooperation with Victims’ Voice,a national program to assist people impacted byhomicide and violent crime.

The interactive training is designed forservice providers and community members whoare interested in understanding the impact ofvictimization and integrating tools for assistingvictims in their healing journey. A number ofspeakers who have had diverse experiences ofvictimization (a family survivor of homicide,victims of robbery, domestic abuse, sexualassault, and burglary) are asked to share theirstories. Workshop facilitators, Wilma Derksenand Karen Ridd, guide participants to examinethese experiences within the framework of theelements in the victims’ journey.

A hope for the training is to look creativelyat possible responses to victimization. Inaddition to gaining empathy for the victimexperience, the training encourages participantsto analyze what has been heard and to practiceskills for responding effectively. Because of thepainful and difficult topics that are shared,facilitators will encourage participants toexplore issues of self-care as part of the training.

As this is a pilot training, invitations wereextended to persons from various interestgroups in the criminal justice system and thecommunity to attend. Participants are asked toassess this type of victim sensitivity training forapplicability in their particular setting. The mixof persons from community organizations and

from the justice system will add to the richlearning that is anticipated in the training.

Dorothy Barg-Neufeld coordinates thevictim/offender program at MediationServices, 583 Ellice Avenue, 3rd Floor,Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 1Z7 (204-925-3437). She is a former VOMA board member.

conflict maximization. All of these practices arelegitimate in the right place and at the right time.The key point we wish to make here is thatprocesses such as community conferencing andworkplace conferencing are located in aseparate, third category of conflicttransformation. The choice of which process touse in a given context is a matter of professionaljudgement.

TJA can be contacted in Sydney, Australia Tel:61 + 2 + 9130248

fax: 61 + 2 + 91302303e-mail: tja@connect.net.au

For further information about TJA,visit their website: www.tja.com.au.

David Moore studied in Australia andGermany, and has taught history, politicalscience and justice studies. He worked instate government before foundingTransformative Justice Australia (TJA) in1995 with John McDonald and MarkMcDonald. TJA’s two Sydney-based Directorswere centrally involved with the Australianpilot program of what is now calledCommunity Conferencing. Directors JohnMcDonald and David Moore then helpedestablish other conferencing programs inAustralian and North American justicesystems and schools, before piloting a versionof conferencing in workplaces.

Victim Sensitivity Awareness Training

One of the project sites is using acommunity-based District Attorney to facilitatecollaboration between neighborhoods, policeand sheriff departments. The community-basedDistrict Attorney and the CommunityCoordinator at this site recently began“Operation Spotlight,” which focuses on onearea of a neighborhood at a time. OperationSpotlight has brought 200 community memberstogether including the police, sheriffdepartment, city government, probation andneighbors to address needs and strategize onsolutions for the neighborhood.

Carol Sullivan is a consultantspecializing in Restorative Justice, violenceprevention, and victims’ issues. She ispresently a consultant to the Santa ClaraCounty Probation Restorative Justice Project,and is a Restorative Justice trainer certifiedby the California Department of Corrections.Carol can be reached by phone at (510) 655-6405 or email: Jazannie@aol.com

Californiacontinued from page 12

By Dorothy Barg-Neufeld

Winnipeg Pilot Program Explores Journey ofVictims of Homicide and Violent Crime

FEATURE ARTICLE

• Agency membership is available to any organization that has an interest in the mediation and conferencing process, the philosophyof restorative justice, or the criminal justice system. Annual agency dues are $150.00.

• Individual membership is available to those persons interested and/or involved in victim-offender mediation and conferencingprograms. Annual individual dues are $40.00.

• Student membership is available to full-time students. Annual student dues are $25.00.• Library and educational institution memberships are available, which consists of a subscription to the newsletter. Annual library

and educational institution dues are $30.00

VOMA membership benefits include the VOMA Connections, the Annual Directory of Members, access to VOMA resources, and agencydiscounts on the Annual Conference.

Membership Application

Name/Contact Person

Title

Program Name (if agency membership)

Mailing Address

City State/Province Postal Code Country

Tel Fax e-mail address Amount Enclosed

Type of Membership

Victim Offender Mediation Association4624 Van Kleeck DriveNew Smyrna Beach, FL 32169

VOMA Membership

Agency Members: Would like your agency contact information listed on the VOMA web page? Yes No