The Mediation Service in Norway began in the 1970s-80s due to debates around criminal policy and child welfare. It aims to give parties an opportunity to resolve issues themselves and find agreements. Mediation involves a neutral mediator facilitating discussion between parties. Cases often involve criminal offenses, civil disputes, or neighborhood conflicts. Agreements are reached in around 89% of cases. Mediators are volunteers from the community who receive training. Conferencing brings together networks affected by an offense to address harms and obligations.

1. The Mediation Service in Norway
Iren Sørfjordmo, Head of Office, Mediation Service Sør-Trøndelag
Tallinn, Estonia, October 2012

2. Presentation content
 Introduction
 History
 Goals
 Organisation
 Mediation practice
 Methods
 Experiences
 Examples
 Statistics
 Projects

3. The start
 The mediation and reconciliation service in Norway is a
product of the debates of the 1970s and 1980s
concerning criminal policy, but also the child welfare
service.
 Professor Nils Christie
- Conflicts as Property, 1976
- Professionals, mainly legal experts steeling the conflicts from
their rightful owners, i.e. the people
- The vicitims’ and the offenders’ rights to their own conflicts
should be restored
- Conflicts represent a potential for activity, learning and
participation

4. History
 White paper on criminal policy in 1977 – how to prevent young
offenders from beeing imprisoned
 Director of Public Prosecutions asks the question whether the
traditional criminal legislation is adapted to young offenders
 Project in Buskerud ”Alternative to imprisonment of young
offenders”
 1988: Director of Public Prosecutions suggests that mediation
should be regulated by law
 Act on mediation 15. mars 1991
 1th of January 2004 – Mediation Service is organised as part of
the state, placed under the Ministry of Police and Justice

5. The Mediation Services as part of the
Justice System
Ministry of Justice and the Police
Department
of Civil Affairs
National Mediation Service
(directorate/central
administration)

6. The task according to the Act (1991)
 The Mediation Service shall mediate in disputes which
arise as a result of one or more persons causing loss or
damage or other offences against a third party.
 Opens for both criminal cases and civil cases
 All kinds of civil cases

7. It is laid down in the Act and the
Regulations that
 The central government is responsible for and
covers the expenses of the (National) Mediation
Service offices
 The Mediation Service is organized into three
levels;
- the Mediation Service offices at the local level
- the National Mediation Service at the central level
- the Ministry of Justice as the superior responsible body

8. Objectives
 Give the parties themselves an opportunity to take part
in resolving the issue
 Find solutions and agreements between the parties
 Offer a fast reaction to crime and conflicts
 Prevent re-offending
 Giving both the victim and the offender a role

9. Why mediation?
 Conflicts is a part of human society and mediation is a
good way to handle it
 A negative conflict can be turned into a positive social
force (Christie)
 Reducing the use of punitive efforts in criminal cases
 Positive effects for victims
 Building civil structures in society in coping with conflicts
and crime
 For politics and bureaucrats:
 Reducing the caseload for the court system
 Reducing costs

10. Professional responsibility
 Training of mediators
 Careful selection of suitable mediators
 Training programmes with certified trainers
 Continuous evaluation and discussion in the service
 Training for new methods
 Conferencing
 Training for trainers
 Other types of courses
 Coaching
 Conflict management
 Peer mediation

11. How can cases be referred to the
Mediation Service?
 Alternative to other criminal prosecution
 Supplement to other sanctions
 Part of a sentence with community service
 Condition in a suspended sentence
 Civil case as a supplement to a criminal case
 Civil case

12. Phases in mediation
1 Introduction
2 What happened? Past
What were you thinking?
What were you feeling?
3 What do you think now?
Who has been affected? Presence
4 Do you have any suggestions for a
solution?
What do you need to do now? Future
5 Agreement

13. The lay mediators
 Public duty, appointed for 4 years
 Minimum age 18 years
 Based in the community
 Knowledge of local society
 Have some idealistic reasons for being a mediator
 Personal suitable to be a mediator is the most important
 Key words: facilitator of process, impartiality, open-minded,
empathy
 No demands for academic or other formal competence
 The group of mediators should reflect the society
 Age, Education, Experience, Religion, Ethnic origin
 Training and guidance from administration

14. A mediatior
Mohammed Jawari, former mediator and now speaker in
Parlament back in his homeland Somalia

15. Involvement from Police

16. Cases and results 2011
 8271 cases
 About 50% criminal cases and 50% civil cases
 80% of cases from police and prosecution authority
 Agreements in abt. 89% of cases
 Abt 96 % of the agreements are fulfilled
 42 % of the offenders are under the age of 18

17. Types of cases - 2011
Type of cases
Other offences
Other conflicts 337 Shoplifting
601 4% 928
7% 11% Other petty thef
274
Family conflicts 3%
431
Aggravated theft
5%
283
3%
Neighbourhood conflicts Vehicle theft
60 77
1% s 1%
Serial offence
60
Vandalism
1%
1045
13%
Economic offences
695 Burglery
8% 106
1%
Threats/bullying
1081
13%
Violence
1795
23%

18. Mediation Services – Age of offender

19. Results of mediation

20. About Restorative Justice and Conferensing

21. Restorative Justice
 Definition
 Restorative Justice is a process whereby parties eith a stake in
a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the
aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.
 (Tony Marshall ”Restorative Justice: an overview” 1999)
 Restorative justice is the umbrella covering a range of
methods and tools.
 Restorative justice is not a method itself but more a way of
thinking which looks at the crime more as a conflict than a
breach of law.

22. Two different views
(H. Zehr ”Restorative Justice”)
Criminal justice Restorative Justice
Crime is a violation of the law and the Crime is a violation of people and
state relationsships
Violations create guilt Violations create obligations
Justice requires the state to determine Justice involves victims, offenders and
blame (guilt) and impose pain community members in an effort to put
(punishment) things right
Central focus: Central focus:
Offenders getting what they deserve Victim needs and offenders responsibility
for repairing harm

23. Three different questions (H. Zehr ”Restorative Justice”)
Criminal justice Restorative Justice
What laws have been broken? Who has been hurt?
Who did it? What are their needs?
What do they deserve? Whose obligations are these?

24. Mediation and conferencing
Mediation
 Two or more parties (with support person, parents)
Conferencing
 Script based on specific questions in a specific order
 Affected parties involved
 Network involved

25. Key elements in Restorative Justice
Three pillars of restorative justice
Harms and needs Obligations Engagement

26. Key questions in Restorative Justice
1. What happened?
2. What were you thinking?
3. What were you feeling?
4. Who has been affected?
5. What do you need to do now?

27. Who might the participants be?
 Persons that are related to the parties and affected by
the incident (direct or indirect)
 Persons in local communities that may support the
parties.
 Persons that the parties want to be presence in the
conference.
 Possible participants
 familiy, neighbours, colleges, football trainers …
 police, child care, health workers, teachers …

28. RJ implies that:
 Perspectives to both offender and victim are considered
 All parties are responsible in resolving the case
 Affected parties are included
 Network is included

29. Mediation versus conferencing
 Common
 Both methods give an opportunity for dialogue between parties
with an impartial facilitator present.
 Both methods gives the offender and the victim an opportunity
to handle a conflict or a criminal act.
 There is no difference between mediation and conferencing
regarding types of cases
 Conferencing allows in addition:
 A possibility to include persons that are important in resolving
the case
 Show consequenses of actions
 Strenghten the network around the parties
 The script ensures that the hole group is included in the process
 The parties decide whether mediation or conferencing is
the most appropriate method in a case.

30. Benefits with Restorative Justice
 Volunteer for all parties
 Handling conflicts at a low level
 Both the offender and the victim has a role
 Predictability
 Increased understanding of consequences of actions
 Increased safety for the victim
 Restoring relations
 Ownership to the solution and agreement
 EMPOWERMENT
 Accountability of networks and communities
 Economically efficient
 Crime prevention

31. Separate projects
 Juvenile Conferencing
 Juvenile Sanction
 Tolerance and Conflict solution in a multicultural society
 International training
 Peer mediation
 Domestic violence

32. Juvenile Conferencing and follow-up
 Conferencing applied systematically for juveniles,
including follow-up (contract)
 Started in Sør-Trøndelag as a pilot project in 2006
 Gain; All experts are meeting at the same time with the
young one.
 Representatives from central institutions like police,
child care service, school, youth field-workers –and
family/private network.
 Creates a comprehensive plan; clear agreements on job-
shearing between the professionals towards the juvenile,
and the juvenile has a say in the planning, and must
actively take responsibility.
 The police has realised that paying attention to the
victim is also a positive asset in the rehabilitation work
with the offender.

33. Juvenile Conferencing
En unik plattform for tverrfaglig samarbeid
A unique platform for Interdiciplinary cooperation

34. Juvenile Conferencing
4 local projects 2005 – 2007
 The follow-up-teams hit the target
group
A high-risk group of young people who
has a history of non-profitting on
intervention/helping-meassures
 Recedive – results are good
More than 55 % have no breaches of
law or individually tailored conditions
after being taken into a follow-up team

35. International training
Russian mediators – Arkhangelsk 2011

36. Award from the Royal fund

37. Thank you for your atttention!