December 2020

Research on Restorative Practices

Bailey Maryfield, M.S., Roger Przybylski, M.S., and Mark Myrent, M.A.

Introduction tional ways to hold offenders accountable while also addressing the needs of victims. The information also This research brief is the first in a series of reports on can help researchers identify pressing needs for future the concept, application and effectiveness of restor- inquiry, particularly with regard to specific restorative ative justice practices in criminal and juvenile justice. justice applications and their effectiveness across a It describes the overall premise of , range of victim, offender and system outcomes. defines the prominent restorative justice approaches being used in the justice system today, and summa- What is Restorative Justice? rizes findings from contemporary synthesis research on the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing Restorative justice practices in the criminal and ju- and promoting other positive outcomes venile justice systems are based on the premise that for offenders and victims. Future reports in the series is a violation of people and of interpersonal will take deeper dives into real-world applications of relationships and therefore it is important to remedy restorative justice as well as research findings on the the harm caused by a criminal act (Przybylski, 2008; effectiveness of specific restorative justice approach- Latimer et al., 2001). “To be fully accountable, offend- es. ers need to acknowledge their behavior was harmful to others and take action to repair that harm to the Information presented in this research brief is in- fullest extent possible” (Przybylski, 2008, p. 72). Re- tended to promote a more in-depth and up-to-date storative justice approaches provide a mechanism for understanding of restorative justice and its effec- doing so through processes such as: tiveness. Given the growing interest in offender diversion and alternatives to incarceration across the • Victim-offender country, information on restorative justice practices • Victim-offender dialogue and research arguably has value for a wide audience, • Restorative justice conferencing including policy makers, program developers and • Reparative boards researchers. Indeed, the use of restorative justice, the • Victim impact panels types of practices found in the field and the stages of • Peacemaking circles the justice system in which are • Apology banks used have expanded significantly in recent years. The knowledge base about the effectiveness of restorative of Restorative Justice justice has become more robust, too. While many of the values and principles of restorative Information on the various restorative justice practices justice can be traced to indigenous cultures (Umbre- that are now available, how they are used in criminal it & Greenwood, 2000), restorative justice practice and juvenile justice, and the empirical on in the justice system arguably first emerged in 1974 their effectiveness can help policy makers and pro- in Canada in a vandalism case in Kitchener, Ontario gram developers identify and adopt restorative prac- (Wright & Galaway, 1989). Often referred to as the tices that help meet the need for effective, non-tradi- Kitchener Experiment, the perpetrators of the crime

This project was supported by Grant No. 2018-86-CX-K038 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices were required to meet with their victims and pay example, only fourteen codified the term re- , rather than undergo traditional pro- storative justice” (González, 2020, p. 1029). By 2015, cessing. Over the next two decades, a number of small at least 34 states had passed promoting the scale, experimental programs modeled on the Kitchen- use of restorative justice practices in their juvenile or er Experiment were implemented in jurisdictions both adult systems (Sliva & Lambert 2015). in Canada and the U.S., primarily for use with first- By 2019, forty-five states had “codified restorative jus- time offenders involved in . By the mid- tice into statutory or regulatory ” (Gonzales, 2020, 1990s, the American Association had endorsed p. 1031). As jurisdictions across the U.S. continue to the practice of victim-offender mediation (Umbreit & look for diversion practices and alternatives to incar- Greenwood, 2000), and the National Organization for ceration that hold offenders accountable, meet the Victim Assistance (NOVA) had published a report titled needs of victims, and promote public safety, restor- Restorative Community Justice: A Call to Action, both ative justice practices are likely to become even more of which promoted the expansion of restorative justice mainstream than they are today. practices in justice and other settings (Armour, n.d.). Originally used primarily in the juvenile justice system It is important to note that the emergence of the with first time offenders accused of minor crimes,- re restorative justice movement coincided with the storative justice programs are now increasingly being emergence and growth of the victim’s move- used in the adult criminal justice system as a diver- ment (Armour, n.d.), and particularly the call for greater sion from prosecution or alternative to incarceration involvement of victims in justice system processes. As for more serious offenders. Since restorative justice the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of practices focus on the restoration of harms rather than Crime’s (OVC) 2000 report focused on the restorative on or retribution, they provide a mecha- practice of victim-offender mediation stated: “It seeks nism for holding offenders accountable while reducing more balanced and effective juvenile and criminal reliance on incarceration and the potential for the justice systems that recognize the need to involve and negative collateral consequences that can accompany serve victims and victimized communities” (Umbreit a criminal or time behind bars. & Greenwood, 2000, p. IX). Current federal regula- tions allow for OVC funding to be used to support Restorative justice practices also are being used as a restorative justice programs. Ultimately, each state supplement to conventional offender processing, even administering agency (SAA) maintains the to with offenders convicted of serious crimes. Victim-of- determine what restorative justice activities it wishes fender dialog, for example, is being used post-con- to fund and has the responsibility of monitoring and viction – typically in settings – with offenders overseeing the program (See 28 C.F.R. 94.120(g)). convicted of crimes such as murder or serious assault. These types of restorative justice applications are Indeed, the victim-centered approach that character- always victim-initiated and require the involvement of izes restorative justice can help better meet the needs specialized facilitators. Experimental approaches have of victims and strengthen ties between the offender also recently emerged in and child and others – including the community – thereby pro- welfare settings. Indeed, a range of restorative justice moting desistance from crime for participating offend- applications are now being used not only in the justice ers and increased satisfaction with the justice system system, but also in school and community settings for participating victims. (Armour, n.d.).

While restorative justice programs have been in exis- The next section of this report describes the most tence for decades, their use has expanded significantly common restorative justice applications being used in in recent years. As a mechanism for repairing harm, criminal and juvenile justice today, including victim-of- addressing the needs of victims and communities, and fender mediation, victim-offender dialogue, restorative promoting offender accountability and desistance from justice conferencing, reparative boards, victim impact crime, restorative justice has grown from an experi- panels, peacemaking circles, and apology banks. It is mental practice in the 1970s to a valuable component important to note that for each of these applications, of criminal and juvenile practice in virtually every participation is completely voluntary for victims, but state today (González, 2020). “From 1990 to 2000, for not always so for offenders.

2 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices

Common Applications Being Used in and completely trained in facilitating such cases (JUST Criminal and Juvenile Justice Alternatives website, 2020). Cases of murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, , and other such deeply traumatizing crimes are among the Victim-Offender Mediation many that have been successfully facilitated. Cases in which the offender acted in severely psychopathic or Victim-offender mediation (VOM) programs provide sadistic ways require facilitators with special training, victims of crimes the opportunity to “meet as do cases involving domestic assault, sexual assault, offenders in a safe, structured setting and engage in a and sexual exploitation. mediated discussion of the crime” (Bazemore & Umb- reit, 2001, p. 2). Another key difference between VOD and VOM is that agreement or reconciliation is not sought out unless The goal is “to hold offenders directly accountable middle ground is explicitly what the victim desires. Vic- while providing important support and assistance to tim-Centered VOD is intended to provide victims/sur- victims. With the assistance of trained mediators, the vivors with a chance to be fully and directly heard by victims are able to let the offenders know how the the offender. If they fully and sincerely wish to forgive crime affected them, receive answers to their ques- or reconcile with the offender in some way, facilitators tions, and be directly involved in developing a restitu- can help enable that possibility, but properly trained tion plan that holds the offenders financially account- VOD facilitators never initiate or impose any sort able for the losses they caused. The offenders are of expectations about or reconciliation directly responsible for their behavior and therefore (Crocker et al., n.d.). must learn the full impact of what they did and devel- op a plan for making amends, to the degree possible, Restorative Justice Conferencing to the persons they violated. Offenders’ failure to complete the restitution agreement results in further Restorative justice conferencing, also called family court-imposed consequences.” (Umbreit & Green- group conferencing, involves the community of people wood, 2000). most affected by the crime—the victim and the offend- er and the family, friends, and key supporters of both— VOM often focuses on material restitution as opposed in deciding the resolution of a criminal or delinquent to emotional restoration or reconciliation (Umbreit act (Umbreit, 2000). The facilitator contacts the victim et al., 1994). Supporters are involved for some VOM and offender to explain the process and invite them to meetings, but these meetings might only include the the conference; the facilitator also asks them to iden- victim, offender, and mediator (Strang et al., 2013). tify key members of their support systems who will be invited to participate as well. Participation by all Victim-Offender Dialogue involved is voluntary. The offender must admit to the offense to participate. The parties affected are brought While much of the literature uses the terms Vic- together by a trained facilitator to discuss how they tim-Offender Mediation (VOM) and Victim-Offender and others have been harmed by the offense and how Dialogue (VOD) interchangeably, they differ in key that harm might be repaired. ways. Unlike VOM, VOD is geared towards correc- tions-based victim services, and it may be used with The conference typically begins with the offender victimizations involving crimes of severe violence. describing the incident, followed by each participant VOD is a confidential process, initiated only by crime describing the impact of the incident on his or her life. victims, consisting of a one-time direct dialogue Through these narrations, the offender is faced with between the victim and the offender overseen by the human impact of his or her behavior on the victim, experienced facilitators. VOD is designed to restore on those close to the victim, and on the offender’s a victim’s sense of choice and control (Crocker et al., own family and friends. The victim has the opportu- n.d., p. 4). nity to express feelings and ask questions about the offense. All participants may contribute to the process VOD can be appropriate for a number of violent of determining how the offender might best repair the crimes and violations — so long as the methodology is harm he or she has caused. “The session ends with strongly victim-centered, and the facilitator is correctly

3 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices participants signing an agreement outlining their ex- prepared to perform the critically important role of pectations and commitments” (Umbreit, 2000, p.2). screening victims to ensure they are sufficiently healed from their victimization experience not to be re-trau- Reparative Boards matized by participating in the panel.

Reparative boards, often referred to as community Peacemaking Circles reparative boards, are a practice used primarily with offenders convicted of nonviolent and minor offenses. Circles have a wide array of uses and purposes both Boards are typically “composed of a small group of in and out of the criminal and juvenile justice systems. citizens, prepared for their function by intensive train- They can be used as a practice in schools and commu- ing, who conduct public, face-to-face meetings with nities for building relationships and changing commu- offenders ordered by the court to participate” (Baze- nity cultures as well as a community-directed process, more & Umbreit, 2000, p. 3). Board members develop conducted in partnership with the justice system, to proposed sanctions which are then discussed with and develop consensus on an appropriate plan that ad- approved by the offender. “After a designated time dresses the concerns of all those affected by a crime. period, the board then delivers a report to the court Talking circles, peacemaking circles, or healing circles, regarding offender progress toward fulfilling these as they are variously called, are deeply rooted in the sanctions” (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2000, p. 3). traditional practices of indigenous people (Umbreit, 2003). In North America, they are widely used among Victim Impact Panels the people of Canada and among the many tribes of Native Americans in the U.S. Healing Victim impact panels provide a forum for crime vic- circles take a variety of forms (Mehl-Madrona, 2010), tims to tell a group of offenders about the impact of but most basically, members sit in a circle to consider a the crime on their lives and on the lives of their fam- problem or a question. ilies, friends, and neighbors. Panels typically involve three or four victim speakers, each of whom spends Circles use traditional circle ritual and structure to about 15 minutes telling their story in a nonjudgmen- involve the victim, victim supporters, the offender, tal, non-blaming manner. The offenders of the victim offender supporters, justice personnel, , and all presenters are not present. While some time is usually interested community members. Within the circle, dedicated to questions and answers, the purpose of people can speak from the heart in a shared search for the panel is for the victims to speak, rather than for understanding of the event, and together identify the the victims and offenders to engage in a dialogue. steps necessary to assist in healing all affected parties Victim impact panels were first initiated in 1982 by and prevent future crimes. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Circles are used for adult and juvenile offenders with As a result of positive feedback from both victims and a variety of offenses and have been used in both rural offenders who have participated in drunk driving pan- and urban settings. Specifics of the circle process els, this strategy has been used with other crimes such vary from community to community and are designed as property crimes, physical assault, domestic violence, locally to fit community needs and culture. Circles are child abuse, elder abuse, and homicide (the survivors facilitated by a trained keeper. Because communities serve as panelists). Attendance by offenders at a panel vary in health and in their capacity to deal construc- is often court-ordered in juvenile and criminal cas- tively with conflict, a sufficient amount of training es, either at diversion or accompanying a must be completed before using circles as a way of . Panels have also been used in prison and jail resolving conflict. settings, with parolees, and in treatment programs, de- fensive driving schools, and youth programs. Apology Banks

Victim service organizations either implement the Apology banks are systems that facilitate victims of program for the court, or work in collaboration with crime voluntarily receiving apology letters from “the justice personnel to conduct panels. Whatever the convicted defendant in their case who is in a state structure, victim service agencies are usually best prison or on community supervision” (Pavelka & Sey-

4 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices mour, 2019, p. 43). These systems can help victims wondering if their offenders have taken responsibility Today, systematic reviews typically incorporate a for the crime and/or have a desire to express regret statistical procedure called meta-analysis to synthe- for the impact of their actions. Unlike the other restor- size findings from multiple studies in an objective and ative justice practices described in this report, apology quantitative manner. “In practice, meta-analysis com- banks do not involve direct contact between crime bines the results of many into one large victims and offenders or facilitate a dialogue between study with many subjects. This is important, because them (Pavelka & Seymour 2019). single studies based on a small number of subjects can produce distorted findings about a program’s effec- Research on the Effectiveness of Restor- tiveness” (Przybylski, 2008, pp. 13-14).2 In addition, meta-analysis focuses on the direction and magnitude ative Justice of effects found across studies, and it produces a summary statistic called the average effect size.3 This Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of restorative statistic essentially indicates in a quantitative manner justice comes from two broad categories of research: whether and to what degree the intervention is effec- single studies and synthesis research. In this context, tive at producing a particular outcome, such as reduc- single studies are discrete, individual evaluations of ing recidivism. one or more restorative justice program or practice implementations. Each single study is conducted sep- Several systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) arately from the rest. Synthesis research is fundamen- examining the effectiveness of restorative justice tally different. It attempts to examine all or many single practices have been conducted in recent years. The studies on the effectiveness of restorative justice or a key characteristics of these studies, and the findings particular type of restorative justice application (e.g., these studies produced for both victim and offender victim-offender mediation) to arrive at an overall, gen- outcomes are presented below. eralizable conclusion about effectiveness.

Contemporary synthesis research is typically carried Findings from Systematic Reviews and out using a process known in the research communi- Meta-Analyses ty as a systematic review. A systematic review uses a pre-established protocol to 1) identify numerous single Synthesis research on restorative justice programs studies on the topic of interest; 2) assess each study’s began to emerge in the late 1990s and early 2000s. methodology and scientific rigor; 3) guide decision For example, Nugent and his colleagues reviewed making about which studies will be included in the the recidivism reduction results of fours studies of review1; and 4) synthesize findings from all single stud- victim-offender mediation (VOM) programs for juve- ies included in the review to arrive at an overall con- nile offenders conducted in the 1990s (Nugent et al., clusion about the program’s effectiveness. “Properly 1999). Overall, the four studies produced a combined executed, a systematic review produces a comprehen- sample of 619 juvenile offenders who participated in a sive summary of the scientific evidence on a particular VOM program and 679 who did not. The researchers topic, such as whether or not an intervention is effec- found that participation in VOM reduced recidivism by tive in reducing recidivism” (Przybylski, 2008, p. 13). 32%. Based on a 1-year follow-up period, VOM partic-

¹ ”Methodological quality considerations are a standard feature of most systematic reviews, and review protocols common- ly exclude studies from further analysis that fail to reach a specified standard of scientific rigor” (Przybylski, 2008; p. 13). Single studies included in the analysis may also be weighted based on their research design and other factors reflecting scientific rigor.

2 By pooling the original studies, meta-analysis counteracts a common methodological problem in research ― small sample size ― thereby helping the analyst draw more accurate and generalizable conclusions about an intervention’s effects” (Przybylski, 2008; p. 13-14). See, for example, Lipsey (2002).

3 An effect size can be calculated in a number of ways. See, for example, Lipsey and Wilson (2001). The odds-ratio effect size is commonly calculated when the outcome of interest is measured dichotomously. The mean difference effect size is commonly calculated when the outcome of interest is measured continuously.

5 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices ipants had a recidivism rate of 19% compared to 28% average by 7%. A notable aspect of the study was an for their comparison group counterparts. analysis of factors that mediated program success, including the program setting and the risk level of the A 2005 meta-analysis of 19 studies involving 11,950 participant offender. Key findings included: juvenile offenders conducted by Bradshaw and Rose- borough also found that restorative justice practices • Programs operating in a non-coercive environ- reduced recidivism for participating offenders. The ment and that attempt to involve victims and studies in the meta-analysis focused on victim-offend- community members had the largest recidivism er mediation and family group conferencing programs, reduction effects. Additionally, there was -evi and the researchers found that they contributed to a dence to suggest that restorative justice pro- 26% reduction in recidivism for participating juvenile grams delivered in coercive environments (i.e., offenders (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). court-ordered) had no impact on recidivism.

A second meta-analysis was published in 2005 by • Restorative justice programs appear to be Latimer et al., and included 22 studies that examined more effective at reducing recidivism for low- the effectiveness of 35 restorative justice programs risk offenders than for high-risk offenders. If that met the following definition: “a voluntary, commu- restorative practices are used with high-risk nity-based response to criminal behavior that attempts offenders, treatment may be required in con- to bring together the victim, the offender, and the junction with restorative practices to achieve community, in an effort to address the harm caused reductions in recidivism (Bonta et al., 2006). by the criminal behavior” (Latimer et al., 2005, p. 131). The researchers found that offenders who participated Strang and her colleagues’ systematic review and me- in restorative processes had significantly lower recid- ta-analysis of ten independent evaluations of restor- ivism rates, higher restitution compliance rates, and ative justice conferencing is particularly noteworthy higher levels of satisfaction with the process compared because of both its methods and findings (Strang et al., to their counterparts who experienced traditional 2013). justice system processing. Victims who participat- ed in restorative processes also were more satisfied All ten studies included in the analysis were ran- compared to those who participated in the traditional domized control . The ten studies produced an justice system. overall sample of 1,879 offenders and 734 victims, all of whom consented to participate in the restorative A 2006 meta-analysis by Bonta et al. examined 39 justice conferencing program prior to random assign- studies assessing the recidivism reduction effects of a ment. While all 10 studies focused on restorative range of restorative justice practices, “broadly defined justice conferencing, there were variations in program as any intervention that attempts to repair the harm focus and setting (Strang et al., 2013). For example, caused by the offender to the victim or the com- some of the conferencing programs studied were munity” (Bonta et al., 2006, p. 113). These included offered as an alternative to prosecution, while others victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, were a supplement to prosecution, including programs community forums, and court-imposed restitution used post-sentencing, in probation, and in prison or community service programs. Roughly 6 out of 10 settings. There also were variations regarding the programs in the analysis included elements of vic- crime type targeted by the program and age of offend- tim-offender mediation or reconciliation, while about er eligible for the program. Programs in the analysis 8 out of 10 programs included elements of restitution targeted both juvenile and adult offenders, and both and community service. Only 25% included elements property and violent crime. Recidivism outcomes for of family group conferencing. Offenders participating offenders and several outcomes for victims were -ex in these programs were mostly low-risk male youth. amined as part of the analysis. The study also included Across the 39 studies, 75% of the total sample consist- a cost-benefit component. ed of juveniles and 25% consisted of adults. Findings indicated that restorative justice confer- Overall, the researchers found that the restorative encing reduced subsequent for offender justice practices in the analysis reduced recidivism on participants two years post-random assignment from

6 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices

7%–45% (Strang et al., 2013).4 Only minor differenc- police discretion and the process underlying these po- es in effects were found between adult and juvenile lice decisions was unknown (Livingstone et al., 2013). offenders. Slightly larger recidivism reductions were found for adults compared to juveniles, contradicting Wong et al.’s subsequent meta-analysis published in a belief held by many that restorative justice is more 2016 continued to demonstrate the promise of re- appropriate for juvenile offenders. storative justice, while also shedding light on certain factors that moderated program results (Wong et al., Positive outcomes also were found for several mea- 2016). The analysis examined recidivism outcomes sures of victim impact, including victims’ satisfaction drawn from 21 independent evaluations of restorative with the handling of their cases; material restoration; justice diversion programs producing an overall sam- emotional restoration, and the reduction of post-trau- ple of 5,209 treatment group participants and 13,049 matic stress symptoms. comparison group youth, each predominantly 12 to 18 years of age. The study was designed “to provide The researchers also estimated that the programs a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of restorative studied produced “eight times more benefit in costs diversion programs for youth, consider strategies that of crimes prevented than the cost of delivering restor- are most effective in reducing recidivism, and identify ative justice” (Strang et al., 2013, p.2). These findings which variables play a role in moderating outcome led Strang and her colleagues to conclude that “on effects” (Wong et al., 2016, p. 4). average, restorative justice cause a modest but highly cost-effective reduction in repeat offending, with sub- Overall, Wong and her colleagues found a statistically stantial benefits for victims” (Strang et al., 2013). significant overall log odds ratio of 0.248, suggesting that restorative diversion programs reduced recid- Findings from another systematic review published in ivism for youth participants.5 The researchers also 2013 by Livingstone, et al. that also focused on restor- found substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes of ative justice conferencing contradicted those from the the programs studied. The type of research design Strang et al. analysis, but the results from this review employed as well as the study’s sample size and racial/ should be interpreted with caution because they are ethnic composition were found to moderate recidivism based on outcomes from only four studies, and each reduction effects. Studies employing more rigorous had methodological shortcomings (Livingstone et al., research designs found weaker recidivism reduction 2013). They reviewed four evaluations of restorative effects. justice conferencing programs that included an overall sample of 1,447 young offenders, ages 7 to 21. The The researchers identified “only one characteristic of researchers found that restorative justice conferencing treatment that had an influence on the effects report- had no greater effects on offender recidivism or victim ed in evaluation studies: ethnic composition of the satisfaction with the process, nor on the recognition of sample” (Wong, et al., 2016, p. 14). Restorative justice wrongdoing by the offending youth who participated diversion programs “serving a predominantly Cauca- in these programs than traditional court processing. sian sample of at-risk youths” produced a significant Again, these results should be interpreted cautiously recidivism reduction effect, while those “serving sam- due to the small number of studies in the analysis and ples that were predominantly ethnic minorities or a their quality. While all four studies in the analysis were mix” (Wong, et al., 2016, p. 14) did not. While it is dif- randomized control trials (RCTs), each suffered high ficult to determine whether these outcome differences levels of attrition and were subject to selection were the result of the program or external factors, the not only due to the voluntary nature of participation study’s findings underscore the importance of con- but also because offenders entered the programs at ducting research on factors that moderate the success

4 In one study, a new was used as the outcome measure rather than a new conviction.

5 “Effect sizes were calculated as log odds ratios (ORs). An OR compares two groups in terms of the relative odds of an event—in this case, a measure of crime such as arrest, contact with police, or a new offense. ORs are centered on 1 (rather than zero), with 1 indicating no relationship between treatment and outcome—in other words, recidivism is equally likely to occur in both groups. Studies were coded such that values… greater than 1 indicate a beneficial effect of treatment (i.e., treatment group participants are less likely to recidivate)” (Wong, J. et al. [2016], p. 6).

7 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices of restorative justice applications. than one type of restorative practice.

Based on their findings, the researchers concluded The meta-analysis examined an array of outcomes for that “restorative approaches are a promising way to offenders (youth aged 18 or under) and victim pro- combat recidivism among youth and should contin- gram participants. These include recidivism reduction, ue to be implemented and evaluated” (Wong, et al., restitution compliance and other of harms 2016, p. 15). However, findings from their moderator for offenders; participant satisfaction and perceptions analyses make it difficult to draw a straightforward of fairness for both victims and offenders; and juvenile conclusion about restorative justice, indicating a need justice system costs. Only RCTs and quasi-experiments for more restorative justice research using rigorous -re exhibiting general treatment and comparison group search designs. Studies of restorative justice programs equivalency were included in the analysis.6 Overall that target youths of diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds effects were examined along with effects for various and that document important program (e.g., parent program types. involvement) and methodological factors (e.g., length of follow-up) that attenuate restorative justice effects Similar to the recidivism reduction findings from the are particularly needed. Wong et al. meta-analysis, Wilson and colleagues found a statistically significant recidivism reduction Most recently, in 2017, Wilson et al. conducted a mean difference effect size of 0.23 overall, suggesting meta-analysis based on 60 studies involving 84 dis- that youths who participated in restorative justice tinct evaluations that examined the effectiveness of programs had lower rates of recidivism compared with restorative justice principles in juvenile justice (Wilson youths who went through traditional court processing et al., 2017). The analysis included “programs that are (Wilson et al., 2017).7 However, these results were solely based on restorative justice principles, as well as less robust in the studies using random assignment. programs that implemented one or more restorative The researchers also found that offenders participat- justice feature” (Wilson et al., 2017, p. 5). Overall, the ing in restorative justice programs had “less supportive programs in the analysis were very diverse with the attitudes toward delinquent behaviors,” (Wilson et majority involving “some form of meeting between the al., 2017, p. 38) higher levels of satisfaction with the youth who committed the delinquent act and a victim process, and perceptions that the outcome of their or other community representative” (Wilson et al., case was fairer than their traditional court processing 2017, p. 5). counterparts had.

More than half (56%) of the studies in the analysis Findings regarding recidivism reduction varied across assessed programs that are “explicitly” restorative program types. Cautioning and diversion programs in nature (Wilson et al., 2017, p. 56). Most involved were found to have the largest recidivism reduction ef- victim-offender conferencing, with a smaller percent- fects.8 While the results for these program types were age involving family group conferencing, / based on only four studies, Wilson and colleagues con- mediation, impact panels or reparative boards, or cluded that “(t)he evidence suggests that cautioning circle sentencing. The rest of the studies in the analy- and diversion are effective alternatives to more formal sis examined programs “consistent in some way with processing of youth engaged in delinquent behavior” a restorative justice principle” (Wilson et al., 2017, p. (Wilson et al., 2017, p. 32). Promising, but inconclusive 56), including restitution, , and cautioning/ findings regarding recidivism reduction were reported diversion programs, as well as those providing more for victim-offender conferencing, family group confer-

6 For example, studies with a comparison group consisting of offenders who refused to participate in the program were excluded from the analysis.

7 As noted earlier, an effect size can be calculated in a number of ways. While an odds-ratio effect size is commonly calcu- lated when the outcome of interest is measured dichotomously (e.g., yes/no), a mean difference effect size is commonly calculated when the outcome of interest is measured continuously (e.g., age).

8 Both program types are diversionary in nature. Cautioning programs typically involve a formal caution of the offender by the police, with subsequent diversion from further juvenile justice system processing.

8 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices encing, and programs providing more than one type of Summary restorative justice practice. The recidivism reduction effects found for arbitration/ mediation, impact panels Restorative justice practices take many different forms and reparative boards, circle sentencing, restitution, in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. They help and teen court programs were small and not statisti- to address the desire to do more than simply punish cally significant, though the evidence regarding these offenders for crimes committed and to do more to programs also was too equivocal to support a defini- address the needs of the victim. These practices have tive conclusion regarding recidivism reduction effects. a primary focus on the victim but have been shown to Another finding worth noting is that conferencing and have positive results for offenders as well. mediation programs that included a pre-conference or pre-mediation meeting had better recidivism reduction Synthesis research on restorative justice practices has outcomes than those that lacked this program ele- focused on two primary sets of outcomes: recidivism ment. for offenders and outcomes for victims such as satis- faction and restoration. Results are promising for both, Victims participating in the restorative justice pro- regardless of whether the program targets juvenile or grams analyzed also were found to experience a adult offenders, or low-level or serious (even violent) number of benefits. Overall, victims had improved crimes. perceptions of fairness and improved attitudes toward the juvenile participant, including a greater willingness These findings, however, may be attenuated by pro- to provide forgiveness to the juvenile offender. Victims grammatic and methodological factors, such as pro- also were more likely to feel that the overall outcome gram type and setting, and the scientific rigor of the of the program was just, and they were more satis- evaluations included in the synthesis research. Indeed, fied with restorative justice programs than traditional positive victim and offender outcomes observed to approaches to juvenile justice (Wilson et al., 2017). date tend to be characterized by heterogeneity across These positive victim outcomes, however, were atten- program types, and positive outcomes for victims and uated when study quality was taken into account, with offenders tend to be less robust when only the most the most rigorous studies in the analysis producing the scientifically rigorous studies are examined. Addition- least positive effects. No improvements in the emo- ally, self-selection bias is always a factor when exam- tional well-being of victims were found overall. ining the effectiveness of these practices — that is, offenders who voluntarily agree to participate in the Overall, Wilson and his colleagues concluded that the programs are potentially already less likely to reoffend. evidence concerning restorative justice is generally positive and promising, and that “continued use of Findings from the recent meta-analyses conducted by these programs and practices is warranted, but that Wong et al. and Wilson et al. are particularly compel- more high quality, preferably RCTs that have been ling, as they have led the U.S. Department of Justice, registered with a registry, need to be conducted National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and Office of- Juve before stronger inferences can be drawn” Wilson et al., nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to 2017, p. 39). They went on to state: identify restorative justice programs for juveniles as a promising practice in their respective registries of These findings provide important support for many of evidence-based programs, NIJ’s CrimeSolutions.Gov the essential principles of restorative justice, primarily and OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide. Based on the ev- the centrality of the victim throughout the process, idence, restorative justice programs for juveniles were as well as a greater sense of satisfaction and fairness acknowledged to have a positive impact on crime compared to traditional approaches. These findings and delinquency, compliance with restitution and fine also lend credence to restorative justice as a mecha- payments, offender reparations for the harm caused by nism capable of achieving goals of the juvenile justice the offense, and victims’ perception of fairness of the system, primarily prosocial youth development, and justice system (CrimeSolutions.Gov website, 2020). the restoration of victims (Wilson et al., 2017, p. 39). While synthesis research on restorative justice practic- es has produced promising findings to date, more re- search and evaluation are needed to examine how and

9 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices why restorative justice practices are effective. Special CrimeSolutions.Gov website. accessed 11/4/2020 attention to the implementation of such practices is at https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/practicede- needed to further establish best practices across all tails?id=70&ID=70. applications. Additional research is particularly needed for applications outside of victim-offender mediation Crocker, M., Deichert, D., Ho, K., Koinis, S., Miner, K., and restorative justice conferencing. Furthermore, Newlin, L, Odom, M, Roche, M., Stanoscheck, L, & long-term victim and offender outcomes and cost-ef- Wilson, J. (n.d.). Victim-centered victim offender fectiveness should be integrated into more studies in dialogue in crimes of severe violence: 20 essential this area. principles for -based victim services. National Association of Victim Assistance in Correc- As jurisdictions across the U.S. continue to look for tions website for Victim-Centered Victim-Offender non-traditional ways to hold offenders accountable, Dialogue in Crimes of Severe Violence. Accessed meet the needs of victims, and promote public safety, 7/1/20 at https://www.navac.website/vod.html. the demand for trustworthy research and information on effective restorative justice applications will only González, T. (2020) The Legalization of Restorative increase. This research brief attempts to help meet Justice: A Fifty-State Empirical Analysis, Utah Law that demand by describing the overall premise of Review: Vol. 2019: No. 5, Article 3. restorative justice, defining the prominent restorative justice applications being used in the justice system Justia US Law website; accessed 11/2/2020 at https:// today, and summarizing findings from synthesis re- law.justia.com/codes/oregon/2015/volume-04/ search on the effectiveness of restorative justice in chapter-135/section-135.959/and https://law.justia. reducing recidivism and promoting other positive out- com/codes/west-virginia/2015/chapter-49/arti- comes for victims and offenders. Future briefs in this cle-4/section-49-4-725/ series will take deeper dives into real-world applica- tions of restorative justice as well as research findings JUST Alternatives website. accessed 7/6/20 at https:// on the effectiveness of specific restorative justice justalternatives.org/facilitated-victim-centered-vic- approaches. tim-offender-dialogue-what-it-is/.

References Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effec- tiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-anal- Armour, M. (n.d.). Restorative Justice: Some Facts and ysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144. History. for Compassion website; accessed 11/4/20 at https://charterforcompassion.org/restor- Livingstone, N., Macdonald, G., & Carr, N. (2013). Re ative-justice/restorative-justice-some-facts-and-his- storative Justice Conferencing for Reducing Recid- tory. ivism in Young Offenders (aged 7 to 21). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2(2): CD008898. Bazemore, G. & Umbreit, M. (2001). A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. Washington, Lipsey, M.W. (2002). Meta-analysis and program DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- outcome evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskirft, 9, vention. NCJ 184738. 194-208. (Translated.)

Bonta, J., Jesseman, R., Rugge, T. & Cormier, R. 2006. Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical Meta Restorative Justice and Recidivism: Promises Made, Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Promises Kept? In Sullivan, D. & Tifft, L. (eds.) Hand- book of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. Mehl-Madrona L. (2010) Healing the mind through the , UK: Routledge. pp. 108–120. power of story: the promise of narrative psychiatry. Rochester, VT: Bear & Company. Bradshaw, W., & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: The impact of mediation and con- Nugent, W. R., Umbreit, M. S., Wiinamaki, L., & Pad- ferencing on juvenile recidivism. Fed. Probation, dock, J. (1999). Participation in victim-offender me- 69(2), 15-21. diation reduces recidivism. VOMA Connections, no.

10 JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices

3 (Summer): 5, 10. Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Kalanj, B. (1994). Vic- tim meets offender: The impact of restorative justice Office of Victims of Crime website – accessed and mediation (pp. 53-64). Monsey, NY: Criminal 7/1/20 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/re- Justice Press. ports/96517-gdlines_victims-sens/guide4.html) Umbreit, M. S., & Greenwood, J. (2000). Guidelines for Pavelka, S. & Seymour, A. (2019). Guiding principles Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation:- Re and restorative practices for crime victims and survi- storative Justice Through Dialogue. U.S. Department vors. Corrections Today, January/February 2019, p. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for 43. Victims of Crime. NCJ 176346

Petrosino, A. & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic Wilson, D. B., Olaghere, A. & Kimbrell, C. S. (2017). reviews and metal-analytic best evidence on “what Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in works” for criminal justice decision makers. Western Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Review, 8, 1-15. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Przybylski, R. (2008). What Works, Effective Recid- Prevention. NCJ 250995. ivism Reduction and Risk-Focused Prevention Pro- grams: A Compendium of Evidence-Based Options Wong, J. S., Jessica Bouchard, Gravel, J., Bouchard, for Preventing New and Persistent Criminal Behav- M., & Morselli, C. (2016). “Can At-Risk Youth be Di- ior. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public verted from Crime? A Meta-Analysis of Restorative Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. Diversion Programs.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 43(10):1310–29. Sliva, S. M., & Lambert, C. G. (2015) Restorative Justice Legislation in the American States: A Stat- Wright, M. & Galaway, B. (1989) From Mediation and utory Analysis of Emerging Legal Doctrine, Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders and Communi- Journal of Policy Practice, 14:2, 77-95, DOI: ty. pp. 14-26. Sage Publications Ltd. London, EC2A 10.1080/15588742.2015.1017687 4PU, England. (NCJ-118327)

Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, Zehr, H. & Mika, H. (1997). Fundamental Concepts of D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative Justice Confer- Restorative Justice. Akron, : Mennonite encing using face-to-face meetings of offenders and Central Committee. victims: Effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Campbell System- atic Reviews, 9(1), 1-59.

Umbreit, M. (2000) Family Group Conferencing: Impli- cations for Crime Victims. Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking University of Minnesota. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime. (NCJ 176347).

Umbreit M. (August 13, 2003) Talking Circles. Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, School of , College of Education & Human Development. http:// rjp.dl.umn.edu/sites/rjp.dl.umn.edu/files/talking_cir- cles.pdf

11