An updated range of works on preliminary (epistemological and methodological) issues in evaluating restorative justice and actual evaluations of restorative justice programs worldwide. Due to the wide and growing number of evaluative studies, specific attention has been given to reviews of the (empirical) field. These are precious resources for readers trying to orientate themselves within such a complex subject.
Faget, J. (2008) Epistemological reflections on the evaluation of restorative justice practices, British Journal of Community Justice, 6(2), 77-83.
Abstract
‘This paper presents a reflection on the reasons which motivate the evaluation of restorative justice practices. In a social and institutional domain crowded with believes and symbols it debates what this need for understanding means. With the help of simple questions: who evaluates, for what reasons, what is evaluated and how, it proposes to researchers a small exercise in scientific hygiene useful both for improving their necessary distance and for understanding better the difficulties of evaluative reasoning within the field of restorative justice’.
Commentary
A critical approach to evaluation requires posing some basic meta-theoretical questions, such as the epistemological ones raised by Faget. A crucial preliminary reading for those interested in the evaluation of restorative justice.
Llewellyn, J. J., Archibald, B. P., Clairmont, D., & Crocker, D. (2013) Imagining success for a restorative approach to justice: Implications for measurement and evaluation. Dalhousie Law Journal, 36(2), 281-316
Abstract
‘Whether restorative justice is “successful,” or not, is a complex question. Attempts to answer this question by practitioners, professionals, and scholars have often been bounded by common notions of success in standard criminal justice terms. The authors of this paper suggest that if restorative justice is properly understood in terms of its focus on relationship, success should be measured on new and different dimensions. This paper seeks to bring a relational imagination to the scholarly effort of capturing the essence of restorative justice and figuring out how to assess its successes and failures. The authors offer a foundation and agenda for future research and development of a relational approach to assessment‘
Commentary
Another useful preliminary reading, focussing on what ‘success’ means when we talk of restorative justice. This is a crucial question since ‘what works’ is never self-explanatory
Presser, L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2002). Values and evaluation: Assessing processes and outcomes of restorative justice programs, Crime & Delinquency, 48(1), 162-188.
Abstract
‘Increased interest in the restorative justice programs is accompanied by concern for whether they work and through what basic processes. Yet the task of evaluating restorative justice programs is a daunting one because they are so diverse, pursuing unique and multiple objectives. Restorative justice is guided by values that emphasize healing andsocial well-being of those affected by crime. These values must guide program evaluation. The authors explore ways to conceptualize and measure program inputs and outputs for the purpose of assessing both processes and outcomes of restorative justice programs.‘
Commentary
A remarkable attempt at designing (or at least recommending to design) evaluating protocols and instruments of restorative justice informed by restorative values.
Roberts, M. L. (2010) Evaluating evaluation: an investigation into the purpose and practice of evaluation in restorative justice based programs (Doctoral dissertation at Simon Fraser University).
Abstract
‘Restorative justice (RJ) theory and practice has grown in the last 30 years, becoming an international movement to re-invent justice. With this growth, many have asked about the effectiveness of RJ alternatives. Researchers, practitioners and participants advocate its benefits, and typically, evaluation supports its continued use. The purpose of this thesis is twofold: to critically review the academic literature examining restorative justice evaluation and, as an illustrative case study, to… ‘
Commentary
An informative review of the literature on the evaluation of restorative justice matched with a survey of participants in a Canadian restorative justice program, focussing on their direct experiences
McCold, P. (2008) Protocols for evaluating restorative justice programmes, British Journal of Community Justice, 6(2), 9-28
Abstract
‘This article provides a review and critique of the current research findings about restorative justice. It is suggested that some of the positive findings are not due to programme efficacy, but rather to well-known threats to validity. The effect of case attrition on selection bias is considered in light of the voluntary nature of many restorative justice programs. Standardization of program measures is urged with specific research protocols presented and described. Protocols for measuring participant perceptions are compared. Before scientifically valid statements can be made about best practices, much more rigorous research needs to be conducted. If the results of multiple program evaluations are going to contribute to accumulated understanding of the practice, measures across programs must be standardized. A research agenda is described that would eventually allow for empirically fitting the forum to the fuss and establishing best practice standards across models. Six programme level and six case level measures are proposed as the minimum required for basic program comparisons to be meaningful’.
Commentary
An excellent attempt at dispelling some of the the myths and beliefs around evaluating restorative justice, integrated by some constructive reflections on designing a coherent evaluative protocol
Gang, D., Loff B., Naylor B., Kirkman, M. (2021) A Call for Evaluation of Restorative Justice Programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 186-190
Abstract
‘Restorative justice as a response to sexual violence continues to be subject to significant criticism. To assess the evidence, we sought to appraise and synthesize evaluations of restorative justice programs for sexual and family violence offences by conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature. However, our rigorous search identified only one eligible study. This dearth of evidence leaves us unable to identify how best to achieve the aims for which programs were established and poses difficulties for policy makers determining whether it is justified to introduce restorative justice programs for sexual and family violence. We recommend that evaluations of restorative justice programs that accept sexual and family violence cases be conducted as a matter of urgency‘
Commentary
An informative literature review built around a strong argument for the need to assessing specifically restorative justice programs on sexual and family violence.
Olson, J., & Sarver, R. S. (2021) How Restorative are You? Introducing the Restorative Index. Victims & Offenders, 1-33.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice (RJ) currently has no method of quantitatively determining if a program is restorative and assessing how restorative it may be. Due to confusion in RJ definitions and increased attention and funding in RJ, this gap has left RJ open to co-option by punitive systems. Co-option would leave many interpersonal harms unrestored. The present paper reduces that co-option threat by introducing the Restorative Index (RI). We review the philosophy, definitions, and elements of RJ. We then translate those definitions and elements directly into the RI. We demonstrate ratings on the RI using an existing program. Use of the RI will improve program development, implementation, outcome assessments, and funding decisions’.
Commentary
A very interesting and original study on ‘measuring’ restorative justice. It generates a ‘Restorative Index’ to be followed when measuring programs. One of the benefits of this index is that it purportedly reduces risks of cooptation if when designing programs (i.e when doing ex ante evaluation) the designers try to maximise the index ratings.
Pemberton, A., Winkel, F. W., & Groenhuijsen, M. (2008). Evaluating victims experiences in restorative justice. British Journal of Community Justice, 6(2), 98-119.
Abstract
‘Although restorative justice is often presented as a victim-oriented reform of criminal justice procedures, there is a relative dearth of research and theory into the experiences of victims within restorative justice. Recently Heather Strang, Lawrence Sherman and their associates (2003, 2004, 2006) started to develop theory and research that attempts to fill this relative void. This article is an attempt to contribute to the further understanding of the effects of restorative justice conferencing on victims. Taking Strang and Sherman’s work as a starting point, it discusses various issues relating to research and theory of victims within restorative justice’
Commentary
Three renowned victimologists’ take on victims’ experiences in participating in restorative justice, starting from the existing literature.
Olson, J., & Sarver, R. S. (2021). How Restorative are You? Introducing the Restorative Index. Victims & Offenders, 1-33.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice (RJ) currently has no method of quantitatively determining if a program is restorative and assessing how restorative it may be. Due to confusion in RJ definitions and increased attention and funding in RJ, this gap has left RJ open to co-option by punitive systems. Co-option would leave many interpersonal harms unrestored. The present paper reduces that co-option threat by introducing the Restorative Index (RI). We review the philosophy, definitions, and elements of RJ. We then translate those definitions and elements directly into the RI. We demonstrate ratings on the RI using an existing program. Use of the RI will improve program development, implementation, outcome assessments, and funding decisions’.
Commentary
A rather original paper on measuring the ‘restorativeness’ of restorative justice programs, stemming from the much debated issue around the ‘lack of clarity’ regarding what restorative justice ‘actually is’
Doak, J., & O’Mahony, D. (2018). Evaluating the success of restorative justice conferencing: A values-based approach. In The Routledge International handbook of Restorative justice (pp. 211-223). Routledge.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice conferencing (also known as family group conferencing) differs from other forms of restorative justice in terms of both its practical operation and its theoretical underpinnings. Developed in New Zealand and Australia during the 1980s, conferencing has rapidly grown in popularity internationally, and an increasing number of jurisdictions now prioritise it as the primary response to juvenile offending. This chapter critically evaluates what constitutes ‘successful’ restorative conferencing. The existing evidence base relating to common measures of success, such as, participation, engagement, satisfaction, restoration and recidivism are reconsidered. It is contended that there is no one single measure of ‘success’ in relation to restorative conferencing; indeed the use of such labels can serve to simplify highly complex and nuanced processes which are difficult to measure in terms of traditional social science methodology. Instead, we contend that it is more useful to evaluate restorative conferencing through a framework of values, calibrated to determine success or otherwise of conferencing interventions‘
Commentary
Another interesting paper championing for the need to align the principles leading the evaluation of restorative justice programs to those informing restorative justice theory
Hargovan, H. (2011) Evaluating restorative justice: working out ‘what works’. Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology, 24(1), 67-82.
Abstract
‘As more research seeks to unravel questions about the efficacy and effectiveness of restorative justice, this new paradigm finds itself in an entrepreneurial phase with program creation, practice, research, evaluation and outreach being carried out collaboratively across diverse intersecting groups. Not restricted to a particular approach or program, restorative justice as a set of values and vision of social reform places emphasis on the offender’s personal accountability to those harmed by the offence directly or indirectly (which may include the community and / or the victim) and an inclusive decision making process that encourages active involvement of key participants with the goal of remedying the harm caused by the offence. While one noted restorative justice scholar alludes to the tendency to engage in ‘butterfly collecting’ (Crawford, 2002), another cautions us to ‘mind the gap’ between theory and practice; alerting academics and practitioners alike of the need to understand the ‘real story’ (Daly, 2003a & 2003b). Whether engaged in theoretical, empirical or practical activity, restorative justice advocates, academics and / or practitioners are placing greater emphasis on evaluation and its future challenges’.
Commentary
‘What works’ is not a self-explanatory concept – assessing ‘what works’ therefore needs a clear explanation of its underlying assumptions, in order to prevent that uncritically assumed ideas creep into the evaluations as their tacit premises
Brookes, D. R. (1998). Evaluating restorative justice programs. Humanity & Society, 22(1), 23-37.
Abstract
‘The site for restorative justice is not a court of law, a prison cell, a boot-camp, or an execution chamber. It is a mediated encounter between those directly involved in or affected by the crime: the victim, the offender, family members, and community representatives….’
Commentary
An early call for the evaluation of restorative justice, including a literature review identifying and discussing evaluative criteria specifically for restorative justice service-delivery
Harris, N. (2012). Evaluating the practice of restorative justice: The case of family group conferencing. In Lode Walgrave (Ed.) Repositioning restorative justice (pp. 141-155). Willan.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice has grown increasingly popular, such that one current debate within restorative justice circles concerns the degree to which it can replace mainstream forms of justice (McCold 2000; Walgrave 2001). Informal interventions, such as victim-offender mediation, family group conferences and healing circles, are largely responsible for the success of restorative justice and are still the primary mechanisms by which restorative justice is transacted. Despite this, only limited empirical research has examined the dynamics of restorative interventions so as to explain how and why they are successful, though perhaps more than has occurred in relation to courtroom processes. This chapter takes some tentative steps towards considering these issues by identifying four aims that appear central to the practice of one restorative intervention: family group conferences.1 These broad procedural aims indicate which characteristics a successful conference should have and are used to propose a model for evaluating conferences . Identifying the aims of a restorative intervention also has implications for how the relationship between restorative justice and restorative interventions is conceptualised.‘
Commentary
A normative study on what to evaluate when evaluating family group conferencing. Broadly speaking, it could be considered a meta-theoretical work since it does not assess a specific program but rather outlines a good practice in assessing FGCs.
Bazemore, G., & Elis, L. (2013). Evaluation of restorative justice. In G. Johnstone and D. Van Bess (Eds.) Handbook of Restorative Justice (pp. 419-447). Willan.
Abstract
‘Little more than a decade ago when asked about the effectiveness of restorative justice, supportive researchers would have to say something like, ‘this looks promising or makes sense theoretically’. Today, many studies show the positive impact of restorative practices at multiple levels, with case types ranging from first-time offenders and misdemeanants to more serious chronic and violent offenders’
Commentary
An overview of the literature on measuring the impact of restorative justice in practice
Daly, K. (2012). Making variation a virtue: Evaluating the potential and limits of restorative justice. In Elmar G. M. Weitekamp, Hans-Jürgen Kerner (Eds.) Restorative Justice in Context (pp. 51-78). Willan.
Abstract
‘A good measure of the vitality of a new justice idea is the ratio between the claims made by advocates and the evidence to support those claims. The less evidence exists, the greater the excitement and debate about the new idea. When evidence arrives, we may begin to lose interest. The results may be equivocal, or worse, we may despair that the new idea does not ‘measure up’ in the expected ways. Matthews (1988: 1-2) captured this problem well in 1988, when he reflected on what happened in Britain and the United States in the 1970s and 80s with the introduction of the new idea of informal justice.‘
Commentary
Sharp critical reflections from Daly on the relations between justice reform and evidence.
Bonta, J., Rooney, J., & Wallace-Capretta, S. M. (1998) Restorative justice: An evaluation of the restorative resolutions project. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
Abstract
‘The Restorative Resolutions Project began as a demonstration project and tried to follow the restorative justice principles of redressing the harm to victims, encouraging community involvement in the criminal justice process, and managing the offender in the community. Eligibility requirements included a Crown recommendation of a custodial sentence of at least 6 months, a guilty plea, and the offender’s willingness to follow a community-based corrections plan…’
Commentary
A very early evaluative study on a specific Canadian restorative justice program, focussing on rationales, structure and impact.
Miers, D. et al. (2001) An exploratory evaluation of restorative justice schemes (No. 9). Home Office.
Abstract
‘This report presents the results of a 15-month study of the effectiveness of restorative justice schemes conducted between July 1999 and November 2000. The principal fieldwork was undertaken between December 1999 and June 2000 in seven restorative justice schemes across England, two of them dealing principally with adult offenders and the other five with juveniles…’
Commentary
A pioneering evaluation relying on the findings of a 15-month research study of seven restorative justice schemes across England.
Hayes, H. (2005). Assessing reoffending in restorative justice conferences. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 77-101.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice conferencing, in response to youthful offending, has grown in popularity around the world. While there is now substantial empirical evidence that shows offenders and victims are satisfied with outcomes and perceive the process as generally fair, available data on reoffending have produced mixed results. Uncertainty about how conferencing affects future offending may result from how reoffending is analysed. In this paper, I used survival analysis to reanalyse data from the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Restorative Policing Experiment and assessed two methodological approaches: a standard comparative approach to examine differences in reoffending between offenders in conference and court and a variation analysis to examine differences in reoffending within conference and court groups. Comparative analyses showed that violent offenders referred to conference were less likely to reoffend compared to violent offenders referred to court. There were no differences in reoffending for property offenders in conference and in court. Variation analyses showed that female offenders attending conferences were less likely to reoffend than male offenders in conferences. There were no differences in reoffending for males and females in court. These results suggest that there is value in comparing the effects of traditional and restorative interventions, as well as assessing how variation within interventions is related to future offending.‘
Commentary
A re-evaluation of a dataset from a specific program in Pennsylvania, US, focussing on reoffending
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., … & Sorsby, A. (2007). Restorative justice: the views of victims and offenders. Ministry of Justice Research Series, 3(07).
Abstract
‘Offenders and victims were approached by the schemes to participate in restorative justice in several different ways, including personally at court, by letter or by telephone. All these ways were found satisfactory by respondents. As offenders and victims had only rarely heard of restorative justice prior to being contacted, the preparation process prior to asking for agreement to participate was vital…’
Commentary
A ground-breaking work on the evaluation of English restorative justice schemes using randomised control trials. This is part of a series of works led by Shapland, a pioneer of victimology studies, funded by the UK Ministry of Justice. In this case, this report focuses on participants’ views on their experience of engaging with restorative justice processes.
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., … & Sorsby, A. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction? Ministry of Justice
Abstract
‘This fourth report focuses on one of the key original aims of the Home Office funding, whether restorative justice ‘works’, in the sense of reducing the likelihood of re-offending and for whom it ‘works’ in this way. It also covers whether the schemes were value for money, measured as whether the cost of running the scheme was balanced or outweighed by the benefit of less re-offending’.
Commentary
Another report of the Shapland’s UK Government funded series, this time focussing on the debated and controversial subject of evaluating whether restorative justice affects re-offending. A further elaboration of this report is Robinson, G., & Shapland, J. (2008) Reducing recidivism: a task for restorative justice?. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 337-358.
Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Angel, C., Woods, D., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., & Inkpen, N. (2006). Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 281-306
Abstract
‘One major goal of face-to-face restorative justice (RJ) is to help heal the psychological harm suffered by crime victims (Braithwaite, 2002). Substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has shown that this can be accomplished (Strang, 2002) and more trials are underway (Sherman & Strang, 2004). These outcomes are even more clearly, if less rigorously, demonstrated through retrospective interviews of victims about their feelings before and after RJ took place. We review the responses of victims (N= 210) who participated in trials in Canberra (Australia) and in London, Thames Valley, and Northumbria (UK). Despite substantial variations in offense types, social contexts, nation and race, before-after changes revealed by qualitative and quantitative data are all in the same beneficial direction’.
Commentary
Another renowned study on the assessment of the impact of restorative justice specifically on victims and their psychological wellbeing.
Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. J., & Ariel, B. (2013) Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review
Abstract
‘The Review investigates the effects of RJCs on offenders’ subsequent convictions (or in one case arrests) for crime, and on several measures of victim impact. The review considers only randomized controlled trials in which victim and offenders consented to meet prior to random assignment, the analysis of which was based on the results of an “intention-to-treat” analysis. A total of ten experiments with recidivism outcomes were found that met the eligibility criteria, all of which also had at least one victim impact measure.’
Commentary
The Campbell systematic review sought to assess the effect of face-to-face restorative justice conferencing on repeat offending and on available measures of victim impact. The same authors published an academic elaboration of the review in ‘Do restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of quantitative criminology, 31(1), 1-24.’
Rugge, T., & Cormier, R. (2013). Restorative justice in cases of serious crime: an evaluation. In E. Elliott and R. Gordon (Eds.) New Directions in Restorative Justice (pp. 290-301). Willan.
Abstract
‘This chapter focuses upon the evaluation results of the Collaborative Justice Project (CJP), a demonstration project running in the Ottawa, Ontario area. Whereas many restorative justice programmes (such as mediation and family group conferencing) focus on relatively minor offences, the CJP employs a restorative justice approach in cases of serious crime. The goal of the research is to expand the empirical base regarding restorative justice by determining whether programmes like the CJP are successful. The research evaluates the CJP by examining satisfaction levels of victims, offenders and participating community members; by determining whether participation with the CJP meets the needs of clients; and by assessing the reaction of clients and key criminal justice personnel to the CJP. Several outcome measures are examined through a pre-and post-measure design. The sample consists of CJP clients and matched comparison groups of offenders and victims. Results assessing whether the CJP served as an alternative to incarceration and whether participation by offenders reduced their likelihood of reoffending, are also addressed. The implications of the research are discussed from a restorative justice perspective’.
Commentary
A rather unique assessment of restorative justice focussing on a still under-developed area for the application of restorative justice – serious crimes – targeting one specific project.
Beven, J. P., Hall, G., Froyland, I., Steels, B., & Goulding, D. (2005). Restoration or renovation? Evaluating restorative justice outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12(1), 194-206.
Abstract
‘Critics of restorative justice claim that its popularity is based on “humanistic sentiment” and suggest that the process is incapable of achieving its aim of restoring victims and offenders. The current study sought to establish if restorative justice is capable of restoring victims and offenders in a meaningful manner, or if the process simply results in a superficial renovation of the impact of crime. Seventy-two victims and offenders participated in a community group conference model of restorative justice and were compared on outcome variables with a control group of victims and offenders who underwent a conventional court process. Results demonstrate that the process is capable of impacting upon variables associated with the criminal act. Furthermore, it is argued that a reduction in offending behaviour and victimisation impact are realistic outcomes of the restorative justice processes. Finally, regression analysis indicated that victims were satisfied with the restorative justice process as a result of their greater participation rather than their satisfaction with reparation or restitution.’
Commentary
An interesting quantitative study aiming to explore whether participating in restorative justice impacts on victims and offenders’ experience of crime, showing positive outcome.
Crocker, D. (2015). Implementing and evaluating restorative justice projects in prison. Criminal justice policy review, 26(1), 45-64.
Abstract
‘This article describes a restorative justice project run in three Canadian prisons. The project, Partners in Healing, aimed to promote restorative justice by running restorative justice committees inside and recruiting volunteers from the community to participate along with prisoners. The main goals of the project were to increase participants’ awareness of restorative justice and help prisoners gain an understanding of the effects of their crime(s). An evaluation of the project solicited stories about the restorative justice committees and this article reports on some of the evaluation findings. The qualitative data offer insights into how to best design a restorative justice project in prisons. It also reveals dilemmas associated with evaluating such projects. The article concludes that projects need to be guided by a clear conceptualization of restorative justice.‘
Commentary
Restorative justice in prison is still an underdeveloped area of research. This paper is a useful qualitative evaluation of a specific project in prison, in the Canadian context.
Bohmert, M. N., Duwe, G., & Hipple, N. K. (2018). Evaluating restorative justice circles of support and accountability: Can social support overcome structural barriers? International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(3), 739-758.
Abstract
‘In a climate in which stigmatic shaming is increasing for sex offenders as they leave prison, restorative justice practices have emerged as a promising approach to sex offender reentry success and have been shown to reduce recidivism. Criminologists and restorative justice advocates believe that providing ex-offenders with social support that they may not otherwise have is crucial to reducing recidivism. This case study describes the expressive and instrumental social support required and received, and its relationship to key outcomes, by sex offenders who participated in Circles of Support and Accountability (COSAs), a restorative justice, reentry program in Minnesota. In-depth interviews with re-entering sex offenders and program volunteers revealed that 75% of offenders reported weak to moderate levels of social support leaving prison, 70% reported receiving instrumental support in COSAs, and 100% reported receiving expressive support. Findings inform work on social support, structural barriers, and restorative justice programming during sex offender reentry’.
Commentary
This is a really original paper which conceptualises ‘circles of support and accountability’ as a restorative justice initiative, and then evaluates such circles in order to discuss and inform the development of restorative justice.
Armour, M. P., Sage, J., Rubin, A., & Windsor, L. C. (2005). Bridges to Life: Evaluation of an in-prison restorative justice intervention. Medicine and Law, 24(4), 831-851.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice initiatives have been identified as primarily, if not exclusively, useful as a “front-end” diversionary option reserved for non violent property crimes and minor assaults. In-prison restorative justice programs are rare and have not been examined for their impact on recidivism. Bridges to Life (BTL) is a voluntary, manualized, ecumenical faith-based restorative justice program offered to incarcerated offenders who are within nine months of their release. A survey of BTL graduates (n=1021) found an appreciatively lower recidivism rate than the general population of released inmates. Quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that BTL helps break through offenders’ denial and self-centeredness, exposing them to the impact of their actions and helping them feel the pain their crimes created. Possible reasons for the positive nature of participants’ responses are advanced. The use of in-prison restorative justice programs to facilitate offender re-entry is also discussed.‘
Commentary
A precious, and rather pioneering, mix-methods study on the evaluation of restorative justice in prison, generating positive outcomes supporting the hypothesis that restorative justice impacts on variables related to offending/repeat offending.
Abstract
‘This study involved an empirical assessment of restorative justice processes with an application of a theoretical model proposed by Presser and Van Voorhis (2002). Their model identified three common procedural activities associated with restorative justice: dialogue, relationship building, and communication of moral values. This study utilized secondary data, consisting of observation and interview data, originally obtained by Sherman, Braithwaite, Strang, and Barnes (1999) for their Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999, to test the theoretical model. The results generally supported the hypothesis that the restorative justice program engaged offenders in dialogue, relationship building, and moral communication to a greater degree than traditional court proceedings. An unexpected result emerged in the interview data showing that violent offenders in the restorative justice program did not report a greater sense of relationship building than those in court proceedings. Possible explanations accounting for the anomaly are provided. Implications for policy and future studies derived from the findings are also discussed‘
Kuo, S. Y., Longmire, D., & Cuvelier, S. J. (2010). An empirical assessment of the process of restorative justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 318-328.
Abstract
‘Their model identified three common procedural activities associated with restorative justice: dialogue, relationship building, and communication of moral values. This study utilized secondary data, consisting of observation and interview data, originally obtained by Sherman, Braithwaite, Strang, and Barnes (1999) for their Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999, to test the theoretical model. The results generally supported the hypothesis that the restorative justice program engaged offenders in dialogue, relationship building, and moral communication to a greater degree than traditional court proceedings. An unexpected result emerged in the interview data showing that violent offenders in the restorative justice program did not report a greater sense of relationship building than those in court proceedings. Possible explanations accounting for the anomaly are provided. Implications for policy and future studies derived from the findings are also discussed. Tables and references’
Commentary
An interesting secondary-data analysis (with data from RISE evaluation in Australia) aiming to test Presser and Van Voorhis theoretical model of restorative justice. The test generated positive results, confirming dialogue, relationship building, and communication of moral values as key aspects of restorative justice in practice.
Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah L. Rev., 167.
Abstract
‘A single musical voice can carry a musical tune. With several complementary voices, however, harmony and counterpoint can add to the richness and depth, creating a qualitatively distinct experience. A similar, enriching complementarity can also be found in restorative justice, where the voices of theory, practice, and research can contrast and support one another, leading to a broader and more useful understanding of restorative justice’.
Commentary
A rather original study on a still relatively under-researched though growing area – the psychological impact of restorative justice. The paper presents a review of the relevant empirical literature.
Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2002). The impact of restorative justice conferencing: A review of 63 empirical studies in 5 countries. University of Minnesota Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota.
Abstract
‘Conceptually, the restorative justice paradigm begins with the notion that crime is an act against people and a violation of relationships as well as a breaking of the law (Zehr, 1990). Restorative justice has become a framework for thinking about ways of humanizing justice, of bringing victims and offenders together in ways that provides opportunity for victims to receive explanation and reparation and for offenders to be accountable to the victim and the community, and of involving community members meaningfully in helping repair the wrong done to their neighborhoods.‘
Commentary
A very useful and large review of the empirical literature on restorative justice conferences, focussing on the US, by Mark Umbreit and colleagues who have over the years conducted a number of excellent studies on the practice of restorative justice.
Donaghy, M. (2020). Restorative Justice for Cases of Sexual Violence: A Literature Review. Brisbane Rape and Incest Survivors Support Centre (BRISSC).
Abstract
‘…This project will produce a narrative literature review which aims to address these issues, and present a more in-depth understanding of the current research that has evaluated restorative justice, and how they are conceptualised in terms of consent and sexual violence…’
Commentary
A recent, useful review of the empirical literature on restorative justice in cases of sexual violence. Hobson and colleagues have recently published a rapid assessment review on the same subject.
Hoyle, C., Young, R. P., & Hill, R. (2002). Proceed with caution: An evaluation of the Thames Valley Police initiative in restorative cautioning.
Abstract
‘This document reports our main findings on the implementation of the Thames Valley Police initiative in restorative cautioning. In a restorative caution, as distinct from an ‘old-style’ caution, the cautioning police officer (the facilitator) is supposed to invite all those affected by the offence, including any victim, to the cautioning session...’
Commentary
This is an important review for the development of restorative justice policing in England. It surveys a well-known restorative cautioning initiative producing a wide range of interesting findings.
Stewart L, Thompson J, Beaudette JN, Buck M, Laframboise R, Petrellis T. (2018) The Impact of Participation in Victim-Offender Mediation Sessions on Recidivism of Serious Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(12):3910-3927
Abstract
‘The federal correctional agency in Canada offers victim–offender mediation services to address serious crime. The current study used survival analysis to compare revocation rates of 122 offenders who participated in facilitated face-to-face meetings to a matched sample of 122 of non-participants. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between revocation rates when offenders participated while incarcerated, although the trend was that participants did better. When the meetings were held in the community post-release, however, participants were significantly more likely to spend a longer period of time under supervision in the community without returning to custody and were less likely to be revoked than their matched counterparts. The findings support participation in restorative justice sessions while under community supervision for higher risk offenders with histories of serious and violent crimes. The authors discuss how factors not controlled in the matching procedure may have contributed to this effect.‘
Commentary
A very well-focussed and solidly built study on restorative justice and recidivism, focussing on the Canadian context.
Burns, C. J., & Sinko, L. (2021). Restorative justice for survivors of sexual violence experienced in adulthood: a scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Abstract
‘Sexual violence (SV) is a widespread human rights issue. Survivors of SV often experience profound dehumanization and poor health outcomes when their trauma is not properly addressed, rendering it critical that they are honored and empowered within subsequent processes of healing and seeking justice. With adjudication through the criminal legal system largely underutilized due to retraumatization, scrutiny from law enforcement professionals, and high rates of case closure, restorative justice (RJ) has emerged as a promising option for survivors to repair harm and experience accountability. Little is known, however, regarding the best practices for its use in cases of SV. To meet this need, a scoping review was conducted to identify the best practices for the implementation of RJ after instances of SV experienced in adulthood. Following the search methodology outlined by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis for scoping reviews, 15 articles met search criteria, including four empirical studies and 11 nonempirical research materials spanning five academic disciplines. Best practices and structures for RJ were subsequently identified, including key phases for appropriate implementation. This review can be used to create increasingly productive RJ processes for SV survivors, which is particularly important for those coming from marginalized communities facing structural inequities, as well as survivors on university campuses. As researchers, we have the power to use science to propel society toward the creation of more efficacious healing spaces for survivors of SV, and optimizing safe RJ processes plays a key role in bringing this to fruition.‘
Commentary
A very recent study focussing on restorative justice in case of sexual violence. It is structured as a scoping review aiming to identify the best practices for the implementation of restorative justice after instances of sexual violence experienced in adulthood, providing a very useful overview of the field.
Barocas, B., Avieli, H., & Shimizu, R. (2020). Restorative justice approaches to intimate partner violence: A review of interventions
Abstract
‘Domestic violence, and specifically, violence against intimate partners, has generated a large research literature in the last few decades, particularly in the area of policy and community response and intervention. However, less attention has been given to the use of more innovative approaches in such situations, namely the use of restorative justice (RJ) interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV). The aim of this review is to provide a general overview of how RJ approaches have been utilized in the context of IPV, systematically examine the available literature on RJ approaches to IPV, describe the interventions that have been developed and empirically tested, and synthesize the findings. This review summarizes existing empirical research and literature on RJ interventions for IPV…’
Commentary
A precious review on the evaluation of restorative justice in case of intimate partner violence. This is an area wherein restorative justice has been historically frowned upon, whilst evidence generated over the last ten years would suggest that specifically designed restorative programs produce desirable outcomes, from the perspective of both from the person harmed and the person who has harmed
D, Loff B, Naylor B, Kirkman M. (2021) A Call for Evaluation of Restorative Justice Programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1): 186-190
Abstract
‘Restorative justice as a response to sexual violence continues to be subject to significant criticism. To assess the evidence, we sought to appraise and synthesize evaluations of restorative justice programs for sexual and family violence offences by conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature. However, our rigorous search identified only one eligible study. This dearth of evidence leaves us unable to identify how best to achieve the aims for which programs were established and poses difficulties for policy makers determining whether it is justified to introduce restorative justice programs for sexual and family violence. We recommend that evaluations of restorative justice programs that accept sexual and family violence cases be conducted as a matter of urgency.‘
Commentary
Another systematic review of evaluations of restorative justice in the case of sexual and family violence, a still rather controversial area of application for restorative justice programs. One of the merits of this work is that it is very recent and updated.
Tapp, J., Moore, E., Stephenson, M. and Cull, D. (2020), ““The image has been changed in my mind”: a case of restorative justice in a forensic mental health setting”, The Journal of Forensic Practice, 22, 4, pp. 213-222
‘Purpose: This paper aims to describe the process and outcomes of restorative justice (RJ) between a detained patient with autism and a person he harmed. Design/methodology/approach: A single case study design was used to provide an in-depth description of a RJ referral. Findings: Restorative outcomes that align with the theories of RJ, in particular trauma processing and emotional reconnection, were observed by RJ practitioners and reported by participants. The person harmed reported a “safer” memory of the offence. Research limitations/implications:
The absence of outcome assessments limits the findings to observational data and self-reported experiences from participants. A triangulated outcome approach is recommended. Practical implications: RJ practices can safely be applied within a secure hospital environment. The RJ process can also be followed by a person with difficulties in social and emotional processing. Originality/value: The RJ process provides a safe framework within which forensic mental health services can respond to the needs of victims, which are not routinely addressed in standard clinical practice, and in worst case scenarios, may even be overlooked.’
Commentary
A different type of evaluation – a case stufy of RJ in a forensic ward (an institutional setting which is experiencing a growth in the use of RJ), involving a patient with autism.
Clairmont, D. (2005). The Nova Scotia restorative justice initiative: Final evaluation report.
Abstract
‘The Nova Scotia Restorative Justice (NSRJ) program was initiated in 1999 after two years of pre-implementation planning. It aimed at implementing the RJ approach throughout the criminal justice system (CJS), having the premise that RJ, in some modality, could be applicable to all offenders and all offences throughout the province. Referrals to RJ were eligible from any level in the CJS, whether police at pre-charge or the crown, judicial and corrections levels. Different offences and different RJ tactics were envisaged at the different levels...’
Commentary
This is a well-structured and useful report on the evaluation of a specific, large and long-running Canadian program which aims to embed restorative justice in the entire criminal justice system. Outcomes are positive, describing the programs as largerly successful, though identifying some aspects in needs of further development.
Huang, H. F., & Chang, L. Y. (2013). Evaluating restorative justice programs in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 287-307.
Abstract
‘This paper aims to evaluate four restorative justice programs in Taiwan: (1) a mediation system; (2) deferred prosecution and conditional suspended sentence; (3) a youth justice system; and (4) the Taiwan Restorative Justice Initiative. In this paper, models proposed in Marshall (Restorative justice: An overview. London: Home Office, 1999) and Braithwaite (British Journal of Criminology 42:563–577, 2002b) are used as criteria to evaluate the four programs. Based on governmental documents, official statistics, and the findings of previous empirical studies, this paper will examine whose needs and power is focused and what types of value are highlighted in those four programs. This paper finds that current restorative justice programs in Taiwan place greater emphasis on offenders than on other parties such as victims and communities. In addition, maximizing and emergent standards that Braithwaite identifies are implemented more in Taiwan’s restorative justice programs than constraining standards. This paper suggests that restorative justice practices in Taiwan need to be more concerned with victims’ needs and interests, and to strengthen constraining types of restorative justice values’.
Commentary
A very welcome, and one of the very few, evaluation of restorative justice in Asia, written for an international audience. As it often happens for this type of context-specific non-Western studies, it provides food for thought not only when providing evidence on the actual program assessed, but also in terms of highlighting more or less directly both logistical and value-based differences of such programs compared to what is considered ‘normal’ in the West when it comes to restorative justice.
Paulin, J., Kingi, V. M., & Lash, B. (2005). The Wanganui community-managed restorative justice programme: An evaluation. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Abstract
‘The Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the Wanganui providers, commissioned this evaluation of the Wanganui Community-Managed Restorative Justice Programme in 2003. The programme is funded by central government through the Crime Prevention Unit, Ministry of Justice. The programme was selected for evaluation because it was considered to be well managed and effective. The evaluation objectives were to: 1. describe the programme – its history, the context in which it operates, delivery, objectives and resources; 2. determine the effectiveness of the programme, in relation to its objectives; 3. contribute to the development of best practice principles for community-managed restorative justice programmes; and 4. describe the extent to which this programme has contributed to the further development of the partnership between government and communities.‘
Commentary
Another context specific evaluation, focussing on New Zealand, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. The evaluation is rather comprehensive and provides interesting results.
Pfander, S. M. (2020). Evaluating New Zealand’s restorative promise: the impact of legislative design on the practice of restorative justice. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 15(1), 170-185.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice is regarded in modern criminal justice systems as one approach to address inadequacies in the conventional justice model. New Zealand has become a leader in implementing legislatively mandated restorative procedures. This reputation is due in part to a handful of supportive statutes: the Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, the Parole Act 2002, the Corrections Act 2004 and subsequent amendments to those acts. In this article, I evaluate the practices bolstered by these acts and how effectively they operate, accounting for how legislative design may contribute to achievements and shortcomings in New Zealand’s restorative justice programmes. I supplement the results by comparing New Zealand’s efforts to those in Vermont, a U.S. state similarly well-regarded for its restorative policies. The evaluation of each jurisdiction’s restorative justice programme is based on metrics for restorative success from Bazemore and Schiff (2005. Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice: building theory and policy from practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing). I employ qualitative and quantitative data, surveying existing evaluations of restorative justice in New Zealand and Vermont, collecting longitudinal statistics, and conducting interviews with restorative justice practitioners. Overall, this analysis reveals that the design of restorative justice programmes requires negotiation; it is difficult to balance the dimensions of effective restorative justice with the needs of modern justice systems.’
Commentary
This is a slightly different type of evaluation, focussing on policy and policy design and the suitability of existing policy to fulfill restorative justice’s ‘theoretical’ promises.
Tamarit, J., & Luque, E. (2016). Can restorative justice satisfy victims’ needs? Evaluation of the Catalan victim–offender mediation programme. Restorative Justice, 4(1), 68-85.
Abstract
‘This article presents the results of a quantitative investigation to evaluate a penal mediation programme conducted in Catalonia. We assessed the degree to which the programme is able to achieve the objectives of restorative justice from the point of view of victims’ needs. The study basically confirmed the results obtained in other countries, underlining how the mediation process contributes to the emotional recovery of victims. After analysing the different factors involved, we have highlighted the capacity of restorative processes to provide victims with a better sense of justice than the criminal justice system both in terms of the procedural and therapeutic dimensions of justice.‘
Commentary
Catalonia has witnessed a very interesting historical development of restorative justice, being one of the few places in the world where restorative justice has been applied to respond to terrorism (ETA/Basque independentist terrorism). There are interesting papers by excellent scholars on this specific subject, this work focuses on evaluation of one victim-offender mediation program, providing positive results particularly from the victim’s perspective.
Bonett, R.J.W., Lloyd, C.D., & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2022) Group Conferencing Effects on Youth Recidivism and Elements of Effective Conferences
Excerpt
‘The first important take-away message is that the Victorian model of conferencing reduces recidivism. Second, this means conferencing is appropriate with higher risk youth charged with violent crimes and more serious property crimes. Third, reduced recidivism is not contingent on a face-to-face victim-offender interaction.’
Commentary
This is an interesting study on the Australian (Victorian) experience of youth conferencing led by restorative justice principles. Authors used life-course methodologies to determine whether conferencing effects were consistent across different types of crime, producing significant results in terms of reduction of reoffending.
IFJR (2021) National Survey and Evaluation 2021 France (Enquête nationale 2021)
‘A national survey of restorative justice programs (link to document) was conducted by the IFJR at the request and with the support of the Ministry of Justice (SADJAV). Its objectives are, on the one hand, to measure the extent of the development of restorative justice in France and to study its contours, in particular from the point of view of compliance with the circular of August 15, 2014 of the systems implemented work, and, on the other hand, to measure its effects from the point of view of the professionals who give life to restorative justice.’ (CritRJ translation)
Commentary
The most recent, and one of the few, survey and evaluation of the effects of post-sentencing restorative justice in France, led by the French Institute of Restorative Justice (IFJR)
‘Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted’.
Albert Einstein