No abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) programs have become widespread in the United States and in other countries. These programs are often seen as a viable alternative to traditional retributive processing, especially for minor, and sometimes more serious, forms of delinquency and adult criminality. The programs hold promise for achieving several goals, including increased community and victim involvement, greater satisfaction with the case outcomes, improved offender compliance, increased perceptions of fairness, and even recidivism reduction. Meta-analyses have demonstrated varying degrees of program success in recidivism reduction, which may in part reflect differential effectiveness of the RJ approach for various kinds of offenders. This study examined whether an RJ program for juvenile offenders had differential impacts on recidivism across various offender characteristics (including age, gender, racial group, offending history, and current offense). Results generally support the effectiveness of the program for many types of offenders. Implications for future research and potential improvements to the RJ model are discussed.

Despite recent decline in juvenile crime, the formal processing and incarceration of juveniles has increased. Many incarcerated juveniles return to their communities with serious risk and need areas unaddressed, complicating their chances for successful reentry. Juvenile aftercare and/or reentry programs have emerged to address these youths' unique needs and the risk they pose to public safety. This study examined preliminary process and outcome indicators of a unique juvenile offender reentry program, including a strong mentoring component, compared to similar youth not receiving reentry services. The authors examined service delivery, as well as intermediate outcome measures and short-term recidivism outcomes, including time to first new offense and number of new official contacts within 6 months of release. Findings demonstrate that the program was delivered as intended, successfully created intermediate change in participants, and was modestly effective in reducing recidivism likelihood and increasing time to recidivism.

No abstract