Examining the Effectiveness of a Restorative Justice Program for Various Types of Juvenile Offenders

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.

A review of restorative justice responses to offending

“…Some of the studies in Category B, however, also had significant methodological weaknesses, such as failure to rely on ITT (e.g. This leaves us, then, with only three out of 10 A-level studies supporting the hypothesis that RJ reduces re-offending (Lynn 2011;Bergseth and Bouffard 2007;Bergseth and Bouffard 2012), and seven finding no significant effect.…”

“…Depending on the follow-up period, the odds of re-offending amongst the RJ group ranged between 59 per cent and 37 per cent below those of the comparison group. Bergseth and Bouffard (2012) later re-evaluated the same program with a larger set of treatment and control subjects. This study also found evidence supporting RJ.…”

Young workers and youth offenders

“…In addition, violent and public order offenders who received an informal agreement were more likely to recidivate compared to those who were formally processed. In contrast, prior studies have found that violent (Hayes, 2005;Kim & Gerber, 2011;McCold & Wachtel, 2012;Sherman, Strang, & Woods, 2000) and property (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2012) offenders who received restorative justice programs were less likely to recidivate compared to their counterparts who were formally processed. We discuss next why processing can have differential effects on recidivism for different types of offenses.…”

“…Theoretical basis supports the effectiveness of informal processing and non-placement sentencing in order to reduce recidivism (Howard, 1963;Soulier & Scott, 2010). However, research identifying effective processing and sentencing on preventing recidivism has conflicting findings or demonstrates low feasibility for practical implementation within the juvenile justice setting (Ariga et al, 2010;Bergseth & Bouffard, 2012;Henggeler, Melton, Brondino, Scherer, & Hanley, 1997;Lipsey & Wilson, 1998;Livingstone, Macdonald, & Carr, 2013;McGrath & Weatherburn, 2012). Furthermore, to our knowledge, no study to date has assessed the impact of the juvenile justice system on recidivism among young offenders in a rural setting.…”

“…Restorative justice or conferencing is a meeting between the offender, a mediating official, parents/caregivers and the victim to discuss restitution (Braithwaite, 1989;Livingstone et al, 2013;McCold & Wachtel, 2012), which is quite similar to an informal agreement conducted in Iowa. The few studies that have examined the impact of restorative justice approaches on recidivism are contradictory (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2012;Hayes & Daly, 2004;Hipple, Gruenewald, & McGarrell, 2011;McCold & Wachtel, 2012;McGarrell & Hipple, 2007;Patrick & Marsh, 2005;Rodriguez, 2007). A recent meta-analysis of four randomized controlled studies of approximately 1,447 young offenders under age 22 found no significant effect of conferencing compared to normal court procedures on recidivism rates (Livingstone et al, 2013).…”