Restorative justice programs and practices in juvenile justice: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis for effectiveness

Abstract

Research summary: Restorative justice (RJ) in practice has taken on many different forms. It is argued that RJ does not have definitional boundaries, making it hard to limit its essence to that of a particular program, practice, philosophy, or outcome. Therefore, this study's objective was to systematically review and statistically synthesize all available research on RJ programs and related programs and practices using meta-analytic methods. Our updated systematic search and metaanalysis identified a total of 57 unique studies including 79 evaluations (including 18 random assignment and 61 quasi-experimental designs). We extracted a total of 631 effect sizes related to delinquency, non-delinquency, and victim outcomes. The results of our meta-analysis showed that RJ programs and practices are associated with a small-to-moderate and statistically significant reduction in future delinquent behavior relative to more traditional juvenile justice responses (g = 0.23, 95% CI [0.14, 0.32]). Nevertheless, results were smaller for the more rigorous random assignment studies and nonsignificant, raising concerns about the robustness of thisThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

‘It is successful, and if it is successful, it reduces crime, and it can make the victims happier’: volunteers’ perceptions of working in restorative justice

“…The volunteers’ role within restorative justice is often overlooked within the literature (Paul and Borton, 2013) and time constraints can add additional barriers to a hard-to-reach population. The effectiveness of restorative justice is often considered in terms of a reduction of the victim in the negative impacts of crime (Lloyd and Borrill, 2020) and a reduction in recidivism rates for the offender (Kennedy et al , 2019; Kimbrell et al , 2022). However, there is much to be learned from the volunteers who also play a vital role in this type of community justice.…”

The Impact of Court Decisions on the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders

“…Powell et al (2021) and Yunin et al (2022) argue that such programmes' effectiveness depends on the interaction between judicial authorities, social services and educational institutions. Kimbrell et al (2023) emphasise that educational programmes and professional training courses integrated into judicial practice can significantly contribute to social adaptation and reduce the risk of recidivism. The importance of this aspect in the context of humane justice cannot be overestimated.…”

Protocol: The effect of restorative justice interventions for young people on offending and reoffending: A systematic review

“…A recent review of reviews (Gaffney et al, 2022) identified the most recent and relevant systematic reviews (i.e., Kimbrell et al, 2022;Latimer et al, 2005;Livingstone et al, 2013;Strang et al, 2013;Wilson et al, 2017;Wong et al, 2016). The conclusion of this overview of reviews was that overall RJ interventions have a desirable impact on offending and reoffending rates in children and young people.…”

“…Wilson et al (2017) conducted an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis of evaluations of restorative justice with children and young people, across a diverse range of programmes. Kimbrell et al (2022) have since updated this review, and found a desirable overall impact of restorative justice on future delinquent behaviour (g = 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.32). Searches for this review were conducted up to November/ December 2020 (Kimbrell et al, 2022) and so our proposed searches will further update earlier findings by searching for the most recent evaluations.…”