Research has generally supported the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) programs on a number of outcomes; however, little research has examined the effectiveness of variations in the intervention. This study examined several variations of an RJ program for juvenile offenders, including direct mediation, indirect forms of victim/offender mediation accomplished without direct victim/offender contact, the use of community panels (i.e., with community representatives when no direct victim was available), and a group who received only minimal interaction with RJ staff. Results supported the effectiveness of a number of variations in program implementation. Implications for future research and potential improvements to the RJ model are discussed.
AlderC.,WundersitzJ. (Eds.). (1994). Family conferencing and juvenile justice: The way forward or misplaced optimism?Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
2.
AndrewsD.BontaJ. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
3.
BazemoreG.UmbreitM. (2001). A comparison of four restorative conferencing models (juvenile justice bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
4.
BergsethK. J.BouffardJ. A. (2007). The long-term impact of restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 433–451.
5.
BergsethK. J.BouffardJ. A. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 1054–1075.
6.
BontaJ.Wallace-CaprettaS.RooneyJ. (1998). Restorative justice: An evaluation of the restorative resolutions project. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada.
7.
BouffardJ. A.MuftićL. R. (2007). The effectiveness of community service sentences compared to traditional fines for low-level offenders. The Prison Journal, 87, 171–194.
8.
BradshawW.RoseboroughD.UmbreitM. S. (2006). The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 87–98.
9.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BraithwaiteJ. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice, 25, 1–127.
BraithwaiteJ.MugfordS. (1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 139–171.
13.
BushwayS.JohnsonB. D.SlocumL. A. (2007). Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 151–178.
14.
CrawfordA.NewburnT. (2002). Recent developments in restorative justice for young people in England and Wales: Community participation and representation. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 476–495.
15.
ForsS. W.RojekD. G. (1999). The effect of victim impact panels on DUI/DWI rearrest rates: A twelve-month follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 514–520.
16.
HayC. (2001). An exploratory test of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 132–153.
HeckmanJ. J. (1979). Statistical models for discrete panel data. Chicago, IL: Department of Economics and Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
19.
KarpD. R. (2001). Harm and repair: Observing restorative justice in Vermont. Justice Quarterly, 18, 727–757.
20.
KossM. P. (2014). The restore program of restorative justice for sex crimes vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1623–1660.
21.
LatimerJ.DowdenC.MuiseD. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85, 127–144.
22.
LatimerJ.KleinknechtS. (2000). The effects of restorative justice programming: A review of the empirical research. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division.
23.
LeonardL.KennyP. (2011). Measuring the effectiveness of restorative justice practices in the Republic of Ireland through a meta-analysis of functionalist exchange. The Prison Journal, 91, 57–80.
24.
LukeG.LindB. (2002). Reducing juvenile crime: Conferencing versus court (Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 69). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
25.
McColdP.WachtelB. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania, police family group conferencing project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.
26.
McGarrellE. F.HippleN. K. (2007). Family group conferencing and re-offending among first-time juvenile offenders: The Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 24, 221–246.
27.
Menkel-MeadowC. (2001). Practicing in the interests of justice in the twenty-first century: Pursuing peace as justice. Fordham Law Review, 70, 1761.
28.
NugentW. R.PaddockJ. B. (1995). The effect of victim–offender mediation on severity of reoffense. Mediation Quarterly, 12, 353.
29.
OkadaD. (2011). Editor’s note. Special issue: Essays celebrating the 35th anniversary of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 14, 365–366.
30.
PoulsonB. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 167, 167–203.
31.
PresserL.Van VoorhisP. (2002). Values and evaluation: Assessing processes and outcomes of restorative justice programs. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 162–188.
32.
RodriguezN. (2005). Restorative justice, communities, and delinquency: Whom do we reintegrate?Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 103–130.
33.
RodriguezN. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 355–379.
34.
RojekD. G.CoverdillJ. E.ForsS. W. (2003). The effect of victim impact panels on DUI rearrest rates: A five-year follow-up. Criminology, 41, 1319–1340.
35.
ShermanL.StrangH. (2004). Verdicts or inventions? Interpreting results from randomized controlled experiments in criminology. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 575–607.
36.
ShermanL. W.StrangH.Mayo-WilsonE.WoodsD. J.ArielB. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 1–24.
37.
SmithM. E. (2001). What future for “public safety” and “restorative justice” in community corrections?National Institute of Justice, 11, 472–478.
38.
StrangH.ShermanL. W.Mayo-WilsonE.WoodsD.ArielB. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: Effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12. doi:10.4073/csr.2013.12
39.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
TylerT. R.ShermanL.StrangH.BarnesG. C.WoodsD. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41, 553–586.
41.
UmbreitM.CoatesR. B.VosB. (2001). The impact of victim offender mediation: Two decades of research. Federal Probation, 65, 29–35.
42.
UmbreitM.ZehrH. (1996). Restorative family group conferences: Differing models and guidelines for practice. Federal Probation, 60, 24.
