Beyond face-to-face: Exploring the restorative potential of shuttle mediation

Abstract

Restorative justice is ideally conducted through face-to-face dialogue between victims and offenders, enabling direct engagement in addressing the aftermath of crime. This personal interaction is considered central to achieving the core aims of restorative justice, including accountability, empathy and healing. However, low rates of victim participation, alongside various practical and emotional constraints, often render face-to-face meetings unfeasible or undesirable. In response, shuttle mediation, where a facilitator conveys messages between the parties separately, has been adopted as a widely used alternative in the United Kingdom. This article explores the potential of shuttle mediation as a restorative justice intervention. Drawing on the existing, albeit limited, body of literature, it argues that while shuttle mediation can embody restorative principles, is widely implemented, and reflects the growing interest in restorative justice practices that extend beyond physical co-presence, its full potential remains unclear due to the paucity of empirical research. To bridge this gap, the article proposes avenues for future research aimed at strengthening the restorative nature of shuttle mediation.

Keywords

Apology letter restorative justice shuttle mediation victim absence

Introduction

Restorative justice (RJ) has been employed both as an alternative and as a complement to conventional criminal justice systems, particularly to address their limitations in facilitating victim participation in justice processes (Zehr, 2015). Research has demonstrated that RJ generally outperforms conventional criminal justice systems in several key areas, including participant satisfaction (Islam et al., 2023), perceived fairness (Kimbrell et al., 2023), crime prevention (Fulham et al., 2023) and emotional restoration (Nascimento et al., 2023). Given this body of evidence, there is a broad consensus that RJ is a more effective way of meeting victims’ needs than conventional approaches (Braithwaite, 2016; Doak and O’Mahony, 2018; Sherman et al., 2015). However, a fundamental question arises: what exactly constitutes RJ practice in this context? This question is crucial, as defining the core practices of RJ is essential for understanding how it can be applied effectively to address the aftermath of crime and promote restorative outcomes for both victims and offenders.

Some scholars argue that victim involvement is a critical component for RJ to be considered ‘fully’ restorative (McCold, 2000), as it plays a central role in both offender rehabilitation and the delivery of healing and justice to victims (Johnstone, 2017). Accordingly, despite ongoing debates over how RJ should be defined (Garland, 2023), some scholars restrict its scope to processes that involve direct, in-person (face-to-face)¹ communication between victims and offenders rather than asynchronous, indirect, non-person communication (see examples in Paul and Borton, 2017: 203). One such example, which I have referenced elsewhere (Suzuki, 2020, 2023b, 2025), is Daly’s (2016: 21, emphasis in the original) definition of RJ as ‘a meeting . . . of affected individuals, facilitated by one or more impartial people’. While a comprehensive discussion of RJ’s definition is beyond the scope of this article, the ongoing debate underscores a key point that, regardless of how RJ is defined, face-to-face dialogue between victims and offenders remains a central feature of RJ interventions. This emphasis on direct, in-person interaction highlights the unique potential of RJ to foster empathy, accountability and understanding, creating an environment where both victims and offenders can actively participate in the process of healing and justice.

However, it is important to emphasise that victim participation in direct, in-person RJ meetings is not always feasible in practice. Rather, victim absence has been widely documented (Hoyle and Rosenblatt, 2016) and can occur for various reasons, including a lack of interest in meeting their perpetrators (Andrews and Eide, 2024), limited awareness of RJ programmes (Gavrielides, 2022), and insufficient resources to facilitate and support victim participation (Sherman et al., 2008).² Given the high rate of victim absence in direct, in-person RJ meetings, Rosenblatt and Adamson (2023) advocate for the value of non-encounter RJ, particularly shuttle mediation, in which facilitators relay messages between victims and offenders. Non-encounter RJ approaches, such as shuttle mediation, can provide an alternative means of fostering accountability and healing, ensuring that the RJ process can still take place even when direct, in-person communication is not possible or desirable.

Inspired by Rosenblatt and Adamson (2023), this article examines the potential of shuttle mediation as an RJ intervention. Drawing on the existing, albeit limited, literature, it specifically investigates the extent to which shuttle mediation can be as restorative as direct, in-person communication between victims and offenders. This article seeks to develop a deeper understanding of shuttle mediation’s potential as an RJ intervention, offering insights into how it can be optimised to better serve both victims and offenders. It begins by defining shuttle mediation and outlining its practical application. It then reviews the available evidence on its effectiveness. This discussion is followed by an exploration of recent developments in RJ, particularly those driven by the impact of the global pandemic, which have contributed to a renewed interest in shuttle mediation. Finally, the article concludes by proposing a research agenda to identify the necessary steps for enhancing the restorative potential of shuttle mediation.

This article makes three key contributions. First, by examining the degree of restorativeness in shuttle mediation, it provides new insights into whether asynchronous, indirect, non-person interactions between victims and offenders can adequately determine what qualifies as RJ (Wood & Suzuki, 2016). This inquiry is particularly significant given the ongoing debate over what constitutes a truly restorative process (Walgrave, 2023). Second, given the emerging body of literature suggesting that victim presence in direct, in-person RJ meetings is not associated with reduced offending (Bonett et al., 2025), increased reparation rates (Hobbs et al., 2022) or enhanced perceptions of sincerity and dignity in treatment (Scheuerman et al., 2021), this article critically examines shuttle mediation as a viable RJ practice when face-to-face dialogue is deemed inappropriate for communication between victims and offenders. By doing so, it seeks to determine whether shuttle mediation can serve as an effective RJ intervention in cases where direct, in-person communication may be impractical or potentially harmful. Third, it contributes to the limited literature that seeks to clarify and distinguish between the different models of RJ processes and explores the theoretical and practical implications of implementing RJ differently (Hobbs et al., 2025; van Mastrigt et al., 2024).

What is shuttle mediation?

Shuttle mediation is a form of asynchronous, indirect communication between victims and offenders, wherein a neutral third party facilitates the exchange of letters, text messages and audio/video recordings without the parties meeting directly in-person. As the term ‘shuttle’ suggests, the process often involves the repeated transmission of information and requests between the parties, moving ‘back and forth between parties to ascertain information and to make requests’ (Payne et al., 2010: 45). Shuttle mediation can take various forms, including letter/text exchanges and audio/video-recordings (Institute for Criminal Police Research, 2016). For example, offenders may write a letter of apology to victims, while victims may ask facilitators to relay information about the consequences of the offence or pose questions to the offenders (Shapland et al., 2007).

Shuttle mediation is often preferred as an alternative when face-to-face dialogue is either unfeasible or undesirable. This approach is based on the premise that, even when direct, in-person communication between victims and offenders is not feasible, some form of asynchronous, indirect, non-person exchange can still yield meaningful benefits for both parties, and denying access to such a service would be unjustified (Marshall, 1996). Accordingly, shuttle mediation is commonly chosen as an alternative in cases where victims do not wish to meet their offenders in person (Hoyle and Batchelor, 2018) or in serious crimes including sexual offences (Payne et al., 2010). By offering a structured yet flexible approach, shuttle mediation ensures that RJ principles can be upheld even in contexts where face-to-face engagement is not viable.

Shuttle mediation, as an asynchronous, indirect, non-person form of communication, presents both limitations and opportunities in achieving restorative outcomes. Since it does not involve synchronous, direct, in-person communication, it may not provide conversational and bodily rhythm necessary for generating rituals between victims and offenders (Rossner, 2013), potentially limiting victims’ experience of emotional empathy or offenders’ opportunity to witness the direct impact of their actions (Hoyle, 2002). However, shuttle mediation may still produce therapeutic benefits, as it allows both victims and offenders to voice their experiences, take an active role in the conflict resolution process, and express their needs (Walters, 2014). Such communication may support the rebuilding of interpersonal relationships (Littman et al., 2024; Strauss et al., 2024), help victims reestablish their self-concept (Batchelor, 2023a) – a key factor in facilitating recovery through RJ (Suzuki, 2023b) – and enable offenders to better understand the consequences of their actions and develop problem-solving strategies necessary for desistance (Meléndez, 2021). While differing from synchronous, direct, in-person interaction, shuttle mediation can thus offer a meaningful method that upholds key RJ principles, including victim involvement in decision-making.

To my knowledge, there is no comprehensive study on the prevalence of shuttle mediation in practice, nor are there official statistics on its usage.³ One notable exception, albeit based on older data, is a report by the Institute for Criminal Police Research (2016), which conducted a mapping exercise on RJ provision in England and Wales. This study distributed a national survey to agencies and organisations involved in RJ implementation. At the time of the research, 52 youth justice providers reported conducting a total of 877 face-to-face dialogues, whereas 45 providers facilitated 2564 instances of shuttle mediation, including 1283 letter exchanges (Institute for Criminal Police Research, 2016). This figure stands in stark contrast to Australia, where face-to-face dialogue was more widely implemented, with a total of 5707 cases recorded statewide in the same year, although the victim participation rate remained unknown (Productivity Commission, 2016). Despite the age of these data, they suggest that shuttle mediation may be practised on a much larger scale than face-to-face dialogue, especially in the United Kingdom (Marder, 2018).

What do we know about shuttle mediation?

Given the potential of shuttle mediation as an alternative to face-to-face dialogue and its widespread implementation, it is crucial to assess its effectiveness in achieving restorative outcomes. However, research on shuttle mediation remains limited (Liebmann and Wootton, 2010), and empirical studies often fail to clearly differentiate between face-to-face dialogue and shuttle mediation in their analyses (e.g. Batchelor, 2023b; Meléndez, 2021). This lack of distinction complicates efforts to evaluate the specific benefits and limitations of shuttle mediation as a distinct RJ practice. Acknowledging these gaps, this section critically reviews the existing, albeit limited, evidence on shuttle mediation to better understand its impact and potential within RJ frameworks.

A few studies have presented a promising outlook on the effectiveness of shuttle mediation. Bouffard et al. (2017) conducted a comparative analysis of crime prevention outcomes among juvenile offenders processed through the traditional court system and those who participated in various RJ interventions, including both in-person and non-person mediation, in the United States. Their findings indicated that, regardless of the specific type of RJ intervention, participation in RJ interventions was more likely to be associated with reduced recidivism, which was measured by contact with law enforcement over 4 years, compared to traditional juvenile court processing. Beyond its potential crime prevention effects, shuttle mediation has also been linked to transformative impacts. Walters (2014), in his study on shuttle mediation for hate crime cases in the United Kingdom, highlighted that although asynchronous, indirect, non-person communication posed challenges in conveying emotions as effectively as face-to-face dialogue, it nonetheless facilitated meaningful engagement between victims and offenders. His research demonstrated that shuttle mediation could still succeed in communicating the impact of the offence to offenders and fostering a sense of accountability. Crucially, these outcomes were partly contingent on the skill and expertise of facilitators, who played a pivotal role in accurately interpreting the harm experienced by victims and effectively relaying the contextual circumstances of the offence to offenders (Walters, 2014). This finding underscores the importance of facilitator training and intervention quality in maximising the restorative potential of shuttle mediation.

In contrast, other studies have presented a less favourable assessment of shuttle mediation, consistently demonstrating that participants, particularly victims, express lower levels of satisfaction with shuttle mediation compared to direct mediation (Bachinger and Pelikan, 2015; Shapland et al., 2007; Wilcox and Hoyle, 2004). Several potential explanations have been proposed for this disparity. For example, frustration was experienced by participants due to the time-consuming nature of shuttle mediation. Victims, in particular, have reported dissatisfaction with delays in receiving responses from offenders, as well as the inability to obtain the specific information they sought (Shapland, 2012). In addition, Bolívar (2013, 2019) highlighted the potential influence of victims’ pre-existing orientations towards communication with offenders. Using a mixed-methods approach, her research compared victims who participated in direct mediation with those who engaged in shuttle mediation in Spain and Belgium. The findings indicated that victims who opted for direct, in-person mediation tended to hold a more positive perception of offenders prior to the dialogue and were more likely to seek explanations for the offence through direct, in-person communication with offenders. In contrast, victims who participated in shuttle mediation were generally more sceptical towards offenders from the outset, often placing blame on them while still seeking an understanding of the offence through communication (Bolívar, 2013, 2019). These findings suggest that pre-existing attitudes towards offenders may shape victims’ experiences and perceptions of the mediation process, potentially influencing their overall satisfaction with RJ interventions (Suzuki, 2020). In other words, some victims may choose shuttle mediation over face-to-face dialogue because they perceive that such a process would have little impact on themselves or the offenders, or because they believe it is unlikely to satisfy their retributive needs. Shuttle mediation may yield less favourable outcomes because it is often used in cases that are not well-suited for face-to-face dialogue.

Overall, the existing literature on shuttle mediation presents a mixed picture. While some studies underscore its potential to reduce recidivism and promote offender accountability, others highlight significant limitations, particularly regarding victims’ lower levels of satisfaction compared to direct mediation. The effectiveness of shuttle mediation appears to be contingent on several factors, including the skill of facilitators in accurately conveying the impact of the offence and fostering meaningful engagement between parties. Conversely, negative experiences are often attributed to delays in communication, barriers to effective message transmission, and victims’ pre-existing perceptions of offenders, which may shape their engagement with the process. Given these complexities, there is a pressing need to revitalise scholarly inquiry into shuttle mediation, particularly by addressing existing research gaps and exploring ways to enhance its effectiveness. The following section examines the recent resurgence of interest in shuttle mediation in light of the transformative societal impact of the global pandemic.

Renewing the interest in shuttle mediation

The COVID-19 pandemic is arguably one of the most significant global crises of the past century, profoundly reshaping various aspects of daily life. In an effort to curb the spread of the virus, governments worldwide implemented lockdown measures, and individuals were required to practice social distancing. Consequently, face-to-face interactions were largely replaced by virtual communication. Notably, this shift has partially persisted beyond the pandemic, continuing to influence social and professional interactions (Chen et al., 2023). Digital communication has become the dominant mode of interaction across multiple sectors, including business, education and healthcare (Westgarth, 2021). Furthermore, research indicates that individuals may allocate less time to in-person meetings and increasingly rely on email for professional correspondence (DeFilippis et al., 2022). As such, there is a widespread shift towards digital communication in the post-pandemic era.

It is unsurprising that the implementation of face-to-face RJ meetings was severely restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many other societal activities, RJ practices transitioned to virtual platforms during this period (Marder and Rossner, 2021), contributing to the emergence of what has become known as digital RJ (Romero-Seseña, 2025a), in which communication occurs non-personally but live via phone/video calls. Although digital RJ remains in its early stages in the post-pandemic era, where face-to-face dialogue is no longer restricted, limited research on digital RJ has highlighted both its benefits and limitations.

Digital RJ offers advantages. One of the most notable advantages is enhanced accessibility. As long as participants have Internet access, geographical barriers no longer impede online dialogue between victims and offenders (Marder and Rossner, 2021). In addition, digital RJ enables participants to avoid direct physical confrontations, which can foster a greater sense of security. This physical distance may contribute to a more comfortable environment, allowing individuals to express their emotions and perspectives more freely during online dialogue (Bonensteffen et al., 2022). Overall, these benefits suggest that digital RJ has the potential to make restorative practices more inclusive and adaptable to diverse needs.

However, digital RJ also presents significant challenges. Beyond the obvious technological difficulties, a primary drawback is the limited ability to convey non-verbal cues effectively. Compared to face-to-face dialogue, online meetings have a reduced capacity to capture a participant’s emotional state and non-verbal expressions (Hossain, 2025; Romero-Seseña, 2025a, 2025b). Consequently, video conferencing can only communicate a fraction of the interpersonal nuances that are crucial for meaningful engagement, potentially hindering the humanisation of interactions between victims and offenders (Bonensteffen et al., 2022). This limitation is particularly concerning, as fostering a sense of human connection is a fundamental element of successful RJ practices (Suzuki & Yuan, 2021). This challenge highlights the need for careful consideration of the medium used in RJ practices, ensuring that the potential benefits of digital platforms are not outweighed by the loss of critical interpersonal dynamics that underpin the RJ process.

The rise of digital RJ has introduced an innovative approach to RJ implementation, with significant implications for shuttle mediation. For example, while all forms of RJ have inherent advantages and limitations, both digital RJ and shuttle mediation can offer increased flexibility by facilitating communication without the need for physical co-presence. These approaches can be particularly beneficial in cases where direct interaction may pose safety risks or emotional distress. However, such approaches may also fall short of achieving the depth of relational repair that face-to-face encounters can potentially offer. Therefore, further research on shuttle mediation and digital RJ is needed for practitioners to provide victims with a clear explanation of the full range of RJ options and to engage them in informed discussions to determine the most appropriate and empowering course of action. In addition, the shift towards digital and shuttle mediation highlights the need for practitioners to acquire a distinct set of skills tailored to these formats, including the ability to foster empathy and engagement without physical co-presence. Facilitating online, live communication (Romero-Seseña, 2025a) and asynchronous, indirect, non-person communication (Walters, 2014) may demand the distinct ability to interpret subtle non-verbal cues and hidden messages in text within constrained virtual environments and convey these nuances accurately, ensuring that the original intent of messages is preserved. Given their extensive experience and skill development over the decades, practitioners may already be well-equipped to serve as effective intermediaries in shuttle mediation (Moore and Vernon, 2024), but further research is warranted. As digital and shuttle mediation methods continue to evolve, they offer a promising path forward for RJ practices, broadening access to RJ processes as a human right (Susi and Marder, 2025). These developments have contributed to renewing interest in shuttle mediation by highlighting its potential as a legitimate RJ practice, particularly in cases where direct interaction may not be feasible or appropriate.

What next?

Is shuttle mediation as restorative as direct, in-person mediation? At this stage, the answer is only partially affirmative. While its flexibility suggests that it could serve as an alternative RJ practice when face-to-face dialogue is deemed inappropriate, further research is necessary due to the limited studies available and the mixed findings on its effectiveness. Therefore, this article concludes by proposing potential avenues for future research aimed at enhancing the restorative nature of shuttle mediation. By exploring these avenues, future research can help clarify both the effectiveness of shuttle mediation and the conditions under which shuttle mediation can be considered as restorative as traditional face-to-face interactions, ultimately refining its role within the broader framework of RJ practices. Specifically, future research should address two interrelated questions: (1) To what extent is shuttle mediation more effective and efficient than other justice responses? and (2) through what mechanisms does shuttle mediation maximise its restorative potential?

Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of shuttle mediation

Identifying the effectiveness and efficiency of shuttle mediation will require rigorous evaluation. As with direct, in-person communication (Shapland et al., 2011), randomised controlled trials should be conducted following established protocols (Gaffney et al., 2024) to assess the impact of shuttle mediation. Such trials could examine outcomes including participant satisfaction, perceptions of fairness and legitimacy, and crime prevention or reduction, by comparing shuttle mediation with other justice responses, including conventional justice approaches and direct, in-person RJ meetings.

Research has demonstrated that RJ interventions are generally more cost-beneficial than conventional criminal justice approaches (Jones et al., 2023). However, this study did not distinguish between in-person and non-person mediation, leaving it unclear whether shuttle mediation offers greater cost benefits than direct mediation, let alone traditional justice processes. If shuttle mediation proves to be more cost-effective, this could provide further justification for its broader implementation not merely as an alternative to face-to-face dialogue, but as a complementary and potentially mainstream approach within RJ practice. Future research could investigate the financial implications of shuttle mediation by comparing the costs associated with facilitating both in-person and non-person mediation, considering not only monetary costs but also the overall effectiveness and restorative outcomes. Understanding the cost-effectiveness of shuttle mediation in relation to its restorative potential would help justify its integration into mainstream RJ practices, particularly in contexts where direct interaction may not be feasible or desirable.

Examining the conditions for maximising the restorative potential of shuttle mediation

Identifying the mechanisms by which shuttle mediation maximises its restorative potential requires in-depth investigation into the processes underpinning its practice. For example, future research should examine how the screening process is conducted to determine the suitability of cases for shuttle mediation. In the context of face-to-face dialogue, research suggests that practitioners typically assess ‘risks of engaging in [RJ] process, and the extent to which such risks could be minimised’ (Shapland et al., 2024: 270). However, the application of these considerations to shuttle mediation remains unclear. Shuttle mediation can be a valuable alternative when direct, face-to-face mediation is not feasible or desirable; however, it must still be prepared with the same level of care and diligence. Despite its asynchronous, indirect, non-person format, shuttle mediation carries inherent risks, such as the potential for miscommunication, emotional distress, or power imbalances, which necessitate thorough risk assessment and careful facilitation to ensure the safety and well-being of all parties involved. Although it is unlikely that practitioners would relay a perpetrator’s threatening message verbatim (Busch, 2002), ensuring the perceived safety of victims during and after shuttle mediation is essential. This must be done without compromising the integrity of asynchronous, indirect, non-person communication. However, if practitioners fail to convey key messages appropriately, shuttle mediation may contribute to victims’ enduring fear, particularly in cases where no agreement about making amends is reached due to concerns about potential retaliation from perpetrators (Hooper and Busch, 1996). Therefore, a rigorous screening process is crucial to safeguarding victims while maintaining the restorative intent of shuttle mediation. By establishing a clear screening protocol, shuttle mediation can be better aligned with RJ principles, ensuring that the process remains safe and effective for all parties involved.

Research suggests that the success of shuttle mediation partly depends on the skills of mediators, as they are responsible for interpreting ambiguous messages and conveying information accurately while preserving the essence of communication (Walters, 2014). However, an important question arises: to what extent should practitioners be permitted to exercise discretion in interpreting and modifying messages to ensure that shuttle mediation remains restorative? In addition, there is little clarity on the optimal number of exchanges required for an effective process. How many exchanges are sufficient to facilitate meaningful dialogue, and how do practitioners determine when both parties have reached a genuine consensus over what has happened? Practitioners may need to assess each case individually, as the process may vary depending on the complexity of the conflict and the emotional readiness of both parties. Addressing these questions is crucial for refining the practice of shuttle mediation and ensuring its alignment with RJ principles. To maintain RJ values in shuttle mediation, practitioners may need to balance their role as facilitators with the need to preserve the integrity of the messages exchanged between victims and offenders.

Future research should examine the circumstances under which shuttle mediation is most likely to meet participants’ needs. This question is particularly relevant in light of the recent global call to identify the mechanisms through which RJ operates (Lanterman, 2021; Suzuki, 2023a). In the context of face-to-face dialogue, research has shown that factors such as social class (Willis, 2020), oral language competence (Riley and Hayes, 2018) and maturity (Suzuki & Wood, 2018) can impact direct, in-person communication and, consequently, RJ outcomes. Since shuttle mediation primarily relies on text-based communication without non-verbal cues, individuals with limited communication skills may be at an even greater disadvantage, even with the support of practitioners. Therefore, it may be necessary for practitioners to assess participants’ communication abilities and provide tailored support to ensure that the process remains accessible and restorative for all. Understanding how these factors shape shuttle mediation’s effectiveness is essential for ensuring its accessibility and restorative potential across diverse participant groups.

Concluding remarks

While shuttle mediation presents a promising alternative RJ practice, its legitimacy as a fully restorative process remains uncertain. This article has highlighted key areas requiring further research, including the screening process, best practices, impacts on participants and cost-effectiveness. Addressing these gaps will help determine whether shuttle mediation can truly align with RJ principles or whether it is merely a pragmatic alternative to face-to-face dialogue. Future studies should focus on developing standardised guidelines, evaluating long-term outcomes and refining mediator training to enhance the restorative potential of shuttle mediation. By doing so, shuttle mediation can be positioned not only as an alternative but as a meaningful and effective RJ practice in its own right.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr David Moore and Associate Professor Ian D. Marder for their comments on the early draft of this paper.

ORCID iD

Masahiro Suzuki

Ethics approval and informed consent statements

Not applicable.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Not applicable.

Notes

Author biography

Masahiro Suzuki, PhD, is a lecturer in criminology at the Department of Criminology, Sociology, and Social Policy, Loughborough University, United Kingdom. His research interests include restorative justice, youth offending, desistance, victimology, comparative criminology and elder crime. As an early career researcher, he has more than 40 publications.

References

Andrews

Eide

(2024) Revisiting the gap between ideals and realities within restorative justice: Experiences from the Norwegian youth justice reform. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Epub ahead of print 5 March. DOI: 10.1177/17488958241235403.

Bachinger

Pelikan

(2015) Victims and restorative justice in Austria. In: Bolívar

Aertsen

Vanfraechem

(eds) Victims and Restorative Justice: Country Reports. Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice, pp. 19–54.

Batchelor

(2023a) Separating the ‘deed’ from the ‘done-to’: How communicating with the offender can change victims’ self-concept. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(5–6): 4877–4905.

Batchelor

(2023b) Talking punishment: How victim perceptions of punishment change when they communicate with offenders. Punishment & Society 25(2): 519–536.

Bolívar

(2013) For whom is restorative justice? A mixed-method study on victims and (non-) participation. Restorative Justice 1(2): 190–214.

Bolívar

(2019) Restoring Harm: A Psycho-Social Approach to Victims and Restorative Justice. London: Routledge.

Bonensteffen

Zebel

Giebels

(2022) Is computer-based communication a valuable addition to victim-offender mediation? A qualitative exploration among victims, offenders and mediators. Victims & Offenders 17(8): 1173–1195.

Bonett

Lloyd

Stone

, et al. (2025) Group conferencing is associated with lower rates of repeated recidivism among higher-risk youth and there are enhanced effects based on who attended the conference. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 23(1): 72–93.

Bouffard

Cooper

Bergseth

(2017) The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(4): 465–480.

10.

Braithwaite

(2016) Restorative justice and responsive regulation: The question of evidence. DOI: org/10.2139/ssrn.2839086.

11.

Busch

(2002) Domestic violence and restorative justice initiatives: Who pays if we get it wrong. In: Strang

Braithwaite

(eds) Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–224.

12.

Chen

Cho

Evans

, et al. (2023) Editorial: Reimaging communication in a post-pandemic world: The intersection of information, media technology, and psychology. Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1154044.

13.

Daly

(2016) What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders 11(1): 9–29.

14.

DeFilippis

Impink

Singell

, et al. (2022) The impact of COVID-19 on digital communication patterns. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications 9: 180.

15.

Doak

O’Mahony

(2018) Evaluating the success of restorative justice conferencing based approach. In: Gavrielides

(ed.) Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice. London: Routledge, pp. 211–223.

16.

Fulham

Blais

Rugge

, et al. (2023) The effectiveness of restorative justice programs: A meta-analysis of recidivism and other relevant outcomes. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Epub ahead of print 30 November. DOI: 10.1177/17488958231215228.

17.

Gaffney

Jolliffe

Eggins

, et al. (2024) Protocol: The effect of restorative justice interventions for young people on offending and reoffending: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 20(2): e1403.

18.

Garland

(2023) How should we define restorative justice? A response to Lode Walgrave. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 6(3): 440–453.

19.

Gavrielides

(2022) Race, Power & Restorative Justice: The Dialogue We Never Had. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003194576/power-race-justice-theo-gavrielides

20.

Hobbs

Cienfuegos-Silvera

Wylie

(2022) Variations in victim presence in restorative youth conferencing programs: The use of surrogate victims increases reparation completion. Victims & Offenders 17(7): 994–1008.

21.

Hobbs

Garman

Brewer

, et al. (2025) Restorative diversion: Victim youth conferencing effects on recidivism. Criminal Justice Studies 38(2): 147–159.

22.

Hooper

Busch

(1996) Domestic violence and the restorative justice initiatives: The risks of a new panacea. Waikato Law Review 4: 101–129.

23.

Hossain

(2025) COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges in providing restorative justice services in Scotland. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 8(1): 110–130.

24.

Hoyle

(2002) Securing restorative justice for the ‘non-participating’ victim. In: Hoyle

Young

(eds) New Visions of Crime Victims. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 97–132.

25.

Hoyle

Batchelor

(2018) Making room for procedural justice in restorative justice theory. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 1(2): 175–186.

26.

Hoyle

Rosenblatt

(2016) Looking back to the future: Threats to the success of restorative justice in the United Kingdom. Victims & Offenders 11(1): 30–49.

27.

Institute for Criminal Police Research (2016) Report for the youth justice board of restorative justice provision in England & Wales. Available at: https://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/ICPR%20mapping%20report%20of%20restorative%20justice%20provision.pdf

28.

Islam

Anderson

(2023) An assessment of the potential outcomes in practising restorative justice in criminal settings in Australia and the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Contemporary Justice Review 26(3): 262–298.

29.

Johnstone

(2017) Restorative justice for victims: Inherent limits? Restorative Justice 5(3): 382–395.

30.

Jones

Jaffé

Harris

, et al. (2023) An economic evaluation of restorative justice post-sentence in England and Wales. Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1–14.

31.

Kimbrell

Wilson

Olaghere

(2023) Restorative justice programs and practices in juvenile justice: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for effectiveness. Criminology & Public Policy 22(1): 161–195.

32.

Lanterman

(2021) Models versus mechanisms: The need to crack the black box of restorative justice. British Journal of Community Justice 17(1): 60–78.

33.

Liebmann

Wootton

(2010) Restorative justice and domestic violence/abuse: A report commissioned by HMP Cardiff. Available at: https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/RestorativeJusticeandDomesticViolenceandAbuse.pdf

34.

Littman

Valdovinos

Sliva

(2024) ‘He went from being a monster to a person’: Using narrative analysis to explore how victim-offender dialogue (VOD) participants transform through the VOD process. Qualitative Social Work 23(4): 705–724.

35.

Marder

(2018) Restorative justice and the police: Exploring the institutionalisation of restorative justice in two English forces. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leeds, Leeds.

36.

Marder

Rossner

(2021) Restorative justice during and after COVID-19. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 4(2): 305–314.

37.

Marshall

(1996) The evolution of restorative justice in Britain. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 4(4): 21–43.

38.

McCold

(2000) Toward a holistic vision of restorative juvenile justice: A reply to the maximalist model. Contemporary Justice Review 3(4): 357–414.

39.

Meléndez

(2021) The role of criminogenic needs and emotions in restorative justice: Offenders’ experiences in victim-offender mediation. European Journal of Probation 13(1): 21–40.

40.

Moore

Vernon

(2024) Setting Relations Right in Restorative Practice: Broadening Mindsets and Skill Sets. London: Routledge.

41.

Nascimento

Andrade

Rodrigues

ADC

(2023) The psychological impact of restorative justice practices on victims of crimes – A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24(3): 1929–1947.

42.

Paul

Borton

(2017) Toward a communication perspective of restorative justice: Implications for research, facilitation, and assessment. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 10(3): 199–219.

43.

Payne

Conway

Bell

, et al. (2010) Restorative practices in Northern Ireland: A mapping exercise. Available at: http://www.fgcni.org/cmsfiles/Publications/Restorative-Practices-in-Northern-Ireland-FINAL.pdf

44.

Productivity Commission (2016) Report on government services 2016. Available at: https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2016/data-downloads

45.

Riley

Hayes

(2018) Youth restorative justice conferencing: Facilitator’s language – help or hindrance? Contemporary Justice Review 21(1): 99–113.

46.

Romero-Seseña

(2025a) Applicability and uses of the online environment in restorative mediation: Towards a digital restorative justice? Current Issues in Criminal Justice 37(1): 75–93.

47.

Romero-Seseña

(2025b) Is there a communication perspective for digital restorative justice? Insights from the experience of Spanish facilitators. Criminal Justice and Behavior 52(7): 1007–1026.

48.

Rosenblatt

Adamson

(2023) Non-encounter restorative justice interventions-now what? Contemporary Justice Review 26(1): 93–110.

49.

Rossner

(2013) Just Emotions: Rituals of Restorative Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50.

Scheuerman

Gilbert

Keith

, et al. (2021) Discerning justice: Clarifying the role of procedural and interactional justice in restorative conferencing. Contemporary Justice Review 24(1): 4–23.

51.

Shapland

(2012) Comparing conferencing and mediation: Some evaluation results internationally. In: Zinsstag

Vanfraechem

(eds) Conferencing and Restorative Justice: International Practices and Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–64.

52.

Shapland

Atkinson

, et al. (2007) Restorative justice: The views of victims and offenders the third report from the evaluation of three schemes.

53.

Shapland

Buchan

Kirkwood

, et al. (2024) Mitigating risk in restorative justice. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 7(2): 250–273.

54.

Shapland

Robinson

Sorsby

(2011) Restorative Justice in Practice: Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. London: Routledge.

55.

Sherman

Strang

Newbury-Birch

(2008) Restorative justice.

56.

Sherman

Strang

Barnes

, et al. (2015) Twelve experiments in restorative justice: The Jerry Lee program of randomized trials of restorative justice conferences. Journal of Experimental Criminology 11(4): 501–540.

57.

Strauss

Cummings

Deleurme

(2024) ‘We’ve got history now’: Victim and justice-involved youth experiences during mediation sessions. Criminal Justice and Behavior 51(9): 1397–1412.

58.

Susi

Marder

(2025) Conceptualising and assessing a human right to access restorative justice in European criminal law. New Journal of European Criminal Law. Epub ahead of print 17 March. DOI: 10.1177/20322844251325723.

59.

Suzuki

(2020) From “What Works” to “How It Works” in research on restorative justice conferencing: The concept of readiness. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 3(3): 356–373.

60.

Suzuki

(2023a) Revisiting the real story of restorative justice in the criminal justice system: 20 years on. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 65(2): 78–96.

61.

Suzuki

(2023b) Victim recovery in restorative justice: A theoretical framework. Criminal Justice and Behavior 50(12): 1893–1908.

62.

Suzuki

(2025) Offender journeys in restorative youth justice conferencing: The overlap between restorative justice and desistance. Deviant Behavior 46(4): 435–455.

63.

Suzuki

Wood

(2018) Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice 18(4): 450–467.

64.

Suzuki

Yuan

(2021) How does restorative justice work? A qualitative metasynthesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior 48(10): 1347–1365.

65.

van Mastrigt

Strang

Sherman

, et al. (2024) Victim and offender ratings of mediations and restorative justice conferences: Findings from a Danish randomized controlled trial. Victims & Offenders. Epub ahead of print 19 November. DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2024.2420284.

66.

Walgrave

(2023) Concerns about the meaning of ‘restorative justice’. Reflections of a veteran. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 6(3): 353–369.

67.

Walters

(2014) Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Exploring Causes, Repairing Harms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

68.

Westgarth

(2021) Has the pandemic changed the way we communicate? BDJ in Practice 34(8): 14–18.

69.

Wilcox

Hoyle

(2004) The national evaluation of the youth justice board’s restorative justice projects.

70.

Willis

(2020) ‘Let’s talk about it’: Why social class matters to restorative justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice 20(2): 187–206.

71.

Wood

W. R.

Suzuki

(2016) Four challenges in the future of restorative justice. Victims & Offenders 11(1): 149–172.

72.

Zehr

(2015) Changing Lenses: Restorative Justice for Our Times. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press.