Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONFERENCING

OVERVIEW

Restorative Justice Conferencing involves a meeting between youth offenders, victims of their offense, and family members or others who have been affected by the offense. The end result of these meetings is an agreement for reparations which is signed by all parties. A randomized, experimental evaluation of the Restorative Justice Conferencing program found that it was effective in reducing the incidence of re-arrest in offenders.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Non-serious, non-violent criminal offenders under the age of 14

Restorative Justice Conferencing recognizes the minimal time often given to juvenile cases and the passive role played by the juveniles. It is based in the idea that an offender will be more responsive to known members of their community rather than an unknown criminal justice system, especially if they see the effects of their actions. Taking advantage of this, the program seeks to get offenders to come face-to-face with the people who have been affected by their offense. Conferences, which last about 45 minutes in length, are attended by the offender, victims, parents, and others who have been affected by the incident. All parties discuss the incident and come to an agreement which lays out how the offender will make reparations for their actions. At the end of the meeting, a written agreement is signed by attendees and a volunteer is designated to act as an overseer to make sure the offender carries out the terms of the agreement.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

McGarrell, E. (2001). Restorative justice conferences as an early response to young offenders. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Evaluated population: 458 offenders with a median age of 13 years from Indianapolis. Across the control and treatment group, 61% of offenders were nonwhite and 39% were white and two-thirds were male. Shoplifting was the most common primary offense that the offenders committed; other offenses included battery, theft, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, trespassing, intimidation, and other offenses.

Approach: To participate in the evaluation, the children had to meet a set of criteria. They had to be under the age of 14, be a first-time offender, have no other pending charges, and admit responsibility for the offense; they also could not have committed a violent or serious offense. After meeting the criteria, children were randomly assigned to either the control group or the Restorative Justice Conference program. Children in the control group were then assigned to one of 23 other diversion programs that were normally available to offenders.

Children were assessed by researchers at the conferencing session using an observation checklist. In additin, the juveniles, their parents and the victims completed interviews to measure satisfaction with the program, whether the program helped them, whether they thought the outcome of the program was fair, if they were able to express their views during the conference, if they felt involved, and if they felt they were treated with respect during the program. In addition, researchers gathered data from the offender’s file to see if they had completed the program that they were assigned to and if they were re-arrested.

Results: More offenders in the treatment program completed their program than offenders in the control programs (83% versus 58%). Juveniles and particularly victims in the treatment group expressed greater satisfaction with how their case was handled. Six months after the intervention children in the treatment program were less likely to be rearrested than children in the control group. In fact, there were 40% fewer total arrests in the treatment group compared with the control group (20% versus 34%). At 12 months after the end of the program, children in the treatment program were still less likely to be arrested compared with those in the control programs (30% versus 42%). Impacts did not differ by gender, race, or type of offense.

Interview data with both victims and offenders were not analyzed in terms of significance and probability testing because of delays in the interview process. However, initial findings seemed to support the program in terms of victim and offender satisfaction and also in terms of effectiveness, fairness, offender involvement, and respect for the offender.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Website: http://www.restorativejustice.org/

References

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 11-14 years / Program age ranges in the Guide: adolescence

Program components: clinic-based, provider-based, or miscellaneous; parent or family component

Measured outcomes: behavioral problems

Program information last updated 6/23/08