Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behavior. Practices and programs reflecting restorative purposes will respond to crime by 1) identifying and taking steps to repair harm, 2) involving all stakeholders, and 3) transforming the traditional relationship between communities and government in responding to crime.

While most approaches to juvenile justice focus on punishing or treating delinquent youth, restorative justice seeks to involve the entire community in rehabilitating offenders and holding them accountable for their behavior. By bringing together victims, offenders, families, and other key stakeholders in a variety of settings, restorative justice helps offenders understand the implications of their actions and provides an opportunity for them to become reconnected to the community.

Some of the most common programs typically associated with restorative justice include mediation and conflict resolution programs, restitution and community service, family group conferences, victim-offender mediation, and victim impact panels

Restitution and Community Service
The most common and most established types of restorative justice are restitution and community service programs. Such programs hold offenders personally accountable for their crimes and force them to make reparations to victims (either directly or indirectly). Over the past 25 years, restitution and community service programs have expanded considerably. A great deal of this growth resulted from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and other Federal initiatives. In 1977, OJJDP launched a major restitution initiative by funding 85 new restitution programs. This was followed in 1983 by the National Restitution Training Program and in 1985 the Restitution Education, Specialized Training, and Technical Assistance (RESTTA) Project. The RESTTA National Directory of Restitution and Community Service Programs estimated recently that there were 547 community service and restitution programs nationwide (Schneider and Finkelstein, 1998).

There are three major types of restitution programs: community service, monetary restitution, and direct service to victims (Schneider and Finkelstein, 1998). Community service is work performed by an offender for the benefit of the community. It offers a way for the offender to be held accountable and to repair some of the harm caused by his or her criminal conduct. Monetary restitution is a process by which offenders are held partially or fully accountable for the financial losses suffered by the victims of their crimes. Restitution is typically ordered to compensate victims in cases of property crime, fraud, forgery, or theft. It may also be applied to reimburse victims of violent crime for expenses related to their physical and mental health recovery and to make up for loss of support for survivors of homicide victims (Schneider and Finkelstein, 1998). Direct service to victims is the rarest form of restitution. It is a type of reconciliation in which the offender and the victim meet in a carefully supervised setting to determine how the offender can make restitution directly to the victim by performing a service. These services usually include repairing property damaged by the offender or other services such as lawn mowing or snow removal. This type of personalized restitution incorporates the benefit of the victim being able to meet the offender, which often alleviates the fear associated with the criminal encounter (much like mediation programs to be discussed later).
In general, research suggests that restitution programs can lower recidivism. For example, a study of 6,336 formal juvenile probation cases in Utah found that juveniles agreeing to pay restitution as an informal disposition, as well as those formally ordered to pay restitution, returned to court significantly less often than juveniles who did not pay restitution (Butts and Snyder, 1992). In addition, Schneider and Schneider (1984) found that participants who completed their restitution requirements were significantly less likely to recidivate than participants who did not complete the requirements.

Schneider and Finkelstein (1998) found that one of the most important issues pertaining to the success of restitution and community service programs is the extent to which the program is considered a “formal” sanction. In general, a program is considered formal if it has a name, at least one full-time staff person solely responsible for enforcing restitution orders, and a written set of policies and procedures. Schneider and Finkelstein found a large difference in effectiveness between the use of restitution as a formal sanction and as an informal one. Further, the national evaluation of the Juvenile Restitution Initiative showed that formal restitution programs resulted in much higher completion rates and much lower recidivism than informal ones (Schneider and Schneider, 1984).

Finally, research also demonstrates that there are several obstacles that directly influence the ability to implement and manage a successful restitution program (Seymour, 1999). These obstacles include the belief among some justice professionals that all offenders are indigent and cannot afford to pay restitution; the fact that restitution orders often are not first in the priority of court-ordered payments and follow behind court costs, fines, salaries, costs of incarceration, and other financial obligations; the lack of interagency agreements stipulating who is responsible for monitoring, enforcing, collecting, and disbursing restitution; and cynicism of some crime victims and service providers about efforts to collect restitution.

Family Group Conferences
Family group conferences (FGCs) are facilitated discussions that allow those most affected by a particular crime—the victim, the offender, and the family and friends of both—to discuss the impact of the crime and decide how the offender should be held accountable for it (Umbreit, 2000). FGC originated in New Zealand as a way to address the failures of traditional juvenile justice. It incorporates indigenous Maori values that emphasize the roles of family and community in addressing wrongdoing (McGarrell, 2001). Australia subsequently adopted the concept and has implemented several FGC models. Today, FGC is used extensively as a formal juvenile sanction in New Zealand and Australia and to a lesser extent in the United States (Immarigeon, 1999), including communities in Indiana, Florida Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia (McGarrel, et al., 2000).
Group conferencing follows principally from the theory of reintegrative shaming. It argues that people are generally deterred from committing crime by two informal forms of social control: fear of social disapproval and conscience (Braithwaite,1989). Braithwaite argues that the consequences imposed by family members, friends, or other individuals important to an offender are more meaningful and therefore more effective than those imposed by the legal system. As a result, the fear of being shamed by the people most intimate with an offender is the most significant deterrent to committing crime.

A typical conference begins when the victim, the offender, and each of their supporters are brought together with a trained facilitator to discuss the incident and the harm it has caused. It proceeds with the offender describing the incident and each participant describing the impact of the incident on his or her life. The purpose of this process is for the offender to face the human impact of his or her crime (Umbreit, 2000). The victim then is presented with the opportunity to express feelings, ask questions about the offense, and identify desired outcomes from the conference. All participants may contribute to the process of determining how the offender might best repair the harm. By the end of the conference, the participants must reach an agreement on how the youth can make amends to the victim and sign a reparation agreement. The agreement typically includes an apology, and it often includes a requirement that some type of restitution be made to the victim. Some agreements require youth to perform community service or call for other actions such as improving school attendance, completing homework, or performing chores at home or school (McGarrell, 2001).

Although the evidence to date is somewhat limited, the existing research supports the use of group conferences as an alternative to traditional juvenile justice practices. Three formal experiments of group conferences found promising results. In the United States, an evaluation of police-run conferences in Bethlehem, Pa., found high levels of victim satisfaction and some evidence of reduced reoffending for person offenses, but not property offenses (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). In Canberra, Australia, an evaluation of the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) also reported high levels of victim satisfaction and showed positive changes in the attitudes of offenders (Strang et al., 1999), but the impact of group conferences on recidivism remains under investigation. Finally, the Indianapolis Restorative Justice Experiment found that group conferences produced high levels of satisfaction among participants and promising recidivism results. The evaluation found that youths participating in conferences were significantly less likely to have been rearrested six-months after the initial incident. The rate of rearrest was 20 percent for conferenced youths compared to 34 percent for the control group. When limited to those youths who successfully completed the diversion program (conference or control group program), 12 percent of the youths involved in conferences had been re-arrested compared to 23 percent of the control group. (McGarrell, et al., 2000). Similar findings were observed at 12 months for the total sample (McGarrell, 2001).

Victim Impact Panels
Victim impact panels are forums for crime victims to explain the real-world impact of crime to offenders. Unlike group conferences, victim impact panels do not involve direct personal contact between the offender and his/her victim. Instead, victim impact panels generally use surrogate victims, or family and friends of victims of similar experiences. The purpose of the panel is to help offenders individualize and humanize the consequences of their crimes on victims and the community (Immarigeon, 1999).
Today, there is a small but growing trend in the use of victim impact panels as a sentencing option for a variety of offenses such as property crimes, physical assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse. Panels have been used in prison and jail settings, with parolees, and in treatment programs, defensive driving schools, and youth education programs. Offender participation in these panels is generally court ordered. Panels typically involve three or four victim speakers, each of whom spends about 15 minutes communicating his or her story in a nonjudgmental manner. Victim service organizations generally either implement the program for the court or work in collaboration with justice personnel. They provide services such as screening potential panel members, moderating the panels, and record keeping.

Research on victim impact panels is relatively limited and contradictory, but promising. Fors and Rojeck (1999) compared the rearrest rates of 834 DUI offenders who attended a victim impact panel as part of their sentence to those who did not. The authors found that rearrest rates were lower for individuals who participated in the victim impact panels. Moreover, the authors argue that the panels can be a cost effective way of reducing the probability of arrest in DUI offenders. On the other hand, Polacsek et al., (2001) conducted a randomized field experiment with 813 DWI offenders in new Mexico and measured their progress through the stages of pretest, posttest, one-year follow-up and two-year follow-up. The participants were randomly assigned to a DWI school or a DWI school plus a MADD victim impact panel. The authors found no difference in recidivism between the groups. Research on victim impact panels also suggest that they are promising in terms of victim satisfaction. One evaluation of victim panelists speaking to convicted drunk drivers collected 1,784 individuals who either participated in a victim impact panel or did not. The study found that panelists scored similar to nonvictims on measures of self esteem, locus of control, hostility, and well-being. Moreover, the panelists were less angry at the offender compared with nonpanelists. These results suggest that panelists benefit from participation (Mercer et al., 1994).

Victim–Offender Mediation
Victim–offender mediation is a process that provides victims the opportunity to meet their offenders in a safe and structured setting for dialogue, negotiation, and problem solving (Umbreit and Greenwood, 2000). The goal of this process is twofold. The first is to hold the offenders directly accountable for their behavior, learn the full impact of their actions, and develop plans for making amends to the person or persons they violated. The second goal is to foster a sense of empowerment for the victim. Overall, this process is designed to develop empathy in the offender (which can help prevent future criminal behavior) and address the emotional and informational needs of the victim.

Mediation programs have been used for more than 20 years for various conflict situations.. Today there are more than 300 victim programs throughout the United States and more than 700 in Europe (Umbreit et al., 2000). Although these programs vary substantially, all victim–offender mediation programs share one unique feature: the purpose of victim–offender mediation is not to determine guilt (generally, guilt has already been determined in another forum), rather it is to teach the offender to accept responsibility and repair harm.
The mediation session(s) involves a dialogue between the victim and the offender, facilitated by a professional mediator. The purpose of dialogue is to actively involve the victim and the offender in repairing (to the degree possible) the emotional and material harm caused by the crime. It also provides an opportunity for both victims and offenders to discuss offenses and express their feelings and for victims to get answers to their questions. Finally, the dialogue presents an opportunity for victims and offenders to develop mutually acceptable restitution plans that address the harm caused by the crime. More than 95 percent of victim–offender mediation sessions result in a signed restitution agreement (Umbreit and Greenwood, 2000). However, research has consistently found that the restitution agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to express their feelings about the offense directly to the offenders (Umbreit and Greenwood, 2000).

A considerable amount of research demonstrates that the victim–offender mediation process produces several positive effects for both victims and offenders. In general, victims who meet their offenders tend to be more satisfied with the process than victims whose cases are handled in the formal justice system (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b) and are less fearful of being re-victimized (Unmbriet and Roberts, 1996; Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b). Similarly, offenders who meet their victims through mediation are far more likely to be held directly accountable for their behavior (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b; Marshall and Merry, 1990), successfully complete their restitution obligations (Umbreit and Coates, 1992), subsequently commit fewer and less serious crimes (Pate 1990; Nugent and Paddock, 1995; Schneider, 1986; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b); and are satisfied with both the process and outcome of victim–offender mediation (Coates and Gehm, 1989; Marshall, 1990; Umbreit and Coates, 1993).

References

Search for Restorative Justice Programs