Research on Restorative Justice Practices

1 December 2020 This project was supported by Grant No. 2018-86-CX-K038 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice . Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of on Restorative Justice PracticesBailey Maryfield, , Roger Przybylski, , and Mark Myrent, Research brief is the first in a series of reports on the concept, application and effectiveness of restor-ative Justice Practices in criminal and juvenile Justice . It describes the overall premise of Restorative Justice , defines the prominent Restorative Justice approaches being used in the Justice system today, and summa-rizes findings from contemporary synthesis Research on the effectiveness of Restorative Justice in reducing recidivism and promoting other positive outcomes for offenders and victims.

2 Future reports in the series will take deeper dives into real-world applications of Restorative Justice as well as Research findings on the effectiveness of specific Restorative Justice presented in this Research brief is in-tended to promote a more in-depth and up-to-date understanding of Restorative Justice and its effec-tiveness. Given the growing interest in offender diversion and alternatives to incarceration across the country, information on Restorative Justice Practices and Research arguably has value for a wide audience, including policy makers, program developers and researchers. Indeed, the use of Restorative Justice , the types of Practices found in the field and the stages of the Justice system in which Restorative Practices are used have expanded significantly in recent years. The knowledge base about the effectiveness of Restorative Justice has become more robust, too.

3 Information on the various Restorative Justice Practices that are now available, how they are used in criminal and juvenile Justice , and the empirical evidence on their effectiveness can help policy makers and pro-gram developers identify and adopt Restorative prac-tices that help meet the need for effective, non-tradi-tional ways to hold offenders accountable while also addressing the needs of victims. The information also can help researchers identify pressing needs for future inquiry, particularly with regard to specific Restorative Justice applications and their effectiveness across a range of victim, offender and system is Restorative Justice ? Restorative Justice Practices in the criminal and ju-venile Justice systems are based on the premise that crime is a violation of people and of interpersonal relationships and therefore it is important to remedy the harm caused by a criminal act (Przybylski, 2008; Latimer et al.)

4 , 2001). To be fully accountable, offend-ers need to acknowledge their behavior was harmful to others and take action to repair that harm to the fullest extent possible (Przybylski, 2008, p. 72). Re-storative Justice approaches provide a mechanism for doing so through processes such as: Victim-offender mediation Victim-offender dialogue Restorative Justice conferencing Reparative boards Victim impact panels Peacemaking circles Apology banksHistory of Restorative JusticeWhile many of the values and principles of Restorative Justice can be traced to indigenous cultures (Umbre-it & Greenwood, 2000), Restorative Justice practice in the Justice system arguably first emerged in 1974 in Canada in a vandalism case in Kitchener, Ontario (Wright & Galaway, 1989). Often referred to as the Kitchener Experiment, the perpetrators of the crime 2were required to meet with their victims and pay restitution, rather than undergo traditional court pro-cessing.

5 Over the next two decades, a number of small scale, experimental programs modeled on the Kitchen-er Experiment were implemented in jurisdictions both in Canada and the , primarily for use with first-time offenders involved in minor crimes. By the mid- 1990s, the American Bar Association had endorsed the practice of victim-offender mediation (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000), and the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) had published a report titled Restorative Community Justice : A Call to Action, both of which promoted the expansion of Restorative Justice Practices in Justice and other settings (Armour, ). It is important to note that the emergence of the Restorative Justice movement coincided with the emergence and growth of the victim s rights move-ment (Armour, ), and particularly the call for greater involvement of victims in Justice system processes.

6 As the Department of Justice , Office for Victims of Crime s (OVC) 2000 report focused on the Restorative practice of victim-offender mediation stated: It seeks more balanced and effective juvenile and criminal Justice systems that recognize the need to involve and serve victims and victimized communities (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000, p. IX). Current federal regula-tions allow for OVC funding to be used to support Restorative Justice programs. Ultimately, each state administering agency (SAA) maintains the discretion to determine what Restorative Justice activities it wishes to fund and has the responsibility of monitoring and overseeing the program (See 28 (g)).Indeed, the victim-centered approach that character-izes Restorative Justice can help better meet the needs of victims and strengthen ties between the offender and others including the community thereby pro-moting desistance from crime for participating offend-ers and increased satisfaction with the Justice system for participating victims.

7 While Restorative Justice programs have been in exis-tence for decades, their use has expanded significantly in recent years. As a mechanism for repairing harm, addressing the needs of victims and communities, and promoting offender accountability and desistance from crime, Restorative Justice has grown from an experi-mental practice in the 1970s to a valuable component of criminal and juvenile practice in virtually every state today (Gonz lez, 2020). From 1990 to 2000, for example, only fourteen state laws codified the term re-storative Justice (Gonz lez, 2020, p. 1029). By 2015, at least 34 states had passed legislation promoting the use of Restorative Justice Practices in their juvenile or adult criminal Justice systems (Sliva & Lambert 2015). By 2019, forty-five states had codified Restorative jus-tice into statutory or regulatory law (Gonzales, 2020, p. 1031).

8 As jurisdictions across the continue to look for diversion Practices and alternatives to incar-ceration that hold offenders accountable, meet the needs of victims, and promote public safety, restor-ative Justice Practices are likely to become even more mainstream than they are today. Originally used primarily in the juvenile Justice system with first time offenders accused of minor crimes, re-storative Justice programs are now increasingly being used in the adult criminal Justice system as a diver-sion from prosecution or alternative to incarceration for more serious offenders. Since Restorative Justice Practices focus on the restoration of harms rather than on punishment or retribution, they provide a mecha-nism for holding offenders accountable while reducing reliance on incarceration and the potential for the negative collateral consequences that can accompany a criminal conviction or time behind bars.

9 Restorative Justice Practices also are being used as a supplement to conventional offender processing, even with offenders convicted of serious crimes. Victim-of-fender dialog, for example, is being used post-con-viction typically in prison settings with offenders convicted of crimes such as murder or serious assault. These types of Restorative Justice applications are always victim-initiated and require the involvement of specialized facilitators. Experimental approaches have also recently emerged in domestic violence and child welfare settings. Indeed, a range of Restorative Justice applications are now being used not only in the Justice system, but also in school and community settings (Armour, ). The next section of this report describes the most common Restorative Justice applications being used in criminal and juvenile Justice today, including victim-of-fender mediation, victim-offender dialogue, Restorative Justice conferencing, reparative boards, victim impact panels, peacemaking circles, and apology banks.

10 It is important to note that for each of these applications, participation is completely voluntary for victims, but not always so for offenders. JRSA Research Brief: Research on Restorative Justice Practices3 Common Applications Being Used in Criminal and Juvenile Justice Victim-Offender MediationVictim-offender mediation (VOM) programs provide victims of property crimes the opportunity to meet offenders in a safe, structured setting and engage in a mediated discussion of the crime (Bazemore & Umb-reit, 2001, p. 2).The goal is to hold offenders directly accountable while providing important support and assistance to victims. With the assistance of trained mediators, the victims are able to let the offenders know how the crime affected them, receive answers to their ques-tions, and be directly involved in developing a restitu-tion plan that holds the offenders financially account-able for the losses they caused.