The Effectiveness of Various Restorative Justice Interventions on Recidivism Outcomes Among Juvenile Offenders

• DOI: 10.1177/1541204016647428
• Date: 01 October 2017
• Author: Kathleen Bergseth,Jeff Bouffard,Maisha Cooper
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Effectiveness of Various

Restorative Justice Interventions

on Recidivism Outcomes Among

Juvenile Offenders

Jeff Bouffard

1

, Maisha Cooper

1

, and Kathleen Bergseth

2

Abstract

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 inter-

vention. 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.

Keywords

restorative justice, juvenile justice, recidivism, program evaluation, juvenile court

Introduction

Developing and implementing programs that can lower juvenile recidivism rates is an important

policy challenge (Bradshaw, Rosenborough, & Umbreit, 2006). In recent years, there has been a

shifttowardamorerestorativeapproachtojuvenile delinquency and crime (Braithwaite, 2007).

Within the past 30 years (Okada, 2011), the use of restorative justice (RJ) programming has

been increasing in the United States and other countries in response to both low-level, and in

some cases, more serious types of juvenile delinquency and adult crime (Bazemore & Umbreit,

2001; Bradshaw et al., 2006). RJ programs are typically based on a nonadversarial interaction

between victims, offenders, and other individuals impacted by the criminal act in order to

repair the damage caused by the crime and to encourage offender accountability (Bergseth

& Bouffard, 2007).

1

Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

2

North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jeff Bouffard, Sam Houston State University, PO Box 2296, Beto CJ Center, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA.

Email: jab088@shsu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2017, Vol. 15(4) 465-480

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204016647428

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

In some instances, these programs have demonstrated better outcomes than traditional court

procedures on almost every variable for victims and offenders, including assessing perceptions of

fairness, satisfaction, opportunity to tell their story, and perceptions that their opinions were satis-

factorily taken into consideration (Poulson, 2003). Widespread interest in expanding these programs

is understandable (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007) given that research has demonstrated the success of

RJ programs in achieving a number of their goals. For instance , research has revealed that RJ

programs can increase involvement of the community and victim in the justice process, produce

greater satisfaction with case outcomes, and improve offender compliance and perceptions of

procedural fairness (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005; Leonard & Kenny, 2011). Importantly, a

number of studies have also demonstrated recidivism reductions (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007, 2012;

Bradshaw et al., 2006; Braithwaite, 2007; McCold & Wachtel, 1998). These results in particular may

have the most influence on policy makers who are considering the use of these alternative inter-

ventions in place of more traditional, retributive approaches but who may also have concerns about

the effect of such programs on public safety.

RJ Programming

Theoretical foundations. To date, ‘‘there is not one causal theory which fully explains the mechanisms

by which restorative justice programming affects outcomes such as victim satisfaction and recidi-

vism’’(Strang, Sherman, Mayo-Wilson, Woods, & Ariel, 2013, p. 9). Therefore, scholars have relied

upon a combination of theoretical perspectives to explain the expected effects of both minimal

(indirect) and maximized (direct) interventions such as Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming

theory and Tyler’s (1990) procedural justice theory. These two theoretical perspectives suggest that

there are specific ways to respond to offending that may ‘‘increase ... likelihood of future com-

pliance with the law’’ (Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes, & Woods, 2007, p. 554).

Through the process of stigmatizing the act, rather than the offender, reintegrative shaming is

able to reconnect the offender with members of the community and their families as well as

encourage a positive self-image (Braithwaite, 1989; Tyler et al., 2007) that then lessens the like-

lihood of the individual ‘‘adopting a deviant master status’’ (Hay, 2001, p. 134). RJ programs

facilitate these processes in various ways, such as by bringing the involved parties together in a

nonjudgmental atmosphere, allowing all parties to be involved with the decision-making process,

and strengthening social ties.

Likewise, procedural justice theory posits that if an offender experiences fairness in the handling

of their case, and in the decision-making regarding the response to their criminal behavior, they are

more likely to attribute legitimacy to the law and legal authorities (Tyler et al., 2007). Tyler,

Sherman, Strang, Barnes, and Woods (2007) suggest that this sense of legitimacy then encourages

the offender to become a law-abiding citizen rather than reject the sanction as unfair or undeserved.

Furthermore, they note that RJ programs facilitate procedural justice by allowing offenders’ the

opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, by providing consistent and nonbiased

adherence to the rules, and allowing for the ‘‘communication of respect for offenders as people’’

(Tyler et al., 2007, p. 556).

RJ programming types. RJ interventions typically take the form of either direct communication

between the victim and offender, such as victim–offender mediation (VOM), family group confer-

encing (FGC), or circle sentencing (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bradshaw et al., 2006; McGarrell

& Hipple, 2007) or programs in which community members serve as proxies for the victim (e.g.,

community/reparative boards, victim impact panels; Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bonta, Wallace-

Capretta, & Rooney, 1998; Crawford & Newburn, 2002; Fors & Rojek, 1999). In some cases, RJ

programs have also made use of indirect mediation, in which a neutral third party negotiates an

466 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(4)