The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative Justice

• Date: 01 March 2019
• Author: Sandra Pavelka,Douglas Thomas
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12125

The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative

Justice

By Sandra Pavelka and Douglas Thomas

ABSTRACT

Maloney, Armstrong, and Romig presented a portrait of “Joey,” who was the

exemplar of what was wrong withthe juvenile justice system, in 1988 when they pub-

lished The Balanced Approach in this Journal. In response, they reimagined a juvenile

justice system predicated on balancing three fundamental goals—protection of com-

munity, accountability to victims, and development of competencies to prepare juve-

nile court-involved youth for productive roles in their communities. The authors

examine the evolution of balanced and restorative justice and re-imagine how Joey’s

life may have been different at critical juncturesof his juvenile court involvement.

Key words: juvenile justice reform, balanced approach, restorative justice, balanced and

restorative justice, restitution, community service, accountability-based programming, victim

services, evidence-based programming, strategic planning.

INTRODUCTION: JOEY REVISITED

Joey was a regular kid. He was born to supportive parents, enjoyed a loving family,

had friends in the community, and attended school regularly. Joey also endured hard

times. His parents struggled with employment and with their marriage; eventually they

Sandra Pavelka, Ph.D., is Professor and Director of the Institute for Youth and Justice Studies

at Florida Gulf Coast University. Dr. Pavelka is Principal Evaluator on the Ft. Myers Reentry Program

funded by the Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. Dr. Pavelka previously served as the

Project Administrator of the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Project funded by the Office of Juve-

nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice.

Douglas Thomas, M.S., M.P.A., is currently the Juvenile Justice Information Systems (JJIS) Policy

and Implementation Manager at the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). Mr. Thomas’ previous experience

included the National Center for Juvenile Justice in Pittsburgh, PA and the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) Research and Program Development Division. Mr. Thomas was actively

involved in Pennsylvania’s Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) reform efforts, including an initiative to

develop statewide juvenile justice performance measures based on the BARJ.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 70, No. 1

©2019 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

37

were divorced. Joey was not a gifted student and began to struggle in school. Despite the

best intentions of his parents and his school, Joey drifted toward delinquent friends and

trouble in the streets.

Inevitably, Joey found himself under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The

juvenile court response to him was inconsistent at best. The police, the judge, probation

officers, and counselors could not agree on whether Joey needed to be punished or helped.

Without expectations, direction, or consequences, Joey found it easy to become compla-

cent, even smug, about his delinquent behavior. He met as required with his probation

officer but he did not receive services, paid scant attention to the community service

requirements, and paid only a small portion of the restitution owed for a bicycle he had

stolen.

Joey moved from occasional to chronic misbehavior; his offenses escalated from

minor infractions to burglary and car theft. He was placed on increasingly restric-

tive sanctions, including intensive probation and residential care, until he turned

18. At that pivotal age of adulthood, Joey’s behavior did not change, but the sys-

tem response to that behavior changed dramatically. At 20, Joey found himself in

an adult correctional facility doing time for multiple counts of robbery with

tougher times ahead.

Joey is real only as far as he existed within the minds of Dennis Maloney, Troy

Armstrong, and Dennis Romig, as the exemplar of what was wrong with the juvenile

justice system when they published an article in this Journal entitled The Balanced

Approach in 1988.

1

In response, they reimagined a juvenile justice system predicated on

balancing three fundamental goals—protection of the community, youth accountability

to victims, and the development of basic competencies to prepare juvenile court-involved

youth for productive roles in their communities.

For Maloney and his colleagues, Joey’s story was a call to arms. It was both a

reproach to the failures of the juvenile justice system and a beacon for finding a bet-

ter way. For those who heeded the call and worked to bring balance and restoration

to juvenile justice, Joey’s story remains a challenge. Has the Balanced Approach

made a difference? Are communities safer? Are juvenile court-involved youth more

accountable? Are they leaving juvenile court supervision better equipped to be pro-

ductive members of their communities? Would Joey’s fate be any different if he

turned 18 today?

CHALLENGING TIMES FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE

Times were challenging for the juvenile justice system in the years leading up to

publication of the Balanced Approach. There was widespread concern for public safety.

This concern was fueled by a “growing perception of an epidemic of serious juvenile

crime” and was supported by research that revealed dramatic increases in serious crime

1

Maloney, D.M., D. Romig & T.L. Armstrong (1988). Juvenile Probation: The Balanced Approach.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 39(3).

38 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL