Which Restorative Justice Programs are Most Effective?

1. Which Restorative Justice Programs are Most Effective? Jason Carr Megan Chambers Morgan Jerri

2. Restorative Justice Seeks to: • Identify & take steps to repair harm, • Involve all stakeholders, • Transform the traditional relationship between communities & government in responding to crime.

3. Common Programs: • Restitution and Community Service • Family Group Conferences • Victim Impact Panels • Victim-Offender Mediation

4. Restitution & Community Service • Most common & established forms of restorative justice. 3 Major Types: • Community Service • Monetary Restitution • Direct Service to the Victims

5. Effectiveness of Restitution • Research suggests restitution programs can lower recidivism. • Utah juvenile study • Schneider & Schneider study found similar results in adults • Formal sanctions vs. informal sanctions

6. Downfalls of Restitution… • The belief that all offenders are indigent & cannot afford restitution • Orders are not first in the priority of court-ordered payments & follow behind court costs • Lack of interagency agreements stipulating who is responsible for monitoring, enforcing, collecting, & distributing restitution • Cynicism of victims & service providers about efforts to collect restitution.

7. Family Group Conferences • “Facilitated discussions that allow those most affected by a crime to discuss the impact of the crime & decide how the offender should be held accountable.”

8. Family Group Conferences • Based on reintegrative shaming • Argues that people are deterred from crime by 2 informal forms of social control • Fears of social disapproval • Conscience

9. Conference Process • Victim and offender brought to mediator to discuss incident & harm it caused. • Forces offender to see “human side” of their crime. • By the end, an agreement is made on how the offender can make reparations to victim. • Typically involves an apology & some form of restitution

10. Pro’s & Con’s • Research supports it, but it is only currently used on juveniles. • 3 experiments found promising results: 1. Bethleham, PA study 2. Canberra, Australia- Reintegrative Shaming Experiments 3. Indianapolis-Restorative Justice Experiment

11. Victim Impact Panels • “Forums for crime victims to explain the real-world impact of crime to their offenders.” • Different from group conferences because it does not involve the victim directly, instead uses surrogate victims..

12. About the Panel • Used for: Property crimes, physical assault, domestic violence, domestic violence, child abuse, & elder abuse • Usually has 3-4 victim speakers who speak for 15 minutes each

13. Research Shows… • Limited & Contradictory • One study of 834 DUI offenders who participated showed less signs of recidivism. • Another study of 813 DWI offenders found no difference in those who attended & those who did not. • Research does show high levels of victim satisfaction.

14. Victim-Offender Mediation • “A process that provides victims the opportunity to meet their offenders in a safe & structured setting for dialogue, negotiation, & problem solving. • Has 2 goals: 1. Hold offenders accountable for their behavior, & learn full impact of their crime 2. To empower the victim • Helps develop empathy in offender

15. In Conclusion… • All restorative justice programs have the same purpose of not determining guilt, but rather teaching the offenders about the harm it caused. • Have proven more effective for victims in terms of increased satisfaction & less fear of revictimization. • We believe the best restorative justice programs are: family group conferences & victim-mediation panels.

16. Bibliography • Durkheim, Ãmile. 1903. Attachment to Social Groups. In Joseph E. Jacoby (ed.) Classics of Criminology, Second Edition (1994). Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. • Hansen, K.J. 1991. "An Exploratory Study of the Extension of Local Empowerment Through Community Policing." Unpublished paper. • Lindsay, B., and D. McGillis 1986. "Citywide Community Crime Prevention: An Assessment of the Seattle Program." In D.P. Rosenbaum. Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 46-67. • Mazerolle, L; J. Price; and J. Roehl. 2000. "Civil Remedies: A Randomized Filed Trial in Oakland, California." Evaluation Review 24(2):212-41. • Pfau, Michael, and Roxanne Parrott. 1993. Persuasive Communication Campaigns. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. • Pransky, J. 1991. Prevention: The Critical Need. Springfield, Mo.: Burrell Foundation and Paradigm Press. • Sampson, R. 1995. "The Community." In J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (eds.). Crime. San Francisco, Calif.: ICS Press, Inc. • Sherman, L. 1997. "Communities and Crime Prevention." Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway (eds.). Prepared for the National Institute of Justice by the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.