Survey of Assessment Research on Mediation and Conferencing (From Repositioning Restorative Justice, P 67-120, 2003, Lode Walgrave, ed., -- See NCJ-204284)

• NCJ Number: 204287
• Author(s): Paul McCold
• Date Published: 2003
• Length: 54 pages
• Sale Source: Willan Publishing
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Literature Review
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter offers a survey of evaluation research on restorative justice programs spanning from 1971 through 2001 in order to assess the restorative justice approach as a credible response to crime and conflict.

Abstract

If justice programs are effective, then it is possible to measure the effects. As such, justice programs based on innovative models, such as the restorative justice model, need to be fully evaluated for their effectiveness instead of resting assumptions of their effectiveness within the enthusiastic rhetoric of their proponents. This chapter surveys published assessments of 98 primary restorative programs, specifically mediation and conferencing, over the past 20 years. The restorative justice programs reviewed here contain at least two versions of mediation, “community mediation” and “victim-offender mediation,” and two versions of conferencing, “family group conferencing” and “community group conferencing.” The review of the evaluations focuses on the core components of program size, service delivery rates, case attrition rates, participation rates, agreement and compliance rates, participant perceptions, and recidivism. In the final assessment of the 98 restorative justice programs, a few generalizations can be made based on the empirical findings. One generalization is that participants in restorative justice programs, both victims and offenders, typically express satisfaction with the process. Studies involving different types of disputes and different settings found that disputants perceived restorative justice outcomes to be significantly fairer than those of court proceedings. Other conclusions drawn from the 98 evaluations include the fact that there is no significant public opposition to restorative justice; when participation is voluntary, offenders usually choose to participate; when both victim and offender participate in restorative programs, rates of compliance with the programs are high; there is no intrinsic limitation on the type of dispute that is allowable under a restorative justice model; and the recidivism rate for restorative justice programs is basically the same as it is for more traditional justice approaches. Much more research on restorative justice programs is required, especially in terms of the relationships between case attrition and outcomes within or between programs or case types. Future evaluations should utilize carefully controlled scientific assessments using standardized measures across a variety of settings and practices to add to the cumulative understanding of the process of restorative justice. Notes, references