Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): Results from a Randomized Experiment

Using a randomized experimental design, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP), an offender reentry pilot project implemented in 2008. In an effort to reduce recidivism, MCORP attempted to increase offender access to community services and programming by producing greater case management collaboration between caseworkers in prison and supervision agents in the community. The results showed that MCORP significantly improved employment rates, decreased homelessness, broadened offenders’ systems of social support, and increased the extent to which offenders participated in community support programming (mentoring, restorative justice services, and faith‐based programming). The findings further revealed that MCORP significantly reduced all three types of reoffending (rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarcerations) but did not have a significant impact on supervision revocations for technical violations. The evidence suggests that MCORP was effective in decreasing reoffending largely because it increased the extent to which offenders were employed, involved in community support programming, and able to develop systems of social support.     

Advancing Accountability: Moving Toward Victim Restoration

One of the goals of Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system is the “imposition of accountability” for offenses committed. This White Paper, originally published in 2006, takes the position that true accountability requires juvenile offenders to repair the harm caused by their offending behavior and to understand and acknowledge the wrongfulness of their actions, their responsibility for causing harm, and the impact of the crime on the crime victim and community. It identifies system responsibilities, restorative practices, and outcomes relative to accountability. This White Paper was the result of debate among focus group participants under the auspices of the State Advisory Group.     

Reluctant Participants in Restorative Justice? Youthful Offenders and Their Parents

This paper examines offender and parental involvement in the Vermont Juvenile Restorative Panels Program. In this program, juvenile offenders on probation appear before citizen‐run boards to negotiate the terms of their probation, which may include apologies, community service, restitution, and competency development tasks. Victims and parents of the offender also participate. This study reports findings from a qualitative analysis of 22 cases, including observations of panel meetings and interviews with program coordinators, offenders, parents, and victims. We find that offenders vary in level of participation as well as in their willingness to take responsibility. Parents do not understand the program well, worry about their child’s likelihood of compliance, but generally support the goals of the program. The implications of these findings for restorative practices with juveniles are explored in the concluding section.     

Harm and Repair: Observing restorative justice in Vermont

This paper analyzes the decision-making process for negotiating reparative contracts with offenders in a restorative justice model. Based on a content analysis of videotaped Community Reparative Board meetings with probationers in Vermont, this paper defines restoration as a core concept in restorative justice; examines how boards identify harm to victims and community; discusses how boards identify strategies to repair identified harm; addresses how repair often becomes a line item in reparative contracts; and offers interpretation for situations in which harm is not identified and/or not repaired.     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

Youth justice conferencing and reoffending

The literature on restorative justice and reoffending consists largely of comparative analyses of traditional and restorative interventions and suggests small but significant differences or no differences in reoffending. We gathered data from conferencing observations and police records to explore the variable effects of conference dynamics and offenders' characteristics in predicting future offending. We found that youthful offenders who were observed to be remorseful and whose outcomes were reached by consensus were less likely to reoffend. This finding suggests that when attention is focused on the benefits of conferencing, it is possible to identify elements of conferences that are associated with reductions in crime.     

Narrative accounts from the citizens,victims, and offenders restoring justice program

This paper describes the Citizens, Victims, and Offenders Restoring Justice (CVORJ) program, a prison-based program conducted as a pilot study at the Washington State Reformatory. The program brings together offenders and victims - though not involved in the same crime - in the company of interested community members to discuss restorative justice principles. The program focuses on the sharing of personal narratives of crime to explore how the harms resulting from crime can best be addressed and justice achieved. Of interest was how a restorative justice model that highlighted community participation could be incorporated into a correctional setting and whether healing could result from the use of surrogate offenders, victims, and community members. The restorative nature of the program, its method of operation, results from the qualitative evaluation, and key implementation challenges are presented.     

Justice in relationships: Calgary community conferencing as a demonstration project

Contemporary and alternative justice paradigms lead to definitions of wrongdoing as "lawbreaking" and "harm to social relationships" respectively. The retributive model within the contemporary justice paradigm results in strategies to accomplish justice that focus almost exclusively on the wrongdoer. In contrast, the restorative model within the alternative justice paradigm yields justice practices that focus on the relationships among all individuals harmed by the wrongdoing. Calgary Community Conferencing is an example of a restorative approach to wrongdoing. The relational emphasis of this program is operationalized through its organizational location, intended outcomes, and program activities. The challenges faced by Calgary Community Conferencing provide other agencies with ideas about dilemmas they might encounter in attempting to develop restorative justice programs.     

Richard Quinney on the Transformation of Self and Others: An Interview

As an alternative means of achieving justice, restorative practices are touted as community based. The ownership of decisions regarding the response to crime belongs to the key stakeholders, including victim(s), offender(s), and members of the community, both large and small. Each is invited to participate and through their participation, the stakeholders come to own the justice process and its outcomes. One challenge facing restorative practices lies in getting the community to participate. Without the community, several aspects of justice that are restorative, including forgiveness, support for participants, and reintegration are unlikely outcomes. This research examines community involvement in a victim–offender mediation program through observation and analysis of the agreements produced. The findings suggest that while restorative justice is theorized as community based, the community, in this case, appears absent.     

Assessing reconviction,reoffending and recidivism in a sample of UK sexual offenders

Purpose. The rate of sexual reconviction for sexual offenders is known to be low. Sexual reconviction, however, is currently the most commonly used outcome measure in sex offender treatment evaluation studies. It is expected that sex offender treatment programmes will reduce the likelihood of reconviction amongst participants. A low base rate of sexual reconviction means that any reduction in reconviction (which could be attributed to treatment) will be small and unlikely to be statistically significant. This study aimed to assess other offence‐related outcomes for sexual offenders, in addition to reconviction. Methods. The sample comprised 173 sexual offenders who had completed a community sex offender treatment programme. Follow‐up information was collected forthe sample from programme files containing multi‐agency information. Official reconviction rates were also calculated using both Home Office and police data. Results. Collecting evidence of any offence‐related sexual behaviour during this study multiplied the sample's sexual reconviction rate by a factor of 5.3. Conclusions. The results show that broadening the outcome measure under observation indicates a higher level of offence‐related sexual behaviour displayed by sexual offenders than reflected by reconviction data. These results have implications for the outcomes measured in treatment evaluation research for sexual offenders.     

Role-taking and restorative justice: Social practices of solidarity and community in Shakespeare's measure for measure

This article examines to what extent role-taking inspired characters in Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure to new modes of consciousness and concomitant social practices of restorative justice. The play's main character, Duke Vincentio, engages in a series of role-taking episodes through which he undergoes a self-transformation. He subsequently enacts the social practice of restorative justice. However, the play is neither a paragon case of self-transformation nor of restorative justice, especially since (1) manipulation and power are employed in the reintegrative shaming ceremony; (2) some characters are stigmatized and humiliated; and (3) the Duke still practices duplicitous, power-based, and punitive measures. Nevertheless, through the process of self-discovery and the recognition of others as like himself, the Duke reconceives his kingly role from that of an executor of law violators to that of a mediator of troubled relationships. The Duke's character reflects in part the cultural contradictions and social transformations ongoing in Shakespeare's Renaissance England.     

The value of restorative justice*

This paper starts by defining restorative justice and analysing its components. It looks at its practical benefits for the criminal justice system and explores the human benefits, not only for victims, but also for offenders, the families of both parties and the community. The experience of restorative justice in juvenile courts in New Zealand is examined in order to highlight the main benefits of the practice. Studies have shown that restorative justice can have positive effects such as reducing reoffending, providing an insight into offending, bringing together victims and offenders and repairing emotional harm. The paper concludes that although restorative justice on its own will not fix all social problems, it has many positive impacts on participants.     

Effectiveness of the Restorative Justice Process on Crime Victims and Adult Offenders in Thailand

In this paper, the researchers draw on research findings of the restorative justice process for adult offenders in Thailand run by probation officers during the pre-investigation stage. The evaluation study was conducted in 2009, aiming to analyze the effect of restorative justice on victims and offenders. The researchers investigate various key aspects, such as rates of satisfaction and perception of fairness, changing attitudes of victims and offenders, response to the victim’s needs, offender’s accountability, and reoffending rate. Factors associated with these aspects were also analyzed. A quasi-experimental research design was applied and the research findings showed that victims and offenders participating in the restorative justice process were significantly more satisfied with almost all evaluated outcomes than those who did not. However, the study did not find any significant difference in the re-offending rate between offenders in the experimental and comparison groups. Finally, the study found that two factors, i.e. victim’s income and victim–offender relationship, significantly related to the victim’s satisfaction. Victims who had low income were more likely to be satisfied with the outcome than those who had high income and victims who previously knew the offender were more likely to be satisfied with the process than those who did not.     

The longmont community justice partnership: Restorative justice practice as collaboration

This paper documents the application of restorative justice principles using a model which was developed by the Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP) and is being used in other communities in Colorado. It explains the structure and operation of this model as well as addresses some of the challenging issues program participants faced during the startup, development, and maintenance phases of the program. Among other issues we consider community support, team development, evaluation, restorative language, funding, and the limitations of the model. Finally we discuss the way in which this program has potential for other communities which seek to implement restorative justice practices.     

Expanding a community's justice response to sex crimes through advocacy, prosecutorial, and public health collaboration: introducing the RESTORE program

Problems in criminal justice system response to date-acquaintance rape and nonpenetration sexual offenses include (a) they are markers of a sexual offending career, yet are viewed as minor; (b) perpetrators are not held accountable in ways that reduce reoffense; and (c) criminal justice response disappoints and traumatizes victims. To address these problems, a collaboration of victim services, prosecutors, legal scholars, and public health professionals are implementing and evaluating RESTORE, a victim-driven, community-based restorative justice program for selected sex crimes. RESTORE prepares survivors, responsible persons (offenders), and both parties' families and friends for face-to-face dialogue to identify the harm and develop a redress plan. The program then monitors the offender's compliance for 12 months. The article summarizes empirical data on problems in criminal justice response, defines restorative justice models, and examines outcome. Then the RESTORE program processes and goals are described. The article highlights community collaboration in building and sustaining this program.     

Risk assessment in offenders with mental disorders: relative efficacy of personal demographic, criminal history, and clinical variables

Following the meta-analysis by Bonta, Law, and Hanson, (1998) this study examined the ability of personal demographic, criminal history, and clinical variables to predict reoffending in offenders in the United Kingdom who had mental disorders. The efficacy of each variable in predicting rate of general reoffending and violent reoffending was investigated. Age on admission, number of days hospitalized, and number of previous offenses were the most effective variables in predicting re-offending, with number of previous offenses being the strongest predictor. Clinical diagnosis was not predictive of reoffending when the variance attributable to these other predictors was controlled for. None of the variables were able to discriminate between general offenders and violent offenders indicating that the same variables predict both types of reoffending. The results showed that reconviction in offenders with mental disorders can be predicted using the same criminogenic variables that are predictive in offenders without mental disorders.     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

The emergence of restorative justice in Sri Lanka: a review essay

Within the framework of retributive justice, crime is understood as an offence against the State and is defined as a violation of law. It represents the punitive approach of reaction to crime, where the offenders are considered as an unwanted group who should be punished. However, with the development of criminology, offenders are identified as the persons needing rehabilitation and reintegration into the society as law abiding citizens. This novel thinking has paved the way to the establishment of the concept of restorative justice where crime is understood to be an infringement on man and human relationship. It involves reintegration of both the offender and victim within the community. The restorative justice principle could be found in community service orders, probation, parole, and other noncustodial measures as alternatives to the traditional incarceration, victim offender mediation, sentencing, peacemaking and healing circles, police cautions, and active participation of victims in the criminal justice process, and so on. This article evaluates Sri Lanka's transformation from retributive justice to restorative justice by incorporating the above-mentioned means and methods to the criminal justice system. Further, it examines how these innovations have affected the crime rate in Sri Lanka.     

Making space for restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curricula and courses

Restorative justice, rooted in the practices of indigenous people across the globe, has grown exponentially in both theory and practice since its beginnings in Canada in the 1970s. Restorative justice has influenced the interactions between offenders and victims, helped community members address crime and develop self-efficacy, and changed the way some countries rebuild after a history of oppression. Despite these restorative justice influenced changes, many criminology and criminal justice programs pay scant attention to restorative justice in curricula. This paper will examine ways to include restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curriculum and the challenges involved in the process. The paper will then examine how the Law and Justice Department at Central Washington University has incrementally added restorative justice components to its curriculum, culminating most recently with the addition of a Community and Social Justice course. The paper will conclude with several examples of classroom activities and assignments that have helped connect students with the theory and practice of restorative justice.     

Paradigm Muddle: The Threat to Restorative Justice Posed by Its Merger with Community Justice

The restorative justice movement has great potential to reform the way society responds to crime and wrongdoing. One might logically assume that the greatest challenge to the new restorative justice paradigm is the traditional punitive criminal justice paradigm itself. A more immediate threat, however, is posed by merging community justice, another approach to reforming the justice system, with restorative justice. Community justice has superficial similarities to restorative justice but relies on the underlying authoritarian assumptions of the existing criminal justice system and on processes that exclude most of those individuals directly affected by the offense. This paper clarifies and contrasts the key elements of both the restorative justice and the community justice paradigms and explains the threat to restorative justice posed by combining and confusing the two.