Post #262
660 words; 3 minutes to read
By student volunteer Fiza Rehman.
Summary: A meta-analysis of 27 studies on restorative justice shows greater victim and offender satisfaction, and small improvements in recidivism, but the overall body of evidence remains limited.
Restorative justice (RJ) takes a person-centred approach to criminal justice, focusing on repairing harms rather than on punishment. It has a particular focus on benefits to victims of crime as well as perpetrators. An early post on this blog described one example – the Sawbonna project – and a later post talked about the theoretical background to restorative justice. In 2015 the new Liberal government committed to a major expansion of restorative justice in Canada, but never delivered on that promise.
A recent (2023) journal article , “The effectiveness of restorative justice programs”, by 4 Canadian researchers, is a meta-analysis of studies on the efficacy of restorative justice programs in improving certain outcomes for victims and offenders.
The authors analyzed the results of 27 studies conducted over the last four decades . Overall their findings provide some limited support for restorative justice, but also important cautions. There is not enough high quality research to draw many clear conclusions, other than that RJ programs do tend to generate greater satisfaction than traditional criminal justice both for victims and for those accused.
What is Restorative Justice
Restorative justice focuses on bringing together victims with those who created the harms in a carefully structured process that it is hoped will lead to victims feeling that their hurt is recognized, and offenders taking responsibility for the harm they have created. A restorative justice approach can give victims a chance to play an active role and become more involved in the process of justice. Sometimes but not always forgiveness is one aim of the process. The programs take many forms, such as conferences or circles, involving different kinds and numbers of people – for example sometimes trained mediators or community members as well as the victim and offender.
Why it is hard to draw conclusions
There are several reasons that the conclusions of this study are limited even though it covers 40 years of research. First, there just isn’t that much research, even over all that time. Solid conclusions on interventions of this kind usually require hundreds of studies, not just a couple of dozen. Because RJ programs can vary in many important ways, so studies may be looking at rather different models. The studies also have to make choices about what to include and how to analyze data – such as what outcomes to measure over what period of time, and how to measure them. One cannot be sure that different studies are actually studying the same thing in the same way.
Further, this analysis focuses on the effects of RJ on recidivism, but, as the authors state, it is not clear that reduced recidivism is a primary goal of RJ, except indirectly.
Meta-Analysis results
The clearest finding from the meta-analysis is that RJ programs can create greater satisfaction for victims and offenders when compared to traditional approaches to justice. Victims of crime, especially, tend to perceive more fairness and procedural justice when participating in these programs. They are more likely to feel heard, and that the damage caused to them I recognized. Additionally, the programs can increase and enhance offenders’ accountability for their crimes because they have to confront the harm as expressed by victims in a very direct way.
When it comes to effects on recidivism, the limited data suggest these are modest. The analysis finds minor reductions in overall recidivism, which is defined as any new offence. The reductions in recidivism with violence are slightly smaller, but based on less data, so they do not reach statistical significance. The authors conclude that the effectiveness of restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism is not evident from current data.
There is still not enough research on restorative justice to judge its overall effectiveness, or to determine how these justice programs could become more effective or whether and how they could reduce recidivism.
The John Howard Society of Canada blog is intended to support greater public understanding of criminal justice issues in Canada. Blog content does not necessarily represent the views of the John Howard Society of Canada. All blog material may be reproduced freely for any non-profit purpose as long as the source is acknowledged. We welcome comments (moderated) and suggestions for content. Contact: blogeditor@nulljohnhoward.ca.
Back
Comments are closed here.