AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS’
PERSPECTIVES ON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Marisa Ciani
Lauren Harada
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Marisa Ciani
Lauren Harada
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS’
PERSPECTIVES ON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
A Project
by
Marisa Ciani
Lauren Harada
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Marisa Ciani
Lauren Harada
I certify that these students have met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and
credit is to be awarded for the project.
__________________________, Division Chair ___________________
Robin Kennedy, Ph.D.
Date
Division of Social Work
iv
Abstract
of
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS’
PERSPECTIVES ON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
by
Marisa Ciani
Lauren Harada
When offenders commit crimes, the opportunity for both victims and offenders to
confront each other about the harm that has been inflicted is usually nonexistent.
Restorative justice program provides the opportunity for victims, their families,
offenders, community members, and professionals to collaboratively address the impact
of the crime on all individuals and the community at large, and develop an organized
agreement to repair the harm.
The purpose of this research was to gain a better
understanding of juvenile justice professionals’ perspectives toward restorative justice
programs for purposes of expanding awareness and implementation of such programs.
This study is a secondary data analysis where exploratory, quantitative data administered
to various juvenile justice professionals was analyzed. The data was analyzed using the
v
Kruskal-Wallis test and examining frequency distributions. The results from the study
found that juvenile justice professionals support the efficiency of restorative justice
programs and policies for young offenders.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Isaac Newton wrote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
John Ciani helped me to see further for which I will be forever grateful. Thanks, pal.
- M.C.
I would like to thank my family and friends for their unconditional love, support, and
patience throughout this process. In one way or another, each of you have provided me
with encouraging words and guidance which helped contribute to the success of this
project. To my entire family whom I am utterly grateful for, thank you for your endless
efforts to help make my life much easier to manage when I needed it most. I love you all
so much!
-L.H.
This project would not have been a success without the continuous support and assistance
from Dr. Dale Russell. Thank you for the time you have invested, and your commitment
to help us produce a successful outcome for this project.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION……...……………………………………………………...… 1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................. 1
Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................. 4
Purpose of the study. ......................................................................................... 4
Theoretical framework…………………………………………………......... 5
Definition of terms ............................................................................................ 7
Assumptions...................................................................................................... 8
Justification ....................................................................................................... 8
Study limitations ............................................................................................... 9
Statement of collaboration .............................................................................. 10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 11
Restorative Justice Programs .......................................................................... 11
Victim Offender Mediation Programs ............................................................ 12
Family Group Conferencing Programs ........................................................... 14
Circle Sentencing Programs ............................................................................ 18
viii
Traditional Approach to Sentencing Offenders .............................................. 18
Best Practices for Restorative Justice Programs ............................................. 21
Efficacy of Restorative Justice Programs ....................................................... 24
Offenders, Victims, Families, and Community Members Perspectives on
Restorative Justice Programs .......................................................................... 32
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 42
Study Objectives ............................................................................................. 42
Study Design ................................................................................................... 42
Sampling Procedures ...................................................................................... 43
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................. 43
Instruments ...................................................................................................... 43
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 44
Protection of Human Subjects ........................................................................ 46
Summary ......................................................................................................... 46
4. STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................... 47
Background ..................................................................................................... 47
Overall Findings.............................................................................................. 47
Specific Findings ............................................................................................ 48
Summary ......................................................................................................... 60
ix
5. CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 61
Summary of Study .......................................................................................... 61
Implications for Social Work .......................................................................... 62
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 63
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 65
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 66
Appendix A. IRB Approval ..................................................................................... 68
Appendix B. Restorative Justice Workshop for Juvenile Justice Professionals ....... 69
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 78
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Table 1: Professional Position in Juvenile Justice System……………………... 48
2.
Table 2: Number of Years in Juvenile Justice Profession……………………… 48
3.
Table 3: Significance of Differences Between Professionals…………………... 59
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Figure 1: Promotes Less Crime in the Community……………………….……. 49
2.
Figure 2: Promotes Less Recidivism by Young Offenders...…………….…….. 50
3.
Figure 3: Promotes Appropriate Punishment of Young Offenders……….......... 50
4.
Figure 4: Promotes Fair Treatment of Young Offenders….…………………..... 51
5.
Figure 5: Promotes Efficiency of the Justice Process…………………………... 52
6.
Figure 6: Promotes Traditional Mission of Juvenile Justice………………......... 53
7.
Figure 7: Promotes Less Crime in the Community (Separated by Profession)… 54
8.
Figure 8: Promotes Less Recidivism by Young Offenders (Separated by
Profession)……………………………………………………………………… 54
9.
Figure 9: Promotes Appropriate Punishment of Young Offenders (Separated by
Profession)……………………………………………………………………… 55
10.
Figure 10: Promotes Fair Treatment of Young Offenders (Separated by
Profession)…………………………………………………………………….... 56
11.
Figure 11: Promotes Efficiency of the Justice Process (Separated by
Profession)............................................................................................................ 57
12.
Figure 12: Promotes Traditional Mission of Juvenile Justice (Separated by
Profession)……………………………………………....……………………… 57
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
Juvenile delinquency is a serious and growing problem that affects communities
among all socioeconomic levels across the United States. In 2003, nearly 2.2 million
juveniles were arrested, accounting for 16% of all arrests and 15% of all violent criminal
offenses. Of these arrests, 20% were handles by law enforcement agencies, 71% were
referred to juvenile court, and 7% were referred to criminal court. The proportion of
arrests sent to juvenile court has increased (58% to 71%) from 1980 to 2003 (Snyder,
2005). This illustration may be explained by an increase in the number of juvenile
offenders.
Recent studies have shown that while the arrest rates for older youth was 23%
above its 1980 level, it has more than doubled for preteens (Snyder, 2003). There is a
clear indication of an increase in preteen arrest rates, but also a dramatic change in female
juvenile arrest rates. Between 1980 and 2001, the increase in female juvenile arrest rates
were much greater than the male arrest rates (Snyder, 2005). These female arrest patterns
reflect that female juveniles are increasingly engaging in delinquent behavior compared
to 1980s.
There are consistent concerns regarding incarceration rates for minorities. For
example, of all the juvenile arrests in 2003, 78% were Caucasian, 16% AfricanAmerican, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian, while African American
juveniles were disproportionately represented in violent crimes (Snyder, 2005). The
2
overrepresentation of African-American offenders who engage in criminal behavior has a
serious effect on the community and can heavily contribute to their productivity to
society if intervention programs are not implemented.
Repeat offenders or recidivists account for the majority of incarcerated youth. A
recidivist is typically defined as a youth whose second incarceration occurs within a
specific timeframe after their first incarceration. Recidivism has a serious effect on the
economy and the community. According to Snyder and Sickmund (1999), an average
chronic offender costs society between $1.3 and $1.5 million in victim and criminal
justice costs, along with lost productivity over a 10-year period. These numbers illustrate
the costly impact offenders can have on society on an economic standpoint, but questions
may be raised on the level of rehabilitation that actually occurs once incarcerated.
The mandatory minimum sentencing, a punitive measure to punishment, was
implemented to deter potential criminals and repeat offenders if they are convicted. The
mandatory minimum sentencing requires that first time offenders of certain drug related
offenses that involve large amounts of drugs or use of a firearm may be subject to an
increased sentence length. Non-violent offenders may be subject to the mandatory
minimum sentence, imprisoning them for a lengthy amount of time, and causing them to
potentially become a dangerous member of society upon release. The extensive exposure
to violence and extortion in the prison system may contribute to the development of
potentially dangerous behaviors, and ultimately hindering the non-violent offender from
acquiring the skills to become productive members of society. Essentially, offenders
emerge from prison more dangerous than prior to incarceration.
3
The focus of implementing punitive measures to deter offenders or potential
offenders from committing crimes may not always be the most effective way of
preventing future crime. Instead, often times prisoners are unfit, or inappropriately
placed in the criminal justice system due to the nature of their crime, which equally
contributes to the unresolved overcrowding problem for decades. The limited reform
programs provided in the prison system such as education and work training enables
prisoners to acquire the skills to become more productive, moral members of society once
released from prison. Releasing prisoners who are lacking the skills to assimilate back
into the community become a potential public safety concern for the community.
A retributive approach which can be viewed as punitive in some situations,
particular offenders who may be considered inappropriately placed in the criminal justice
system. Instead, a restorative justice model, which includes the rehabilitation of
offenders, reflects more consistently with the philosophy of juvenile court as opposed to
the traditional retributive philosophy that guides the processing of adult offenders
(Rodriguez, 2007). There are various definitions of restorative justice processes;
however, these definitions reflect some commonalities. This alternative approach focuses
on repairing harm, holding offenders accountable, and providing reparation through coparticipation of the victim, offender, and members of the community in the justice
process (Kratcoski, 2004). Restorative justice programs aim to hold offenders
responsible for their actions by focusing on repairing the harm through a process of
negotiation, mediation, victim empowerment, and reparation. These programs provide an
opportunity for the participants to address the harm associated with a wrongdoing and
4
understand the impact the crime had on the direct victims as well as the community.
Many programs have found that it is the voluntary exercise of choices, including the
choice of participation, that leads to victims and offenders feeling empowered (Karp et.
al, 2004). The exchange of dialogue between the victim and the offender, as well as the
level of participation from all parties, can influence the offenders to gain a sense of
empowerment for more positive decision making. The opportunity to repair the harm
committed by the offender on the victims and their family may present a positive
approach for the community as a whole and a preventative measure to deterring future
crime.
Statement of the Research Problem
The researchers are unsure whether or not juvenile justice professionals who are
in involved with the restorative justice process believe that the program achieve the goals,
values, and missions of restorative justice programs. The researchers are unsure if the
juvenile justice professionals believe that the juvenile offenders who engage in these
programs are benefitting from the program or whether or not the program demonstrates
appropriate punishment for the crime committed. In the restorative justice process, both
the offender and victim plays a primary role in the process of repairing harm.
Purpose of the study. The purpose of the study is to explore juvenile justice
professionals’ perspectives who have contact with restorative justice programs. Through
this research, the researchers hope to gain a better understanding of the professionals’
critiques of program efficacy such as reduction of crime, efficiency of the program,
appropriateness off punishment, and the efficiency of the juvenile justice system.
5
Theoretical framework.
Empowerment theory. According to Perkins and Zimmerman (1995),
empowerment theory looks at individual’s strengths and positive behaviors and applies
them to social policies and change. Researchers who are using empowerment theory look
at strengths rather than deficits in the population in order to find solutions to challenges
for individual clients and specific populations. On a macro level, empowerment theory
focuses on collaboration and participation of group members to achieve goals for the
community.
Kohlberg's stages of moral development. The philosophies associated with
restorative justice programs fit well with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Much
like Kohlberg’s later stages of moral development, restorative justice programs attempt to
help offenders realize the effects of their actions and change the way they think about
crime. The aim of restorative justice programs is to help offenders gain intrinsic
motivation to stop committing crimes by recognizing the harm they have done to others.
Kohlberg created a model where he designated six different stages that he believed
people experienced throughout their lifetimes (Crain, 1985). The stages are contained
within three levels, which are pre-conventional, conventional, and postconventional. People may progress through the levels chronologically or move back and
forth between multiple levels and not everyone achieved the highest levels of Kohlberg’s
stages of moral development.
The pre-conventional level is primarily egocentric and contains stages one and
two. Children are usually in the pre-conventional phase but adults may remain in this
6
level as well. Stage one is obedience and punishment driven and people in this stage act
in a morally acceptable way in order to avoid receiving punishment for amoral acts. Stage
two involves individuals acting in a way that society finds acceptable because they get
rewarded for it. Many people in this phase ask the question "what's in it for me?" before
they decide how to act.
Level two is called the conventional level in Kohlberg's theory of moral
development and contains stages three and four of the theory. Most adolescents and
adults are found in this level of moral development. In this phase people see right and
wrong as defined by societal rules and norms. Individuals in stage three are concerned
with others' views of what is right and wrong and are likely to follow societal norms
closely. Once they enter stage four, people are less concerned about individual reactions
of their peers or family and more concerned about institutional reactions to what they do.
People in this phase would be most concerned about not breaking the law because the
government says it is wrong.
Kohlberg calls level three of his theory post-conventional and does not believe
that everyone reaches this level of moral development. The post-conventional level
contains stages five and six of the moral development theory and describes an individual
who makes moral judgment based on his or her internal belief system not society's norms.
Individuals in stage five believe that everyone has different worldviews and see different
things as being right or wrong. Finally, stage six describes a more abstract view of
morality where people see morality as relative and attempt to view a decision from many
differing viewpoints.
7
Definition of terms.
Restorative justice. Restorative justice involves a conversation between victims
and offenders where the impact of the crimes and future plans to repair that harm are
discussed. Restorative justice programs may include family, friends, community
members and other supportive people.
Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM). VOM is an all-encompassing term used to
discuss many different restorative justice programs. For the purposes of this article, this
term may be used interchangeably with restorative justice programs.
Level of participation. Physical (physically attending the program but not working
hard on the treatment goals) participation is different from active participation (both
physically present and working to complete treatment goals in the program) and in order
for an offender to experience change in a restorative justice program, he or she must use
active participation.
Program completion. In order for participants to complete the program,
participants must successfully complete all aspects of the restorative justice program by
attending all of the program sessions as well as using active participation where they both
listen and offer insight when appropriate.
Juvenile offenders. For the purpose of this research, juvenile offenders describe
individuals who have had some type of contact with the juvenile justice system. Most of
the individuals are under the age of eighteen.
8
Juvenile justice professionals. For the purpose of this research, the term juvenile
justice professionals refers to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court administrators,
and probation officers.
Re-offense. Re-offending means that an offender commits any crime after the
initial crime. This term encompasses both offenders who are apprehended by the justice
system and those that are not held accountable for their offenses.
Recidivism. For the purposes of this paper, recidivism is defined as any contact
with criminal justice system after initial contact. This may include arrests, probation
violation, and subsequent time in a locked facility.
Assumptions. The main form of data for this research is secondary data analysis,
which was originally collected from professionals working in the juvenile justice system
(ie, judges, court administrators/probation officers, prosecutors, public defenders). The
researchers are working under the assumption that the data has been collected accurately
and that the professionals are being honest about their beliefs surrounding restorative
justice programs efficacy with juvenile offenders.
Justification. Social workers need to be aware of other professionals’ views
regarding restorative justice programs. If social workers better understand how other
professionals associated with the juvenile justice systems feel about restorative justice,
they will be able to tailor their conversations to address other professionals concerns and
discover allies in the use of restorative justice. By addressing any concerns that judges,
police officers, probation officers, and attorneys have regarding the use of restorative
justice, social workers may be able to change negative beliefs, encourage collaboration
9
between professionals, and increase understanding and awareness of the use of restorative
justice programs with juvenile offenders.
Social workers work not only with juvenile offenders but also victims so it’s
important to be aware of alternative programs in the criminal justice system. Restorative
justice programs work well with Social Workers’ code of ethics, especially these
principles: social workers’ primary goal is to help people in need and to address social
problems and social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships
(NASW Delegate Assembly, 2008). Restorative justice programs address the social
problem of crime and attempts to create new solutions to decrease re-offending.
Restorative justice also attempts to help offenders recognize the harm they have done and
decrease future harm and the programs help victims and their families to heal from the
crime. Restorative justice programs also help repair human relationships and while
mediators do not expect victims and offenders to become friends, the process of
restorative justice can create peace and mutual respect between victim and offender.
Study limitations. This study will consist of secondary data analysis of surveys
administered to juvenile justice professionals’ to evaluate their perceptions of restorative
justice programs for juvenile offenders. The results of this study will not examine the
effectiveness of restorative justice programs due to the limited time constraint. This
exploratory study will examine the juvenile justice professionals’ perception of the
program efficacy on the participants, community, and appropriateness of the level of
punishment on the crime committed. This study will not provide direct insight from the
victim or community members impacted by the crime. The findings will not provide the
10
reader with direct nor complete answers of the participants involved in the restorative
justice process. The reader will only gain an understanding from the juvenile justice
professionals’ viewpoint as opposed to the victims and offenders perception of the impact
of the crime committed. The reader may raise questions about the reparation process of
the program but the findings will be limited to the professionals only.
Statement of collaboration. Marisa Ciani and Lauren Harada worked together as
joint authors on this project to establish additional literature on juvenile justice
professionals’ perspectives of restorative justice programs and policies. The authors
worked collaboratively to select a topic, analyze data, write, and format this research
project.
11
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Restorative Justice Programs
In recent decades, the existing criminal justice system that focuses on retributive
measures to restore justice, is now seeking alternative approaches to resolving criminal
offenses. This alternative approach that has challenged the traditional ways is referred to
as restorative justice. The appeal of restorative justice is the less punitive justice system,
where the emphasis is placed on victim empowerment rather than the use of punishment
as a result of the crime committed.
Restorative justice programs goal is to hold juveniles accountable for their
delinquent behavior and develop their competencies while protecting the community
(Rodriguez, 2007). A restorative justice framework focuses on repairing harm between
victims and offenders while involving community and family members through the
mediation and negotiation process. This framework aims to strengthen relationships
through reaching a mutual agreement in a collaborative manner among the primary
participants; the offenders and the victims. Restorative justice, which focuses on the
rehabilitation of offenders, is more consistent with the philosophy of the juvenile court
than with the retributive philosophy that guides the criminal justice process of adult
offenders (Rodriguez, 2007). Restorative justice programs provide an opportunity for
offenders to recognize their wrongdoing and identify the elements to make more positive
choices throughout all aspects of life.
12
The involvement of community members is an integral part of the restorative
justice process. The inclusion of community members in the restorative justice process
allows local citizens the opportunity to reflect their neighborhood’s values and norms in
the restoration process (Rodriguez, 2007). Community members play a role in the
reparation process and in identifying the skills that offenders need to successfully
reintegrate into their communities. The restorative justice process reflects a collaborative
effort to repair the harm and enhance the skills necessary to reintegrate into the
community as more productive, moral members of society. This focus provides the
offenders an opportunity to engage in dialogue with the various program participants and
identify the areas in their life that may benefit from improvement. Without the
collaboration with community members, the restorative justice programs would lack in
efforts to focus on the needs of the community whom are directly affected by offenders
who re-enter into society.
Victim Offender Mediation Programs
Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) is known as the oldest and most widely
practiced expression seen in the restorative justice (Nugent et. al, 2004). Although there
are a number of ways to conduct a VOM program, the programs are all based on a
restorative justice model. VOM programs typically involve both the victims and
offenders of property crimes and minor assaults. In the majority of the VOM programs,
the mediator usually meets with the offender and victim individually, and separately in
order to prepare them for the mediation session. The goal of the mediation is creating a
safe environment that allows the parties to engage in a dialogue in which emotional and
13
informational needs are met and in which a plan for the offender “to make things right,”
as much as possible, is developed (Nugent et. al, 2001). Creating a safe environment for
this type of dialogue to occur is essential for the needs of both the victim and offenders to
safely and openly address their needs and develop a mutual agreement.
Umbreit et. al (2004) completed a meta-analysis of restorative justice research to
identify common components and goals of restorative justice programs. The researchers
found that the most common type of restorative justice program in victim-offender
mediation (VOM) which is most commonly used with juvenile offenders (forty-five
percent of participants). VOM programs are most commonly run by community based
non-profit agencies and primarily work with offenders who have committed
misdemeanors such as vandalism, minor assault, theft, and burglary. One common theme
of successful restorative justice programs was participant’s feeling of being prepared for
the face-to-face mediation that occurred. Umbreit et. al (2004) also look at ethnicity as a
factor in restorative justice programs and found that Caucasian offenders had more
success with restorative justice and victims were more likely to agree to participate in
restorative justice with Caucasian offenders. Most victims are likely to participate to
achieve offender accountability and make sure offenders know the pain they have caused.
Restorative justice programs have high satisfaction rates for both victims and
offenders, which may be in part because VOM is voluntary in nature (Umbreit et. al
(2004). Restorative justice also strives to promote fairness for both victims and
offenders. The agreements reached throughout the process aim to satisfy all parties.
While restitution (monetary compensation, community service work for victim) is a
14
component of restorative justice, the primary purpose is the face-to-face meeting between
the victim and offender. An advantage of restorative justice is that VOM programs are
less costly, less time-consuming, and offer less severe punishments to offenders.
Restorative justice programs are more congruent with social work philosophies and
should be utilized more by social workers and other professionals working within the
juvenile justice system.
Family Group Conferencing Programs
Family Group Conferencing (FGC) is commonly used as an integral part of
restorative justice programs as a mediation strategy for particularly nonviolent property
crimes and minor assaults committed by juvenile offenders (Baffour, 2006). FGC is a
process of mediation and dialogue in which victims meet their offenders in a monitored
setting with assistance of a trained mediator (Morris & Maxwell, 1997). Baffour (2006)
described how the FGC presents a practical solution to reducing crime in diverse
communities while involving offenders, families of offenders, social workers, attorneys,
law enforcement personnel, and community organizations. FGC seeks to achieve a range
of possible outcomes for nonviolent, first-time offenders, from an apology, community
service, and restitution to incorporating rehabilitative strategies such as mental health
counseling, drug treatment, or job training. This collaborative effort with law
enforcement and social service professionals creates an environment consisting of a wide
range of knowledge and experience with juvenile offenders. This setting allows the
professionals to apply their knowledge and experiences for identifying patterns of
criminal activity within the community and collaboratively develop appropriate solutions
15
relevant to the severity of the crime. The FGC restorative justice process offers offenders
the opportunity to acquire alternative solutions for rehabilitation as opposed to the
traditional punitive approach of punishing offenders as a result of the crime.
The FGC intervention strategies seek to provide culturally competent practices
that recognizes the importance of race and gender (Baffour, 2006). Juvenile offenders
are perceived as individuals with potential to contribute as productive members of
society, and the FGC supports this viewpoint. FGC is a desirable intervention strategy
because it allows for youth to make productive contributions, build competency, and
obtain a sense of belonging within their community. Focusing attention on youth who
are involved in criminal activity at a young age will enhance these areas in order to
become successful members as they maturate. Baffour (2006) describes that by using
FGC to address youth at these earliest stages will promote practical strategies for
reducing the overrepresentation of African American and Latino youth and reducing rates
of female adjudication in the criminal justice system through diversion from traditional
justice systems. In other words, focusing attention on the rise in criminal activity among
juveniles through innovative programs such as the FGC may provide a long-term impact
on reducing future involvement in criminal activity as these strategies are implemented.
FGC differs from other forms of mediation because there are no disputants and
participation by all parties is voluntary (McCold & Wachtel, 1998). Because of the
voluntary nature of this mediation, the offender is considered a candidate for participation
since he/she has already admitted to the crime committed. Reducing harm to the victim
and the community is achieved by helping offenders to participate actively in the
16
development of their community through community service and monitoring their
compliance with the mediation contract through informal probation (Walgrave &
Bazemore, 1999). Therefore, offenders who participate in FGC may play a role in
creating a mutual agreement with the victims and the community which in turn will
increase the likelihood of compliance.
One of the goals of FGC may be to acquire restitution from the offender. Material
restitution is achieved through paying back the victim for financial damages caused by
crimes (Baffour, 2006). On the other hand, emotional restitution is sought through the
offender apologizing to the victim for the harm done and the parties exchanging dialogue
on the impact the incident has had on their lives (McCold & Wachtel, 1998; Umbreit,
2000b). In turn, the role of the family of the offender is to discuss how the child’s crime
has harmed or shamed the family (Elis, 2006). All participants in the FGC have the
opportunity to contribute their thoughts and feelings in regards to the harm inflicted on
their lives and of others close to them.
McGarrell & Hipple (2007) examined whether the participation in a FGC affects
the incidence, rate and timing re-offending among young first-time offenders compared
to other court-ordered diversion programs. The sample consisted of 400 youth
participants of FGC programs, and 382 youths in the control group. The comparison of
the study was between FGC and all diversion programs, representing the court-ordered
programs that occurred in the absence of FGC programs. The study examined whether or
not the FGC was more successful than court-ordered programs for first-time offenders
and the incidence of re-arrest rates. The 24-month follow up period began the day of the
17
youth’s qualifying arrest. Failure was determined as the first arrest during the 24-month
follow-up period. Those who were not arrested within the 24-month follow-up period
were considered those who survived.
The results indicated that approximately half of the study sample did not fail the
two-year follow up period of 24 months (McGarrell & Hipple 2007). Results further
indicate that a higher percentage of the FGC sample compared to the control group
“survived”. Both samples failed at similar rates during the first 12 weeks following their
initial arrest. The control sample “failed” at a faster rate, particularly between weeks 1432. Those who were initially arrested for property offenses significantly reduced the risk
of failure compared to the significant increase of risk of failure for person offenses. FGC
youths had a lower average of re-arrest rates compared to those in the control group,
indicating that those who completed FGC programs had fewer incidence of re-offending
than youth completing diversion programs.
This study conducted by McGarrell & Hipple (2007) supports that FGC
participants compared to offenders in court-ordered diversion programs are more likely to
experience a positive impact as they participate in such programs. Although the followup period does not reflect the span of their lifetime, it does demonstrate the positive
benefit FGC programs may have on the reduction of first-time offenders’ recidivism rate.
Because of the voluntary nature of the FGC programs versus assignment to a courtordered diversion program, participants are more likely to benefit from this voluntary
experience as opposed to a court-ordered diversion program where it is involuntary.
18
Circle Sentencing Programs
Circle sentencing is the third restorative justice model utilized to include victims,
offenders, community members, friends, families, and social service personnel. It is the
most holistic approach to restorative justice programming (Rodriguez, 2007). The
participants involved in the program aim to undertake a “shared search for understanding:
of the delinquent offense (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). Circle sentencing involves a
multi-step process. The first step is where the offender submits an application requesting
to participate in the circle process. The second step, two Healing Circles are held: one for
the victim and one for the offender. The next circle takes place to develop a sentencing
plan which is a collaborative effort including community and family members as well as
justice and social service professionals. Lastly, follow-up circles are conducted to
monitor the offender’s progress. The goal of this program, similar to the other two, is to
increase the level of understanding and support between offenders, victims and the
community. Offenders are confronted by the victims where they are able to express the
harm that has impacted their life, giving the offender an opportunity to speak.
Traditional Approach to Sentencing Offenders
In the Western societies, the criminal justice system focuses primarily on dealing
with injustice solely through punishment. Courts impose punishment on the offenders,
and justice is considered achieved (Wenzel et. al, 2008). Seeking justice with this
approach is not the only way to achieve justice for victims and their families. Evidence
indicates that justice, not behavior control, is the motivating factor that seeks punishment
for offender’s wrongdoing (Wenzel et. al, 2008). This narrow, punitive approach focuses
19
solely on offenders who violate rules deserve punishment that is congruent with the
severity of the offender’s wrongdoing.
Retributive justice refers to the repair of justice through punishment whereas the
restorative justice approach focused on repairing justice through a shared valueconsensus through a collaborative process (Wenzel et. al, 2008). This traditional
approach reflects that the perpetrator’s punishment is proportionate to the crime he or she
committed. The harm or suffering inflicted on the victim and their families implies that
the punishment restores the justice that is deserved. With retributive punishment, there is
minimal room for allowing remorse to increase the leniency of the punishment. The
opportunity to provide an explanation of the crime committed to enhance the healing
process and undo the hurt does not exist through the traditional retributive approach.
Unlike restorative justice, retributive justice is a one-sided situation where the
punishment is imposed on the offender. Wenzel et. al (2008) explains that moral
meaning is restored through assertion against the offender, whereas in restorative justice,
the collaborative process emphasizes the healing of the victim and offender through
rebuilding his or her moral self. The traditional retributive approach imposes that the
offenders are powerless and the suffering defines that their status is lowered.
The purpose of a punitive approach is to reduce the likelihood of reoffending after
post-release, but data has not proven to support this. In actuality, incarceration may lead
to further crime upon release. According to the labeling theory, incarceration serves to
increase subsequent offending largely through the external and formal labels that limit
opportunities for pro-social behavior upon release (Bales & Piquero, 2011).
20
Incarceration may provide a learning environment that reinforces criminal behavior,
leading to further crime post-release. One study concluded that compared with noncustodial sanctions, incarceration appears to have a null or mildly criminogenic effect on
future criminal behavior, which is contradictory to the popular view that imprisonment
deters future involvement in criminal acts (Nagin et. al, 2009).
Bales & Piquero (2011) conducted a study that examined the effect of
imprisonment on recidivism among Florida offenders sentenced to imprisonment
compared to offenders sentenced to a non-imprisonment community-based sanction. The
study was divided into two groups, the experimental group which included offenders who
were sentenced to prison, and the control group which included those sentenced to
Community Control program. Because recidivism is commonly defined as a conviction
for a new felony subsequent to prison release, restricting recidivism measure to felony
convictions may dismiss other variations. Bales & Piquero (2011) recognized the wide
variation that exists and operationalized recidivism based on three different variables: a
felony offense that occurred within one, two, or three years after prison release or
placement on Community Control that resulted in a conviction.
Results from the study show that offenders released from prison were more likely
to recidivate within one, two, and three years relative to Community Control cases (Bales
& Piquero 2011). Ex-prisoners recidivate more within all post-release periods than the
non-incarcerative Community Control group. The most significant indicators of
recidivism emerge from males, Blacks, offenders with more prior prison sentences and
21
supervision violations. More specifically, those who were sentenced to prison have a
93.9% increased odds of recidivating than those sentenced to Community Control group.
The results of this study are important for juvenile justice and social service
professionals to recognize that restorative justice programs can serve as a successful
alternative measure to restoring justice as opposed to punitive measures. These results
demonstrate that the restorative justice process can allow the offender the opportunity to
take responsibility for their behavior. Juvenile justice and social service professionals
who can enhance their perspective about restorative justice programs may be able to
recognize the process can promote a greater sense of sensitivity as opposed to a sense of
shame and labeling that could result as a consequence of punitive measures. With a more
positive perspective on restorative justice processes, these alternative measures can be
implemented more frequently to restore justice by meeting the needs of victims,
offenders, and community members as part of the integral process.
Best Practices for Restorative Justice Programs
There are many types of programs that fit within the restorative justice
philosophy. Some of the most common programs are victim-offender mediation (VOM),
family group conferencing (FGC), and circle sentencing. In the United States, VOM is
used the most often where victims and offenders are mediated by a third party in order to
effectively reach an outcome that both parties are satisfied with (Umbreit et. al, 2004).
Despite the increased use of restorative justice programs, the United States has yet to
create best practice guidelines for the implementation of restorative justice approaches.
Scotland and New Zealand both offer examples of how best practice guidelines can help
22
define what a program should look like. By creating best practice guidelines, the United
States would further cement restorative justice as a qualified alternative to the more
commonly used retributive style of punishment. A best practice policy could also help
professionals gain a clearer understanding of what restorative justice programs should
look like and may contribute to more support of their use.
The Scottish government created best practices guidelines for professionals who
are working in restorative justice programs (Best practice guidance for restorative justice
practitioners and their case supervisors and line managers, 2008). These guidelines
outline core knowledge and skills professionals should have surrounding restorative
justice, as well as how professionals should facilitate meetings, support participants, and
create positive environments within mediation. Core knowledge practitioners should
have is a definition of restorative justice (including the theory behind it), how it differs
from other approaches, how to apply restorative justice principles in practice, and a
working knowledge of any systems, institutions or agencies associated with restorative
justice participants. Examples of core skills that professionals need to possess are
effective communication and personal skills, the ability to create a safe environment for
participants, the ability to treat people fairly and without discrimination, awareness of the
confidential nature of restorative justice, and self-awareness of his or her own skills and
challenges. Additionally, the Scottish guidelines express the importance of professionals’
ability to be flexible and facilitate face-to-face, indirect, or no communication mediation
between participants.
23
Restorative justice has a long history in New Zealand and the country utilizes
many practices from the aboriginal community in its restorative justice process (Ministry
of justice, 2004). Their guidelines reflect this difference and while the thematic elements
are similar, New Zealand’s best practices are more focused on the safety and well-being
of participants that skill acquisition of the restorative justice practitioners. Among the
basic guidelines are the emphasis on restorative justice’s voluntary nature, the importance
of full participation from both victim and offender, the emotional and physical safety of
the participants, appropriate education about the program for all participants, the
importance of screening each case for compatibility with restorative justice, and the
importance of educating professionals about the restorative justice philosophy.
Although Scotland and New Zealand approach restorative justice in different
ways, there are basic themes that are represented in their best practice guidelines. These
themes are the voluntary and confidential nature of restorative justice, the importance of
educating all parties involved with the process, and the importance of all participants
achieving satisfaction with the outcomes of the process. Both New Zealand and
Scotland's approaches to restorative justice reflect the guidelines presented by the United
Nations. The United Nations created guidelines for implementing restorative justice in
2002 and encouraged all countries to develop their own basic guidelines (United Nations
off on drugs and crime, 2006). In their handbook to restorative justice programs, they
discuss basic principles of restorative justice. These basic principles include participants’
rights (to legal counsel, a parent or guardian, and confidentiality), the importance of fully
informing participants of the restorative justice philosophy and process, the voluntary
24
nature of restorative justice, and the importance of participant agreement with the
outcome of the mediation. Additionally, the United Nations outlines guidelines for
restorative justice practitioners and participants which include non-discrimination,
protection of civil rights and dignities, professionals taking a neutral stance in the
proceedings, and respect among all parties participating. The United States should adopt
these guidelines when using restorative justice in order to strengthen the philosophy and
further solidify its use in this country.
Efficacy of Restorative Justice Programs
When looking at the effectiveness of restorative justice programs, it is important
to keep in mind the extreme variation between various restorative justice programs across
the country. This makes more research difficult to generalize. However, there are
numerous studies that examine the efficacy of restorative justice programs and found
them to be successful.
Rodriguez (2007) looked at the impact of a restorative justice program on
recidivism rates for juvenile offenders compared to juvenile offenders who received more
traditional services through a probation officer. Rodriguez studied 4,970 juvenile
offenders in Maricopa County, Arizona who either participated in a family group
conferencing (FGC) program with a restorative justice philosophy or were monitored by
a probation officer. The researcher compared recidivism rates of these two groups over a
twenty-four month period using official court records and defined recidivism as any
petition filed with the court regarding the offender within this time period. Rodriguez
also examined legal (prior offenses, type of offense) and extralegal (gender, age, and
25
ethnicity) factors, as well as the juvenile offender's school status and where his or her
case was processed (in court or at a community center).
The findings of the study (Rodriguez, 2007) indicate that overall juvenile
offenders participating in FGC had lower recidivism rates that the juvenile offenders who
were being seen by a probation officer. Although the restorative justice group had less
recidivism than the comparison group, there were several factors that affected recidivism
rates across the groups. The results of the study indicate that girls respond better than
boys to the restorative justice program as girls had less instances of recidivism that than
boys. Rodriguez hypothesizes that as FGC is a holistic approach, it might be more in line
with girls' needs. Additionally, as the number of prior offenses increased, so did the
probability that the participant would offend again. Overall, the results do indicate the
restorative justice programs are a more effective option than a more traditional
punishment where the youth meets with a parole officer.
The results of Rodriguez's (2007) study indicate that a restorative justice option
for young offenders may be more effective than solely utilizing a probation officer.
However, the researchers in this current study hypothesize that not all professionals
working in the juvenile justice system have a positive attitude regarding restorative
justice programs and that these attitudes may make it difficult for juvenile offenders to
complete restorative justice programs. If the probation officers, judges, prosecutors, and
defense attorneys do not support the use of restorative justice programs for juvenile
offenders, it becomes harder for social workers and community members to successfully
implement these programs. This research hopes to better understand professionals'
26
attitudes about restorative justice in order to address any concerns or misconceptions they
have regarding restorative justice programs.
Baffour (2006) conducted a secondary analysis study with the Bethlehem Police
FGC Project. The research is an outcome of the Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police FGC
Project, funded by the Community Service Foundation. The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Police Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a 2-year study on
FGC. Offenders participating in the intervention were mandated following court
proceedings, and their victims and extended families were also involved in the
conferences. A total of 292 participants were included in the study, with 65.1% male
respondents and 34.9% females. Regarding ethnicity, 39.7% were Caucasian, 7.5% were
African American, 49.7% were Latino/a, and 3.1% were classified as “other”.
The purpose of the study was to identify the experiences of offenders, victims,
and parents, and compare them with those who participated in the conference and those
who went through the formal adjudication process (Baffour, 2006). Offenders were
followed for a period of 18 months to determine if other crimes were committed after
original crime offense. The offenders included in this study were first time offenders.
The participation in the study was on a voluntary basis, therefore those who volunteered
participated in the FGC while the others who declined were assigned to the decline
group, also known as the experimental group. Two-thirds of the offenders were assigned
to the experimental group and one third of the participants were assigned to the control
group.
27
Recidivism was measured on the basis of whether the offender reoffended within
the 18 months following the first offense (Baffour, 2006). Results partially supported the
hypothesis that ethnicity does not influence the relationship between FGC and recidivism,
but that gender was the strongest predictor of re-arrest. Females were less likely to be rearrested than males. This results were consistent with current literature that females have
lower recidivism rates than their male counterparts. Those who had a strong desire to
repair the harm suffered by their families, victims and communities as a result of their
criminal acts may have been less likely than those who chose not to participate in the
FGC. Both victims and offenders preferred FGC to the traditional justice system because
of the fairness and sensitivity to the needs of both participants.
The results of this study support the process of restorative justice as an
opportunity for offenders, victims, and their families to create an open dialogue and
confront the harm suffered. The opportunity to repair the harm through a collaborative
effort as opposed to the traditional criminal justice system allows the offender to be given
a second chance at enhancing the necessary qualities for a more successful future. With
studies such as Baffour’s, it reflects the positive impact restorative justice programs have
on the participants involved in the program. These results indicate the impact restorative
justice programs can have on confronting the harm inflicted on the victims and families
while collaboratively developing a mutual agreement to restore justice which in turn can
influence the perspectives juvenile justice professionals and social service professionals
have on implementing such programs. While it is important to understand the
perspectives of the participants in the study, it is equally important to influence the
28
perspectives of such professionals on implementing alternative measures to punishment
that are less punitive in nature.
Bergseth & Bouffard (2007) examined the long-term effects of participation by
juvenile offenders in a restorative Justice program versus a more traditional courtroom
process. The researchers analyzed data regarding juvenile offenders recidivism rates,
number of official contacts, seriousness of later offenses, and time between initial contact
and next encounter over a four-year period. Bergseth & Bouffard attempted to improve
upon previous research by including all juvenile offenders assigned to participate in a
restorative Justice program (previous research only included those who completed the
restorative Justice program), including a longer follow-up period of four years, and
including juvenile offenders who had committed status, property, and personal offenses
(most restorative Justice programs only include juvenile offenders who have committed
property offenses and exclude individuals who have committed more serious crimes and
victimless crimes). Bergseth & Bouffard looked at 330 youths who committed either a
status, property, or person offense for a four year period who were either assigned to
participate in a Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) program or met with a probation
officer and went through traditional court processing.
Bergseth & Bouffard (2007) initially analyzed their variables to look for
differences between the two groups and then re-analyzed the data controlling for
demographic differences (age, gender, and ethnicity). Both analyses found that juvenile
offenders who participated in the restorative Justice program had less future contact with
the court (recidivism), less serious offenses, and a longer period of time before
29
reoffending. These results were statistically significant at the six month, one year, and
two year follow-up periods. All variables analyzed showed that juvenile offenders who
participated in restorative Justice rather than traditional juvenile justice programs had
better outcomes at the third and fourth year follow-up periods, but the only statistically
significant variable was the number of later official contacts. The researchers pointed out
that these results may be underestimated because twenty-five percent of the juvenile
offenders who were referred to a restorative justice program did not complete the
program but were still included in the sample in order to avoid volunteer bias.
These authors of this research want to better identify juvenile justice
professionals’ opinions and attitudes regarding the use of restorative justice programs.
By identifying any negative perceptions, information illustrating the positive effects of
restorative justice programs may be provided in order for more support to be given to
restorative justice programs. Hopefully, research like Bergseth & Bouffard (2007) will
change the perception of restorative justice and make it a more well-established method
of punishment in the juvenile justice system. By focusing on how restorative justice
programs can reduce recidivism rates among juvenile offenders, Bergseth & Bouffard are
able to address policymakers’ chief concern regarding program efficacy and help show
juvenile justice professions that restorative justice programs are a good alternative to
traditional court processing in the juvenile justice system.
Latimer et. al (2005) conducted a meta-analysis to test the effectiveness of
restorative justice programs. The authors selected victim and offender satisfaction,
restitution compliance, and recidivism as the variables that show program effectiveness
30
for restorative justice programs. After examining the literature, the researchers
determined that there were twenty-two studies that met criteria for the meta-analysis.
The majority of these studies examined the effectiveness of restorative justice programs
on young male offenders. In order for a study to be included in this meta-analysis, it
needed to study a restorative justice program, utilize both a control and a comparison
group, examine at least one of the four selected variables, and have enough statistical
information to calculate effect size. The results of the meta-analysis showed that victims
who participated in restorative justice programs were significantly more satisfied with
their experience than those who interacted with a traditional justice system program. The
researchers also found that, although the difference was smaller, offender satisfaction
rates were statistically significantly higher for those who participated in restorative
justice programs than those participating in traditional programs. The third variable
examined restitution compliance, had a significant effect size. The researchers found that
offenders participating in restorative justice programs were much more likely to
compensate their victims for damages than those participating in a traditional program.
Finally, when the researchers examined recidivism rates, they found that overall,
offenders who participated in traditional programs were more likely to reoffend during
the follow-up period than offenders who participated in restorative justice programs.
Similarly to Latimer, Dowden, & Muise (2005), Umbreit et. al (2004) conducted a
meta-analysis of previous studies that examined the effectiveness of previous studies that
examined effectiveness of restorative justice programs used with juvenile offenders. The
programs examined were all victim-offender mediation (VOM) programs where the main
31
goals were victim healing, offender accountability, and reparation of losses. This study
analyzed three major meta-analyses and synthesized those results. The data showed that
juvenile offenders who participated in restorative justice programs experienced lower
recidivism (some results showed recidivism rates as much as thirty-two percent lower for
the restorative justice group compared to the comparison group) and committed less
serious offenses when they did reoffend compared to juvenile offenders who participated
in a more traditional punishment. The researchers also found that there were other
factors that were improved with the use of restorative justice philosophies. Among these
factors were increased victim satisfaction with the outcomes, moderately increased
offender satisfaction with the results, and a higher degrees of restitution from offenders.
Although this research is promising, the authors point out two limitations of the
study (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005). First, meta-analyses in general are limited
because they mainly utilize published studies and published studies generally contain
more statistically significant results unpublished studies. This may result in metaanalyses finding greater effect sizes than what research actually finds. Second, the
definition of restorative justice is difficult to operationalize and many studies use
different criteria to define a program as restorative justice. This makes it difficult to
determine is a program is really utilizing the philosophy of restorative justice. While
these limitations should be considered when examining the article’s findings, the results
should not be completely discounted as the effect sizes are significant.
Latimer, Dowden, & Muise’s (2005) research is important to the current study
because it examines both efficacy of restorative justice programs and satisfaction of
32
participants in the programs. Juvenile justice professionals can look at these results and
feel confident that offering the option to participate in restorative justice programs will
result in lower recidivism rates and higher victim and offender satisfaction. This
research, as well as other articles presented here give judges, parole officers, and
attorneys an alternative option when deciding how to best address juvenile’s offenses and
resolve the effects of the crime.
Offenders, Victims, Families, and Community Members Perspectives on Restorative
Justice Programs
There are few studies that look at the perspectives of working in and around
restorative justice programs and even fewer that focus on the juvenile justice system.
This research is important because without the support of program participants (juvenile
offenders), victims and their families, and professionals and volunteers who run
restorative justice programs, there is no way they will succeed. Additionally, researchers
need to look into the perspectives of professionals who may not directly work with
restorative justice programs but may work with offenders participating in these programs.
These professionals include judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and parole officers and
their attitudes and opinions may impact the policies surrounding the use of restorative
justice programs in the juvenile justice system.
Choi, Green, & Gilbert (2011) conducted a qualitative study that examined how
and why restorative justice programs are effective by examining juvenile offender’s
perspectives of restorative justice programs. The researchers felt that these questions
were important because previous research has found restorative justice with juvenile
33
offenders to be effective but it is still unclear as to why and how restorative justice works
making it difficult to convince skeptics of restorative justice’s consistent effectiveness.
The results of the study come from four different case studies with a total of thirty-seven
participants including offenders, victims, mediators, and parents. The researchers
interviewed restorative justice participants using a semi-structured questionnaire and
observed the restorative justice process over a one-year period. Two central themes were
observed throughout the course of the study. The themes were that restorative justice
was “not an easy punishment to take” (p. 344, Choi, Green, & Gilbert, 2011) and that
restorative justice was a “good punishment” (p. 344, Choi, Green, & Gilbert, 2011).
The first theme Choi, Green, & Gilbert (2011) found, that restorative justice was
“not an easy punishment to take” came as a surprise to many of the restorative justice
participants. The authors reported that many of the juvenile offenders initially believed
that restorative justice would be an easier to complete than a more traditional punishment.
However, juvenile offenders found that facing their victims was extremely difficult and
made them face what they had done. The second theme that Choi, Green, & Gilbert
identified was that juvenile offenders felt that restorative justice was a good punishment.
The researchers divided this theme into four sub-themes which are: restorative justice is a
learning opportunity for juvenile offenders, restorative justice is an opportunity for
juvenile offenders to see their crimes from a different perspective, restorative justice is an
opportunity for juvenile offenders to better understand the victims of their offenses, and
restorative justice is an opportunity to put a human face to their crime. Through their
interviews with participants in restorative justice programs, the researchers were able to
34
increase their insight into how restorative justice programs work and why they are
effective. The authors found that by gaining empathy towards their victims, juvenile
offenders were able to express remorse for their crimes and make better choices in the
future.
Although Choi, Green, & Gilbert (2011) do not use quantitative data to measure
the efficacy of restorative justice programs with juvenile offenders, they do offer valuable
insight through qualitative information obtained through observation and interviews. The
current study is aimed at identifying juvenile justice professionals’ perspectives regarding
the use of restorative justice programs with juvenile offenders. This information is vital
to addressing and altering misconceptions juvenile justice professionals may have
regarding how restorative justice programs work. By providing juvenile justice
professional with additional information about the specifics of how and why restorative
justice programs work, researchers can better illustrate how beneficial restorative justice
programs can be to juvenile offenders. Juvenile justice professionals who decide where
to place juvenile offenders need to be thoroughly educated about all of their options in
order to refer juvenile offenders to the most appropriate placement.
Karp et. al (2004) used qualitative research methods to examine the perspectives
of the restorative justice philosophy of parents participating in restorative justice
programs the parents of the juvenile offenders were also referred to as secondary victims
because of the financial impact that their children’s’ offenses have on them. Parents
often have to pay reparations if the juvenile offenders are unable to do so. Karp et. al
(2004) examined twenty-two restorative justice cases using observation, interviews, and
35
reviews of older cases. Most juvenile offenders were white males who had committed a
variety of crimes ranging from using alcohol and drugs to assault.
The researchers (Karp et. al, 2004) found that parents were impressed by the
restorative justice programs and felt that they were an appropriate punishment for
juvenile offenders. Many parents felt that restorative justice was a better option that
traditional court because they felt like the restorative justice panelists wanted to help the
juvenile offenders change their lives rather than merely punishing them for the crime.
The parents reported that they felt less defensive about their children and felt included in
the restorative justice process because the program focused on collaborating to find the
best solution for all participants rather than solely blaming the juvenile offenders for their
offenses. The most common complaint that parents had regarding the program was that
the people who created the restitution plans had little power to enforce the juvenile
offenders’ compliance. Parents were concerned about low-compliance with their
punishments which would increase the likelihood that juvenile offenders would return to
the court system.
When juvenile justice professionals are considering the efficacy and impact of
restorative justice programs, they should take into account the juvenile offenders’
parents’ perspectives of the restorative justice philosophy. Parents are an integral part in
young peoples’ lives and their opinions and the effects of their child’s punishment on
them should be considered when weighing the use of alternative programs to the
traditional court system. Additionally, because parents are often financially responsible
for their children’s offenses, restitution may become a large burden on the juvenile
36
offender’s family. If restorative justice programs can help lessen the financial liability
parents face, it may be a good alternative form of punishment for juvenile offenders.
Juvenile justice professionals should be looking at everyone affected by crime in order to
determine the best possible solution.
Karp et. al (2004) studied the community volunteers who participate in and help
to mediate restorative justice programs. It is important to understand these individuals’
perspectives because they are often an integral part of restorative justice programs and
play a vital role in their outcome. While this study examined volunteers who worked
with adult offenders rather than juvenile offenders, it offers important insight about how
community volunteers view offenders and whether or not they see the restorative justice
philosophy as effective for reducing crime. The researchers asked volunteers on all
reparative boards in the state of Vermont to complete their and collected data from 229
volunteers with a questionnaire via mail. These volunteers were typically over 45,
residentially stable, and well educated. Most of the individuals surveyed had volunteered
for a significant period of time, seen a substantial number of cases, and had contact with
both victims and offenders.
The results of Karp et. al (2004) survey showed positive benefits of restorative
justice programs on individuals who act as volunteers and further illustrates the possible
positive impact of restorative justice programs on the communities they are in. Ninetytwo percent of the volunteers surveyed were satisfied with and supportive of the use of
restorative justice and reported that participating in the program increased volunteers’
sense of membership in the community, commitment to the restorative justice
37
philosophy, empathy for both offenders and victims, and enthusiasm for volunteer work.
Additionally, respondents reported that they believed that they use of restorative justice
effectively met the needs of their community by increasing community members’ safety
and repairing harm done to victims. Respondents also point out possible improvements
to restorative justice programs which is essential for the continued growth of such
programs. For example, the community volunteers surveyed reported that it would be
more beneficial to the restorative justice process if more victims were actively involved
in communicating with their offenders. Finally, the community volunteers who
participated in this study see a shift in offender attitudes for those who successfully
complete a restorative justice program. Among the changes they saw were offenders’
increased understanding of the harm of their offense, remorse regarding their actions, and
an understanding of their responsibilities as a community member.
While it is important to understand the perspective of community volunteers, the
viewpoints of professionals in the juvenile justice system who may refer juvenile
offenders to restorative justice programs are also important and need to be understood. It
is juvenile justice professions who have the power to change the system and increase the
use of restorative justice programs through advocacy and changes in policy. There is still
a gap in the literature where juvenile justice professionals’ perspectives regarding
restorative justice programs need to be examined. These researchers hope to learn more
about what juvenile justice professionals think about restorative justice programs in order
to better work with them to promote the use of restorative justice programs.
38
Abrams et. al (2006) conducted a qualitative exploratory study in one county
VOM program in Minnesota. The purpose of the study was to determine how young
offenders and their families experience the mediation session for Victim-Offender
Mediations (VOMs). They also studied how the young offenders and their families view
the emotional and personal process of confronting the victims and hearing their stories.
Lastly, they explored whether or not the participants perceive that the VOM experience
has a long lasting impact on emotional or behavioral change.
The participants included seven offenders and four sets of parents of this same
group (Abrams et. al, 2006). The offenders who participated in the study included four
18 year old offenders, and three offenders age 19 or older. The researchers conducted a
semi-structured interview with specific a specific question order covering various topics
in order to collect a clear understanding of the offender and his/her families perspective
on the VOM process. Twelve questions covering a range of topics were designed to
gather information about the offender and his/her family’s point of view about the
process of the VOM session. The data was analyzed by using codes to sort the data
according to themes that the principal investigator and a research assistant decided on.
The results indicate that the offenders chose to participate in the VOM for gaining
closure on the crime and the case and making amends to the victim (Abrams et. al, 2006).
Additionally, parents of the offenders who participated in the study initially felt strongly
that the VOM would present a positive impact for their child being able to gain a sense of
the victim’s feelings and experiences. These results indicate the initial reason for the
offenders and family’s participation was for purposes of gaining a sense of closure
39
through confronting the victim and gaining an understanding of the impact of the crime
by establishing dialogue with them. Later, it was concluded that the parents felt that the
sessions could have been more valuable for various reasons. Some felt that the level of
interest from the victim was minimizing the situation. Another parent felt that they
wanted to contribute more to the VOM process. Understanding the mediator was a
challenge for one set of parents because of the language barrier. The remainder of
parents felt that their needs were overlooked, and that they would have liked to contribute
more to the VOM session. The results indicate that the parents’ expectations about the
VOM process were not fulfilled due to a variety of reasons from the victim’s minimal
participation, language barriers, and the lack of opportunity for parents to contribute to
the session.
A common theme found within this study determined that confronting the victim
was the most challenging part of the process, yet the most meaningful (Abrams et. al,
2006). Hearing and listening to the victim’s experiences allowed the participants to gain
a sense of relief and closure to some of their unanswered questions about the crime. The
participants of the study with the exception of one, gained a sense of shame and remorse
as a result of hearing the victim’s experiences and being able to provide their reasons for
committing crimes (Abrams et. al, 2006). These major themes revealed that confronting
the victim had an impact on them in some way, whether it be through gaining a sense of
remorse, shame, or closure through listening or providing an explanation for the crime
committed.
40
All of the participants except for one reported experiencing a sense of satisfaction
with the VOM experience (Abrams et. al, 2006). The results indicate that the participants
were satisfied with the impact the dialogue had on them. The open dialogue allowed the
participants to hear the victim’s perception of the crime from their point of view, which
seemed more meaningful than hearing from the parents. Gaining a realistic picture of the
victim and his/her experiences of the crime provided them with a more humanizing
effect. The participants felt gained satisfaction through confronting the victim with their
explanation for the crime committed, but without expecting any sympathy or remorse
from them. As for the parents, most of them also felt that the VOM sessions were
beneficial especially for their child to be able to confront the victim face to face.
A significant question that remained was whether or not the VOM program
prevented young youth offenders from re-offending. Although the timeframe of this
study does not allow the researchers to determine re-offending, the results do indicate that
the program contributed to a journey of life change on some level. For several of the
participants, the journey of life change might have begun with the arrest, but that
continued until and through the point of the conferencing sessions (Abrams et. al, 2006).
The VOM session overall was a beneficial experience for them, contributing to the
process of healing for the offenders.
Several conclusions can be made about the VOM process for offenders and their
families. First, offenders may feel that the opportunity to have face to face contact with
the victim is a unique experience to gain a sense of closure for the crime committed. The
opportunity to hear the victim’s perception of the crime and the impact it had on their life
41
provided a sense of shame and remorse for the victim’s experiences which are critical
elements that increase the sense of wrongdoing on the harm inflicted on the victim. The
offenders’ opportunity to provide an explanation for their actions is seen as a powerful,
meaningful experience that contributes to their healing journey.
42
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Study Objectives
According to Braithwaite (2002), key elements such as an apology, restoration of
emotions, a sense of security and empowerment, forgiveness, and creating solution
through collaborative efforts, are values that are highlighted in restorative justice
processes. In this study, juvenile justice professionals who have an active role in
responding to juvenile offenders’ criminal involvement, examine their perspectives of
juvenile restorative justice programs. The purpose of the study is to explore the juvenile
justice professionals’ perspectives whom have contact with restorative justice programs.
With a better understanding of the professionals’ critiques of program efficacy such as
reduction of future crime, efficiency of the program, and appropriate punishment related
to the crime, issues within restorative justice programs can be improved by addressing the
goals and needs for improved outcomes. This could reduce the recidivism rates for
offenders participating in the program as opposed to the traditional punitive approach that
is commonly used.
Study Design
The design of this study is an exploratory, quantitative secondary data analysis
using data acquired from the National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals which is
maintained by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) as part of the
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). The goal of this
study is to gain a better understanding of the juvenile justice professionals’ perspectives
43
of restorative justice program efficacy, its impact on reduction of crime, appropriateness
of punishment, and level of fairness of treatment.
Sampling Procedures
The survey was distributed to juvenile justice professionals in the 300 mostpopulated counties in the United States through both a mail-based questionnaire and a
web-based survey. The researchers only received responses from 285 of the most
populated counties. The data was collected from 2005 to 2007 and the final sample
consisted of 534 juvenile justice professionals.
Data Collection Procedures
The data being analyzed in this study was retrieved from the Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and is available to the public. All
identifiable information about the respondents has been eliminated making the data
unidentifiable.
Instruments
This research will analyze National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals in
order to better understand professionals’ attitudes regarding the use of restorative justice
protocols with juvenile offenders. The survey used in this research was originally
collected by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The survey was administered to various professionals
within the juvenile justice system including judges, district attorneys, public defenders,
and probation officers. The instrument asked various demographic questions such as
length of time working in the juvenile justice system and current occupations.
44
Additionally, the instrument asked the respondents to rate the juvenile justice system’s
impact on recidivism, the community, efficiency, appropriateness of punishment, and fair
treatment of youth offenders on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly agree
to strongly disagree. There was also an open-ended question asking participants to give
recommendations to improve the juvenile justice system. For the purpose of this
research, the questions regarding the respondents’ opinions of restorative justice
programs impact on juvenile offenders will be analyzed.
Data Analysis
For the purposes of this study, the researchers examined the six questions in the
survey related to juvenile justice professionals’ attitudes and opinions regarding
restorative justice programs. The questions were as follows:
A. Restorative justice programs and policies (e.g., providing offenders with the
opportunity to restore harm they cause or to make restitution to victims) promote
less crime in the community.
B. Restorative justice programs and policies (e.g., providing offenders with the
opportunity to restore harm they cause or to make restitution to victims) promote
less recidivism by young offenders.
C. Restorative justice programs and policies (e.g., providing offenders with the
opportunity to restore harm they cause or to make restitution to victims) promote
appropriate punishment of young offenders.
D. Restorative justice programs and policies (e.g., providing offenders with the
opportunity to restore harm they cause or to make restitution to victims) promote
45
fair treatment of young offenders.
E. Restorative justice programs and policies (e.g., providing offenders with the
opportunity to restore harm they cause or to make restitution to victims) promote
efficiency of the justice process.
F. Restorative justice programs and policies (e.g., providing offenders with the
opportunity to restore harm they cause or to make restitution to victims) promote
the traditional mission of juvenile justice.
These questions used a five-point Likert scale where participants could “strongly
agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” “strongly disagree,” or state “don’t know.” Additionally, the
researchers examined the demographic data (position in the juvenile justice system and
length of time working in the juvenile justice system) for differences in attitudes
regarding restorative justice programs among professionals. The data was analyzed using
SPSS to determined themes in participants’ responses to the relevant questions. The data
was analyzed using frequency statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test. The frequency
tables gave the researchers information about the trends each professional group exhibits
and which groups are more likely to support the use of restorative justice programs with
juvenile offenders. The Kruskal-Wallis is a non-parametric test that can be used with
independent samples. The Kruskal-Wallis test shows researchers if there are any
significant differences between professional groups’ opinions of restorative justice
programs.
46
Protection of Human Subjects
The researchers’ Human Subjects Application (protocol number 13-14-053) was
submitted to the Division of Social Work Human Subjects Review Committee in the fall
2013 semester and was given exempt status as it is secondary data analysis and uses no
human subjects (see Appendix A).
Summary
Through this quantitative secondary data analysis the researchers hope to acquire
more insight into juvenile justice professionals’ attitudes about restorative justice
programs. Gaining juvenile justice professionals’ perspectives on program efficacy,
reduction in future crime, and appropriateness of punishment related to the crime will
help bridge the gaps in restorative justice programs and address inaccurate stereotypes
juvenile justice professionals may have about these programs. Active members involved
in the integral process such as social workers, community members, and law enforcement
officials may use the results to improve restorative justice programs to better meet the
needs of victims and offenders participating in the program. Additionally, professionals
involved in restorative justice programs may be able to change inaccurate beliefs about
the how these programs work.
47
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Background
This study consisted of secondary data analysis of 534 juvenile justice
professionals from 285 of the 300 most populated counties in the United States. The
survey assessed the effectiveness of 17 different policies and practices, and assessed for
six specific outcomes: less crime in the community, less recidivism by young offenders,
appropriate punishment of young offenders, efficiency of the justice process, and
traditional mission of juvenile justice. For the purpose of this study, the researchers
examined professionals’ responses that pertained to the practice of restorative justice
programs.
Overall Findings
The sample for this study included 122 judges (22.8 percent), 164 court
administrator (CA)/probation officers (PO) (30.7 percent), 164 prosecutors (30.7
percent), and 84 defense attorneys (15.7 percent). These results were summarized in
Table 1. The number of years served in the juvenile justice profession, as seen in Table
2, shows ten years and under of service was the highest number of participants (37.5
percent). The second highest number were the participants who served more than 20
years in the juvenile justice system (36.9 percent) , and the least number of participants
served between 10 to 20 years in the juvenile justice system (25.5 percent).
48
Table 1
Professional Position in Juvenile Justice System
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Judge
CA/PO
Prosecutor
Defender
Total
122
164
164
84
534
Valid Percent
22.8
30.7
30.7
15.7
100.0
Table 2
Number of Years in Juvenile Justice Profession
Frequency
Percent
Less than 10
10 - 20
Valid
More than
20
Total
Missing Blank
Total
22.8
30.7
30.7
15.7
100.0
Valid Percent
200
136
197
37.5
25.5
36.9
37.5
25.5
37.0
533
1
534
99.8
.2
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
22.8
53.6
84.3
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
37.5
63.0
100.0
Specific Findings
When asked if the restorative justice programs and policies promotes less crime in
the community, the majority of the participants stated that they agreed (49.9 percent) or
strongly agreed (29.2 percent), as shown in Figure 1. Only 2.5 percent of the participants
strongly disagreed.
49
Strongly agree
26.4%
Agree
45.1%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
16.7%
2.2%
Figure 1. Promotes Less Crime in the Community
For the degree to which restorative justice programs and policies promotes less
recidivism by young offenders, over half of the participants stated that they agreed (52.4
percent). The second most prevalent answer was strongly agreed equaling 30.3 percent,
as shown in Figure 2.
50
Strongly agree
30.3%
Agree
52.4%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
15.1%
2.3%
Figure 2. Promotes Less Recidivism by Young Offenders
When asked if restorative justice programs and policies promotes appropriate
punishment of young offenders, over half of the participants stated that they agreed (58.2
percent). The second most prevalent answer was strongly agreed at 36 percent, as shown
in Figure 3. Only 4.2 percent disagreed and 1.5 percent strongly disagreed.
Strongly agree
36.0%
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
58.2%
4.2%
1.5%
Figure 3. Promotes Appropriate Punishment of Young Offenders
51
Figure 4 illustrates the participants’ responses to the degree to which restorative
justice programs and policies promote fair treatment of young offenders. The most
common answer was agreed at 56.9 percent. The second most common answer was
strongly agree at 36.2 percent.
Strongly agree
36.2%
Agree
56.9%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
6.0%
1.0%
Figure 4. Promotes Fair Treatment of Young Offenders
Figure 5 shows the participants’ responses to the efficiency of the justice process
with the highest response equaling over half of the participants stated 51.2 percent for
agreed. The second most common response was strongly agree at 29.3 percent. The
lowest response equaled 2.3 percent for strongly disagree.
52
Strongly agree
29.3%
Agree
51.2%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
17.2%
2.3%
Figure 5. Promotes Efficiency of the Justice Process
When asked if the restorative justice programs and policies promotes traditional
mission of juvenile justice, the highest percentage of 58.7 percent agreed, and the second
highest percentage stated 30.5 percent strongly agreed, as shown in Figure 6. The lowest
response stated 2.4 percent strongly disagreed and 8.4 percent disagreed.
53
Strongly agree
30.5%
Agree
58.7%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
8.4%
2.4%
Figure 6. Promotes Traditional Mission of Juvenile Justice
When the respondents were separated by profession, the results illustrate the
difference in perspectives between groups (shown in Figure 7). The majority of the
participants agreed or strongly agreed that restorative justice programs and policies
promote less recidivism by young offenders. Judges, court administrators, probation
officers, and prosecutors demonstrated the most support for such programs while defense
attorneys demonstrated to be the most critical. The results were similar for the question
regarding promoting less recidivism by young offenders (shown in Figure 8).
54
Defender
Prosecutor
CA/PO
Judge
17.1%
28.0%
32.4%
34.9%
Strongly agree
48.7%
46.7%
Agree
54.7%
48.6%
32.9%
20.7%
Disagree
10.8%
15.6%
Strongly disagree
1.3%
4.7%
2.0%
0.9%
Figure 7. Promotes Less Crime in the Community (Separated by Profession)
Defender
Prosecutor
CA/PO
19.5%
Strongly agree
Judge
27.5%
32.0%
39.3%
47.7%
Agree
49.1%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
8.8%
10.7%
57.1%
57.1%
22.1%
20.8%
1.3%
4.0%
2.0%
0.9%
Figure 8. Promotes Less Recidivism by Young Offenders (Separated by Profession)
55
Court administrators/probation officers and prosecutors were the most likely to
agree or strongly agree that restorative justice programs and policies promotes
appropriate punishment of young offenders (illustrated in Figure 9). Similar numbers
were demonstrated in the results for the fair treatment of young offenders (shown in
Figure 10).
Defender
Prosecutor
21.3%
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Judge
35.4%
39.4%
42.4%
54.0%
57.5%
55.1%
Agree
Disagree
CA/PO
72.5%
6.3%
8.1%
1.3%
1.7%
0.0%
2.5%
1.9%
0.8%
Figure 9. Promotes Appropriate Punishment of Young Offenders (Separated by
Profession)
56
\ Defender
\ Prosecutor
18.8%
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
\ Judge
35.0%
39.6%
44.9%
53.8%
57.2%
51.7%
Agree
Disagree
\ CA/PO
1.3%
3.4%
70.0%
11.3%
10.0%
0.0%
1.3%
1.9%
0.0%
Figure 10. Promotes Fair Treatment of Young Offenders (Separated by Profession)
Defense attorneys and court administrators were most supportive that restorative
justice programs and policies promote the efficiency of the justice process (see Figure
11). Figure 12 indicates that all four of the professional groups agree that restorative
justice promotes the traditional mission of juvenile justice.
57
Defender
Prosecutor
13.3%
CA/PO
28.3%
Strongly agree
28.2%
Judge
38.8%
47.6%
52.6%
47.3%
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
61.3%
22.7%
21.4%
6.6%
22.7%
2.7%
2.8%
2.0%
1.8%
Figure 11. Promotes Efficiency of the Justice Process (Separated by Profession)
Defender
Prosecutor
19.2%
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
28.4%
31.9%
Judge
38.8%
64.1%
60.0%
58.1%
54.3%
Agree
Disagree
CA/PO
12.8%
9.0%
6.9%
6.9%
3.8%
2.6%
3.1%
0.0%
Figure 12. Promotes Traditional Mission of Juvenile Justice (Separated by Profession)
The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric test of significance that is used to
measure data with three or more groups. In this study, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used
to look for difference of opinion of the use of restorative justice programs between
profession groups in the juvenile justice system. See Table 3 for a complete summary of
58
the results. The data analysis shows no difference between professional groups’ opinions
regarding the appropriateness of restorative justice as a punishment for juvenile offenders
(p = .009, df = 3) and the different groups’ opinion about restorative justice promoting
the traditional mission of the juvenile justice system (p = .010, df = 3). The data showed
a significant difference in opinion between groups for the question about restorative
justice promoting less crime in the community (p = .001, df = 3) and the question about
restorative justice promoting less recidivism in the community (p = .002, df = 3). The
difference in responses was also significant between groups when they were asked if
restorative justice programs and policies promoted fair treatment of offenders (p = .000,
df = 3) and promoted efficiency within the juvenile justice system (p = .000, df = 3).
Table 3
Significance of Differences Between Professionals
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES
PROMOTES...
LESS CRIME IN
THE
COMMUNITY
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES
PROMOTES...
LESS
RECIDIVISM
BY YOUNG
OFFENDERS
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES
PROMOTES...
APPROPRIATE
PUNISHMENT
OF YOUNG
OFFENDERS
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES
PROMOTES...
FAIR
TREATMENT
OF YOUNG
OFFENDERS
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES
PROMOTES...
EFFICIENCY
OF THE
JUSTICE
PROCESS
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES
PROMOTES...
TRADITIONAL
MISSION OF
JUVENILE
JUSTICE
16.027
14.966
11.637
18.885
21.896
11.4
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.001
0.002
0.009
0
0
0.01
59
60
Summary
There were four different professional groups that were included in the sample.
They included judges (22.8 percent), court administrators/probation officers (30.7
percent), prosecutors (30.7 percent), and defense attorneys (15.7 percent). The
professionals were also asked how long they have served in the juvenile justice
profession. The highest percentage had worked in the profession for zero to ten years
(37.5 percent), followed by more than twenty years (36.9 percent), and between ten and
twenty years (25.5 percent). Overall, the professionals surveyed supported the use of
restorative justice programs with juvenile offenders. The findings show that judges were
most supportive while defense attorneys were the least supportive of restorative justice
programs and policies. Finally, the data reflects that the difference in professionals’
opinions of restorative justice is significant in several of the domains.
61
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Study
This study consisted of secondary data analysis of surveys acquired from the
National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals which is maintained by the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) as part of the Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research (ICPSR). The survey was completed by juvenile justice
professionals in 285 out of 300 of the most populated counties in the United States and
analyzed the data through SPSS to determine the frequencies of the respondents’
answers. Through this study, the findings reflected that juvenile justice professionals
uphold the beliefs that restorative justice programs promote less crime in the community,
reduce recidivism for young offenders, serve as appropriate punishment for young
offenders, and promotes traditional mission of juvenile justice.
Of the sample, the majority of the respondents from all four professional groups
were supportive of the use of restorative justice programs and policies in the juvenile
justice system. More specifically, court administrators/probation officers and judges
were the most supportive, and prosecutors and defense attorneys were less supportive
overall.
As stated in chapter one, Kohlberg discusses human development in terms of
morality and outlines six stages of moral development (Crain, 1985). Traditional juvenile
justice programs reflect stage four in Kohlberg’s theory, the belief that people should
follow the law because the government tells them to, not based on internal motives.
62
Restorative justice emphasizes individual accountability for actions and requires juvenile
offenders to not only follow laws because of external requirements. Restorative justice
practices are not just punitive; they reflect participants’ movement into Kohlberg’s postconventional stage of development where people do the moral action because they have
personal morals that tell them what is right. The restorative justice philosophy aims to
develop morality within participants rather than continue to rely on external forces to tell
them what is morally acceptable.
Implications for Social Work
The restorative justice philosophy is compatible with social work values of social
justice, dignity and worth of a person, and importance of human relationships (NASW
Delegate Assembly, 2008). Restorative justice programs promote creating an
environment where justice can be found following a crime, treating offenders, victims,
and communities with respect, and mending the relationships damaged when a crime is
committed. Social workers are perfectly suited for restorative justice work and should be
working to change policy within the juvenile justice system so that more restorative
justice programs from juvenile offenders are created.
Social workers need to come together and be at the forefront of bringing
restorative justice as an alternative form of punishment for juvenile offenders. Although
restorative justice is used with juveniles often, there are not enough programs currently.
For example, there are no restorative justice programs currently in Sacramento County
although there are 225,000 youths arrested every year in California (Division of Juvenile
Justice, 2013). Surely many of these youths would be appropriate candidates for a
63
restorative justice program but they do not have an option to participate in one.
According to the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) code of ethics,
“social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all
people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities”
(NASW Delegate Assembly, 2008). Social workers should advocate for restorative
justice programs to be available in communities across the country so that everyone has
access to this alternative form of justice.
Recommendations
After examining the data, it appears that professionals in the juvenile justice
system are overall supportive of restorative justice programs and policies being used with
juvenile offenders. However, there are still not enough restorative justice programs for
juvenile offenders and professionals do not have enough knowledge of restorative justice
philosophies. Supporters of restorative justice should increase awareness of restorative
justice programs and provide more education to professionals so that they can create
more programs and refer more juvenile offenders to restorative justice programs.
According to the data, there are significant differences in the opinions of various
professional groups in the juvenile justice system. Although, the groups all supported
restorative justice, defense attorneys and prosecutors appear to be less supportive than
probation officers and judges. The fact that defense attorneys are not as supportive of
restorative justice as other professionals is particularly interesting because defense
attorneys should act as advocates for juvenile offenders. It is their role to work for their
clients to get the best alternative for them and many times restorative justice is the best
64
option for juvenile offenders. It would be beneficial for supports of restorative justice to
target defense attorneys so that they can become better advocates and appropriately meet
their clients’ needs.
It is important that both social workers and other professions who work with
juvenile offenders receive more information regarding restorative justice practices and
the theories behind restorative justice. Currently, at California State University
Sacramento only offers one restorative justice class in its Master of Social Work program
and it is offered as an elective rather than a required course. Given that social workers
are often an integral part of restorative justice programs, one class does not seem
sufficient to train social workers to use restorative justice and work with other
professionals in these programs. Required courses offered in the social work curriculum
such as Human Behavior in a Social Environment or Social Work Practice should
incorporate restorative justice theories and techniques into their syllabi in order to present
another possible framework for students to use. Master in social work programs should
incorporate more restorative justice into their required curriculum in order to offer
alternative approaches for justice to social workers.
It would also be beneficial for more professional trainings for juvenile justice
professionals (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, parole officers). Professional
trainings could educate professionals about the restorative justice philosophy, explore the
benefits of using such programs with juvenile offenders, discuss professional groups’
attitude toward restorative justice programs, and provide the positive outcomes juvenile
offenders experience after completing such programs (see Appendix B). Trainings are
65
especially important for prosecutors and defense attorneys whose perceptions of
restorative justice were not as positive as the other professionals. Social workers would
be the perfect group to produce and lead these trainings, which would promote
cooperation between professional groups.
Further professional trainings could not only increase professionals’ awareness of the
benefits of restorative justice programs but bring professional groups together as a
cooperative team that could better meet juvenile offenders’ needs. The potential that
restorative justice programs have to be multidisciplinary and inclusive of all community
members is reflective of empowerment theory. Empowerment theory aims to promote
collaboration and participation of various group members in order to achieve desired
goals (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). By working towards creating programs that are
more diverse, social workers training in restorative justice would be empowering
professional groups, community members, juvenile offenders, and crime victims to make
change in their community.
Limitations
This study was an exploratory, quantitative secondary data analysis which did not
allow the researchers to conduct their own study containing questions specific to their
research. The data provided by the National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals
from Juvenile Justice Professionals limited the researcher’s ability to ask follow-up
questions. This would have allowed the researchers to provide their own interpretation of
the responses. Conducting a primary data analysis study with direct contact with juvenile
justice professionals would allow researchers to provide their own interpretation based on
66
the analysis of the responses. For example, the question, “Restorative justice programs
and policies promote appropriate punishment of youth offenders” provides only objective
findings such as, “Strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree”. Consequently,
these findings limit the researcher from providing an explanation of the findings due to its
objective nature. Without acquiring an explanation of the findings through further
questioning, it restricts researchers from gaining a better understanding of the juvenile
justice professionals perspectives of restorative justice programs.
The unequal sample size was another limitation in the study. There were four
juvenile justice professionals included in the study, and two of the four groups shared a
similar sample size of 164, but the third and fourth group had a sample size of 122 and
84, nearly half the size of the first two groups. The findings were provided using
percentages to indicate each group of professionals responses (strongly agree, agree,
disagree, strongly disagree), but the unequal sample size is not reflected in the results
which dismisses the effect it could have on the findings for each research question. An
equal distribution of the sample size per juvenile justice professional group would allow
researchers to gain accurate findings of the respondents’ perspective of juvenile justice
professionals with the knowledge of an equal sample size.
Conclusion
According to Bradshaw et. al (2006), restorative justice offers a process by which
the victims, the community, and the offender are offered an opportunity to be directly
involved in responding to the crime, holding the offender accountable, and collaborate
with all participants to develop a safe community for both the victim and offender. This
67
study explored juvenile justice professionals perspective on restorative justice programs
and policies effect on recidivism, appropriateness of punishment, level of fairness of
treatment on young offenders, and whether or not it promotes efficiency of the juvenile
justice process and traditional mission of juvenile justice. The research consisted of
secondary data analysis of quantitative data of 534 juvenile justice professionals from
285 of the 300 most populated counties in the United States. The juvenile justice
professionals included judges, court administrators/probation officers, prosecutors, and
defense attorneys.
Through this study, some of the findings demonstrated that the juvenile justice
professionals are supportive of restorative justice programs and policies. The majority of
the findings reflect that the professionals agree that the programs and policies promote
recidivism, appropriateness of punishment, fair treatment for young offenders, and
efficiency of the juvenile justice system. The findings indicate that the professionals
predominately agreed or strongly agreed with the efficacy of restorative justice programs
and policies. These findings suggest that there is a need for restorative justice programs
for young offenders as an alternative and/or supplemental measure for promoting
recidivism, punishment, and efficiency of the juvenile justice system by using a method
of fair treatment. Restorative justice programs may be beneficial for young offenders to
be directly involved in the collaborative process for integrating back into the community
in a safe and productive manner.
68
APPENDIX A
IRB Approval
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK
To:
Marisa Ciani & Lauren Harada
Date: February 13, 2014
From: Research Review Committee
RE: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION
Your Human Subjects application for your proposed study, “An exploratory study of
juvenile justice professionals' perspectives on restorative justice programs,” is Approved
as Exempt. Discuss your next steps with your thesis/project Advisor.
Your human subjects Protocol # is: 13-14-053. Please use this number in all official
correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your approval expires one
year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the Committee
promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no modification in
the protocol without prior approval of the Committee.
The committee wishes you the best in your research.
Research Review Committee members Professors Maria Dinis, Jude Antonyappan, Serge Lee, Francis Yuen, Kisun Nam, Dale Russell,
Cc: Russell
69
APPENDIX B
Restorative Justice Workshop for Juvenile Justice Professionals
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
REFERENCES
Abrams, L.S., Umbreit, M.S., & Gordon, A. (2006). Young offenders speak about
meeting their victims: Implications for future programs. Contemporary Justice
Review, 9(3), 243-256. doi: 10.1080/10282580600827835
Baffour, T. D. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in offending patterns: examining
family group conferencing interventions among at-risk adolescents. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(5-6), 557–578. doi:10.1007/s10560-0060075-4
Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on
recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 71–101.
doi:10.1007/s11292-011-9139-3
Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M.S. (2001). A comparison of four restorative conferencing
models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
Bergseth, K. & Bouffard, J. (2007). The long-term impact of restorative justice
programming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(4), 433-451.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.05.006
Best practice guidance for restorative justice practitioners and their case supervisors and
line managers (Scotland) (2008). Retrieved February 13, 2014 from
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/226996/0061358.pdf
79
Bradshaw, W., Roseborough, D., & Umbreit, M.S. (2006) The effect of victim offender
mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 24(1), 87-98. doi: 10.1002/crq
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Choi, J., Green, D., & Gilbert, M. (2011). Putting a human face on crimes: A qualitative
study on restorative justice processes for youths. Child Adolescent Social Work,
28, 335-355. doi: 10.1007/s10560-011-0238-9
Crain, W.C. (1985). Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Retrieved October 12,
2013 from http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
Division of Juvenile Justice (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2014 from
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/
Elis, L. (2005). Restorative justice programs, gender, and recidivism. Public Organiz
Rev, 5(4), 375–389. doi:10.1007/s11115-005-5097-4
Karp, D., Bazemore, G., & Cheshire, J. (2004). The role and attitudes of restorative board
members: A case study of volunteers in community justice. Crime &
Delinquency, 50(4), 487-515. doi: 10.1177/0011128703260262
Karp, D., Sweet, M., Kirshenbaum, A., & Bazemore, G. (2004). Reluctant participants in
restorative justice? Youthful offenders and their parents. Contemporary Justice
Review, 7(2), 199-216. doi: doi:10.1080/1028258042000221193
Kratcoski, P. C. (Ed.). (2004). Correctional counseling and treatment. (5th ed.). Illinois:
Waveland Press.
80
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice
practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144. doi:
10.1177/0032885505276969
Mayer, J., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298. doi:10.1016/s01602896(99)00016-1
McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem
Pennsylvania police family group conferencing Project. Retrieved November 14,
2013 from http://rjusticesbc.pbworks.com/f/Bethleham+RJ+Study+1998.pdf
McGarrell, E. F., & Hipple, N. K. (2007). Family group conferencing and re-offending
among first-time juvenile offenders: The Indianapolis experiment. Justice
Quarterly, 24(2), 221–246. doi:10.1080/07418820701294789
Ministry of justice (2004). Restorative justice: Best practice in New Zealand. Retrieved
February 13, 2014 from http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/globalpublications/r/restorative-justice-in-new-zealand-bestpractice/documents/RJ%20Best%20practice.pdf
Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (1997). Re-forming juvenile justice: the New Zealand
experiment. Prison Journal, 77(2), 125–135. doi:10.1177/0032855597077002002
Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending.
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 38(1), 115–200.
NASW Delegate Assembly (2008). Code of ethics of the national association of social
workers. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp
81
Nugent, W. R. (2004). Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of
subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work
Practice, 14(6), 408–416. doi:10.1177/1049731504265831
Nugent, W. R., Umbreit, M. S., Wiinamaki, L., & Paddock, J. (2001). Participation in
victim-offender mediation and reoffense: Successful replications? Research on
Social Work Practice, 11(1), 5–23. doi:10.1177/104973150101100101
Nugent, W.R., Umbreit, M.S., & Williams, M. (2004). Participation in victim-offender
mediation and the prevelance of subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis.
Research on Social Work Practice, 14(6), 408-416.
doi:10.1177/1049731504265831
Perkins, D.D., & Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and
application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569-579.
doi:10.1007/bf02506982
Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative
justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 355-379.
doi: 10.1177/0011128705285983
Snyder, H. N. (2003). Juvenile arrests, 2001. Retrieved September 19, 2013 from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/201370/contents.html
Snyder, H. N. (2005, August). Juvenile arrests, 2003. Retrieved September 19, 20132
from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
82
Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national
report. Retrieved September 19, 2013 from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/frontmatter.pdf
Umbreit, M.S. (2000b). Implications for Crime Victims. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/restorative_.
Umbreit, M. (2001). The handbook of victim offender mediation. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Umbreit, M., Coates, R., & Vos, B. (2004). Victim-offender mediation: Three decades of
practice and research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1), 279-303.
doi:10.1002/crq.102
Umbreit, M. S., & Greenwood, J. (1999). National survey of victim offender mediation
programs in the United States. Mediation Quarterly, 16(3), 235-251.
doi:10.1002/crq.3890160304
United Nations off on drugs and crime (2006). Handbook on restorative justice
programmes. Retrieved February 13, 2014 from
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/06-56290_Ebook.pdf
Walgrave, L., & Bazemore, G. (1999). Reflections on the future of restorative justice for
juveniles. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave (Eds.), Restorative Juvenile Justice:
Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime (pp. 359–373). Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.
83
Zimmerman, M.A., Israel, B.A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further
explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological
empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 707-727.
doi:10.1007/bf01312604