Literature Review
According to Barnert et al. (2019), incarceration by the age of 14 acts as a predictor of
adverse health conditions expanding into adulthood, and suicide is the leading cause of death
among incarcerated juvenile offenders. Juvenile justice reforms have shifted our judicial system
towards restorative justice (RJ) practices emphasizing rehabilitation rather than punitive measures.
Diversionary court programs attempt to keep lower offenses out of prison and transition toward
rehabilitation and community reintegration. This literature review examines the concepts and
findings regarding the efficacy of diversionary programs to decrease recidivism of justice-involved
youth. The review will examine the literature on the fundamentals of restorative justice,
implementation of evidence-based methods, model programs, and variables of recidivism.
Fundamentals of Restorative Justice
According to Zehr and Mika (2017), the elements of restorative justice include:

Victims and the community were harmed and need restoration.

Victims are the most directly affected, followed by family members of victims and offenders.

Relationships affected by crime must be addressed.

Restorative justice is a continuum of responsive approaches.

Stakeholders are the victims, offenders, and the community.

Offenders' obligations are not used as revenge practices.

The community supports crime victims.

Restorative justice seeks healing and integration.

The safety of victims is a priority.

Justice belongs to the community.
Researchers have studied the practices and outcomes of Restorative justice (RJ) programs.
Kimbrell et al. (2023) conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis, providing
foundational sources for analyzing research on RJ programs. The study, including 57 studies and
79 evaluations, revealed a moderate reduction in future delinquent behavior associated with RJ.
Gomis-Pomares et al. (2021) examined the impact of victim-offender mediation on youth
recidivism in Spain, focusing on 104 juvenile offenders. The study showed that victim and offender
intervention did not significantly change recidivism rates. Instead, the risk level of offenders
became a key determinant in predicting recidivism, emphasizing the need for tailored interventions
based on individual risk assessments (Gomis‐Pomares et al., 2021).
Effectiveness of Diversion Programs
Expanding on the impact of RJ on diverse youth, a study conducted in Minneapolis by
Beckman et al. (2023) evaluated restorative justice diversion initiated by the police. From
September 2014 to December 2018, this research found that youth participating in restorative
justice diversion after arrest exhibited lower re-arrest rates within the following year than those
traditionally processed. Notably, positive impacts were highlighted for Black and American Indian
youth, emphasizing the potential for equitable outcomes.
Evidence-Based Practices
A study exploring evidence-based programs highlights positive returns on investment
within juvenile justice. States like Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Louisiana have
successfully implemented evidence-based programs in juvenile justice through diagnostic and
evaluative capacity. These states have focused on improving organizational structure and
leadership, staff competencies, and community collaborations to increase the likelihood of
adopting and sustaining new practices. They have also used data systems and analysis to inform
program selection and continuous quality improvement. Data-driven decision-making has allowed
these states to identify the most effective and cost-effective programs, assess their fit to local needs,
and evaluate their impact on improving outcomes in juvenile recidivism and delinquency
prevention (Walker et al., 2015).
Model Programs
To evaluate the effectiveness of different restorative justice programs, research compares
practices designed to prevent or reduce crime, prevent, intervene, and respond to victimization,
improve judicial due process, and assist convicted offenders or at-risk individuals (National
Institute of Justice, 2021).
Assessment of risks and variables in reoffending
Wasserman et al. (2021) highlighted the gap in risk and needs assessments. In the study,
community justice agencies primarily focused on legal history rather than behavioral health needs.
The disproportion contributed to juvenile recidivism. Only a small portion of juveniles with
substance use needs were referred to for further clinical evaluations or treatment. The research
showed that justice agencies did not directly provide behavioral health services despite commonly
screening youths for behavioral health needs. Their mission did not include conducting clinical
assessments to identify the factors contributing to delinquency. This finding emphasized the need
for a holistic approach to community justice interventions. Another factor that contributed to
recidivism was the lack of collaboration with local service providers, which created barriers to
obtaining behavioral health services for justice-involved youths.
Another finding was that justice placement sites had low referral rates to community
services. Only about 20% of those identified as needing services were referred to providers, and
fewer than half of those referrals occurred within 30 days. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR)
model, which directs intensive services to individuals at higher risk of recidivism, may result in a
greater likelihood of referrals for higher-risk youths. However, this model may not be suitable for
service referral of individuals with behavioral health needs (Wasserman et al., 2021).
Conclusion
This literature review looks at various perspectives on restorative justice, diversion programs,
evidence-based practices, and risk assessment on recidivism. While significant progress has been
made in understanding the effectiveness of different interventions, individual, community, and
systemic factors require ongoing research to inform adaptive and tailored diversionary and
restorative programs in the juvenile justice system.
References
Barnert, E. S., Abrams, L. S., Dudovitz, R., Coker, T. R., Bath, E., Tesema, L., Nelson, B. B.,
Biely, C., & Chung, P. J. (2019). What is the relationship between incarceration of
children and adult health outcomes? Academic Pediatrics, 19(3), 342–350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2018.06.005
Beckman, K. J., Jewett, P., Gaҫad, A., & Borowsky, I. W. (2023). Reducing re-arrest through
Community-Led, Police-Initiated restorative justice diversion tailored for youth. Crime &
Delinquency, 001112872311585. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231158569
Gomis‐Pomares, A., Villanueva, L., & García-Gomis, A. (2021). Disentangling the impact of
Victim-Offender Mediation in youth recidivism. Anuario De Psicología Jurídica, 31(1),
85–89. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2021a8
Kimbrell, C. S., Wilson, D. B., & Olaghere, A. (2022). Restorative justice programs and
practices in juvenile justice: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis for
effectiveness. Criminology & Public Policy, 22(1), 161–195.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12613
National Institute of Justice. (2021). CrimeSolutions: The Evidence-based Guide for justice
Agencies in search of Practices and Programs that Really Work. (2021). Corrections
Today, 83(6), 12–17. Albright College Gingrich Library EZProxy. Retrieved February 8,
2024, from https://web-p-ebscohost
com.felix.albright.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=90b45352-93c3-48e88a3d-ddceda5340a0%40redis
Walker, S. C., Bumbarger, B. K., & Phillippi, S. (2015). Achieving successful evidence-based
practice implementation in juvenile justice: The importance of diagnostic and evaluative
capacity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 52, 189–197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.05.001
Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Taxman, F. S., Belenko, S., Elkington, K. S., Robertson,
A., Dennis, M. L., Knight, D. K., Knudsen, H. K., Dembo, R., Ciarleglio, A., & Wiley, T.
R. A. (2021). The Missing Link(age): Multilevel Contributors to Service Uptake Failure
Among Youths on Community Justice Supervision. Psychiatric Services, 72(5), 546–554.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202000163
Zehr, H., & Mika, H. (2017). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. In Routledge eBooks
(pp. 73–81). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351150125-4