1. U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
August 2001
Restorative Justice
A Message From OJJDP
Conferences as an Early Youth who become involved in the
juvenile justice system at an early
Response to Young Offenders age are significantly more likely to
continue offending than their older
counterparts. Indeed, it is estimated
that 6 out of every 10 children ages
Edmund F. McGarrell 10 to 12 referred to juvenile court will
return.
A number of highly publicized and dis- Recently reported findings of the Office
turbing school shootings and homicides of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- The findings of OJJDP’s Study Group
in several communities across the United vention’s (OJJDP’s) Study Group on Very on Very Young Offenders confirm the
States have focused the attention of the Young Offenders confirm the seriousness significant implications of early of-
public and policymakers on the issues of early offending behavior. Study Group fending. The risk of becoming a seri-
ous offender, for example, is two to
of youth violence and school safety. Al- researchers report, for example, that the
three times higher for child delin-
though important, these issues tend to risk of becoming a more serious offender
quents ages 7 to 12 than for youth
divert juvenile justice officials’ attention is two to three times higher for child whose onset of delinquency is later.
from a separate problem: delinquency delinquents (those ages 7–12) than for
committed by very young children. In later onset offenders (Loeber, Farrington, Because very young offenders are
1999, U.S. police departments reported and Petechuk, in press).2 Child delin- more likely to reoffend and to pro-
218,300 arrests of persons younger than quents also account for a relatively high gress to serious delinquency, effec-
age 13.1 The most recent juvenile court proportion of some types of offenses. tive early intervention is crucial. This
statistics available indicate that offenders They represent 1 in 3 juvenile arrests for Bulletin features a promising form of
under the age of 13 account for about arson, 1 in 5 juvenile arrests for vandal- such early intervention: restorative
16 percent of all individuals referred to ism, and 1 in 12 juvenile arrests for violent justice conferencing.
juvenile courts (Puzzanchera et al., 2000). crime (Loeber and Farrington, 2000). For Early offenders pose special chal-
Earlier research has shown that children some young offenders, early involvement lenges, but restorative justice offers
entering juvenile court at such a young in status offenses and delinquency is a unique benefits, as the Indianapolis
age have a very high risk of continued stepping stone in a pathway to serious, Restorative Justice Conferencing
offending. For example, approximately 60 violent, and chronic offending. Commun- Experiment is demonstrating. Not
percent of youth ages 10–12 who are re- ities should not ignore the delinquent only does restorative justice hold
ferred to juvenile court subsequently acts and problem behaviors of young youth accountable for their actions, it
return to court. For youth referred to offenders in the hope that they will “grow also affords them the opportunity to
juvenile court a second time, the odds out of it” (Loeber, Farrington, and Pete- repair the harm they have caused—
of returning to court again increase to chuk, in press). Because such young involving their families and victims in
more than 80 percent (Snyder and Sick- offenders have a high likelihood of re- the process.
mund, 1995). However, because these offending, communities should develop Those seeking to deter young offend-
youth typically have not committed a par- and implement effective early interven- ers from further delinquency will ben-
ticularly serious or violent offense, and tions for very young offenders. efit from the information provided in
because children this young usually have these pages.
One form of early intervention involves
not accumulated a long record, they do
the use of restorative justice conferences.
not generally receive a great deal of atten-
Such conferences, sometimes referred
tion from juvenile justice officials (Snyder
to as “family group conferences,” have
and Sickmund, 1999).

2. become common in Australia and New from the process. An individual’s reasons In theory, the effectiveness of restorative
Zealand and are being used increasingly for committing an offense are regarded as justice conferences is based on the princi-
throughout the world (Thames Valley unimportant, and restitution to victims ples of control, deterrence, and “reintegra-
Police, 1999). Although some jurisdictions and the community affected by the crime tive shaming.” From a control perspective,
use restorative justice conferences for a is not typically a primary concern (Van conferences “control” youth’s involve-
variety of offenses, including criminal of- Ness, 1996). Offenders are sometimes re- ment in delinquency by encouraging them
fenses, restorative justice conferences quired to perform community service as through socialization to believe in the
may be particularly appropriate for very reparation, but often the service is per- moral legitimacy of the law. The control
young offenders. Advocates argue that formed for someone not directly affected effect depends on youth’s having strong
the conferences offer a meaningful re- by the offense (Van Ness, 1996). bonds to family and/or conventional insti-
sponse to youthful offending without tutions such as school or church (Hirschi,
Restorative justice conferences attempt to
consuming significant court resources. 1969). If, as advocates contend, restora-
address these shortcomings in the current
tive justice conferences provide a learn-
In 1996, OJJDP provided funds to the Hud- system. As part of a balanced and restora-
ing opportunity in which the harm caused
son Institute, a public policy research tive justice model (Bazemore and Umbreit,
by offending is directly communicated to
organization in Indianapolis, IN, to evalu- 1994; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
youth and youth’s bonds to family mem-
ate the use of restorative justice confer- quency Prevention, 1998), restorative jus-
bers and community institutions are
ences for young offenders. This funding tice conferences are designed to hold
strengthened, conferences become part
was awarded through OJJDP’s Field- youth accountable, involve and meet the
of the socialization process through which
Initiated Research and Evaluation Pro- needs of victims, and build a community
youth learn to conform to society’s norms.
gram. This Bulletin describes the findings of support around the offending youth.
From a deterrence perspective, if confer-
of the Hudson Institute’s evaluation.
ences hold youth accountable and impose
Restorative Justice consequences more effectively than the
Challenges Posed by traditional juvenile justice system, then the
Conferencing conferences raise the costs of offending
Very Young Offenders In a restorative justice conference, an relative to the benefits and therefore may
More than 30 years ago, a Presidential offending youth, his or her victim, and deter youth from committing offenses.
Commission Report (Lemert, 1967) criti- supporters of both the offender and vic-
cized the Nation’s juvenile courts for tim are brought together with a trained John Braithwaite’s (1989) theory of reinte-
what it labeled the “1-minute hour.” Ac- facilitator to discuss the incident and the grative shaming builds on the principles
cording to the report, a heavy volume of harm it has brought to the victim and the of control and deterrence. Braithwaite
cases allowed courts to spend only ap- group of supporters. The conference pro- argues that people are generally deterred
proximately 1 minute on juvenile cases vides an opportunity for victims to ex- from committing crime by two informal
and prevented them from taking the time plain how they have been harmed and to forms of social control: fear of social dis-
needed to carefully assess cases and link question offending youth. Supporters approval and conscience. He contends
juveniles with necessary services (as the also have an opportunity to describe how that punishments or reparation agree-
juvenile courts were intended to do). they have been affected by the incident. ments imposed by family members,
Since that time, the volume of juvenile At the end of the conference, the partici- friends, or other individuals important
cases has increased dramatically without pants reach an agreement on how the to an offender are more effective than
a corresponding increase in resources. youth can make amends to the victim and those imposed by a legal institution. For
The rising tide of juvenile arrests that they sign a reparation agreement. The most people, he argues, fear of being
began in the mid-1980s and continued agreement typically includes an apology,4 shamed by those they care about is the
until 1994 (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999) and it often includes a requirement that major deterrent to committing crime
has forced courts into what Lawrence some type of restitution be made to the because the opinions of family and
Sherman describes as a “triage” system of victim. Sometimes agreements require friends mean more than those of an
conserving scarce resources for the most youth to perform community service or unknown criminal justice authority.
serious cases.3 Minor juvenile offenders call for other actions such as improving Braithwaite also predicts that restorative
are often given several “bites of the ap- school attendance, completing home- justice conferences may be more effective
ple,” meaning that juvenile cases may be work, or performing chores at home or than traditional courts because confer-
dismissed or juveniles may be placed on school. ences include the direct participation of
probation supervision with overworked supporters of both victims and youthful
probation officers until the offenders have Advocates of restorative justice confer-
encing point to its many potential bene- offenders. By including supporters, con-
accumulated a long history of arrests or ferences allow youth to be held responsi-
have committed a particularly heinous fits. Conferences, for example, are expect-
ed to address the emotional needs and ble in the context of a community of care.
offense (Bernard, 1992). Advocates of both In such a setting, youth can be held ac-
system reform and youth warn that the tangible losses of victims and hold youth
accountable for misdeeds more effective- countable for their acts without being
current system fails to hold youth condemned as people (Sherman, 1993).
accountable for offenses and sends the ly than the traditional juvenile court sys-
tem. Conferences also allow youth to According to reintegrative shaming theo-
message that offenses are “no big deal.” rists, this combination of accountability
learn how their offending has negatively
Additional challenges facing the system affected others. Finally, conferences and respect is key to keeping an offender
are the largely passive roles that offend- create a supportive community for within the community (Braithwaite, 1993).
ers and their parents often play and the offending youth.
fact that victims are typically excluded
2

3. Although too limited to provide definitive The Indianapolis Method
answers, research to date supports the
positive effects of restorative justice con- Restorative Justice Program eligibility. Indianapolis justice
officials decided to begin using restorative
ferences. The first of two formal experi- Experiment justice conferences with young, first-time
ments that have been conducted involved In 1996, the Hudson Institute, a public offenders. This population was considered
police-run conferences in Bethlehem, PA. policy research organization in Indianap- the most appropriate both because such
That experiment found high levels of vic- olis, IN, began working with the Indianap- youth were not seen as posing an immedi-
tim satisfaction and some evidence of olis police department, sheriff’s depart- ate risk to the community and because
reduced reoffending for person offenses ment, juvenile court, prosecutor’s office, officials recognized the need to identify
but not property offenses (McCold and and mayor on a project involving the use more effective early interventions for
Wachtel, 1998). The second, the Reinte- of Australian-style restorative justice these youth. The research team hoped
grative Shaming Experiments (RISE), also conferences as an alternative response that conferences might provide a more
reported high levels of victim satisfaction to juvenile offending. Encouraged by re- effective tool to prevent young, first-time
and showed positive changes in the atti- search from other jurisdictions—yet seek- offenders from becoming deeply en-
tudes of offenders (Strang et al., 1999). ing clearer answers about the effects of trenched in delinquent behaviors.
The impact of restorative justice confer- conferences—Juvenile Court Judge James
ences on future offending remains under Payne and Marion County Prosecutor Consequently, to be eligible for the first
investigation.5 Scott Newman agreed to work with the phase of the Indianapolis experiment, an
Hudson Institute’s research team to offender had to meet the following criteria:
The promise of the initial findings from
research on restorative justice confer- implement an experimental design. The x Be no older than 14 years of age.
ences, coupled with frustration over then- experiment was initiated in September
1997, and this Bulletin presents what the x Be a first-time offender (i.e., have no
existing interventions for very young of-
research team refers to as the “Stage prior adjudications).
fenders, led Indianapolis juvenile justice
officials to consider an experimental pilot One” results of the ongoing experiment. x Have committed a nonserious, non-
project. violent offense.
x Have no other pending charges.
x Admit responsibility for the offense.6
With the exception of the age criterion,
Case Study: Clearing Up an Offender’s Misunderstanding these requirements are essentially the
David had been arrested for vandaliz- agreement. The conference ended same as those that apply to juvenile court
ing a school bathroom and causing with David apologizing to the teacher diversion programs. If deemed eligible for
considerable damage. During the and with David, his mother, and the such a program, an offender is diverted
restorative justice conference, David school officials agreeing that David from court and charges are not filed,
was quiet and seemed unrepentant. would attend counseling. As a final pending his or her successful completion
The conference dragged on without condition to the agreement, David of the assigned diversion program.
much progress. Finally, David spoke agreed to be responsible for carrying
up. He explained that the reason he notes back and forth between his Random assignment procedure. Formal
had been so mad on the day of the mother and his teacher to ensure on- implementation of the Restorative Jus-
incident was that his teacher not only going communication. tice Conferencing Experiment began on
had taken away his bag of potato September 1, 1997. Court intake officers
chips but had then eaten the chips in Without the active involvement of screened youth for eligibility. Eligible
front of the class, which David inter- David’s teacher in the conference, it youth were selected for the program
preted as an attempt to humiliate him. seems unlikely that the reason for his through a random assignment procedure.
One of the conference participants anger would have been discovered. Specifically, when the intake officer deter-
was the teacher who had been in- Although a forum other than a restora- mined that a juvenile offender met the
volved in the classroom incident. The tive justice conference might have
program’s eligibility criteria, he or she
teacher said that David was wrong— held David accountable for his actions,
drew an envelope from a stack prepared
the chips she had eaten were from he probably would have remained bit-
ter and continued to feel that he had
by the research team. Each envelope in
her own lunch, and David’s chips the stack contained one of two possible
remained unopened in her desk. She been treated unfairly—first by the
teacher in the classroom and then by responses: “yes” or “no.” If the intake offi-
explained to David that while it was cer selected a “yes,” the youth was as-
appropriate for her to take the chips those who held him responsible for
the damage he had caused. Including signed to the restorative justice program
away from a student during class, she and the case was turned over to the coun-
would never open the bag and eat David and his teacher in the confer-
ence and providing an opportunity for ty coordinator. A “no” selection indicated
them herself. With this information,
dialog had several benefits: David normal processing, and the youth was as-
David’s demeanor changed immedi-
ately, the atmosphere in the confer- gained insight into the teacher’s signed to 1 of 23 other diversion programs.
ence shifted significantly, and the actions, the group came to understand
David’s behavior, and David had the Sample characteristics. From September 1,
group was then able to move forward 1997, to September 30, 1999, 458 youthful
and reach a successful reparation opportunity to make amends to those
harmed by his actions. offenders participated in the Indianapolis
Restorative Justice Conferencing Experi-
ment. Of these, 232 were assigned to the
3

4. restorative justice treatment group and
the remaining 226 to the “control group.” Table 1: Racial Composition of the Restorative Justice and Control Groups
Tables 1 through 3 provide descriptive
characteristics of both groups. Restorative Justice Control Group Both Groups
Group (n=232) (n=226) (n=458)
Table 1, which reports the racial composi-
tion of the two groups, shows that the Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
control group included slightly more non-
Nonwhite* 135 58 143 63 278 61
white youth (63 percent) than the restora-
tive justice group (58 percent), though White 97 42 83 37 180 39
the difference was not statistically signifi-
cant. These percentages are consistent Note: The chi-square comparison was not significant, meaning that the observed difference between
the treatment and control groups was likely produced by chance.
with the racial composition of the general
population of Indianapolis youth adjudi- * Because the groups included only three Hispanics and one “other” categorized respondent, these
four respondents were grouped in the nonwhite category. The remaining respondents in the nonwhite
cated delinquent in 1998—62 percent of
category are African American.
whom were nonwhite (Marion Superior
Court Probation Department, 1999).
The percentages of male and female
offenders in the two groups also indicate Table 2: Gender of Youth in the Restorative Justice and Control Groups
that the sample was representative of the
general population of juveniles adjudicat- Restorative Justice Control Group Both Groups
ed delinquent in Indianapolis. For exam- Group (n=232) (n=226) (n=458)
ple, approximately 65 percent of adjudi-
Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
cated juveniles in Marion County in 1998
were male, compared with 63 percent of Male 159 68 129 57 288 63
those in the experimental sample (confer- Female 73 32 97 43 170 37
ence and control group combined) (see
table 2). The restorative justice group, Note: Chi-square significant at ≤0.05, meaning that the difference between the treatment and control
however, included more males (68 per- groups was greater than that expected to be produced by chance.
cent) than the control group (57 percent).
Although in early analyses researchers
were concerned about overrepresentation
of males in the restorative justice group, Table 3: Primary Offenses Committed by Restorative Justice and Control
the relative distribution became more Group Participants
even between the two groups as the sam-
ple size increased, suggesting that the Restorative Justice Control Group Both Groups
randomization process is “smoothing out” Group (n=232) (n=226) (n=458)
the initially uneven distribution. Primary
Offense Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
The median age of youth in both groups
was 13.0 years. The age distributions of Conversion
youth in the restorative justice and con- (shoplifting) 84 36 105 46 189 41
trol groups were also quite similar. Ap- Battery 59 25 56 25 115 25
proximately 32 percent were age 14, just Theft 36 16 22 10 58 13
over 26 percent were age 13, and approxi- Criminal
mately 40 percent were age 12 or young- mischief 26 11 17 8 43 9
er. Previous research has suggested that
these young age groups have high rates Disorderly
of reoffending (Snyder and Sickmund, conduct 14 6 18 8 32 7
1995). Trespass 7 3 5 2 12 3
Other 5 2 3 1 8 2
Table 3 reports the frequency of primary
offenses committed by youth in the re- Intimidation 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.2
storative justice and control groups. As
indicated in the table, conversion (shop-
lifting) was the most common offense, however, are almost equivalent for the researchers using an observational check-
followed by battery, theft, and criminal two groups. Battery (assault) charges list; interviews of offending youth, their
mischief. The control group included accounted for one-quarter of youth in parents or guardians, and victims; and
slightly more youth whose primary both groups. checks of court records to determine
offense was conversion, whereas the whether participating youth had been
restorative justice group included more Measures. The study had process and
rearrested for subsequent offenses.
youth charged with theft. Percentages of outcome measures, including conference
youth in the two categories combined, observations conducted by trained
4

5. Case Study: A New Approach to Juvenile Offending
An Opportunity To Speak younger brother, and that was the believed the boys were remorseful and
Thirteen-year-old Jason’s face was worst part of all this—losing his broth- thought they had learned from their
grim as he looked around at those er’s trust. mistake.
attending the restorative justice confer- Rhonda next described the incident, When asked if there was anything else
ence and struggled to answer the co- explaining that she heard the two boys she wanted to add to the contract,
ordinator’s question. “How were you in the parking lot and ran out to see Rhonda explained that because the
involved in this incident?” Quietly, what was happening. “I saw the one speakers were replaced and her car
Jason began his story. He and his boy in my car holding the speaker—I had no permanent damage, restitution
friend Michael were on their way to yelled at him to stop and he dropped it was not necessary. She suggested,
Jason’s house that afternoon and cut and ran.” When asked what she want- however, that the boys perform commu-
across the shopping center’s parking ed to receive from the conference, nity service work. Following Rhonda’s
lot. The car was there. They could see Rhonda said she wanted to know why suggestion, the conference participants
the speakers, and with Michael as the boys had attempted to steal her joined in and traded ideas on what type
lookout, Jason crawled in the car and speakers. She also wanted the boys to of work would be appropriate and how
began pulling out wires. The owner of understand how she felt and asked many hours would be fair. The boys
the car (Rhonda) came out of her of- them how they would feel if someone were asked whether they would agree
fice and yelled at them to stop. Jason took their possessions. to community service and whether they
dropped the speaker, and he and knew of any work that was needed
Michael began running. Later that day, Moving around the circle, the confer- around their neighborhood. Finally, the
Jason heard the sheriff’s officer knock ence coordinator asked the boys’ participants agreed that Jason and
on his door and talk to Jason’s mother. mothers how the incident had affected Michael would perform 20 hours of
After the officer questioned Jason and them. Jason’s mother said that at first service at a community center to earn
his friend, the boys were handcuffed she was shocked and had a hard time money to pay their court fees. The co-
and taken to the juvenile detention believing her son would be involved ordinator wrote up the contract, and
center. in something like this. Jason, she ex- all of the participants signed it, putting
plained, has money from an allowance a formal end to the incident.
When asked what he was thinking at and doesn’t need to steal anything.
the time of the incident, Jason replied, Michael’s mother told the group how
“Nothing, just that I saw the speakers disappointed she was that her son had Benefits of the Process
and wanted them.” Jason struggled participated in the incident. She had As the conference participants rose to
when asked who had been affected by always tried to raise her boys to know leave, Jason and Michael shook hands
his actions, telling the group that he the difference between right and with everyone in the group. Although
had been affected—by being taken to wrong, and it would take a while to the boys had been held accountable
“juvenile.” “What about the owner of restore her trust in Michael. for their behavior, they knew that peo-
the car?” asked the coordinator. “Well, ple still cared about them and had
I guess because she got her speakers worked to help them learn from their
messed up, she was affected.” Paus- Drafting a Contract
mistakes. Having received an apology
ing for a moment, Jason looked at his After each participant had an opportu- and learned why the boys did what
mother and whispered that she too nity to speak, the contract drafting they did, Rhonda felt that she could
had been affected by his behavior. phase of the conference began. The put the incident behind her. The boys’
participants discussed and outlined parents had a chance to express how
Jason’s friend Michael gave his ac- steps the boys needed to take to make
count of what happened, admitting they felt about their sons’ actions, they
things right. The coordinator asked the received support from the group, and
that he wasn’t thinking at the time and boys if they had anything they wanted
now knows he made a big mistake. they helped point their children back in
to say to the victim. Each made a sin- the right direction.
The person most disappointed in cere apology for trying to steal Rhon-
Michael, he explained, was his da’s speakers. Rhonda said that she
Results Between September 1, 1997, and Septem- Role of conference coordinator. Generally,
Observations of conferences. In observ- ber 30, 1999, 182 conferences were con- conference coordinators followed the
ing restorative justice conferences, re- ducted. Of these, 157 conferences (86 per- principles of restorative justice confer-
searchers examined the length of the cent) were observed by 1 of 15 trained encing. Observers noted that coordina-
proceeding; the role of the conference observers. tors maintained a distinction between the
coordinator; the involvement of the of- offending youth and his or her behavior
Length of proceeding. Restorative justice
fender, youth supporter(s), victim(s), (i.e., treating him or her as a valued mem-
conferences lasted an average of 43 min-
and victim supporter(s); expressions of ber of the community while condemning
utes. The reintegration ceremony, during
shame, apology, and acceptance of re- the act). Coordinators also focused the
which conference participants mingled
sponsibility by the offender; and elements discussion on the incident and rarely lec-
informally and shared refreshments, aver-
included in the reparation agreement. tured the offending youth. Coordinators
aged 10 minutes from the close of the
conference.
5

6. were seen as doing an effective job of elic- and community service. More than half of the total sample of conference and con-
iting the involvement of all conference the reparation agreements included still trol group cases.7 Thus, the results from
participants. other elements (typically activities that the interviews come principally from
the group had tailored to the specific cir- cases occurring during late 1998 and
Involvement of offender, victim, and sup-
cumstances involved). Examples included 1999. Given the small sample sizes, the
porters. Observers reported that all con-
imposing a nightly curfew and requiring researchers report descriptive findings
ference participants tended to display
that the youth improve his or her grades without assessing the statistical signifi-
respect toward the offending youth. In a
and school attendance or participate in cance of the findings. More detailed
large majority of conferences, the offend-
afterschool programs. assessments will be included in the
ing youth also was seen as conveying
second stage of the project.
respect toward the victim. In approx- Interviews of conference participants.
imately 22 percent of conferences, ob- A significant part of the Indianapolis re- Satisfaction. When respondents were
servers did not believe the offending storative justice study was assessing how asked how satisfied they were with the
youth had been respectful of the victim. victims, offenders, and supporters felt way their cases were handled, a signifi-
about restorative justice conferencing as cant difference emerged between vic-
In nearly all conferences, group partici-
an alternative to traditional court-ordered tims in the control group and victims in
pants expressed disapproval of the of-
programs. The goal was to collect data on the conference group. More than 90 per-
fense. In more than 80 percent of the con-
participants’ attitudes and beliefs about cent of victims in the conference group
ferences, observers reported that the
how their cases were handled and on “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
youth had apologized to his or her victim,
their sense of justice. were satisfied, compared with 68 percent
and in half of the conferences, the youth
of victims in the control group (see figure
apologized to his or her own supporters. Initially, the Hudson Institute encountered 1). Satisfaction levels of youth and par-
Observers also noted that most offending delays in implementing the interview pro- ents in both groups were similar. Overall,
youth expressed remorse (76 percent) and cedures. Consequently, the sample size both groups expressed high levels of sat-
understood the injury or harm they had for the interviews is smaller than that of isfaction, but youth and parents in the
caused (66 percent). Although observers
could not tell with certainty whether a vic-
tim and other group participants had for-
given an offender, observers reported that Figure 1: Reported Levels of Satisfaction
more than 80 percent of the conferences
appeared to include the victim and the
group forgiving the offending youth. In Program is a good
three-quarters of the conferences, the ob- way to address
server reported a strong sense of re- certain types of
integration at the conference close. juvenile crime
Indicators of Satisfaction
In all of the conferences, every partici-
pant signed the reparation agreement. Would recommend
Victims appeared satisfied in more than discontinuing
80 percent of the conferences, and ob- program*
servers described 77 percent of the con-
ferences as positive. Observers also re-
ported that in more than 80 percent of
Would recommend
the conferences, a volunteer was appoint-
program to a friend
ed to hold the youth accountable to the
terms of the reparation agreement. That
is, rather than have a court official moni-
tor the agreement, the group designated Satisfied with
someone from the community of support the way case
to hold the youth accountable. This per- was handled
son was then contacted by the Marion
County Restorative Justice Coordinator to
verify the youth’s completion of the 0 20 40 60 80 100
agreement.
Percentage
Elements of reparation agreement. Apology
was the most common element included Control group parents Control group youth Control group victims
in reparation agreements (62 percent). To Conference group Conference group Conference group
some extent, however, this percentage parents youth victims
underrepresents the frequency of apolo-
gies. Because many conferences had Note: For the first, second, and fourth indicators, the figure reflects the percentage of respon-
already included an apology, it may not dents who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement. For the third, the figure shows the
have been written into the formal agree- percentage who responded “yes.”
ment. Other common elements included * No conference group victims recommended discontinuing the program.
monetary restitution, personal service,
6

7. control group were slightly more likely to participants (victims, youth, and parents) the conference group (97 percent) agreed
express satisfaction. This difference may in the treatment and control groups in they had been involved, compared with
reflect the extra demands (e.g., time, terms of perceptions of respect (see 38 percent of victims in the control group.
accountability) that conferences place on figure 2). Offending youth in the conference group
youth and parents. were also much more likely than those in
None of the victims in the conference the control group to feel they had been
In measuring participant satisfaction, the group reported feeling pushed around. involved (84 percent versus 47 percent).
study also examined whether participants However, approximately 20 percent of Nearly 80 percent of parents in the con-
would recommend the program to a friend youth and 15 percent of parents in the ference group agreed they had been in-
involved in a similar situation. Again, the conference group felt they had been volved, compared with 40 percent of par-
greatest difference between the control pushed around. These percentages are ents in the control group (see figure 2).
and conference groups was for victims. lower than those reported by youth and
Nearly all victims involved in conferences parents in the control group (44 and 38 Participants in the conference group were
(98 percent) said that they would recom- percent, respectively).8 also more likely to report having had an
mend the approach, compared with 24 opportunity to express their views. For
The study found differences in the two
percent of victims in the control group. example, 95 percent of victims in the con-
groups’ feelings of having been involved
Offending youth in the conference group ference group agreed they had such an
in the process. Restorative justice confer-
were also more likely to recommend the opportunity, compared with 56 percent of
ences are built on the principle that af-
approach (85 percent, compared with 38 victims in the control group. Similarly, 86
fected parties should participate in the
percent of youth in the control group). percent of offending youth and 90 per-
process, and results indicate that this
The study found no significant difference cent of parents in the conference group
principle is being achieved in the Indi-
between parents in the two groups for agreed they had the opportunity to
anapolis experiment. Nearly all victims in
this item (see figure 1). express their views, compared with 55
Another indication of participants’ satis-
faction is whether they would recommend
discontinuing the program. Most partici- Figure 2: Reported Perceptions of Effectiveness, Fairness,
pants did not recommend stopping the Involvement, and Respect
conferences or the control group pro-
grams. Conference participants, however,
were most likely to endorse continuation
Program helped
of the conferencing program. For exam- solve problems
ple, no victims in the conference group
Indicators of Effectiveness, Fairness,
recommended discontinuation. Just over
one-fifth of victims in the control group,
Involvement, and Respect
however, agreed that the program should Outcome was fair
be stopped. Similarly, 19 percent of youth
in the conference group recommended
discontinuing the program (compared
with 36 percent of those in the control Had opportunity
group), and 17 percent of conference par- to express views
ents recommended discontinuation (com-
pared with 25 percent of control group
parents) (see figure 1).
Felt involved
The final indicator of participant satisfac-
tion examined was whether participants
believed the program was a “good” way
to address certain kinds of juvenile crime.
Felt treated
Here, both conferences and other court with respect
programs received strong endorsements.
For victims and parents, the study found
little difference between conference and 0 20 40 60 80 100
control group participants. Youth in the
control group were more likely than those Percentage
in the conference group (85 percent ver-
sus 71 percent) to agree that the program Control group parents Control group youth Control group victims
they participated in was a good one (see Conference group Conference group Conference group
figure 1). parents youth victims
Perceptions of respect and involvement. Note: For the third, fourth, and fifth indicators, the figure reflects the percentage of respondents
Participants in both conference and con- who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement. For the first, the figure shows the percent-
trol group programs felt they had been age who “definitely” or “somewhat” agreed with the statement. For the second, the figure indi-
treated with respect. The study found cates the percentage who responded “yes.”
no significant differences between
7

8. percent of youth and 68 percent of par- parents reported that the program had analysis was conducted for both groups at
ents in the control group (see figure 2). helped to solve problems, compared with 6- and 12-month intervals.)
57 percent of control group youth and 72
Perception of outcomes. A large majority Program completion. Youth participating
percent of control group parents (see
of participants in both the conference in restorative justice conferences demon-
figure 2).
group and the control group believed the strated a significantly higher completion
outcome of their case was fair (see fig- Analysis of program completion data rate (82.6 percent) than youth in the con-
ure 2). Victims in the conference group and rearrest records. The results de- trol group, who were assigned to other
were more likely than their control group scribed thus far indicate that restorative diversion programs (57.7 percent). The
counterparts to describe the outcome as conferences were implemented in a fash- majority of the 29 youth in the conference
lenient (36 percent and 14 percent, re- ion consistent with the philosophy and group who failed to complete the program
spectively). Conference group youth were principles of restorative justice, that they were rearrested before attending the con-
slightly less likely than control group were more effective than many other ference. In contrast, most of the 71 con-
youth to describe the outcome as lenient, court programs in addressing victim trol group youth who failed to complete
whereas conference group parents were needs, and that both parents and offend- their assigned programs failed because of
somewhat more likely than control group ing youth felt very much involved in the juvenile waiver from the program. In such
parents to describe the outcome as process. For many policymakers, however, cases, juvenile court staff closed the case
lenient. the fundamental issue is the program’s without requiring the youth to complete
impact on future offending. To address the assigned program.
Participants in the conference group were
this issue, the study compared program
more likely than those in the control group Six-month rearrest rates. Table 4 shows
completion data and recidivism rates of
to report that the program had helped to 6-month rearrest rates for all youth who
restorative justice conference participants
solve problems. More than three-quarters have reached the 6-month stage. As the
with those of youth in the control group.9
of victims in the conference group reported (Recidivism was defined as a rearrest after rates for the full sample reflect, the re-
this benefit, compared with one-half of the initial arrest that brought the youth to storative conference group included fewer
those in the control group. More than 80 the juvenile justice system, and recidivism recidivists than the control group by a
percent of conference group youth and margin of 13.5 percent. This statistically
significant difference represents a 40-
percent reduction in rates of rearrest.10
Case Study: Better Addressing the Needs of Victims (The reduction was calculated by dividing
the difference between the control and
When setting up the restorative justice After Richard and Sue described the the treatment group rates by the control
conference, the coordinator talked incident, other participants had an group rate: (33.9–20.4)/33.9=39.8.)
with 17-year-old Richard about the opportunity to speak. Gary, a friend
purpose of the meeting. Richard of Sue’s attending the conference as Researchers also conducted an analysis
admitted that he had broken into his a victim supporter, explained how limited to youth who had successfully
neighbor Sue’s car and taken her Richard’s behavior had affected Sue. completed a treatment (either the restora-
tape player and several other items. One of Richard’s neighbors told the tive conference program or one of the
Richard agreed to participate in the group that she had always trusted control group diversion programs). Be-
conference and indicated a willing- Richard (e.g., allowing him to work in cause, as noted above, youth in the con-
ness to make amends. her yard), but now her trust in him had ference group were significantly more like-
been broken and she wasn’t sure how ly to complete their program than youth
On the day of the conference, howev- she felt about Richard. Richard’s mom in the control group (many of whom were
er, Richard’s attitude seemed to walk told the group that she hadn’t raised waived out of their programs), the portion
into the room in front of him, and the her son to steal from others but didn’t
other participants sensed that the
of high-risk youth remaining among pro-
know how to help him change. gram completers presumably was higher
conference might not go as expected.
Sue, the car’s owner, nonetheless Once each participant had spoken, a for the conference group than the control
wanted to proceed. contract was written. Under the terms group. In other words, the higher dropout
of the contract, Richard agreed to pay rate for youth in the control group likely
When the coordinator questioned for damage to Sue’s car and replace resulted in a group of lower risk youth
Richard about the incident, Richard her personal items. After Richard left among those who actually completed the
skirted the issue of his responsibility the conference, Sue commented that program. Thus, limiting the recidivism
and did not appreciate that so many she didn’t know if she would ever see analysis to program completers provides
people had attended the conference the restitution payment. She assured a conservative estimate of the conference
to help give him a second chance. her friends and the conference coordi- program’s effectiveness. This analysis
When it was Sue’s turn to speak, she nator, however, that the conference also found a significant difference in re-
described how she had felt when she had been worth it to her. The most
discovered someone had broken into
arrest rates for conference and control
important part, she explained, was the groups: 12.3 percent and 22.7 percent,
her car and stolen her personal prop- opportunity to tell Richard face-to-face
erty. Looking directly at Richard, Sue respectively. This statistically significant
how he had hurt her—that he had difference represents a 46-percent reduc-
asked him why he had chosen her destroyed the trust that she had in
car. After all, she thought they had tion in rates of rearrest.11
him, disrupted her sense of safety,
been friends. and generally made her life miserable Twelve-month rearrest rates. Table 4 shows
for a while. 12-month rearrest rates for all youth who
8

9. Table 4: Rearrest Rates at 6 and 12 Months
Total Number of Youth Who Were
Youth in Sample Rearrested (%)
Restorative Restorative
Followup Interval Conference Control Conference Control p Value
6 months
Full sample* 167 168 20.4 33.9 0.005
Participants who
completed program 138 97 12.3 22.7 0.036
12 months
Full sample* 156 156 30.1 42.3 0.025
Participants who
completed program 125 93 23.2 29.0 0.330
Note: A p value of ≤ 0.05 indicates that chi-square is statistically significant, meaning that the difference between the treatment and control groups was
greater than that expected to be produced by chance.
* The smaller sample sizes reported in this table reflect the fact that at the time of the analysis, not all of the study group youth had reached the 6- and
12-month followup stages. These cases are being tracked in the ongoing study.
have reached the 12-month stage. Of the Rearrest rates by offense, sex, and race. One of the basic findings of the experi-
full sample of youth participating in the Researchers conducted limited analyses ment described in this Bulletin is that
restorative conference program, 30.1 of 6-month rearrest rates for selected sub- restorative justice conferences can be
percent had been rearrested within 12 groups of offenders.14 Youth who commit- successfully implemented in an urban U.S.
months, compared with 42.3 percent of ted offenses against property had lower setting. More than 80 percent of youth
youth in the control group. This statisti- rearrest rates than youth who committed who were referred to a conference attend-
cally significant difference represents a offenses against persons, and this differ- ed the conference and completed the
29-percent reduction in recidivism.12 ence was comparable for conference and terms of their reparation agreement. For
control group youth. Both males and fe- Indianapolis, this rate compares very
When researchers examined rearrest
males in the conference group experi- favorably with that of other court-related
rates at 12 months for only those youth
enced lower rearrest rates than their diversion programs.
who had successfully completed a pro-
counterparts in the control groups; the
gram, they found a pattern that was con- Trained observers reported that confer-
difference was greater for females than
sistent with their other results, but the ences in Indianapolis appeared to incor-
for males. There were no racial differ-
difference in rearrest rates for the confer- porate restorative justice principles such
ences in rearrest rates for conference and
ence and control groups did not achieve as inclusion of affected parties, respect
control group youth, and the overall re-
statistical significance. Specifically, 23.2 for all participants, and emphasis on
duction in rearrest rates found for con-
percent of youth who successfully com- problem solving. Victims received apolo-
ference group youth was the same for
pleted the restorative conference pro- gies, and reparation agreements includ-
whites and nonwhites. These findings,
gram had been rearrested at 12 months, ed other mutually agreed-upon actions.
although preliminary, suggest that the
compared with 29 percent of youth who These characteristics translated into high
effects of conferences appear consistent
successfully completed another diversion levels of satisfaction among victims.
for youth across groups based on offense,
program. This represents a 20-percent
sex, and race. These results should be Interesting patterns emerge in this study’s
reduction in rearrest rates, which is not
considered preliminary, however, until interview data. Overall, the data indicate
statistically significant.
further analyses based on larger sample reasonably high levels of satisfaction
The lack of statistical significance proba- sizes can verify findings. among participants in both conferences
bly is attributable to two factors: (1) im- and other court-ordered diversion pro-
plementation problems in the earliest grams (i.e., control group programs).
phase of the experiment, which frequent- Conclusion Thus, the Indianapolis experiment does
ly caused delays in scheduling confer- Recent years have witnessed consider- not involve a comparison of restorative
ences; and (2) the small number of pro- able interest in restorative justice ap- justice programs and court-ordered pro-
gram completers, particularly in the proaches in general and conferences in grams that are perceived as failing.
control group, included in the 12-month particular. The current study and earlier
analysis. The Hudson Institute continues research provide support for continued The interview data suggest that the con-
to monitor these findings to determine development of the restorative justice ference approach makes a positive differ-
whether 12-month rearrest differences for conference approach and experimenta- ence for victims. When compared with
program completers reach statistical sig- tion with its use. victims participating in other diversion
nificance when the sample size is larger.13 programs, victims in the conference pro-
gram were more satisfied with how their
9

10. cases were handled and much more likely facilitator is a uniformed police officer or Valley Police, 1999; Braithwaite, 1999;
to recommend the program to a friend. a civilian. Finally, the Hudson Institute Moore and O’Connell, 1994.
Victims in the conference program also hopes to extend its experiment to a broad-
felt they were treated with respect. er range of offenses and to youth with 6. Restorative justice conferences are
Consistent with the principles of restora- prior court experience, thereby allowing not fact-finding hearings. If a youth chal-
tive justice, victims participating in the Institute to measure the extent to lenges the allegations, the matter should
conferences were much more likely than which these promising initial results apply proceed to court. This criterion seeks to
those participating in other programs to to more serious offenders. The Institute prevent the “revictimization” of a victim
report that they were involved in the also perceives a clear need to extend the that could occur if the alleged offender
process and that they had the opportu- research to the use of conferences with failed to take responsibility for the act.
nity to express their views. older youth. 7. The sample size for the interviews was
The conference approach also appears to Consistent with earlier research, the find- as follows: victims in conference group,
make a difference for parents and youth. ings of the Indianapolis study suggest n=42; victims in control group, n=50;
Although responses to some interview that restorative justice conferences suc- youth in conference group, n=52; youth
questions revealed no differences between cessfully address the needs of many vic- in control group, n=47; parents in confer-
those who participated in conferences tims of offenses committed by youth. In ence group, n=52; and parents in control
and those who participated in other diver- addition, findings show that conferences group, n=47.
sion programs, responses to questions are a promising early intervention for 8. Because control group victims were not
relating to the core principles of restora- young, first-time juvenile offenders. Given asked if they felt they had been pushed
tive justice revealed significant differ- the high rate of reoffending among very around, this measure of perceived in-
ences. For example, youth and parents young children who enter juvenile court, volvement and respect is not included in
who participated in conferences were these findings are encouraging and sup- figure 2.
more likely than control group partici- port the need for continued experimenta-
pants to feel they were involved, had a tion with and assessment of the restora- 9. At the time of the comparison, program
“say in the matter,” and had problems tive justice conference approach. completion data were available for only
solved. 167 youth in the restorative conference
group and 168 youth in the control group.
Study results relating to reoffending are Endnotes 10. Chi-square statistically significant at
similarly promising. In comparisons for
the total sample and for youth who suc-
1. (H.N. Snyder, personal communication, ≤0.01. This level of significance indicates
2000.) Dr. Snyder provided these statis- that a difference of the observed magni-
cessfully completed their diversion pro-
tics, based on his analysis of 1999 arrest tude would only be expected to occur in
gram, youth who attended conferences
data from the Federal Bureau of Investi- 1 out of 100 samples.
were significantly less likely than youth
gation, to the Office of Juvenile Justice
who attended other diversion programs 11. Chi-square statistically significant at
and Delinquency Prevention.
to be rearrested during the 6 months after ≤0.05.
the incident that initially brought them to 2. As used in this Bulletin, the term “child
the attention of the court. Similar findings delinquents” refers to juveniles between 12. Chi-square statistically significant at
were observed at 12 months for the total the ages of 7 and 12 who have committed ≤0.025.
sample; 12-month findings for program delinquent acts, as defined by criminal 13. Additionally, in later stages of the proj-
completers were limited by small sample law. This group of juveniles is the focus ect, researchers will consider issues such
sizes and were less conclusive. of OJJDP’s Study Group on Very Young as the length of time elapsing between
Offenders. program completion and rearrest and the
In subsequent stages of this project,
researchers will seek to confirm initial 3. (L.W. Sherman, personal communica- seriousness of subsequent offending.
results with larger samples. Larger sam- tion, 1996.) The author and Professor 14. Analyses by subgroup at this stage
ples will also allow researchers to ad- Sherman collaborated on a grant proposal of the study are limited because sample
dress theoretical questions by relating in the early stages of this project, and sizes at this stage become very small
findings from reoffending rates to inter- Sherman’s thinking is reflected in this when conference and control groups are
views of youth, parents, and victims. For Bulletin. further divided by characteristics such as
example, such questions may address
4. A restorative justice program, however, offense, sex, and race. In the second stage
whether it is the deterrent effect of in-
should not force an offender to apologize of the project, when sample sizes are larg-
creased accountability, the reduced stig-
to his or her victim. Nor should the vic- er, researchers will carefully consider
matization, or a combination of the two
tim be forced to accept an apology. An whether the restorative conference ap-
that is generating decreases in offending
offender’s apology should be sincere; it proach has different effects on different
(Braithwaite, 1989). In addition, larger
should not be viewed as a “quick fix” for categories of youth.
samples will allow a more thorough exami-
nation of results for various subgroups of the offender.
offenders (e.g., those based on sex, race, 5. Research other than these two formal References
age, and offense type). Researchers plan studies has reported declines in reoffend- Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. 1994.
to address the issue of the role of police ing and high levels of victim satisfaction. Balanced and Restorative Justice. Sum-
as conference facilitators, including the This research, however, was not based on mary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
related question of whether it makes a rigorous research designs. See Thames of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
difference for victims or offenders if the
10

11. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 2000. Child Model. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Prevention. Delinquents: Development, Intervention, Department of Justice, Office of Justice
and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Bernard, T.J. 1992. The Cycle of Juvenile
Sage Publications, Inc. Delinquency Prevention.
Justice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press. Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., and Pete- Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A.L., Finnegan,
chuk, D. In press. Child Delinquency: T.A., Snyder, H.N., Poole, R.S., and Tierney,
Braithwaite, J. 1989. Crime, Shame, and
Intervention and Prevention. Bulletin. N. 2000. Juvenile Court Statistics 1997.
Reintegration. Cambridge, England: Cam- Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-
bridge University Press. Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Braithwaite, J. 1993. Juvenile offending: of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
New theory and practice. In National Prevention. Prevention.
Conference on Juvenile Justice, Conference Marion Superior Court Probation De- Sherman, L.W. 1993. Defiance, deterrence,
Proceedings No. 22, edited by L. Atkinson partment. 1999. Marion County Juvenile and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal
and S. Gerull. Canberra, Australia: Aus- Probation Annual Report. Indianapolis, IN: sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and
tralian Institute of Criminology, pp. 35–42. Marion Superior Court Probation Delinquency 30:445–473.
Braithwaite, J. 1999. Restorative justice: Department.
Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1995. Ju-
Assessing optimistic and pessimistic McCold, P., and Wachtel, B. 1998. Restor- venile Offenders and Victims: A National
accounts. In Crime and Justice: A Review ative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem Report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center
of Research, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago, Pennsylvania Police Family Group Con- for Juvenile Justice.
IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–127. ferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Commu-
nity Service Foundation. Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999.
Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency.
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999
Berkeley, CA: University of California Moore, D., and O’Connell, T. 1994. Family National Report. Report. Washington, DC:
Press. conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A commu- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Lemert, E.M. 1967. The juvenile court— nitarian model of justice. In Family Con- Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
quest and realities. In Task Force Report: ferencing and Juvenile Justice, edited by Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, C. Alder and J. Wundersitz. Canberra, chapter 6.
edited by the President’s Commission on Australia: Australian Institute of Crimi-
nology, pp. 45–74. Strang, H., Barnes, G.C., Braithwaite, J.,
Law Enforcement and Administration of
and Sherman, L.W. 1999. Experiments in
Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Restorative Policing: A Progress Report
Printing Office, pp. 91–106. Prevention. 1998. Guide for Implementing on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming
the Balanced and Restorative Justice Experiments (RISE). Canberra, Australia:
Australian National University.
Acknowledgments Thames Valley Police. 1999. Restorative
justice. Unpublished manuscript. Thames
Edmund F. McGarrell, Ph.D., is Director of the Crime Control Policy Center at Valley, Great Britain: Thames Valley Police
the Hudson Institute and an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Department.
Justice at Indiana University, Bloomington. Research for the Indianapolis Re-
storative Justice Conferencing Experiment is supported by OJJDP and grants Van Ness, D. 1996. Restorative justice and
from the Lilly Endowment, Donner Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, international human rights. In Restorative
and Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Justice: International Perspectives, edited
by B. Galaway and J. Hudson. Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press, pp. 17–35.
Share With Your Colleagues This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-
ber 96–JN–FX–0007 from the Office of Juvenile
Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-
encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and partment of Justice.
reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP
and the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as Points of view or opinions expressed in this
how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP document are those of the author and do not
materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and necessarily represent the official position or
questions to: policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
Publication Reprint/Feedback
P Box 6000
.O. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
Rockville, MD 20849–6000 quency Prevention is a component of the Of-
800–638–8736 fice of Justice Programs, which also includes
301–519–5600 (fax) the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau
E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of
Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
11

12. U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
PERMIT NO. G–91
Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Bulletin NCJ 187769