Restorative justice in the criminal justice system
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Disparity Ratings
Potential to decrease disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Potential for mixed impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating could increase and decrease disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence or expert opinion.
Potential to increase disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to increase or exacerbate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Inconclusive impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating do not have enough evidence to assess potential impact on disparities.
Strategies with this rating do not have enough evidence to assess potential impact on disparities.
Health factors shape the health of individuals and communities. Everything from our education to our environments impacts our health. Modifying these clinical, behavioral, social, economic, and environmental factors can influence how long and how well people live, now and in the future.
Restorative justice in the criminal justice system uses a victim and offender dialogue to address the harm caused by a crime as well as victims’ experiences, interests, and needs1. This approach can be practiced using sharing circles, victim-offender mediation, or facilitated face-to-face conferences that include victims, offenders, their families, friends, and other community members. Restorative justice practice can occur throughout the criminal justice process, from pre-arrest to post-sentence, and can take place in settings such as prisons, therapeutic facilities, and communities2, 3. Judges may consider reducing sentences for some persons convicted of crimes following restorative justice participation4.
Note: In this strategy the term “victim/survivor” refers to individuals who have experienced abuse (e.g., physical, sexual, psychological, financial, emotional, verbal abuse) and/or stalking by an intimate partner. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps recognizes that both terms have different implications in the context of criminal justice, legal processes, advocacy, and service provision.
What could this strategy improve?
Expected Benefits
Our evidence rating is based on the likelihood of achieving these outcomes:
Reduced recidivism
Potential Benefits
Our evidence rating is not based on these outcomes, but these benefits may also be possible:
Increased satisfaction with justice process
Reduced post-traumatic stress
What does the research say about effectiveness?
There is strong evidence that restorative justice in the criminal justice system reduces recidivism1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. For juvenile offenders, effects on recidivism can persist long-term10 and appear strongest when restorative justice practices are implemented with researcher involvement and high fidelity to tested models11, 12.
Restorative justice interventions for individuals convicted of intimate partner violence crimes can be more effective in decreasing recidivism and levels of crime severity compared to a traditional batterer program6 and can also reduce rearrests related non-domestic violence13. An eight hour-long brief restorative justice intervention may reduce recidivism among persons on probation in the long term14. Delivering restorative justice intervention closer to prison release appears to be associated with delayed recidivism compared to delivering the intervention earlier in a sentence15.
Victim-offender mediation appears to reduce juvenile recidivism16. Arizona-based studies indicate that youth with a criminal charge in restorative justice conferencing are less likely to reoffend than peers in a traditional diversion program17, 18; effects are greater for girls compared to boys, and youth with few prior offenses than youth with more prior offenses17. Youth who are convicted of a crime for the first time and participate in restorative justice programs may be less likely to reoffend than peers in the traditional justice system19; additional evidence is needed to confirm effects20.
Victims of crime who participate in restorative justice efforts have greater levels of satisfaction with the justice process than those who participate in the traditional justice process1, 5, 8. Restorative justice conferencing can also reduce victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms3, 9, 21. Individuals convicted of a crime who participate in restorative justice appear more likely to comply with restitution requirements than those who participate in the traditional justice system1. In some circumstances, persons with a criminal conviction report greater levels of satisfaction with the restorative justice process than the traditional justice process1, 4, 5. Restorative justice programs have potential to improve interpersonal relationships among individuals in the justice system and help them prepare for return to the communities22.
Victim-centered practice, open and respectful interactions in a safe environment, and facilitator training support effective restorative justice for youth23. For restorative justice processes of intimate partner violence or sexual assault, researchers recommend specialized facilitator training, voluntary participation of both parties, and psychological support for all participants to improve victims/survivors’ safety and prevent their re-victimization24, 25; social support for individuals convicted of a sexual offense is also recommended to meet their social and practical needs and prevent their recidivism26. Research funding for rigorous evaluations, commitment from the state, agencies, and communities, and education on benefits for communities are needed for successful implementation27, 28.
A Washington-based analysis estimates that restorative justice conferencing costs about $1,307 per adult participant in 2022, with a benefit to cost ratio of $2.0529.
How could this strategy advance health equity? This strategy is rated inconclusive impact on disparities.
It is unclear what impact restorative justice practice has on disparities in recidivism and well-being of the individuals involved in offenses. Available evidence indicates that among restorative participants, women and older individuals are less likely to reoffend than men and younger individuals15. In a Salt Lake County-based study, there are racial differences in participation and completion in a restorative justice juvenile court program: Among those referred to the program, Black, Latino, and Pacific Islander youth are more likely to participate in the program than white peers and Black youth are less likely to complete the program than white peers. There is no gender or age difference in program participation and completion38. States that have higher incarceration rates, higher percentages of Black residents, and higher percentages of female legislators in the state legislative body are associated with adopting more supportive restorative justice policies39.
Researchers recommend integrating restorative justice practice in the justice system to strengthen the response system to violence against women40; creating safe and productive restorative justice processes is also critical for sexual violence victims/survivors in marginalized communities who are facing structural inequities25.
What is the relevant historical background?
American policing, behavior criminalization, and justifying incarceration has stemmed from racist practices since the 1700s41. In 1965, Congress’s Law Enforcement Assistance Act marked the beginning of federal government involvement in criminal justice and law enforcement and the Johnson Administration declared a “war on crime” a year later, with increasingly harsh and punitive sentencing laws alongside aggressive policing42. The U.S. justice system was designed to deter crime through aversive control and social isolation, not to support socially significant behavior change and reinforce prosocial behavior. Restorative justice is one alternative to the punishment, incarceration-focused justice system41. A grassroot movement of restorative justice – often cited as an indigenous approach to justice – had become popular in the format of a victim-offender reconciliation program by 1990. In the late 1990s, victim-offender dialogue programs and family group conferencing expanded in the criminal justice and child welfare settings39.
Equity Considerations
- Who in your community has been involved in restorative justice programs? What are barriers to participation?
- What resources and partnerships could support expanding restorative justice practice in the justice system?
- What training is needed for stakeholders in restorative justice (e.g., prosecutors and attorneys) and facilitators to increase victims/survivors’ safety?
Implementation Examples
Restorative justice has been implemented in some states, such as Minnesota30, and in many American Indian and Alaska Native communities31. City-level efforts are also underway in many communities, including Baltimore’s Restorative Response Baltimore32, New York City’s Common Justice33, Minneapolis’ victim-offender mediation program34, and Salt Lake City’s Salt Lake Peer Court for marginalized youth in the juvenile justice system35.
As of August 2022, 43 states have enacted laws that provide funding support or structural guidance for restorative justice programs in the juvenile justice system36. For example, Colorado has adopted the most extensive supportive bills for restorative justice or victim-offender conferencing in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems37.
Implementation Resources
‡ Resources with a focus on equity.
RJE - Restorative Justice Exchange (RJE). Strengthening restorative practices.
CO-RJ Training - Restorative Justice Colorado. (n.d.). Restorative justice & adult diversionary models training (RJ Training). Retrieved December 17, 2024.
Footnotes
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 Latimer 2005 - Latimer J, Dowden C, Muise D. The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal. 2005;85(2):127–44.
2 Daly 2016 - Daly K. What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders. 2016;11(1):9–29.
3 Koss 2014 - Koss MP. The RESTORE Program of restorative justice for sex crimes: Vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2014;29(9):1623–1660.
4 Sherman 2007 - Sherman LW, Strang H. Restorative justice: The evidence. London, UK: Smith Institute; 2007.
5 Fulham 2023 - Fulham, L., Blais, J., Rugge, T., & Schultheis, E. A. (2023). The effectiveness of restorative justice programs: A meta-analysis of recidivism and other relevant outcomes. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Advance online publication.
6 Mills 2019 - Mills, L. G., Barocas, B., Butters, R. P., & Ariel, B. (2019). A randomized controlled trial of restorative justice-informed treatment for domestic violence crimes. Nature Humam Behaviour, 3, 1284–1294.
7 Han 2021 - Han, S., Valdovinos Olson, M., & Davis, R. C. (2021). Reducing recidivism through restorative justice: An evaluation of Bridges to Life in Dallas. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 60(7), 444–463.
8 Campbell-Strang 2013 - Strang H, Sherman LW, Mayo-Wilson E, Woods D, Ariel B. Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: Effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2013:12.
9 Sherman 2015 - Sherman LW, Strang H, Barnes G, et al. Twelve experiments in restorative justice: The Jerry Lee program of randomized trials of restorative justice conferences. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2015;11(4):501–540.
10 Shem-Tov 2024 - Shem‐Tov, Y., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2024). Can restorative justice conferencing reduce recidivism? Evidence from the Make-it-Right program. Econometrica, 92(1), 61-78.
11 Schwalbe 2012 - Schwalbe CS, Gearing RE, MacKenzie MJ, Brewer KB, Ibrahim R. A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review. 2012;32(1):26–33.
12 Hipple 2014 - Hipple NK, Gruenewald J, McGarrell EF. Restorativeness, procedural justice, and defiance as predictors of reoffending of participants in family group conferences. Crime & Delinquency. 2014;60(8):1131–1157.
13 Mills 2013c - Mills, L.G., Barocas, B., & Ariel, B. (2013). The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: A comparison study of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(1), 65–90.
14 Kennedy 2019b - Kennedy, J. L. D., Tuliao, A. P., Flower, K. N., Tibbs, J. J., & McChargue, D. E. (2019). Long-term effectiveness of a brief restorative justice intervention. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(1), 3-17.
15 Richner 2022 - Richner, K. A., Pavelka, S., & McChargue, D. E. (2023). A restorative justice intervention in United States prisons: Implications of intervention timing, age, and gender on recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 67(12), 1193-1210.
16 Nugent 2004 - Nugent WR, Williams M, Umbreit MS. Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice. 2004;14(6):408–16.
17 Rodriguez 2007 - Rodriguez N. Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency. 2007;53(3):355–79.
18 De Beus 2007 - De Beus K, Rodriguez N. Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2007;35(3):337-347.
19 Bergseth 2013 - Bergseth, K. J., & Bouffard, J. A. (2013). Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 57(9), 1054-1075.
20 Cochrane-Livingstone 2013 - Livingstone N, Macdonald G, Carr N. Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(2):CD008898.
21 Angel 2014 - Angel, C. M., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., et al. (2014). Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 291–307.
22 Ross 2020 - Ross, K., & Muro, D. (2020). Possibilities of prison-based restorative justice: Transformation beyond recidivism. Contemporary Justice Review, 23(3), 291–313.
23 Choi 2012 - Choi JJ, Bazemore G, Gilbert MJ. Review of research on victims’ experiences in restorative justice: Implications for youth justice. Children and Youth Services Review. 2012;34(1):35–42.
24 Balser 2024 - Balser, S., Withrow, A., Johnson, L. R., & Duke Chaikin, C. (2024). restorative justice in cases of intimate partner violence in the United States: A metasynthesis. Families in Society, 105(3), 384-401.
25 Burns 2023 - Burns, C. J., & Sinko, L. (2023). Restorative justice for survivors of sexual violence experienced in adulthood: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 340-354.
26 Bohmert 2018 - Bohmert, M. N., Duwe, G., & Hipple, N. K. (2018). Evaluating restorative justice circles of support and accountability: Can social support overcome structural barriers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(3), 739-758.
27 Gerkin 2017 - Gerkin, P., Walsh, J., Kuilema, J., & Borton, I. (2017). Implementing restorative justice under the retributive paradigm: A pilot program case study. Sage Open, 7(1).
28 Sliva 2020 - Sliva, S., Shaw, M., & Han, T. M. (2020). Policy to practice: An implementation case study in restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 23(4), 527–543.
29 WSIPP-Benefit cost - Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). Benefit-cost results.
30 MN DPS-ORP - Minnesota Department of Public Safety (MN DPS). (n.d.). Office of Restorative Practices (ORP). Retrieved December 17, 2024.
31 Tribal Youth-YHWC - Tribal Youth Resource Center. (n.d.). Tribal youth healing to wellness court (YHWC). Retrieved December 17, 2024.
32 RRB - Restorative Response Baltimore (RRB). Community conferencing and restorative practices.
33 CJ-NYC - Common Justice (CJ). (n.d.). Build transformative solutions to violence in New York City. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
34 OJJDP Model Programs - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). OJJDP model programs guide.
35 SLPC - Salt Lake Peer Court (SLPC). (n.d.). A program of Utah Law Related Education. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
36 NCSL-RJ - National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (n.d.). Juvenile justice: Young people and restorative justice (RJ). Retrieved December 17, 2024.
37 Sliva 2017 - Sliva, S. M. (2017). A tale of two states: How U.S. State Legislatures consider restorative justice policies. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(2), 255–273.
38 Munoz 2022 - Muñoz, E. A., Owen, R. Y., Próspero, M., & Adkins, D. E. (2022). Diversion and restorative justice: Salt Lake Peer Court disrupting disproportionate minority contact? Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 8(2), 284-300.
39 Silva 2018 - Sliva, S. M. (2018). Finally “changing lenses”? State-level determinants of restorative justice laws. The Prison Journal, 98(5), 519-543.
40 Decker 2022 - Decker, M. R., Holliday, C. N., Hameeduddin, Z., Shah, R., Miller, J., Dantzler, J., & Goodmark, L. (2022). Defining justice: Restorative and retributive justice goals among intimate partner violence survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5-6), NP2844-NP2867.
41 Leland 2022 - Leland, W., & Stockwell, A. (2022). Anti-oppressive restorative justice: Behavior analysis in alternatives to policing. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1232–1236.
42 NASEM 2014 - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see citations and implementation resources for this strategy, visit:
countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/restorative-justice-in-the-criminal-justice-system
To see all strategies:
countyhealthrankings.org/whatworks