The goal of this research was to test two claims often made about restorative justice processes:

• Restorative justice provides more procedural fairness for both victims and offenders and is a more humane and respectful way to respond to a crime than the criminal justice system.
• Restorative justice provides more effective outcomes such as lower recidivism, more repair of harm, fewer crimes of revenge, and more offences brought to justice.

The study, "Restorative Justice: The Evidence," considered programmes as diverse as face-to-face meetings between victims and offenders, indirect communication between victims and offenders, and restitution programmes. The majority of the studies dealt with either face-to-face meetings or court ordered restitution.

The authors of the study, Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang, used various databases to identify existing research on restorative justice. From these the authors limited their analysis to studies that indicated “for what population the RJ intervention, in contrast to what comparison group, produced what outcomes.” Of the available research, 36 studies met the criteria. Of these, 26 showed an impact on re-offending, six showed beneficial effects on victims, and five showed the effects of diversion to restorative justice from prosecution on the number of offences brought to justice. It review found that restorative justice:

• Substantially reduced repeat offending for some offenders, but not all,
• Doubled (or more) the offences brought to justice as diversions from criminal justice,
  
• Reduced crime victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms and related costs,
• Provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than criminal justice,
  
• Reduced crime victims’ desire for violent revenge against their offenders
• Reduced the costs of criminal justice, when used as a diversion, and
  
• Reduced recidivism more than prison (adults) or as well as prison (youths)

The authors provide three ‘best practice’ suggestions for increasing and focusing investment in restorative justice interventions:

• RJ seems more effective when it is focused on the kinds of offences that have a personal victim, who can – at least in principle – be invited to meet with the offender. 
• RJ seems more effective when it is focused on violent crime rather than property crime, with major exceptions: burglary victims experience reduced post-traumatic stress symptoms, and property offenders may commit less crime in future (or at least no more) if they get RJ than if they get prison.
• RJ is most likely to reduce court and imprisonment costs, as well as crime and its medical and financial impact on victims, if it is used as a form of diversion from criminal justice, including prosecution, or on a post-conviction basis as a diversion from likely incarceration (p. 24).

Restorative Justice: The Evidence is available online at http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/publications.htm

March 2007