edwards

1

The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Programs in Reducing Juvenile Recidivism

Shaquanna Edwards

Liberty University

September 28, 2025

2

The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Programs in Reducing Juvenile Recidivism

Introduction

One of the most interesting divergences in responding to children who offend, in contrast

with punitive logic of traditional approaches, is restorative justice (RJ) which is centered on

values of reintegration, restoration and accountability. Instead of traditional justice that is based

on sanctions of imprisonment and probation, RJ is based on conversation between offenders,

victims and community members. Practices that involve community circles, family group

conferencing, and victim-offender mediation facilitate restitution agreements that may consist of

services or counseling, and apologies. These processes are geared towards healing the damage

and to foster empathy and reduce the rate of recidivism through solving the delinquency-causing

factors such as trauma and deprivation of social bond (Boyd, 2025). To teenagers, the relational

and rehabilitative models are especially appropriate because the neurodevelopmental plasticity of

the brain makes adolescence prone to be extremely reactive to treatments.

Recidivism among juveniles or reoffending following exposure to the justice system is an

upcoming global issue with critical social and economic implications. The two-year recidivism

rates range usually 30-50 percent and other jurisdictions and categories of offences have

different recidivism. When comparing punishment approaches to show ineffectiveness of

punitive ways, Boyd (025) found that young people who were assigned to community and

restorative options returned 32% after two years, compared to 55% of those who were confined,

something that presents ineffectiveness of punitive way. The financial investments are immense:

it can take more than 150,000 annually to confine the youth and the average price of the RJ-

3

based diversions is lower than one in ten (Syahwami & Hamirul, 2024). Besides financial costs,

imprisonment destroys family ties, interrupts education and stigmatizes young people which

keeps them in the revolving door of crime. They are simply overburdened with the marginalized

groups, namely, Black and Hispanic youth, which is overrepresented in the juvenile justice

system (Vooren et al., 2023).

The present paper puts forth a contention to the fact that juvenile recidivism can be

alleviated using RJ programs as opposed to punitive instruments in a more economical and

empowering format by setting accountability and addressing extant risk factors. The promise of

RJ and its limitations will be discussed in the following portions using meta-analyses (Fulham et

al., 2023; Syahwami and Hamirul, 2024) as a reference, as well as case studies, such as the

Make-it-Right program in San Francisco (Shem-Tov et al., 2022), or international innovations,

such as the Halt program in the Netherlands (Vooren et al., 2023). As the world grows faster in

reforms of juvenile justice, one should evaluate the potential and the constraints of RJ so that

policy makers can find a means to concentrate on prevention, equity and rehabilitation, instead of

retribution.

Literature Review

The support of restorative justice (RJ) has grown significantly over the last twenty years,

being no longer based on such anecdotal support but on stricter empirical assessments. The

initial research on RJ was found to be rather subject to methodological flaws, including small

samples, selection bias, and lack of consistent definitions of recidivism. Nevertheless, more

recent developments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and

large, meta-based analyses can shed more light on the effectiveness of RJ to mitigate juvenile

recidivism.

4

Key Meta-Analytic Findings

Meta-analysis demonstrates the potential and the drawbacks of RJ. A meta-analysis of 32

studies covering more than 18, 000 subjects demonstrated the existence of a small significant

recidivism decrease with a general pooled effect size of -0.11 (CI: -0.15-0.07). The youth (–0.16)

and the high level of adherence of programs to restorative principles (–0.18) including the victim

participation and community reintegration had a stronger effect (Syahwami and Hamirul, 2024).

Equally, Fulham et al. (2023) pooled 27 studies and discovered that RJ had minor impacts on

general recidivism but at best, insignificant impacts on violent offending. Notably, RJ steadily

increased victim satisfaction, offender accountability and perceptions of fairness that would

otherwise not be attained through punitive methods. Although these are positive results, effects

differ depending on research design. Fulham et al. (2023) observed that larger effect sizes were

found in quasi-experimental studies than in rigorous RCTs, which could indicate that the effects

of RJ were overestimated in earlier studies that lacked the rigor of a controlled study.

International and Comparative Lenses

The international level of evidence puts the debate in spin. The Halt program in the

Netherlands, a restorative diversion for first-offenders, had counterintuitive results. One field

experiment of education and justice records showed that the intervention doubled recidivism at

one year, and reduced tertiary education attainment by 29 percent and with strongest effects in

boys and in solo-offending offenders (Vooren et al., 2023). These findings are cautionary on the

homogeneity of effect concept, and the need to be wary of context and program design.

5

Although, the U.S. and other governments are reporting encouraging proof. The San

Francisco Make-it-Right (MIR) project among youth with mid-range felonies put participants

into randomized control groups of RJ conferencing or prosecution.

In six months, there was a 19-point (44) reduction in rearrest rates in RJ participants

relative to controls and these effects were observed four years after the intervention (Shem-Tov

et al., 2022). The success of MIR depicts that when structured conferencing is used together with

a diversion against prosecution, long-term desistence even in more at-risk groups can be

achieved.

Demographic and Economic Factors

Equity is an important aspect of RJ research because of the disproportional representation

of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. According to Boyd (2025), there is a tendency

of Black and Hispanic youth to be at a disadvantage in the framework of the system when it

comes to using diversionary programs, whereas they are more likely to be helped by the

relational approach associated with RJ. In its fair use, RJ was proven to decrease racial

differences in recidivism rates, decrease procedural justice perception gaps (Fulham et al., 2023).

RJ is always cost effective as compared to punitive sanctions economically. The cost of an

average program is between 2000-5000 dollars per youth compared to 50,000 and above on

confinement (Syahwami and Hamirul, 2024). RJ programs give high returns to the society when

it comes to long term benefits like lower supervision costs, and enhanced community cohesion.

Theoretical Underpinnings

The efficacy of RJ could be placed in the criminological theory. According to such a

model as reintegrative shaming, created by Braithwaite in 1989, accountability and community

6

reintegration impose the presence of prosocial identity. The social control theory focuses on

building stronger family and community relationships and discourages offending, whereas

developmental psychology focuses on the fact that adolescents are more susceptible to empathy-

enhancing interventions (Boyd, 2025). All these structures are reasons as to why RJ would work

better than punitive interventions which in most cases stigmatize offenders and solidify deviant

identities.

Gaps and Future Research

In spite of the increasing evidence, there are gaps. A significant number of studies follow

results after 1-3 years of intervention and therefore do not provide much information on long

term desistance. There is also a dearth in evidence on violent offenders because the majority of

the programs are applicable to low-to-moderate-risk youth. The methodology barriers such as

self-selection bias and unsteady program fidelity also make assessments difficult (Fulham et al.,

2023). Standardized protocols and equity audits among other groups of participants should be

added to the evidence base and more RCTs.

Real-World Applications and Outcomes

San Francisco’s Make-it-Right (MIR) Program

The RJ program in San Francisco is the Make-it-Right (MIR) program, which has been

strictly assessed. MIR, also initiated in 2013, referred young people with juvenile felonies with

medium severity to either RJ conferencing or traditional prosecution. Pre-conference preparation,

a system of victim-offender discussions and individual restitution plans all really reduced MIRs

recidivism. A comparison by Shem-Tov et al. (2022) showed that rearrests were reduced by 19-

percentage point (44) 6 months later which persisted in being observed four years after

7

randomization. Fifty percent of the sentences were decreased and the rates of graduation were

more than 50. Besides crime reduction, MIR saved 50000 dollars per case in incarceration costs

reiterating the financial payoff of RJ.

North Carolina Juvenile Diversion Programs

North Carolina demonstrated the way the practices of RJ could be implemented in

statewide diversion systems. In 2022, the rate of youth diversion was estimated at 59% with 31%

participating in RJ-based diversion programs that consist of mediation, teen courts and

community circles. The North Carolina Juvenile Recidivism Study indicates that two-year

recidivism of participants in RJ was 28 percent (as compared to 36 percent of probationers and

55 percent of kept youth) (Boyd, 2025). RJ performed particularly well in school related crimes

and gang-related youth to the point of reducing recidivism by up to 15% alongside mentorship

and social services. The observations highlight how RJ would be useful in systemic changes and

how it can be applied to both urban and rural regions although limited number of facilitators is a

disadvantage to counties that are under-resourced.

The Halt Program in the Netherlands

The Dutch Halt program, as well, presents the ambivalent outcome of RJ, as compared to

the positive results in the U.S. Halt initially appeared to be a good initiative but it was installed

with noble intentions of keeping youth out of the justice system through the use of short-term

educational or community services placement. However, a field study of over 900 young people

yielded concerning findings. Vooren et al. (2023) determined that the turn up rate increased

recidivism by 39 percent at 1 year and tertiary education by 29 percent. This was most notable in

boys and offenders only. Whereas Halt also aimed at lessening stigma by avoiding the use of

8

official crime records, its low-intensity approach that comprised an average of less than 20-hours

of work perhaps was not enough to address deep-seated behavior issues. Halt underscores that

not only program design, but also program fidelity, was central to the effectiveness of RJ.

School-Based Restorative Practices in the United States

RJ has shown preventative promise within the school environment through subjecting

students to fewer exclusionary discipline, and disrupting the pipeline to prison from school. An

example is the implementation of restorative circles by Chicago Public Schools as a way of

resolving conflict involving bullying and vandalism. Boyd (2025) continues that due to such

practices, suspensions decreased by 20 per cent and arrests by 30 per cent and the situation

improved particularly in Black boy who have been an over-represented group in disciplinary

action. It was not new to hear from respondents that they felt heard, and this aspect implied that

RJ had a part to play in getting a sense of accountability and self-regulation. The former are in

line with adolescent malleability developmental psychology, where schools could be the gateway

into RJ that would be required before youth move into criminal systems.

Integrated Behavioral Health and RJ Models

Some of the programs have incorporated RJ into therapeutic programs for healing

underlying mental health disorders and trauma. For example, models based on the Behavioral

Health/Juvenile Justice (BHJJ) program in Ohio are programs that integrate mediation into

counseling, mentorship and substance abuse treatment. It has been evaluated to have enormous

impacts of recidivism reduction, particularly in youths given that they have been exposed to a

series of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Boyd, 2025).

Comparative Insights

9

These case studies taken collectively demonstrate the variability and flexibility of RJ.

Programs such as MIR show high levels of causality in lowering recidivism rates of serious

crimes, whereas in North Carolina, large systems of diversion demonstrate the potential of RJ to

be systemic. On the other hand, Halt highlights that the inappropriately designed programs can

even unconsciously deteriorate the results. School-based programs demonstrate preventive

outreach of RJ, and models of integration emphasize the significance of treating complex

psychosocial needs. In different contexts, recidivism can be reduced between zero and 44

percent, and one dollar of this penalty is saved between 3 and 7 (Shem-Tov et al., 2022;

Syahwami & Hamirul, 2024). The most significant aspects of the program are the intensity of the

program, cultural fit, facilitator, and the level of community involvement.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite being shown to be promising in terms of reducing juvenile recidivism, there are a

number of challenges and criticisms associated with its implementation. All these are equity,

cultural sensitivity, program design, and system constraints that can affect outcomes and either

make RJ meet its rehabilitative potential or recreate the inequity that currently exists.

Equity and Imbalances of power

Among the most voiceful arguments against RJ, one must mention its unequal

accessibility based on racial and socioeconomic lines. Diversionary opportunities are

disproportionately refused to minority youth, and especially black and Hispanic teenagers. Boyd

(2025) points out that the discretionary referral mechanisms tend to be biased towards white

youth whereas selective enforcement by the police continues to perpetuate the inequity in the

system. Equally, Fulham et al. (2023) warn that although RJ enhances the perception of fairness

10

among participants, it would widen inequalities in case some groups are under-represented.

Lacking the mandated equity audits and clear referral procedures, RJ will be strengthening,

instead of lessening, structural injustices.

Cultural Insensitivities

RJ is often presented as being based in Indigenous traditions, including M?ori family

group conferencing or Aboriginal circle processes. Nonetheless, critics state that the application

of these practices to the western legal system may result in oversimplification and cultural

appropriation. Vooren et al. (2023) mention that the Dutch Halt program, which was aimed at

focusing on the reintegration process, did not consider various cultural backgrounds and

provided negative outcomes, especially in the group of immigrant and minority youth. Another

aspect of cultural complexity is gender relations: female participants can be coerced into

focusing on relational repair instead of structural problems (poverty, abuse, etc.) (Boyd, 2025).

These instances demonstrate why facilitation should consider the experiences of the participants

that are culturally sensitive.

Net-Widening and System Creep

This is because instead of substituting punitive action, RJ will accidentally increase the

extent of involvement in the system, a process referred to as net-widening. Fulham et al. (2023)

also pinpoint the fact that, in some cases, the incorporation of RJ into formal systems results in

so-called hybrid models that use restorative practices and surveillance or probationary

supervision. This may expose low-risk youth who may not even have to be involved in justice to

unjustified monitoring. Experience in the United Kingdom and elsewhere indicates that the

broadening of RJ in the absence of stringent eligibility requirements may raise aggregate justice

11

system contact, watering down the desired gains. The same statement is made by Boyd (2025),

who states that success rates are inflated by self-selection bias since more of the compliant youth

will be more likely to participate, whereas the riskier population will be excluded.

Implementation Barriers

Another barrier to the effectiveness of RJ is the resource limitations. Lack of fidelity to

programs through poor training of trainers and involvement of community members can

diminish the effectiveness by 20 percent (Fulham et al., 2023). Another difficulty is victim

engagement: whereas programs such as Make-it-Right boasted of 95% agreement fulfilment

(Shem-Tov et al., 2022), other RJ programs face a high rate of victim engagement failure,

particularly with severe injuries. Vooren et al. (2023) discovered that Halt had not conducted

enough intervention intensity with an average of less than 20 hours of assignments per youth to

change the trajectories of most youth. This implies that surface level or under-invested programs

run the risk of becoming mere dance instead of being a practice of change.

Methodological Limitations

There are also criticisms of the measure of the outcomes RJ should have. Recidivism is a

measurement value vital to measure but does not reflect the greater interests of healing,

accountability, and reintegration. Fulham et al. (2023) state that the excessive focus on

reoffending masks the fact that the key outcome of RJ is a substantial increase in victim

satisfaction and procedural fairness. In addition, most of the assessments have a short follow-up,

limited sample size, or variable definitions of recidivism. The Halt study, as an example,

identified the outcomes after one year of follow-up of the program, and no long-term desistance

12

was examined (Vooren et al., 2023). These types of restrictions complicate cross-study

comparisons, and may result in excessive or opposing outcomes.

Addressing Critiques

System reform and program adjustments are the answers to the problems. Necessary

equity-based policies that can turn around racial disparities are mandatory cultural competency

training of the facilitators and open referral systems. The measures that must be taken in order to

ensure that the program is authentic are standardization of procedures, facilitators and extreme

preparation and funding. RJ-hosted programs such as mentoring or trauma-informed care were

successful in Ohio for the Behavioral Health/Juvenile Justice program and appear to be

promising with regard to the complex needs of the offender (Boyd, 2025). Finally, the evaluation

systems have to be expanded to cover the outcomes other than recidivism like victim

satisfaction, community trust and long-term reintegration.

Recent Discussions and Future Directions

The public discussion and recent studies are shaping the overall opinion of the restorative

justice (RJ) as a possibly promising but developing alternative to juvenile justice reforms.

Contemporary discourses pay attention to the enthusiasm of the capability of RJ to reduce

recidivism and its constraints, in particular, regarding violent offenses and access equity.

The latest meta-analyses are cautiously optimistic. Syahwami and Hamirul (2024)

emphasize that the effects of RJ in the youth are greater compared to those of the adult

population, particularly, when the programs are culturally adapted and correspond to the rules of

restorative programs. On the same note, Fulham et al. (2023) note that although the victim

satisfaction and the accountability of the offender increase marginally, RJ enhances both. These

13

findings seem to fit into the ongoing discussion of policy in the United States where diversion

programs are increasing in number because of the over-incarceration issue and limited budgets

(Boyd, 2025).

These debates are also informed by case studies. RJ has been proven to be viable in mid-

level felonies in the Make-it-Right program in San Francisco, where the reductions in rearrest are

long-term (Shem-Tov et al., 2022). The Halt program in the Netherlands, in contrast, provokes

doubts regarding the program fidelity and unintended harms, including increased reoffending

rates and educational setbacks (Vooren et al., 2023). These mixed results demonstrate the need to

implement interventions in a manner that is sensitive to a local setting and to provide adequate

intensity and support.

The promoters of hybrid practices that combine RJ with the trauma-informed care,

mentorship, and behavioral health services include the practitioners. Such strategies are used

because it is acknowledged that delinquency is frequently a result of poor childhood experiences

and structural disadvantage (Boyd, 2025). Online solutions, including online meetings, can

increase the coverage of RJ in rural or under-resourced communities and the strict randomized

research can help understand how it affects violent offenders.

Conclusion and Recommendations

RJ provides a plausible substitute to the punitive juvenile systems, and the results in the

reduction of recidivism with consistent but significant margins and a significant improvement in

fairness, accountability, and satisfaction of the victim (Fulham et al., 2023; Syahwami and

Hamirul, 2024). Examples of both lasting effects include San Francisco Make-it-Right case study

and mixed effects due to the Dutch Halt program (Shem-Tov et al., 2022; Vooren et al., 2023).

14

The recommendations are the necessity of policymakers to focus more on RJ among low- to

mid-risk youth and expand the trials of violent cases, combine RJ and trauma-informed and

behavioral health services, and implement equity audits in order to provide equitable access.

They must as well invest in partnership with communities and training of facilitators to maintain

fidelity and cultural responsiveness.

15

References

Boyd, L. (2025). Restorative Justice Approaches to Reducing Recidivism Among Juvenile

Offenders.

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/677780/azu_etd_hr_2025_0016_sip1_m.p

df?sequence=1

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.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29150/w29150.pdf

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, 17488958231215228.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/17488958231215228

Syahwami, S., & Hamirul, H. (2024). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of restorative justice

programs in reducing recidivism: A global perspective. Enigma in Law, 2(1), 64-74.

https://www.enigma.or.id/index.php/law/article/download/55/55

Vooren, M., Rud, I., Cornelisz, I., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H.

(2023). The effects of a restorative justice programme (Halt) on educational outcomes and

16

recidivism of young people. Journal of experimental criminology, 19(3), 691-711.

https://www.paradigmpress.org/le/article/download/864/742