The Utility of Restorative Justice in Urban
Communities For Afro Americans Males 12-17
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
Restorative justice has emerged as a new paradigm of justice achieving
considerable prominence in the international community as government leader’s grapple
over ways to effectively address the juvenile justice phenomenon (Lee, 2009; McGarrell
& Hipple, 2007; Stahlkopf, 2009; Verrecchia & Hutzell, 2010). Generally, it is
recognized that contemporary justice systems are in need of a major resurrection, and this
is especially true for the juvenile justice system in the United States (Webb, 2009).
Successful restorative justice programs have the potential to restore the positive balance
within the community (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007) and facilitate a bonding relationship
among the victim, the offender, and the community (Priban, 2009). Restorative justice
programs are defined as the activities or programs which promote a consensus return to
justice by the victim, offender, and the community reaffirming principles infringed upon
by transgression committed on the community (Wenzel et al., 2008, p. 381).
The restorative justice program that this study will focus on is the Community
Conferencing Center (CCC) in Baltimore. The CCC can be broadly defined by its
capability to implement effective community conferencing programs in large urban
communities that embrace the core principles of the restorative justice process. This is
realized by CCC capability to provide training and services for jurisdictions both
nationally and abroad that focus on conflict management strategies in multiple
environments. In addition, CCC has worked in harmony over the past 10 years with
Maryland Department of Juvenile Service, police, and courts. As a result, the
collaborative partnership has facilitated over 7,000 young offenders, victims, and
community in successfully resolving conflicts within their respective communities with
Community Conferencing. More importantly, the CCC work is recognized with 60%
lower recidivism rates for young offenders versus youth processed through the traditional
juvenile justice system (Community Conferencing Center, 2008).
Restorative justice programs may alleviate many of the ills associated with the
juvenile justice system in the United States. The juvenile justice system in its current
condition presents a quandary for youth as well as stakeholders in the community.
According to Zehr (1990), restorative justice can be defined as a process of justice, which
utilizes all stakeholders to address and right the wrongs committed by transgressions.
Restorative justice at its core relies on a philosophical approach to justice deeply-rooted
in humanistic principles (Braithwaite, 2006). Similarly, Umbreit and Armour (2011)
emphasized that restorative justice programs illuminate human rights values, human
dignity, relationships, community, freedom, which empowers the victim, offender, and
the community. Evidence suggests problems with the juvenile justice system are
particularly prominent for youth of color, especially African Americans who are at a
disadvantage because of their over representation in the justice system (Chauhan,
Reppucci, & Turkheimer, 2009; Kakade et al., 2012; McCarter, 2009; National Council
on Crime and Delinquency, 2007; Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmier, & Valentine, 2009).
Mendel (2011) identified that, “Among youth adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court,
African American youth are more likely than White youth to be placed and, if placed,
more likely to be sent to a state youth correctional facility, rather than a private group
home or residential treatment center” (p. 23). Ultimately, the impact of these disparities
potentially places African American youth, their families, and society at a disadvantage.
In the past juvenile justice practitioners and academics alike have wrestled and lamented
over ways to decrease juvenile delinquency. Effective restorative justice programming
provides alternative intervention, thus reducing youth involvement in the juvenile justice
system. Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, and Platow (2008) argued the restorative justice
approach provides youthful offenders an opportunity to give back to both the victim and
community. This benefit is in addition to evidence, which strongly suggests restorative
justice, rather than punitive justice reduces recidivism in youth.
Priban (2009) proposed restorative justice programs encompass balancing the
moral fabric of our society by engaging stakeholders in personal commitment, moral
integrity/obligation that build trusting relationships for the common good. More
importantly, however, he asserted the goal of restorative justice is to affect future
behavior of youthful offenders (pp. 41-42). Gromet and Darley (2006) pointed out
empirical research supports the notion that restorative justice reduces recidivism as well
as increases victim satisfaction, contrary to traditional methods of justice. They noted
restorative justice benefits both the victim and offender. Hill (2008) indicated restorative
justice is flexible and embraces genuine alternatives for justice, versus the more rigid
traditional practices.
Hutchinson (2006) identified restorative justice has gained increased popularity in
recent decades as an alternative measure for juvenile justice practitioners seeking a tool to
reduce recidivism rates among youth offenders. The theory of restorative justice has
captivated the attention of academic scholars, researchers, policy makers,
activist/advocates, and governments alike. Major tenets of restorative justice that make it
a compelling alternative for juvenile justice practitioners to reduce recidivism include the
following:
1. Emphasis on the role of victims in the justice process.
2. The involvement of all the parties concerned with the criminal event
(including the victim, the offender, supporters of each, and the wider
community).
3. A central focus on ‘solving’ crime ‘problems’ by restoring balance among all
affected parties, and successfully reintegrating victims and offenders back into
their communities. (p. 450)
The concept of successful restorative justice programs that reduce the recidivism
of youth is deeply rooted in its capacity to forge a common balance within the
community. Maloney (2007) argued that community restorative justice programming
should encompass proactive approaches that reduce youth involvement in the juvenile
justice system. To be effective, restorative justice programs should be in balance with
community safety, provide accountability for youthful offenders’ behavior, and enhance
youth development and core competencies. Programming strategies that directly focus on
long-range technical job skills for delinquent youth would ultimately afford youth an
opportunity to become productive members of society (Maloney, 2007). The perception
is that an effective restorative justice program enthusiastically embraces the entire
community in the restorative process, creating a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
According to Priban (2009), research findings confirm the effectiveness of
restorative justice: It reduces recidivism, is cost effective, and enhances the social/human
capital of victim, offender, and the community (Priban, 2009). The myriad complexities
that directly contribute to youth involvement in the juvenile justice system necessitate the
community of stakeholders engage in broad-based efforts to address these issues.
Effective restorative justice programming can potentially be essential for the success of
juvenile justice systems because of the flexibility in letting the community participate in
meting out just desert for youthful transgressions. Successful restorative justice practices
increase core competencies of youthful offenders, potentially reducing their involvement,
as well as continued recidivism in the justice system (Maloney, 2007; Verrecchia &
Hutzell, 2010). On the surface, it appears that an extensive range of opportunities is
needed to ensure the success of the juvenile justice system, including restorative,
intervention, rehabilitative, and vocational programs.
Background
Pribán (2009) argued the emergence of restorative justice is partially due to
society’s dissatisfaction with contemporary criminal justice practices. The goal of
restorative justice is to influence future behavior toward offenders, and not to inflict
punishment for their transgressions. Pribán also suggested restorative justice will emerge
as a model that delivers economic utility and moral harmony for diverse stakeholders
within their respective communities. Pribán illuminated the comprehensive effectiveness
of restorative justice as an alternative for society in general. Restorative justice practices
have the potential for providing the community with an enhanced opportunity for
selfregulation and self-healing.
Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, and Platow (2008) suggested that restorative justice is
an emerging alternative strategy in the criminal justice system for reducing recidivism.
Wenzel et al. substantiated their augment with empirical data supporting the notion that
restorative justice practices provide youth opportunities to give back to the victim and
community. They also identified several methods to facilitate this process, including,
punishment, community service, monetary remuneration, and other consensual forms of
restoration. Restorative justice is facilitated by shared values within the community
whereby retributive justice is meted out for more serious transgressions. Restorative
justice practices underpin the notion that several components of the restorative justice
may be valuable in reducing recidivism for youth.
Equally important, at the core of restorative justice programming is the
multifaceted approach that engages the community of stakeholders in a comprehensive
effort to reduce youth involvement in the juvenile justice system. Doerr (2008) noted the
developmental audit is a strategy deeply-rooted in the capacity to effectively engage the
youth, the clinician, and parents in collaborative intervention strategies paramount in
fitting needs of youth. Further, Doerr argued for youth engagement in restorative justice
programming, which reduces their involvement in the juvenile justice system. Similarly,
Hill (2009) suggested restorative justice is flexible and embraces genuine alternatives for
justice versus the more rigid traditional practices. Hill also identified that restorative
justice at its core parallels both utilitarianism and efficiency theory. Hill further proposed
successful restorative justice practices place youth back into the community with a
renewed sense of purpose, in addition to reducing recidivism rates.
Currently, the American juvenile justice system is failing at meeting needs of
delinquent youth and stakeholders in the community (Maloney, 2007). In fact,
implementing successful restorative justice community service programming for youth
may be an essential component in reducing delinquency. Maloney (2007) argued for
community programming that encompasses adult supervision and victim restitution
stipends that benefit victims of crime. Further programming strategies directly focusing
on long-range job skills ultimately afford youth an opportunity to become productive
members of the community. In general, the literature identified successful restorative
justice programs are a practical method that minimizes youth involvement in the juvenile
justice system. However, literature has yet to explore how restorative justice programs
could reduce recidivism. Thus, this study seeks to assess the utility of restorative justice
programs in reducing recidivism for African American males 12-17 in an urban
community.
Problem Statement
Juvenile delinquency continues to be a major social problem in the United States.
The most recent crime statistics report juveniles are being arrested at alarmingly high
rates, with 2.11 million being arrested in 2008 alone (Puzzanchera, 2009). The juvenile
justice system in the United States in its current condition presents a quandary for
juveniles, their families, and the community in general. One of the more salient problems
with the juvenile justice system in the United States is its staggering incarceration rate,
which poses a significant problem for youth exposed to the juvenile justice system, and
the community as a whole. McMillan (2010) noted, “Although the United States accounts
for only 5% of the world’s total population, America prisons house 25% of the world’s
prison population” (p.10). Further shortcomings of the juvenile justice system still hinge
on its propensity for disproportionate representation of youth of color (Kakade et al.,
2012; McCarter, 2009; Vazsonyi & Chen, 2010). Equally important, juvenile justice
practitioners and policy makers do not appear to know a fair and just reaction to youthful
transgression within their respective communities and how best to determine the fate of
these wayward youths.
From an historical perspective, juvenile justice practitioners have been ambiguous
in their approach to facilitate the needs of the youthful offender, particularly those of
color. In this study, the focus is on the examination of the utility of restorative justice
programs as an alternative measure for reducing the recidivism of African American
male’s age 12 to 17 in an urban community, specifically for Baltimore City. Although the
existing literature on restorative justice systems does not provide any concrete solutions
for effective restorative justice for these youth, it does serve as a link that suggests
addressing the following concerns. Future research concerning restorative justice
programs should focus on wide-ranging, evidence-based programs that reduce youth
involvement within the juvenile justice system. Existing literature (Kakade et al., 2012;
McCarter, 2009; Vazsonyi & Chen, 2010) suggests that recidivism should be viewed as it
relates to a particular community with the intent to focus on positive outcomes for all
stakeholders. Existing literature also supports the assertion that juvenile justice programs
should program facilitators with continuous training in serving culturally and
geographically diverse communities. For restorative programs to be successful, effective
ways to connect the community of stakeholders in broad-range strategies is paramount,
thus, reducing youth involvement in the system.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand the utility of
restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism for African American males ages 12
to 17 in Baltimore City’s urban community. Baltimore City was chosen because of its
demographic location, which represents a large amount of African American males ages
12 to 17 in a sizable urban community. Equally important, evidence suggests that there
are problems with the juvenile justice system, particularly for reducing recidivism for
youth of color. The case study has significant potential for facilitating this process
because it embraces the capacity to study the phenomenon associated with restorative
justice. It underscored ways to identify and evaluate the usefulness of restorative juvenile
justice’s program strategies, particularly in urban environments for African American
male youth. Further, it focused on identifying best practices associated with
evidencedbased programs, which are proven effective in the Baltimore City region for
youthful offenders. The development of these strategies can be facilitated by determining
the overall effectiveness of restorative justice programs within their respective
communities.
Research Questions
The central research question that guided this study was: How do restorative
justice programs for African American males 12-17 reduce recidivism rates and lessen
their involvement in the juvenile justice system? Subquestions included:
1. How do evidenced-based restorative justice programs for African American
males 12 to 17 in an urban environment affect the involvement of youth in the
juvenile justice system?
2. How do you describe an effective/successful restorative justice program?
3. What do you perceive as the challenges of restorative justice programs?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework that shaped this dissertation was the restorative justice
theory. Braithwaite (2006) has advocated the notion that has become a theoretical central
theme for restorativists, which defines restorative justice as more than a theory it is a
continuous process defined by its rituals of repentance that restore victims, offenders, and
community through consensus restoration (pp. 397-401). This theory provided a lens for
considering the utility of alternative sentencing for juvenile offenders, particularly those
of color in urban environments. From a theoretical perspective, it is likely that the
underpinnings of restorative justice programming will be accomplished through a
theoretical lens that is used to examine well-documented and successful programming.
The impetus behind this proposition is the concept that studying successful restorative
justice programs increases juvenile justice practitioner's chances of reducing youth
involvement in the justice system. The implementation of effective evidence-based
restorative justice programs has the potential to reduce youth involvement in the justice
system. In a similar fashion, successful evidence-based programs will increase the human
and social capital of youth, thus supporting them in being productive members of society.
Nature of the Study
This research used a qualitative case study approach to facilitate this study on the
utility of restorative justice in reducing recidivism for African American males’ ages1217
in urban communities. The study provided an opportunity to research the restorative
justice phenomena of choice as an alternative to punitive justice in Baltimore Cities’
urban community. Case study provides an opportunity for using purposeful sampling to
study a bounded system/one case, and or multiple bounded systems/cases over time
(Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002). In particular, the intrinsic case study design, which
focuses on one unique specific case, will be used (Creswell, 2007, pp. 73-74). Purposeful
sampling will be facilitated through intensity sampling strategies that describe the impact
that restorative justice programs have on the community. Generally, intensity sampling is
explained by (Creswell, 2007) as “information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon
intensely but not extremely” (p. 127).
It is also important to note that the case study was preferred because it provides
an opportunity for face-to-face interaction that facilitates an inductive data analysis
approach. Qualitative case studies are deductive in nature. Further, case study provides a
natural setting whereby the researcher can garner various data through interviews,
documents, archival data, and observation. As a result, the information-rich data can be
reviewed collectively for emerging themes (Creswell, 2009, pp. 175-176). Qualitative
data analysis from the information garnered will be leveraged subjectively describing the
effects of restorative justice. Broadly, this was a concrete approach providing an
opportunity to examine an existing evidenced-based restorative justice program proven to
be effective in urban environments for African American males’ ages12-17.
Computer software programs such as NVivo 8 were used during the analysis
process to code text or other elements of the data sources and to manipulate data and
graphically displaying codes. Both traditional and software-assisted strategies (Patton,
2002) have the potential to enhance the reliability, quality, and credibility of the research
findings. With this in mind, a final decision as to how coding will be accomplished was
made based on the volume of data that was collected.
Definitions
Evidenced-Based Practice (EBP): It entails the capability of implementing what
has been proven to be scientifically effective in a real world setting (Rodriguez & Baille,
2010, p. 43).
Family Group Conferencing (FGC) or Community Conferencing: FGCs involve a
meeting between the offender, accompanied by his or her supporters, and the victim, also
accompanied by his or her supporters. The meetings are organized and run by a trained
facilitator with community support, and include a discussion of the incident and the harm
brought to both the victim and all the supporters. The goal of the conference is to allow
forgiveness, in addition to the community solving the problem that benefits the common
good for the community (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005, p. 16).
Net Widening: Net-widening refers to the unintended increase in people in the
criminal justice system due to new practices (Prichard, 2010, p. 113).
Recidivism: Recidivism can be described as the propensity of offenders to
reoffend after their initial contact with the justice system (Stoodley, 2010, p. 86).
Reintegrative Shaming: Reintegrative shaming is a theory that emphasizes that
reintegrative shaming is respectful shaming that prevents transgression in the community
(Hays, 2006).
Restorative Justice: Restorative justice is a consensus return to justice by the
victim, offender, and the community reaffirming principles infringed upon by
transgression committed on the community (Wenzel et al., 2008, p. 381).
Retributive Justice: Retributive justice proposes that punishment be meted out in
direct proportion to the transgression committed on the community (Wenzel et al., 2008,
p. 381).
Shared Identity: Shared identity describes the sensitivity that people have based
on a shared perception and value consensus between the victim and offender in meting
out punishment (Gromet & Daley, 2009, p. 52).
Stakeholders: Stakeholders are described as individuals directly affected by the
transgressions of the offender, including the victim, offender, their family, community,
and the justice system (McCarter, 2009).
Therapeutic Jurisprudence: “Therapeutic jurisprudence is "the use of social
science to study the extent to which a legal rule or practice promotes the psychological
and physical well-being of the people it affects” (Schma et al. as cited in Sellers, 2009, p.
437).
Victim Offender Mediation (VOM): Is a form of justice whereby the victim meets
with the offender and/or family in safe a face-to-face conference facilitated by a mediator
aimed to restore a consensus restoration for his or her transgressions (Bradshaw &
Roseborough, 2005, p. 16).
Zero tolerance Policy: Over the past decade, many schools have adopted
zerotolerance policies to curtail negative student behavior, but according to the American
Bar Association’s zero-tolerance policy report: Zero tolerance means that a school will
automatically and severely punish a student for various infractions (Zaslaw, 2010, p. 10).
Assumptions
1. All information garnered throughout this qualitative case study was accurate and
current.
2. Juvenile justice practitioners participating in this study spoke freely and honestly
during personal interview session.
Scope and Delimitations
The scope this project encompassed was examining effectiveness of restorative
justice programs in reducing recidivism rates for African American males ages 12 to 17,
specifically in urban communities. This population was specifically targeted because it
has been determined that there are more juvenile male African American offenders
between ages 12 to 17 in urban communities. Specifically, for the purpose of this study,
the focus will be directed toward effective restorative justice programs within the
Baltimore City region because of the demographic location, which facilitates the
implementation of the study.
This study did not include females, participants who are not African American,
and participants who do not fall into the 12-17 age range because reports have identified
that there are more juvenile male African American offenders between ages 12 to 17. As
it is believed that males have different perspectives as opposed to their female
counterparts, this study focused on male African Americans. Studying the utility of
restorative justice for those who fall outside of the limits of this research could be
meaningful, but time and resource restraints precluded the inclusion of any other groups
in this study.
Limitations
The study has several limitations. For example, the study used one specific case to
take a broad view on the impact of the restorative justice phenomenon on the community.
Potentially design and/or mythological limitations of the study are that the researcher was
the data collection instrument, in addition to using preexisting data. Furthermore,
qualitative research is broad in scope and may be affected by fiscal and time constraints
related to the study (Patton, 2002). It is also important to note that I work in a juvenile
detention center in a large urban environment, which creates the potential for bias of the
study. With this in mind, however, I worked to establish transparency regarding my
biases in the onset of the study design and used bracketing techniques to separate my
feelings and opinions for the data.
Significance
The significance of this study may prove to be wide-ranging because of the
potential benefit that restorative justice provides youth, the juvenile justice system, and
many stakeholders in the community. This goal can be achieved by addressing the
existing challenges faced with finding and implementing effective restorative justice
programming in urban communities. The study also has the potential to identify what
programs work and what programs do not work. Moreover, the study may be a vehicle
that drives juvenile justice practitioners, policy makers, and academics to understanding
characteristics of successful restorative justice programs for youth in urban communities.
Furthermore, it gives juvenile justice practitioners a method to view and evaluate
restorative justice programming effectiveness in reducing recidivism rates, particularly
youth of color in urban communities.
Broadly, the related literature has focused on the practical need for the juvenile
justice system in the United States to shift to restorative justice practices, particularly for
African American males between ages12 to 17 in urban communities. In addition, the
literature suggests that the utility of restorative justice on the community is that it reduces
recidivism, and it improves the psychological dynamics associated with victim/youthful
offender and the community. The result of this study is significant in addressing the need
to have a restorative justice program for juveniles.
Social Change
Effective restorative justice programs benefit the victim and builds trusting
relationships that manifest in creating a win-win situation for all significant stakeholders
in their respective community. Equally important, restorative justice (Priban, 2009)
reduces economic stress and increases the moral expectation within the community.
Accordingly, effective restorative justice programs aim to restore victims/communities
back to homeostasis and assist youthful offenders to become law-abiding citizens in their
respective community. The results of this study could encourage individuals to establish
lasting relationships between stakeholders. The findings of this study could help establish
effective restorative justice programs.
Restorative justice reduces economic stress and increases the moral expectation
within the community. Restorative justice at its core is important because it underpins the
human and social capital of the victim, the youthful offender, and the community as a
whole. Restorative justice can also have a major impact on youth in the juvenile justice
system, as it affords them an alternative form of justice. The significance of this study is
deeply-rooted in core values of restorative justice principles which embrace the notion
that the community works in harmony with the victim and offender for consensus
resolution. More important, however, is the fact that the literature starkly suggests
effective restorative justice programming reduces the likelihood of youth languishing in
detention centers throughout the United States.
Summary
Chapter 1 provided a discussion on the background of restorative justice
programs. This chapter also highlighted the gap in literature through the problem
statement that this study sought to address. Moreover, this chapter provided the purpose
of the study as well as the specific research questions that will be considered in this study.
In addition, this chapter introduced the theoretical framework, which focuses on the
utility of restorative justice in reducing recidivism for African American males between
ages12 to 17 in urban communities. Furthermore, it addressed the nature for the study as
being a bounded qualitative case study, followed by the definitions, assumptions, scope,
and delimitations. It also addressed the study’s limitations, in addition to the significance
of the study as it relates to positive social change for youth, their families, and the
community in general. Chapter 1 highlighted the practical need for juvenile justice
systems in the United States to transition to restorative justice as a new paradigm. The
literature indicates that restorative justice reduces youth participation in the juvenile
justice system. Further the literature suggests this is true for youth of color, and in
particular for African American males between ages12 to 17, in urban communities. The
literature also concretely advocates the utility of restorative justice in the community as it
reduces recidivism, and it improves the psychological dynamics associated with
victim/youthful offender and the community.
Chapter 2 will examine current theoretical and empirical literature pertinent to the
restorative justice phenomenon from multiple points of view. In addition, the focus was
to review literature from a qualitative perspective; therefore, better understanding the
significance of the restorative justice phenomenon, particularly within urban communities
for African American males ages 12 to 17. This includes significant literature relevant to
address the research questions, and illuminate the background, problem statement, and
the purpose of the study. Furthermore, Chapter 3 will provide a discussion on the
methodology considered for this study. This chapter will include a discussion on the
appropriateness of the research design as well as the data collection and data analysis
procedures that will be used to answer the research questions. Chapter 4 will provide a
summary and the analysis of data collected while Chapter 5 will provide the discussion
on conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Historically, restorative justice may be the most ancient system for carrying out
justice, arguably common to all societies at some time (Hill, 2009). The contemporary
restorative justice phenomenon grew out of victim-offender mediation programs started
by Mennonite communities in North America during the 1970s (Hill, 2009).The first
restorative justice programs in the United States emerged in the late 1970s (Umbreit &
Armour, 2011). Victim-offender mediation is the oldest and most extensively utilized
type of restorative justice and as such has accumulated the largest empirical evidence
base (Abrams, Umbreit, & Gordon, 2006). Conferencing, another form of restorative
justice, includes conflict resolution techniques that are essential to the cultures of many
indigenous groups, including the Maoris of New Zealand, Native Americans, Hawaiians,
and Africans (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2007).
Maori culture is most often mentioned in relation to restorative justice. New
Zealand is widely recognized as the model for integrating restorative justice into the
criminal-justice system (Maxwell & Hayes, 2006; Maxwell & Morris, 2006; Mutter,
Shemmings, Dugmore, & Hyare, 2008). Australia as well as New Zealand has emerged
as a pioneer in restorative justice, leading to the description of the Pacific region as “the
cradle of modern restorative justice” (Maxwell & Hayes, 2006, p. 128). Most of the
restorative justice programs center on youthful offenders although there are programs for
adult offenders to a lesser extent. Given its origins in Maori culture, cultural sensitivity is
an essential feature of the New Zealand model (Maxwell & Morris, 2006). In societies
where there are differences in race, culture, ethnicity, gender, and social class, cultural
sensitivity plays a role in the success of the restorative justice process (Daly, 2008).
However, Baffour (2006) illuminated research on restorative justice comes from New
Zealand, Australia, Europe, and Canada and there is a dearth of knowledge of how
programs based on restorative justice principles affect African American and Latino
youth and young women in the United States. Six years later, it appears this observation
is equally true.
Restorative justice arose in New Zealand as a response to the overrepresentation
of Maori youth in the justice system (Maxwell & Morris, 2006). A widespread issue in
the United States is the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the juvenile
justice system (Baffour, 2006; Hartney & Silva, 2007; Kakade et al., 2012; McCarter,
2009; Vazsonyi & Chen, 2010). Studies consistently show that the disparities cannot be
explained by racial or ethnic differences in behavior. More than half the respondents
(53%) in a survey conducted by the Center for Children’s Law and Policy (CCLP) said
they felt that African American youth are treated more harshly than European American
youth for the same offenses and almost two-thirds felt that poor youth received
inequitable treatment compared to middle-class youth (National Juvenile Justice
Network, 2008). Fair and equitable treatment for all parties and individuals and
community empowerment are cornerstones of restorative justice programs (Hill, 2009;
Justice Action, 2012; Schetky, 2009; Sellers & Arrigo, 2009; Stahlkopf, 2009; Umbreit et
al., 2007). Nevertheless, it is not surprisingly that restorative justice is frequently
advocated in the context of reforms regarding the U.S. juvenile justice system. In
Australia, restorative justice is at the center of an initiative for massive reform of the
justice system (Justice Action, 2012).
The U.S. juvenile justice system has traditionally been based on the contrasting
paradigms of retributive justice and rehabilitation or treatment (Dziedzic, 2008). In the
retributive model a juvenile offense is defined as a crime against the state and the
emphasis is on punishing the offender. Retributive justice is based on the flawed
assumption that punishment is a deterrent to crime. In reality, the retributive model may
increase the risk of recidivism by diminishing opportunities for education, employment,
and community involvement, in addition to depriving youth opportunities for finding role
models for prosocial behavior (Schetky, 2009). According to public opinion surveys, the
American public overwhelmingly favors rehabilitation and treatment for youthful
offenders, even for those who commit violent offenses (National Juvenile Justice
Network, 2008; Varma, 2006). Further the vast majority of adults (89%) in the CCLP
survey agreed that practically all youth who commit crimes have the potential to change
their behavior (National Juvenile Justice Network, 2008). Most denounced is the practice
of incarcerating youth without rehabilitative services as well as incarcerating them with
adults. There was decisive support (76%) for interventions that keep nonviolent youth in
their own communities, and preferably in their own homes receiving services under close
supervision (62%; National Juvenile Justice Network, 2008).
Despite the lack of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of rehabilitation
programs for youthful offenders, public support remains strong (Cullen, 2006). Programs
built on restorative justice principles represent a viable alternative to the traditional
paradigms and there is increasing evidence of their effectiveness. Restorative justice
practices are harmonious with psychologically-based interventions in addressing conduct
problems of adolescents (Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, & Ibrahim, 2012).
Individually targeted rehabilitation services based on client assessment are incorporated
into a restorative justice model (Tjaden & Martinez, 2007). Competency development,
another essential component of positive youth development, is also consistent with the
restorative justice philosophy (Maloney, 2007; Verrecchia & Hutzell, 2010). Restorative
community service provides young offenders with the opportunity to earn redemption,
acquire skills, and prove their merit and it facilitates a bond between the youth and the
community (Maloney, 2007). Moral reasoning is a critical competency among young
offenders, which can be enhanced by their active participation in the restorative justice
processes of victim-offender mediation or family group conferencing (Verrecchia &
Hutzell, 2010).
Juvenile crime in the United States peaked during the 1990s (Farber, 2010). In
many states the rise in juvenile crime facilitated the endorsement of policies imposing
harsher penalties on youthful offenders including referral to the adult criminal justice
system. Retributive justice became the dominant but counterproductive model for
juvenile justice. Punitive policies dominated the educational system as well as the
juvenile justice system. Harsh and inequitable school discipline policies have been
implicated in the “school-to-prison pipeline” that contributes to the overrepresentation of
African American youth in the juvenile justice system (Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, &
Valentine, 2009). By the turn of the new millennium there was a definite trend away from
retributive practices and toward restorative justice (Farber, 2010).
Reforming the juvenile justice system has been described as a challenging but
imperative endeavor. The adoption of evidence-based practices is regarded as a pivotal
element in successful juvenile justice reform (Rodriguez & Baille, 2010; Townsend,
2011). Programs based on restorative justice principles typically emerge among the
recommended strategies. Restorative justice is referenced in the context of therapeutic
jurisprudence, which strives “to understand how the law can act as a healing agent”
(Sellers & Arrigo, 2009, p. 437). The aim of restorative justice is to promote healing
among all parties affected by the offense including the victim, the offender, and their
perspective communities.
Literature Search Strategy
The literature presented in this review is drawn from the following EBSCO
databases: Academic Search Premier, MasterFILE Premier, PsycINFO, and
PsycARTICLES. Keywords used either individually or in conjunction include: restorative
justice, juvenile justice, criminal justice, community justice, juvenile offenders, youth
offenders, delinquency, race, ethnicity, African Americans, disparities, communities,
neighborhoods, schools, policies, practices, programs, interventions, victim-offender
mediation, and family group conferences.
Restorative Justice
Zehr’s (1990) definition of restorative justice is widely accepted by advocates of
restorative justice practices. Restorative justice is defined as “a process to involve, to the
extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify
and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as
possible” (Zehr, 1990, p. 130). The conceptualization of restorative justice as a process is
consistently emphasized in the literature. Broadly speaking, restorative justice can be
regarded as a philosophical approach to justice based on humanistic principles
(Braithwaite, 2006). A characteristic of restorative justice is that rather than emphasizing
the flaws or weaknesses of offenders and their victims, restorative justice is intended to
capitalize on their strengths and their capacity to openly deal with the harm that has been
done (Umbreit et al., 2007). The active involvement of the victim in the justice process is
a unique feature of restorative justice which helps replace the feelings of helplessness or
unfairness crime victims often feel with a sense of empowerment and restoration of
wholeness. Ideally, the experience of victim-offender meetings humanizes both parties in
each other’s eyes (Abrams, Umbreit, & Gordon, 2006). Restorative justice programs is
grounded in human rights values, emphasizing human dignity, relationships, community,
freedom, and empowerment from both the perspectives of the victims and the offenders
(Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) is the pioneer program model in the
United States, adopted by 19 states by the early 21st century (Farber, 2010). BARJ is built
on seven key principles of restorative justice described by a panel of experts at a 1996
teleconference sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (Farber, 2010). The
seven principles are: (a) crime is an offense against human relationships, (b) victims and
the community are central to justice processes, (c) the first priority of justice processes is
helping victims, (d) the second priority of justice processes is to restore the community to
the extent possible, (e) the offender has a personal responsibility to the victims and the
community for the offenses committed, (f) the offender will develop enhanced
competency as a result of the restorative justice experience, and (g) stakeholders share
responsibility for restorative justice via partnerships for action.
Umbreit and Armour (2011) emphasized that in restorative justice the focus is on
the harm that has been done as opposed to the rules that have been transgressed. They
argued that restorative justice processes should be equal in addressing the concerns of
both the victims and the offenders. Throughout the process, there should be respect and
dignity for all parties, including the victims and offenders, community members and other
stakeholders, and justice professionals. Whereas the obligations may be difficult for the
offenders to fulfill, an important issue is that the obligations are attainable and the
offenders are aware that they are not intended to be punitive or hurtful. Equally
important, is the fact that exchanging of ideas, discussion, and collaboration are
encouraged throughout the restorative justice process.
One of the major shortcomings of the American criminal justice system is the
failure to reintegrate offenders into society (Hill, 2009). Restorative justice promotes
reintegration rather than isolation of the offender (Umbreit et al., 2007). A White Paper
titled No More Excuses issued by the Home Office in the United Kingdom frames
restorative justice in terms of restoration, reintegration, and responsibility (Newbury,
2008). Responsibility emphasizes the role of young offenders and their parents taking
responsibility for preventing future offending. By definition, reintegration, denoting
“rejoining the law-abiding community” is built onto the framework (Newbury, 2008, p.
135). Restoration implies that the young offender apologizes to the victim and makes
amends for the harm that has been done. According to Schetky (2009), restorative justice
is not a panacea for delinquency; however, it is a highly promising medium for the
reintegration of youth “who have taken a wrong term” in their communities (p. 7).
Reintegrative Shaming
The emphasis of reintegrative shaming is not unwarranted as apologies are quite
important to the victims and can help the victims and the offenders recover from the
harmful effects of the crime (Hayes, 2006). Further, Hayes stated that even without an
apology, there are other features of the restorative justice process that have equal
importance such as making amends by agreeing to make restitution, carrying out work for
the victim, or performing community service. The apology and more broadly the dialogue
characteristic of family group conferencing or victim-offender mediation can be
conceptualized as a repentance ritual, which can be regarded as a type of reintegrative
shaming (Braithwaite, 2006).
Braithwaite (2006) clearly distinguishes reintegrative shaming from shaming
intended to stigmatize the person. In reintegrative shaming the person is treated with
respect and dignity, emphasizing the bad deed and not the person. Reintegrative shaming
is opposed to the notion of shaming someone for the purpose of ostracizing them from
society. Reintegrative shaming culminates in repentance and forgiveness and the
acceptance of the offender into the community. Despite the positive intentions, however,
the terms “shame” or “shaming” can facilitate negative connotations (Hayes, 2006).
Braithwaite (2006) used the term restorative shaming from the perspective of the
relationship of individuals to their community, whereby the offender is supported in
returning to the community. Hayes (2006) preferred the term guilting to shaming, on the
premise that shame focuses on the person whereas guilt focuses on actions. From Hayes’s
perspective, shame may provoke other negative emotions such as anger and resentment
that can encourage defensive behavior and denial of wrongdoing. In contrast, guilt
feelings may reflect “recognition of the other and a desire to repair harms” (Hayes, 2006,
p. 372).
Victim Orientation versus Offender Orientation
There are two perspectives among the proponents of restorative justice (Hurley,
2009). One group focuses on the needs of the victims, giving the foremost priority to
supporting and helping the victims, addressing the victim’s needs, helping them work
through their issues, and encouraging their active involvement in justice processes (Vidal,
2012). Another perspective focuses on the concerns of offenders (Hurley, 2009).
Offender-oriented restorative justice is frequently considered an extension of or addition
to the traditional criminal justice system. From this perspective, restorative justice is often
driven by the offenders’ needs (making amends and changing behavior), which are not
necessarily compatible with the needs of the victim.
A persistent issue is whether restorative justice as it is practiced actually reflects
the principles on which it is based (Braithwaite, 2006; Hayes, 2006; Maxwell & Hayes,
2006; Stahlkopf, 2009). Offender oriented restorative justice is meant to capture the needs
of both the victim and the offender; the offender must make amends but also requires
formal and informal support for rehabilitation and change (Hurley, 2009; Vidal, 2012).
According to Vidal (2012), restorative justice is not offender-based or victimbased
paradigms, but justice-based paradigm. Braithwaite (2006) is an advocate of restorative
justice as a pure model of justice. Nevertheless, a partial model, which synthesizes
restorative justice and retributive justice practices, is more compatible with the existing
criminal justice system and more acceptable to the general public (Gromet &
Darley, 2006, 2009).
Net Widening
A potential problem with the partial model of restorative justice is that it may
result in net widening. Net widening refers to an increase in the number of individuals
coming in contact with the criminal justice system as the unintended consequence of a
new innovation (Prichard, 2010). Net widening can potentially exacerbate existing
discrimination related to race, ethnicity, gender, or social class even though the new
practice was intended to counteract the problem.
Prichard (2010) examined net widening within the context of restorative justice in
a quantitative longitudinal analysis of 50,000 records from Tasmanian criminal justice
records from 1991 to 2002. Prichard found no evidence of net widening as a result of
diversion programs for young Australian offenders. There was a marked decline in court
appearance and concurrent increase in diversions. At the same time, there was a
significant increase in detention orders. One possibility for that phenomenon was that the
courts relied on detention orders as a mechanism for making youths accountable for their
actions. The findings are not directly applicable to the United States because youth
diversion has a long history in Australia, in sharp contrast to the retributive policies that
dominate in the United States (Farber, 2010). Prichard’s (2010) findings, however, show
that net widening may not be a consequence of implementing new juvenile justice
practices. Prichard conducted the study in light of restorative justice policy.
Restorative and Community Justice
Another issue in the implementation of restorative justice is the relationship of
restorative justice and community justice (Umbreit & Armour, 2011; Vidal, 2012). The
synthesis of restorative justice and community justice is essential to BARJ; however, the
two models are not identical although they share similarities. From the standpoint of
restorative justice, the stakeholders include members of the broader community as a
whole. Restorative justice practices should be integrated with community justice, but
restorative justice often operates in isolation as a paradigm (Hearfield & Scott, 2012).
Rather than compromising restorative justice, the result can be a sense of community
building and collective efficacy that contrasts the police surveillance, which can
contribute to the overrepresentation of disadvantaged and minority youth in the juvenile
justice system (Chauhan, Reppucci, & Turkheimer, 2009; Hartney & Silva, 2007).
Community involvement is central to both restorative justice and community justice,
resulting in increases in informal social control and social capital and subsequent
decreases in crime (Ohmer, Warner, & Beck, 2010; Warner, Beck, &Ohmer, 2010).
Probation officers report using strategies based on balanced and restorative justice in their
work with young offenders (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009).
Race, Ethnicity, and the Juvenile Justice System
Risk for Juvenile justice Referral
Despite the persistent disproportionate presence of minority youth in the juvenile-
justice system, Vazsonyi and Chen (2010) observed that few studies have investigated the
relative risk of entry into the juvenile justice system among youths of different ethnic
backgrounds, in addition, have also examined the influence of aggressive behavior in
early childhood. In examining these factors, the researchers sought to create a model of
the developmental trajectory of the risk of entering the juvenile justice system using a
survival analytic technique. The sample comprised 4,679 children and early adolescents
from families of lower and lower-middle socioeconomic status (SES) drawn from a large
longitudinal violence prevention program in the Tucson metropolitan area. More than half
the participants were Latino/a (55.4%). The remaining participants in the diverse sample
were European American (25.8%), Native American (13.6%), African American (4%),
and Asian American (1.3%). The data covered a period of 10 years.
Aggressive behavior was assessed through the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)
Teacher Report Form wherein teachers filled out behaviors checklist based on the
observations of their students (Vazsonyi & Chen, 2010). The analysis included physical
and verbal aggression and anger/hostility, all of which have been uniquely and
independently linked with negative behavioral outcomes. The age of entry into the
juvenile justice system and the reason for the referral were both included in the model.
The analysis revealed that the risk for juvenile justice referral peaks at age 14 after rising
from age 8 onward and then declined. The only effect for ethnicity was that Latino youth
had almost twice the risk of juvenile justice referral than their peers from other ethnic
groups. There were no other ethnic group differences. Male youth had a 23% higher
probability of juvenile justice contact than their female peers did.
As Vazsonyi and Chen (2010) anticipated, the teachers’ appraisals of aggressive
behavior in elementary school emerged as an independent predictor of juvenile justice
risk; in fact, every 1-unit increase in aggression nearly doubled the probability of juvenile
justice referral. One somewhat paradoxical finding was that the youths from higher SES
families were at increased risk for juvenile justice referral. The researchers surmised that
risk taking or social power might account for the pattern which was unexpected but has
also been found in other studies. At the same time, the sample was limited only to
children and youth from relatively lower income backgrounds. Whether the effects for
SES would be different in a sample that covered a broader spectrum of socioeconomic
classes and whether or how that might interact with ethnicity and/or gender are
speculative.
Illegal Behaviors and Criminal Justice Involvement
There is a prevalent acknowledgment that minorities are over-represented in
juvenile and criminal justice systems (Hughes & Bostwick, 2011; Kakade et al., 2012).
Whereas it is possible that the high risk for juvenile justice referral Vazsonyi and Chen
(2010) found for Latino youth was a reflection of the locale or the disproportionate
representation of Latino youth in the sample, there was nothing in the analysis that could
explain the unduly high presence of African American youth in the juvenile justice
system. The risk for juvenile justice contact was no higher for the African American
students than for their European American, Native American, or Asian American peers,
and the interactions of variables in the developmental trajectory were the same across
ethnic groups. There are two contrasting perspective governing inquiry into the
disproportionate representation of minority youth in the justice system. According to the
differential offending hypothesis, the overrepresentation of minority youth is reflective of
racial and ethnic differences in committing illegal offenses, the seriousness of those
offenses, and the persistent engagement in illegal behavior (Kakade et al., 2012). In
contrast, the differential treatment hypothesis posits that the disproportionate
representation of minority youth can be attributed to inequities in the practices of the
juvenile and criminal justice systems, whether intended or unintended.
Treatment within the Juvenile justice System
According to Piquero (2008), there is an overrepresentation of minorities in
juvenile- justice systems. Based on this phenomenon, there are still a lot of gaps in terms
of research policies that Piquero addressed in his evaluative research. Some of these
important components of the juvenile justice system that is often overlooked include
policing, state, and local initiatives, and the lack of updated information regarding the
changes in the demographics of juvenile offenders in the country.
To address the overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal-justice system,
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) initiative was established (Kempf-Leonard,
2007). According to Kempf-Leonard (2007), the efforts of the DMC to reduce the
overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal justice system, even though it has
achieved some progress, is still not successful in explaining and addressing the problem.
The implication of the lack of success of the DMC initiative is the apparent complexity of
the interplay among the relationships of individuals, families, the community, and the
criminal justice system.
Research from Virginia sheds knowledge on racial disparities within the juvenile
justice system at the state level. A unique feature of McCarter’s (2009) study is the
inclusion of qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative dataset consisted of 2,920
juvenile cases gathered for an investigation of court processing and outcomes of juvenile
cases throughout the state. Due to the small proportion of young female offenders, only
males were included in the analysis, which focused on African American and European
American youth. The qualitative accounts came from surveys and interviews with 36
purposive samples chosen to represent a diverse group of stakeholders which included
juvenile court judges, Commonwealth attorneys, defense attorneys, and police officers, as
well as youths and their families.
Results of univariate and bivariate analyses demonstrated the presence of racial
disparities in juvenile justice processing and sanctions for African American and
European American juvenile male offenders (McCarter, 2009). Only one legal factor
influenced the results: the severity of the offense. Specifically, youths who committed
less severe offenses were more likely to be diverted. Incarceration was influenced by four
factors, two legal and two personal: more serious criminal act, prior record, African
American race, and having repeated a grade. Three-quarters of the criminal-justice
professionals interviewed agreed that there were disparities in processing and sanctions
for African American and European American youths within the Virginia
Commonwealth system. However, most of the legal and justice professionals felt that
crime severity and prior record were the dominant factors in deciding whether the youths
were diverted or incarcerated, while half the youths and their families said that race
influenced diversion and incarceration.
A few of the professionals mentioned family structure as playing a role in the
juvenile justice process, but neither the adolescents nor their parents expressed similar
views and there was no effect for family structure in the quantitative analysis (McCarter,
2009). Although there were no references to grade retention as such, the participants were
unanimous in the perspective that a lack of educational attainment among most youth in
the juvenile justice system presented a barrier to their success and might have played a
role in their delinquent behavior. The NLSY97 data documented the negative impact that
youth arrest has on the educational attainment of African American adolescents (Katade
et al., 2012). McCarter et al. (2009) advocated community-based efforts (such as
educational programs) as well as “evidence-based structural change” in juvenile justice
policy and practice that focus on changes in processing and sanctions to correct the
existing inequities in the juvenile justice system (p. 542). By implication, the adoption of
restorative justice practices such as victim-offender mediation, which has a sound
evidence base (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005) could be one of the policy changes.
Neighborhood Effects
Examining the influence of neighborhood characteristics on social behavior and
crime has become a staple of sociology and criminology research. Mennis et al. (2011)
traced this trend to the 1987 publication of Wilson’s book The Truly Disadvantaged,
which generated a wave of scholarly interest in the effects of the neighborhood on a range
of outcomes including cognitive development, educational attainment, teenage or
unplanned pregnancy or parenting, and employment. This academic activity coincided
with a surge of attention to social disorganization theory among criminology scholars.
The developmental and social disorganization lines of research converge to provide more
sophisticated understanding of the socializing effects (positive and negative) of
neighborhood characteristics on children and adolescents.
According to Mennis et al. (2011), understanding the role of neighborhood effects
on youth development and delinquency is especially important in view of the recent
proliferation of “aftercare services” for preventing recidivism among adjudicate youth (p.
175). The driving force for their research is the premise that features of the environment
can either promote or impede healthy adolescent psychosocial development. Formal
intervention programs can be designed for delinquent youth that counteract negative
environmental influences. As part of a project funded by the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), Mennis et al. conducted a detailed analysis of how neighborhood features affect the
probability of delinquency and recidivism among youth. Philadelphia was the site of the
study and the characteristics examined included SES, crime, and collective efficacy,
which was operationalized in terms of five factors drawn from the survey: participation
in local civic groups; neighbor and improvement, denoting perceptions that neighbors
help one another and work together on community projects; and belonging and trust,
referring to the relationships community members have with their neighborhood and their
neighbors.
Neighborhood features exhibited a much stronger influence on delinquency than
on recidivism (Mennis et al., 2011). At the same time, two factors emerged as the
dominant predictors of both delinquency and recidivism: violent crime and poverty. In
fact, the link between violent crime and the proportion of residents receiving public
assistance was so high that it was practically impossible to distinguish the effects of each
one on delinquency and recidivism. An interesting finding was that in spite of the effect
of poverty and crime on delinquency and recidivism, there were differences in the
neighborhood effects according to race. Specifically, delinquency rates tended to be
higher in African American neighborhoods, even after accounting for the effects of crime
and poverty, but the recidivism rates were lower even in African American
neighborhoods marked by high rates of delinquency. Overall, European American and
Latino neighborhoods had higher rates of recidivism than African American
neighborhoods. The contrasting trends in delinquency and recidivism in African
American neighborhoods seemed to be driven by the presence of middle-class, low-crime
African American neighborhoods that had elevated rates of delinquency but were not
conducive to repeat offenses.
Knowledge of community delinquency prevention and intervention programs and
individual cases would provide greater insight into how neighborhood features affect
juvenile crime (Mennis et al., 2011). At the neighborhood level, restorative justice
programs could potentially reduce juvenile crime and recidivism by instilling residents
with a sense of empowerment and fairness. Contrary to expectations based on the
regression models using the sample of juvenile delinquents in Philadelphia, none of the
collective efficacy variables were significant in the analysis. The variables examined in
the study were neighborhood characteristics in terms of juvenile offending and
recidivism. This finding was not expected because programs designed to enhance
neighborhood collective efficacy is expected to be successful in reducing crime. Building
collective efficacy was one of the aims of a pilot training program built on the principles
of restorative justice as a violence prevention strategy in a low-income Atlanta
neighborhood (Ohmer et al., 2010). Social disorganization theory, social capital, and
social control served as a framework for the program.
Williamson, Ashby, and Webber (2005) argued that data on youth offending
related to neighborhood and school characteristics should be used to guide community
policing programs. Their study took place in Nottinghamshire in England and some of the
findings are not directly applicable to the United States. The study utilized 34,000
anonymized records containing information on juvenile offenses within a span of 5 years.
The study confirmed that young offenders tend to be concentrated in certain
sociodemographically high-risk areas and attend schools that are marked by risk factors
for delinquent behavior. Beyond poverty and family disorganization, the most striking
contributor to juvenile crime was “an almost complete absence of any economically
successful people,” thereby depriving young people of role models who are successful in
socially accepted endeavors (p. 222). Social isolation rather than poverty by itself was the
decisive factor in youth offending.
Race and Gender
McCarter (2009) had initially intended to include female youth offenders in his
study but excluded them due to their small numbers in the Virginia juvenile justice
system. Chauhan et al. (2009) focused their study of neighborhood disadvantage,
exposure to violence, and recidivism among girls who had been incarcerated in a juvenile
facility in Virginia. Studies have found that girls and boys react differently to violence
and there is some evidence that exposure to violence may have different effects on
African American and European American girls. On the whole, based on the data
collected from self-report, census data, and official criminal records, the results of the
ttest and correlation analyses showed that children who experience violence are at higher
risk for engaging in criminal activity as adolescents or adults. Two types of violence were
included in the analysis: physical abuse by parents and witnessing neighborhood
violence. The participants were 122 girls ranging in age from 13 to 19, of whom 50%
were African American, 38% European American, and 12% members of other ethnic
groups.
The findings of Chauhan et al.’s (2009) study showed that neighborhood
disadvantage and exposure to violence both exhibited unique effects on recidivism among
the young female offenders. Further analyses revealed different patterns for the European
American girls and African American girls, which are obscured in studies that focus on
gender differences. There were no racial differences in the extent that the girls had been
subjected to or had witnessed violence. Among the African American girls, neighborhood
disadvantage was not necessarily linked with witnessing a greater degree of violence. For
the group as a whole, however, neighborhood disadvantage was associated with
recidivism. Poverty and recidivism were related as they were in the Philadelphia study
(Mennis et al., 2011). Exposure to neighborhood violence and low levels of parental
monitoring have both been implicated as potential contributors to delinquency among
youth residing in impoverished neighborhoods (Chauhan et al., 2009). Overall, both
studies found interrelationships among poverty, neighborhood crime, and juvenile
recidivism (Chauhan et al., 2009; Mennis et al., 2011).
The unique effects for race emerged in the study of female offenders in that for
the African American girls there was a path between neighborhood violence and juvenile
recidivism, yet for the European American girls the path was between the experience of
violence at home and recidivism (Chauhan et al., 2009). Possible reasons for these
patterns were that the European American girls were more often abused by both parents,
thus intensifying the impact of physical abuse, yet the African American girls tended to
live in more disadvantaged neighborhoods where street violence might have been more
intense and persistent. In fact, Chauhan et al. implicated neighborhood characteristics as a
key reason for the disproportionate representation of African American youth in the
justice system, suggesting factors such as intensive police surveillance, easier access to
weapons, and the predisposition of the police to make arrests in high crime communities.
Informal Social Control
The pilot training program described by Ohmer et al. (2010) took place at a
community organization that had three key components: (a) teaching residents consensus
organizing techniques for forging relationships with other residents and external
stakeholders, (b) helping residents identify and establish community norms supporting
prosocial behavior and mutual trust, and (c) teaching residents skills to boost their
selfefficacy and ability to intervene directly in inappropriate behavior in a respectful and
supportive fashion, based on the tenets of restorative justice. The training program
focused on three types of crimes that seemed most conducive to the effects of
neighborhood intervention: burglary, larceny, and car theft. All three crimes had
increased during the previous year. Indirectly, however, the program has the potential to
affect delinquency by virtue of its emphasis on prosocial norms and the reduction of
criminal behavior. In addition, the participants were free to employ their skills in any
situation they deemed appropriate, which included inappropriate or antisocial youth
behavior. Sixteen neighborhood residents completed the training program and the surveys
at the start and end of the training. After completing the programs, the residents were
more inclined to intervene in neighborhood situations including loud domestic disputes or
parties, and notably, scenes in which elementary and teenage boys missed school or were
hassling another boy (Ohmer et al., 2010).
The outcome of the Ohmer et al.’s (2010) study indicated that exposure to training
programs that involved restorative justice was beneficial in the neighborhood. The
positive effect is based on the likelihood that residents who participated in the training are
more likely to intervene in case problems in the neighborhood arise and the manner in
which the intervention is expressed is through non-violent means. A program of this type
extends the principles of restorative justice to the prevention of juvenile crime as well as
the prevention of recidivism after an offense has been committed. The participants
approached the situation directly and nonviolently and behaved respectfully to those
involved in the incident. In situations involving children and adolescents, this behavior
constitutes modeling of prosocial behavior (Bandura, 1977). On the whole, the
participants felt that their neighborhood was a safer place (Ohmer et al., 2010). In view of
the role played by neighborhood characteristics on juvenile crime and recidivism, a
neighborhood crime prevention program based on restorative justice principles has the
potential to reduce both. An expansion of the program could include training adolescents
(including former offenders) in prosocial community intervention skills.
School Effects
The term school-to-prison pipeline has become ubiquitous in the literature,
representing the connection between school characteristics, and in particular, disciplinary
practices, and the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system.
According to Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2009), disparities in the educational and juvenile
justice systems have traditionally been examined in parallel but essentially separate
methods of research. As implied in the term “school-to-prison pipeline,” there is growing
recognition that the two systems are not disconnected for disadvantaged and minority
youth (Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2009). The zero tolerance school discipline policies that
became popular during the 1990s have been especially pervasive in urban schools. After
15 years, this trend has begun to reverse, as schools move away from punitive measures
toward strategies based on the principles of nonviolent conflict resolution and restorative
justice (Schacter, 2010; Zaslaw, 2010).
An important force for positive change was a 2006 report by the American
Psychological Association (APA) documenting that schools had not become safer as a
result of zero tolerance policies but rather had become unfriendly environments that were
not conducive to student learning (Schachter, 2010). Similarly, the American Bar
Association (ABA) issued a report not only disapproving zero tolerance policies but
stating that zero tolerance “has redefined students as criminals with unfortunate
consequences” (ABA, as cited in Zaslaw, 2010, p. 10). Positive Behavior Support (PBS),
which focuses on the social and emotional influences on students’ behavior, has
superseded punitive disciplinary policies in a number of large cities including New York,
Los Angeles, and Denver (Schachter, 2010). Restorative justice is a more recent
innovation, providing opportunities to devise flexible and creative strategies for dealing
with school behavior problems. Both PBS and Restorative Justice stress the role of the
offender in understanding the impact of his or her actions and making suitable amends
(Schachter, 2010; Zaslaw, 2010).
The ABA’s statement that zero tolerance policies have “redefined students as
criminals with unfortunate consequences” (Zaslaw, 2010) is especially appropriate for
describing the situation for minority youth attending urban schools. Nicholson-Crotty et
al. (2009) investigated the connection between school disciplinary decisions and the
overrepresentation of African American youth in the juvenile justice system using data
from 53 Missouri counties. The focus was on African American and European American
adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17. The counties were included in the study if
they had at least 30 African American youth representing at least 1% of the youth
population for the years 2004 or 2005. The data were drawn from a number of sources
including elementary and secondary school discipline records, census data, juvenile
justice records, and adult traffic stop statistics.
Various quantitative studies that utilized self-reports and official records as data
consistently find a link between neighborhood poverty and juvenile crime (Chauhan et
al., 2009; Katade et al., 2012; Mennis et al., 2011). The Missouri study used a different
approach, however, and demonstrated that African American youth were more often
referred to the juvenile justice system in counties with greater income disparities between
White and African American households (Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2009). Conversely,
there was less discrepancy in referrals for European American and African American
youths in counties with higher African American employment. Among the nonschool
factors, the most powerful influence on the disproportionate referral of African American
youth was population density, signifying that racial disparities in referrals were high in
urban areas. Urban schools were the most heavily impacted by zero tolerance policies,
with detrimental effects (Schachter, 2010).
To Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2009), the “real variable of interest” was out-ofschool
suspension, which was strongly and positively linked with the relative rates of referral to
the juvenile justice system even after controlling for environmental factors (p. 1014). As
a result, greater racial disproportion in exclusionary disciplinary practices translated into
disproportionate referral rates to the juvenile justice system, independent of factors such
as poverty, urban residence, and employment. Logically, the exclusion of students from
school as a disciplinary measure appears to be contradictory. Students excluded from
school have few opportunities to observe and be part of pro-social behavior and more
opportunities to engage in delinquent behavior. In addition, the perception that the
treatment is unfair or racially biased is likely to generate or reinforce negative attitudes
toward school.
Analyses of the relationships between the students’ school violations and
suspensions found that African American students were more likely to be suspended for
four of the six types of violations (violence, weapons, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and
unspecified). Only drug and alcohol related offenses did not result in significant racial
differences in suspensions (Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2009). The disparity was especially
striking for weapons offenses. Nearly all the African American students (>95%) who
committed weapons offenses were suspended but only 85% of the European American
students received the same sanction. Bringing a weapon to school is the most serious and
dangerous of all school violations, which theoretically should produce uniform sanctions.
African American students were also 1.5 times more likely than their European American
peers for the far less serious offense of having a tobacco product. The inequities in
treatment for European American and African American youth who commit school
violations parallel the inequities in the juvenile justice system (Hartney & Silva, 2007),
while at the same time raising the risk for juvenile justice referral (Nicholson-Crotty et
al., 2009).
To address the inequities in school discipline practices and by extension disrupt
the school-to-prison pipeline, Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2009) advocate PBS and other
prosocial school violence and delinquency prevention programs. Restorative justice
programs have been found to produce significant declines in school suspensions and
expulsions as well as creating a positive learning environment (Schachter, 2010; Zaslaw,
2010). For example, the Minnesota Department of Education reported a 30% to 50%
decline in elementary and secondary school suspensions after the implementation of
restorative justice practices (Zaslaw, 2010). In the Denver Public Schools, the
implementation of PBS and restorative justice approaches resulted in a decrease in school
suspensions from a high of 14,000 for the 2002-2003 school years to roughly 8,000 for
2008-2009 (Schachter, 2010).
Restorative Justice/Empirical Research
“The aim of restorative justice is to repair the harm done by the crime by bringing
together the people most affected by the offence to determine how to deal with the
offence; dialogue, reparation, and accountability are critical components” (Bradshaw &
Roseborough, 2005, p.15). As the most popular form of restorative justice, victimoffender
mediation has accrued the largest empirical evidence base (Bradshaw & Roseborough,
2005). Several aspects of victim-offender mediations have been examined by past
researchers, which included satisfaction, apology, diversion, and recidivism (Bergseth &
Bouffard, 2007; Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Choi & Severson, 2009; Dhami, 2012;
Hayes, 2005; Prichard, 2010; Stahlkopf, 2009).
In a qualitative study conducted by Stahlkopf (2009), juvenile offenders were
largely satisfied with the process of victim-offender mediations, which was perceived as
fair and empowering. When apologies are accepted by victims, perpetrators may be more
likely to feel satisfied with the victim-offender mediation process (Dhami, 2012). The
young people were pleased that adults asked for their thoughts and listened to them, and
in particular, they were happy that they were given a “second chance” (Stahlkopf, 2009,
p. 247).
Apology was the focus of Dhami’s (2012) qualitative study involving the analysis
of 57 records of mediations in the United Kingdom from the period of 2008-2010. The
main purpose of the study was to explore apology from the perspective of the content of
the actual apology, specifically how apology could influence the success of restorative
justice programs. The results of the content analysis that was performed showed that the
words “I’m sorry” have been said by perpetrators more than one-third of the cases
reviewed, whereas full apologies were extended to the victims approximately one-fifth of
all cases reviewed. Moreover, the results also showed that apologies were accepted by the
victims as high 90% of all the cases reviewed, but forgiveness occurred less frequently.
Choi and Severson (2009) also explored apology in a qualitative study set in a
mid-western state with the purpose of examining victim-offender mediations. The data
were collected from semi-structured interviews of participants included juvenile
offenders and their parents, and mediators. The results of the content analysis showed that
the perceptions of the genuineness of apologies are significantly different between
offenders and their victims, underscoring the complex relationships and processes
involved in victim-offender mediations.
One stakeholder that is sometimes neglected in the topic of victim-offender
mediations are the roles and skills of mediators. Choi and Gilbert (2010) conducted a
qualitative study based on 34 interviews of juvenile offenders and their parents and
mediators in a Midwestern state in the United States. The results of the content analysis
showed that the role of mediators in restorative justice in principle may not be always
consistent with how mediators actually perform their job in real life mediations. The
implication of the results is that there may be discrepancies between principle and
practice when it comes to how mediators perform their jobs in mediations.
Diversion is a problematic issue within the juvenile justice system. Although the
overall goal of victim-offender mediation is diverting juvenile offenders away from more
expensive, time consuming, and punitive options, there are also concerns that it might
have the unintended consequence of widening the net (Prichard, 2010). The Australian
study showed no evidence that diversion strategies widened the net (Prichard, 2010).
Recidivism is included in evaluation studies as an indicator of the long-term
impact of criminal justice programs understanding of how juvenile justice program affect
recidivism; however, is complicated by the absence of a standardized definition
(Stoodley, 2010). In addition, there are few studies examining the long-term impact of
restorative justice (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). Overall, victim-offender mediation was
at least if not more effective as conventional probation in decreasing recidivism. More
recent studies have found evidence favoring restorative justice over traditional practices
(Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007; Justice Action, 2012).
Bradshaw and Roseborough (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of research studies
of restorative justice programs for youth offenders. Only studies that investigated
recidivism as an outcome measure and employed a comparison group were included in
the meta-analysis. The selection criteria produced 19 studies encompassing 11,950 young
offenders from 25 different sites. The study involved the examination of family group
conferencing as well as victim-offender mediation and by including studies conducted
after 2000 (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). Out of the 19 studies, 15 yielded positive
effect sizes, three studies had negative effect sizes, and five studies showed no
intervention effects. Overall, the use of victim-offender mediation and family group
conferencing contributed to a 26% decline in recidivism. The researchers noted that the
average effect size of .26 is more than double the effect size of .10 reported in an earlier
study for traditional justice programs.
Although victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing both
produced favorable results, it is important to note that there was a significant difference in
impact between the two programs (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). Victim-offender
mediation produced the more impressive results, with an effect size of 0.34 compared to
0.11 for family group conferencing. At the same time, family group conferencing is a
more recent innovation in restorative justice programs and was only included in 4 studies,
leading Bradshaw and Roseborough (2005) to classify it as a “promising, but
experimental intervention” for preventing recidivism in young offenders (p. 19). The
authors called for additional research on family group conferencing as well as on
peacemaking circles, which have been largely ignored in research on restorative justice
programs.
Hayes (2005) reanalyzed data from the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Restorative
Policing Experiment to examine the impact of the program on recidivism. A notable
feature of the program is that it includes violent offenders, who are excluded from many
restorative justice programs. In fact, the comparative analysis revealed that violent
offenders who participated in conferences were less likely to recidivate than violent
offenders who were referred for court proceedings. Conference participation did not have
the same positive impact on offenders who committed property crimes. There were no
significant differences in reoffending between those referred to court and those involved
in conferences. There was a gender effect for the conferences as women who attended
conferences were less likely to reoffend than their male counterparts while men and
women referred to court had equivalent rates of reoffending. According to Hayes (2005),
satisfaction with how their cases were handled was extremely high for both the
conference (97%) and the court (91%) participants. The study illustrated how different
subgroups of offenders are affected by court or conference participation.
Calhoun and Pelech (2010) presented a comparison study of adolescent offenders
who participated in CCC or the traditional court system. There were 60 participants in
each group. The young offenders were assessed on eight factors in three categories:
accountability (assumes remorse, experience empathy, experience remorse, commits to
redress), relationship repair (experience respect, understand impact), and closure
(experience acknowledgement, hopefulness for the future). At the pretest there were
significant differences between the two groups on seven of the eight factors (all but
experience acknowledgement). Hopefulness for the future favored the comparison group
while all the other factors favored the CCC group (Calhoun & Pelech, 2010). At the
posttest both groups showed positive changes. The magnitude of the changes, however,
was greater for the CCC participants. The researchers consider their findings intermediary
evidence of the potential benefits of restorative justice for young offenders.
CCC is subject to ongoing evaluation.
Family Group Conferencing
Mutter et al. (2008) presented part of an evaluation report of the Family Group
Conferences (FGC) Project for Young People Who Offend, implemented in England and
based on the New Zealand model. A unique feature of the New Zealand model is “private
family time,” which entrusts the family with all decisions related to conflict resolution
and planning for future solutions. Family group conferencing has previously been
relegated to the child welfare system in the United Kingdom and has just recently been
extended to the juvenile justice venue. The pilot study of family group conferencing
occurred over a 15-month period during which 30 conferences were held. An
independent coordinator was appointed to lead the meetings. The tasks of the coordinator
included assisting the young offenders and their families with inviting family members
and preparing all the participants, particularly the victims. Only those offenders for whom
it seemed likely to accept responsibility for the offense were invited. Other participants
included professionals involved with the case or with the young offender and the victim’s
relatives where appropriate.
The study presented by Mutter et al. (2008) focused on the attitudes of the young
offenders toward the family group conferences, including any psychosocial changes that
resulted from the conference. The offender group was comprised 26 young men and four
young women. With the exception of one participant who was undecided, all the
participants felt they were heard and were treated with dignity and respect. Only 16 of the
participants (55%) met the victim directly. Most of the participants awarded high
importance to making amends for the harm done and “being able to tell the victim what
happened” (p. 266). All but four participants felt the apology was important and most
deemed it very important. All but two of the participants offered an apology and one of
those was unsure. Twenty-two of the participants (79%) said they had “put the offense
behind them now” and the same number reported they were satisfied with the outcome of
the case. Interestingly, the young offenders were overwhelmingly positive in their belief
that the agreement was fair to them (93%) but they were divided on whether the
agreement was fair to the victim.
There were notably positive changes in the attitudes of the young offenders, which
they related to a new perspective on their behavior and its impact on others. Mutter et al.
(2008) attributed the positive psychosocial changes to successful reintegrative shaming
(Braithwaite, 2006). Quantitative analyses showed significant declines in the seriousness
and persistence of offending (Mutter et al., 2008). All the young men and women were
under treatment or supervision and their scores on hyperactivity, conduct, and
emotionality decreased over the study period. It is unclear whether the family group
conference experience played a role in these changes. The findings support the notion that
family group conferencing is a promising strategy for decreasing youth recidivism.
Not all empirical research showed significant benefits of family group
conferencing in reducing recidivism. In a study conducted by Jeong, McGarrell, and
Hipple (2012), the long term effects of family group conferencing on recidivism of
juvenile offenders. The researchers employed an experimental design with a sample of
782 cases. The analysis involved two-process procedure of logistical regression and Cox
proportional Hazards regression. The results of the analysis showed that at an extended
period of 12 years did not reveal any significant difference between individuals who have
exposure to family group conferencing and those who do not. The implication of the
findings is that more research should be conducted regarding the long term benefits of
family group conferencing as most research on the topic is based on short term benefits.
Ethnicity and Gender
Baffour (2006) explored the role of ethnicity and gender in the relationship
between family group conference participation and recidivism. The researcher used data
from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, focusing only on first-time offenders under the age of 18
who had gone through the probation system. The sample was approximately two-thirds
male (65.1%), 39.7% European American, 7.5% African American, 49.7% Latino/a, and
3.1% members of other ethnic groups. A substantial proportion of the young offenders
(37.4%) had the opportunity to participate in family group conferencing but declined.
Little more than one-quarter of the group (27.4%) participated in family group
conferencing. Those who declined expressed a variety of reasons for their decision.
Over the 18-month study period 28.1% of the young offenders were rearrested
(Baffour, 2006). The experimental study involved the use of multivariate analysis of
ethnicity and gender in terms of family group conferencing success in minimizing
recidivism. Recidivism was lower among the family group conferencing participants.
However, in view of the number of potential participants who declined to become
involved in the program, the participant group appears to be highly self-selected. Thus,
they may have been more determined not to repeat the harm they had caused by their
actions.
Both the offenders and the crime victims preferred family group conferencing to
traditional court proceedings, viewing the conference as fairer and more attuned to the
needs of both groups. The young women had much lower rates of recidivism than their
male counterparts did, consistent with most studies (Baffour, 2006). A striking finding
was that African American offenders and victims were much more predisposed to decline
to participate in family group conferencing than their European American and Latino
counterparts did. Baffour (2006) suggested that might have perceived court proceedings
as fairer, which is ironic in view of the inequitable treatment African American youths
are likely to experience in the court system (Hartney & Silva, 2007). Ethnicity was not an
influence on recidivism (Baffour, 2006).
Baffour (2006) pointed out that restorative justice has a long history in African
cultures. Mediation strategies such as family group conferencing can draw on the
strengths, values, and cultural traditions of African American families, which would
optimize the effectiveness of the program. In addition, family group conferencing can
build on the close family ties characteristic of many Latino families. Despite the rich
cultural heritage of restorative justice practices (which is routinely acknowledged in
relation to Maori culture), there is scant attention to how cultural values can be infused
into restorative justice programs in the extremely diverse American society.
Young Offenders Perspectives
Abrams et al. (2006) conducted in-depth interviews with seven young offenders to
gain insight into their perspectives on meeting with their victims in victim-offender
mediation. The researchers noted that amidst all the studies of mediation, there is still
minimal knowledge of the experiences of the young offenders who agree to take part in
the meetings. Interviews were conducted with the families as well as the offenders. The
sessions took place in a Minnesota county. There was only one female and one ethnic
minority offender. The young people ranged in age from 15 to 24.
There were several different reasons the participants chose to meet with their
victims, notably achieving a sense of closure, making amends to the victims, and in a few
cases appearing more responsible in the eyes of the court (Abrams et al., 2006). Two
participants felt they were pressured into the meetings. Four of the seven offenders’
parents were involved in the mediation sessions, and all were optimistic that the program
would benefit their child. The parents also reported they felt that the sessions might have
been more meaningful. In fact, the parents saw less merit in the way the sessions were
conducted than their children who were initially apprehensive or nervous due to the
unusual nature of the experience—described as surreal by one young offender—but felt
generally positive about the meeting.
Although the offenders typically felt a sense of relief in discussing their crime
with the victim, they also reported a pervasive sense of shame and remorse (Abrams et
al., 2006). Only one participant did not mention feeling guilt or shame in sharing with the
victim. Some of the parents seemed to have distanced themselves emotionally, in a few
cases because they had already been through several meetings or court proceedings. None
of the sessions produced formal restitution agreements. In general, however, the young
offenders felt the outcome was fair. All but the youngest participant, who seemed
confused and uncertain about the process, were highly satisfied with the mediation
process. Younger and older adolescents and young adults may experience the justice
process differently as a reflection of different stages of moral development (Newbury,
2008). Most participants reported being happy because they felt the victim saw them in a
different and more human light as a result of the meeting (Abrams et al., 2009). In a
related manner, the experience was humanizing to the offenders who gained a new and
different perspective on how their actions affected others. For five of the participants,
addictions (drugs, alcohol, gambling) played a central role in the offense. The crime
represented a low point and victim-offender mediation was an important step on the path
upward, or as one participant described the meeting, “an awakening” (p. 252).
Mediators’ Roles and Skills
The perceptions of victims and offenders as to whether they perceived mediation
as fair can be dependent upon the attitudes and skills of the mediator. Choi and Gilbert
(2010) conducted a qualitative exploration of how participants in victim-offender
mediation viewed the mediators’ roles and skills. The participants had all been part of a
single program and the sample of 37 participants included adult crime victims, juvenile
offenders in their families, mediators, and representatives from referring agencies. The
study focused on three cases labeled the Department Store Case, the Mailbox Baseball
Case, the Car Case, and the Involuntary Manslaughter Case. As the titles imply, the
cases varied considerably in the nature and severity of the offenses. The Mailbox
Baseball Case and the Car Case both involved multiple teenage offenders. The themes
that arose from the interviews in describing the actions and skills of the mediators were:
facilitating conversation, keeping things under control, maintaining neutrality,
demonstrating respect, creating a victim-sensitive environment, and collaborating with
other mediators. In spite of the diversity of the cases these actions on the part of the
mediators were common across cases and elicited positive comments from the victims
and the young offenders and their parents.
The mediators were described more favorably the less intrusive they were (Choi
& Gilbert, 2010). They were generally lauded for playing a “supportive ‘background’
role” marked by a nondirective, low profile, and facilitative style (p. 223). By remaining
in the background and allowing the participants to talk and express their opinions and
feelings, they conveyed their respect for the participants. At the same time, there were
also some negative comments about the “unprofessionalism” of the mediators, primarily
reflecting the perception of a lack of sensitivity to the victims. Interestingly, some of the
offenders’ parents felt the mediators were not sufficiently sympathetic toward their child
but at the same time were too “easy” on them. Choi and Gilbert (2010) attributed these
complaints to bureaucratic pressures to process the cases as fast as possible resulting in
insufficient preparation with the participants and not enough time to talk. They caution
that this “fast food” approach to mediation could compromise the restorative justice
process.
Choi and Gilbert (2010) cited time pressures and excessive emphasis on the
outcome typically a restitution agreement as two factors with potentially negative effects
on the process of victim-offender mediation. They also stressed the importance of having
organizational policies that support the employees of victim-offender mediation
programs; for example, by providing ongoing opportunities for education and training,
allocating time for communication between mediators, and ensuring that the mediators
have manageable workloads. At the most basic level, they recommend manuals that
describe the principles of restorative justice. Being attuned to the emotions of the
participants is complex and challenging endeavor, especially because the victim and the
offender are not always able to articulate their thoughts and concerns. The paramount
concern, which the researchers consider vital, is that the mediators are able to “elicit the
unique perspectives of each individual” (Choi & Gilbert, 2010, p. 224).
Perceptions of Restorative Justice
In the United States (National Juvenile Justice Network, 2008) and Canada
(Varma, 2006), there is generally more support for rehabilitative than retributive
approaches for youth who commit delinquent offenses. Even during the 1990s when the
retributive paradigm predominated, more than two-thirds of conservative leaning
respondents in a public opinion poll favored rehabilitation for young offenders (National
Juvenile Justice Network, 2008). Nonetheless, retributive justice is central to North
American models of juvenile justice. A Hong Kong survey found enthusiastic support for
the integration of restorative justice into community programs for young offenders (Lee,
2009). While there appears to be no similar survey conducted in the United States,
Gromet and Darley (2006) explored the acceptability of restorative justice practices in
research with university students. A particular focus of the study was whether restorative
justice would be viewed as a suitable strategy for dealing with offenders who commit
serious crimes.
The first experimental study involved 57 psychology students who were presented
with online descriptions of a pure restorative justice model (victim-offender mediation)
and a partial or mixed restorative justice protocol labeled restorative justice mediation
(Gromet & Daley, 2006). They were then presented with nine court case scenarios and
asked to decide which of the two models they deemed more appropriate. The findings
confirmed the researchers’ expectations that the participants would refer most of the less
serious offenses to the pure restorative justice procedure. Conversely, most participants
opted to send most of the serious cases to the mixed procedure while the group was
divided on which strategy was more appropriate for crimes in the mid-serious range.
The characteristics of the offense and the offender also influenced the choice of
the pure or the mixed restorative justice model (Gromet & Daley, 2006). The decisions
were influenced by perceptions of how violence-prone the offender appeared, the
probability of reoffending, and the prospect for rehabilitation. Also in an experimental
study, Varma (2006) found that the participants were more inclined to prefer a fine or
community service to incarceration the more information they were given about a
hypothetical youthful offender (who had stolen a car and gotten in a minor accident
where no one was hurt). With the exception of the most “adult-like” description (in which
the young man was portrayed as very responsible), simply the fact of being given
information about the young offender was more important than the qualitative
description. However, even without information, more than three-quarters of the
participants (78.6%) preferred the fine or community service to incarceration.
The findings of Gromet and Daley (2006) suggested that people hold positive
attitudes for restorative justice as an option for reducing a prison sentence for someone
they feel will successfully go through a restorative justice conference. Building on the
first study, the participants in the second study were given reports that while some
restorative justice conferences were successful, others failed because the victim and the
offender were unable to reach an agreement (no-fault conference outcome) or because the
offender did not invest the needed effort (offender-fault conference outcome). The
participants were presented with the same offender-related questions as in the first study
after learning the outcome of the conference.
A similar pattern to the first study emerged in that the less serious offenses were
considered appropriate for the pure restorative justice protocol while the more serious the
crimes were the more likely they were seen as more suitable for the mixed model
(Gromet & Daley, 2006). Interestingly, the participants were more inclined to give
harsher sentences to offenders who did not successfully complete a conference regardless
of the reason. One implication is that they were more inclined to blame the offender for
not reaching an agreement with the victim even when it was not portrayed as the
offender’s fault. The offenders who had unsuccessful conferences were viewed as less
likely to be rehabilitated than those with successful conferences but more likely to be
rehabilitated than those they opted to send to traditional court proceedings. The
overarching finding was that while there was support for restorative justice, especially for
individuals who committed minor offenses, the participants also desired the option for
retributive justice procedures.
The concept of shared identity is derived from social identity theory and has
recently been introduced into the study of attitudes toward restorative justice (Gromet &
Daley, 2009). Gromet and Daley noted that shared identity has emerged as an important
concept for understanding people’s preferences for restorative or retributive justice, along
with crime severity, which was the focus of their own research (Gromet & Daley, 2006).
Okimoto, Wenzel, and Feather (2009) explored the role of shared identity in their
experimental study involving 217 Australian undergraduate students. The participants
were presented with six different case scenarios in which they were asked to assume the
role of the victim. In each case the victim experienced a material loss. The scenarios
differed on the amount and type of loss, the relationship of the victim to the offender, and
several other aspects. All these variations would be natural given the nature of each
scenario. The scenarios were manipulated as to whether a resolution was imposed or was
mutually reached through a restorative process. Punishment was also manipulated by
varying the degree of punitive actions taken.
The decisions were generally viewed as fairer when they mutually were reached
by the victim and the offender, than when they were imposed (Okimoto et al., 2009). At
the same time, the response was also perceived as fairer when it included punitive actions
than when there was no punishment. Shared identity was an important influence on
perceptions of fairness. Mutual consensus was viewed as fairer when the victim was
thought to share a strong sense of identity with the offender. Mutual agreement was also
perceived as fairer when there were deep feelings of moral loss. On the other hand,
feelings of moral outrage generated strong feelings that punishment was fair. In fact,
severe punishment was only considered excessive in the absence of strong moral outrage.
The interaction of shared identity and emotions provided compelling support for the idea
that restorative justice is grounded in social relationships. The findings also confirmed,
consistent with Gromet and Daley (2006), that although people accept restorative justice
and tend to prefer it for less serious offenses, retributive measures are also important for
eliciting a sense that the outcome is fair.
Long-term Impact of Restorative Justice
The impact of restorative justice in terms of long-term benefits to both the
offenders and victims is largely unexamined through research (Jeong et al., 2012).
Bergseth and Bouffard (2007) conducted one of the few studies examining the long-term
impact of restorative juvenile justice programs. The site of the program was a largely
rural Midwestern county with a restorative justice program that is independent from the
local juvenile court but received federal funding that is matched by funds from a
collaboration of social service agencies. There is one full-time staff member with ample
training and experience in mediation and facilitation but most of the work is carried out
by program volunteers. The young offenders are referred by various agencies and then
screened to assess their suitability for the program. Bergseth and Bouffard (2007)
described the program as a “more restorative” model given that participation is voluntary
for both offenders and victims, the emphasis is on direct communication between parties,
the participants are prepared in advance, the victim’s decisions are respected throughout
the process, and the focus on mutual agreement as the outcome.
The sample comprised 164 youth referred for restorative justice during the years
2000 to 2003 (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). A comparison group was derived from youth
referred for traditional court proceedings for similar offenses during the same period. The
study period covered 4 years, with the data analyzed at five points. Despite the
researchers’ efforts to match the two groups, the comparison group included more youths
who had prior and/or more serious offenses. Yet even after controlling for these
differences, the restorative justice participants had more positive outcomes in terms of
prevalence and number of subsequent contacts with the juvenile justice system,
seriousness of later offenses, and time to re-offending. Residing in the county’s one city
was associated with less favorable outcomes, consistent with other findings on the impact
of urban residence on juvenile crime (Katade et al., 2012).
Overall, participation in the restorative justice program was linked with more
positive outcomes, with the benefits enduring for as long as 3 years (Bergseth &
Bouffard, 2007). The researchers noted that 25% of the youths included in the analysis
did not complete the restorative justice program. However, all of them engaged in an
inperson discussion with the mediator, thus suggesting that this dialogue by itself might
have a positive impact. From a different perspective, the results might have been even
more impressive if the study only included youths who completed the program. At the
time of the study there were plans underway to examine the effects of the restorative
justice program on different groups of young offenders. Perhaps due to the relative
homogeneity of the area, age and gender but not race or ethnicity were mentioned.
With a longer period of reference of 12 years, Jeong et al. (2012) also examined
the long-term benefits of restorative justice in terms of family group conferencing. The
researchers employed an experimental design with a sample of 782 cases. The analysis
involved two-process procedure of logistical regression and Cox proportional Hazards
regression. The results of the analysis showed that within a period of 12 years, family
group conferencing did not produce any significant difference in terms of recidivism
compared to the sample without exposure to family group conferencing.
Summary
Although restorative justice has been practiced in the United States for more than
30 years, it is far less prevalent than in the Asia Pacific region where it has its origins in
New Zealand Maori culture (Maxwell & Hayes, 2006). BARJ, which has been
implemented in many U.S. states, is based on the principles of restorative justice. “The
aim of restorative justice is to repair the harm done by the crime by bringing together the
people most affected by the offence to determine how to deal with the offence; dialogue,
reparation, and accountability are critical components” (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005,
p.15). Even though restorative justice takes into consideration the needs of the victims
and the offenders, justice remains the main feature of restorative justice.
Practically and conceptually, BARJ is a partial or mixed model of restorative
justice. While theorists such as Braithwaite (2006) favor a pure model of restorative
justice, a mixed model that synthesizes aspects of restorative and retributive justice is
more acceptable (Gromet & Daley, 2006, 2009; Okimoto et al., 2009). Restorative justice
principles can be integrated with community justice to enhance informal social control
and social capital and subsequently reduce crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods
(Ohmer et al., 2010).
Practices based on rehabilitation rather than retribution are consistently preferred
by the public for dealing with juvenile offenders. During the 1990s, rehabilitation and
restorative justice were both overshadowed by a powerful emphasis on punitive practices
for combating high rates of juvenile crime. The focus, however, on punitive sanctions in
both the juvenile justice system and the educational system was not only ineffective for
decreasing recidivism but it also reinforced racial and ethnic disparities in both systems
(Hartney& Silva, 2007; Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2009). Since the late 1990s there has
been a noticeable trend away from retributive practices for youth offenders and an
upsurge of interest in restorative justice. At the present time, there is a drive for the
implementation of evidence-based practices in juvenile justice and there is a growing
body of evidence supporting restorative justice practices, notably victim-offender
mediation and conferencing (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007; Bradshaw & Roseborough,
2005). With increasing numbers of advocates and calls for major reforms of the juvenile
justice system, it seems probable that the principles of restorative justice will become an
integral part of community programs for youth offenders.
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to describe the utility of restorative
justice programming in reducing recidivism of African American males ages12 to 17
years old in Baltimore City urban community. Incorporated in Chapter 3 are explanations
of the research design and rationale associated with the study of the restorative justice
phenomenon. The chapter includes discussion of the role of the researcher and the
methodology, including a justification of case study selection. It includes various data
collection instrumentation strategies. It also includes discussion of the data analysis
approach, in addition to emphasizing strategies to maintain trustworthiness of study both
internally and externally.
Research Design and Rational
Qualitative research methods are oftentimes driven by the capability of the
researcher to study the phenomena of interest in its natural environment (Creswell, 2009;
Miles & Huberman, 1994). Generally, this opportunity is realized through rigorous
contact with individuals or organizations where the researcher gains real-world
experiences reflecting the phenomena being studied (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 5-6).
Maxwell (2005) supported this view by asserting that qualitative and quantitative
research in their strengths is used to answer different types of questions for different
purposes. For example, Maxwell stated, “The strengths of qualitative research derive
primarily from its inductive approach, its focus on specific situations or people, and its
emphasis on words rather than numbers” (p. 22). Creswell (2009) illuminated the
qualitative approach as an emergent design whereby the researcher does not subscribe to
a one-size-fits-all research but rather chooses processes that potentially change overtime.
As a result, the researcher is better able to facilitate the objective of qualitative research,
which is to garner rich information regarding the phenomenon of interest addressing the
research (pp. 175-176).
Role of the Researcher
Several research topics were considered before selecting to study the utility of
restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism of African American males ages 12 to
17 in urban communities. I was the principal research instrument, collecting and
analyzing various data describing the effects restorative justice programming has on the
community. Creswell (2009) noted that qualitative research is interpretive, and
researchers’ lived experiences, as well as their training, often influence their research
approach. My experiences working in the juvenile justice system have given me a new
perspective regarding the justice system in the United States. This illuminates the fact that
I gravitated (Creswell, 2009) toward the qualitative approach thus allowing me an
opportunity to be innovative in my interviewing and observation strategies. The role of
the researcher was to conduct the interviews. I provided the respondents the free will to
answer the interview questions with whatever they want to say. The researcher should not
show any bias during data collection and analysis. I ensured that any possible biases in
this study will not be present. All information presented by the respondents was
completely and accurately written down by pen and paper and accurately recorded
through digital recorder. Member checking was conducted to reduce bias in qualitative
data gathering and analysis. Member checking is an evaluation given to the voluntary
participant at the end of the interview asking if their observation of the researcher had an
element of bias in the questioning during the interview (Rajendran, 2009, p. 6). In
addition, Patton (2002) identified a caveat associated with qualitative investigation is its
propensity to garner findings based on predisposed biases of the researcher, whether
conscious or unconscious. Patton (2002) proposed that in the outset of study the
researcher be completely transparent regarding his or her biases (p. 553). With this in
mind, to manage my biases I explained and identified all perceived biases in the outset of
the study design (Maxwell, 2005, p. 108). Equally important, I did not have personal
connections or relationships with participants more than what was required for
completion of the study.
Methodology
Encompassed in Chapter 3 are explanations of the research method facilitating the
design strategy related to the utility of restorative justice programming. A case study
design was selected in this study to examine the utility of restorative justice programs for
African American males aged 12 to 17 years old in urban communities. Specifically, this
chapter addresses the selection of case study as the method of choice. Further, the chapter
includes discussion of the instrumentation process, in addition to procedures for
recruitment, participation, and data collection. Chapter 3 concludes with techniques
utilized during the data analysis process.
Case Study Selection
The case study was accomplished by studying a single restorative justice program
at a designated site. The sample population that was used to facilitate the case study
included African American males ages 12 to 17 in a restorative justice program in
Baltimore’s urban community. The case study method offers significant potential for
embracing the researcher’s capability to study the social phenomenon associated with
restorative justice programs. It provides the researcher the opportunity to study the effects
of restorative justice programming within a bounded system. Creswell (2007) noted that
the bounded system is an effective tool because it provides researchers the opportunity to
examine one or more bounded cases over periods. Furthermore, the rationale for using a
case study is that an intrinsic case study design can be utilized to focus on one unique
case/program of interest for evaluation (Creswell, 2007, pp. 73-74). Miles and Huberman
(1994) supported this view by stating that “Much qualitative research examines a single
‘case,’ some phenomenon embedded in a single social setting” (p. 27). The use of case
studies was deemed appropriate for this study because the case study can be used to
derive themes from interviews. This method is considered one of the more open-ended
methods of data collection, and will allow the participants to provide data for the study in
their own words. This method will also allow the researcher to use the information
collected through the interviews to expand on the themes generated through content
analysis. The use of case studies was appropriate for the purpose of this study, which was
to explore a particular outcome and determine how specific actions have led to these
outcomes (Leedy & Ormond, 2005).
From a historical perspective case studies have been a time-honored research
method for multiple disciplines (Creswell, 2007, p. 73). The qualitative case study
method appears to be the most logical approach for evaluating juvenile restorative justice
programs as implemented for African American males aged 12 to 17-years-old. Other
qualitative designs considered for this study, but not selected, included meta-analysis
narrative research, ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory. Meta-analysis is
deeply rooted in garnering concrete information from myriad studies throughout the
scientific community regarding the researcher’s phenomenon of interest (Rudestam &
Newton, 2007, p. 56). The use of narrative inquiry was not in line with the purposes and
data sources for this study. This study made use of first-hand information provided by
participants through face-to-face interviews, and did not use the conventional sources for
narrative inquiry, such as field notes, letters, stories, and journals (Clandinin & Connelly,
2006). Ethnography was not possible as a method of research, because time and cost
constraints prevented me from dedicating the resources needed to immerse myself fully
into the culture of the group that is the focus of this study. The use of phenomenology
was also deemed inappropriate for this study, because the purpose of a phenomenological
study is not in line with the specific purpose of this study. Grounded theory was also
eliminated as a method of research because this study does not seek to provide alternate
explanations. The vigorous approach of grounded theory garners rich-information
facilitated inductively from fieldwork whereby theory emerges from real-world
experiences (Patton, 2002, p. 11). As explained above, the specified research methods
were deemed inappropriate, considering the resources available and the purpose of the
study.
Instrumentation
The importance of using appropriate instrumentation strategies for gathering and
collecting data is paramount for qualitative researchers. Creswell (2007, 2009) addressed
for the collection of data in qualitative research study. He proposed that the researcher
record data using four types of information gathering strategies, including observation,
interviews, documents, and audiovisual material. Further, he illuminated the utility of
“Conducting a semistructured interview, audiotape the interview, and transcribe the
interview” (p.130). While utilizing the observation approach he suggested that the
researcher use a protocol to facilitate the interview process. Creswell (2007) also
recommended that keeping a journal throughout the research study is paramount. With
this in mind, the examination was facilitated through rigorous data collection protocol
strategies using triangulation of various methods of information gathering. The
triangulation is data triangulation, which involves using different sources of information
in order to increase the validity of a study (Thurmond, 2001). I used different data
sources including interviews, observation, audiovisual material, and significant
documents and reports pertaining to the case being studied.
The face-to-face interviews were structured with the use of an interview guide
composed of semistructured questions that will allow the participants to freely describe
and explain their feelings and experiences with regard to the issue being studied
(Horrocks & King, 2010). The use of open-ended questions allows the researcher to
provide a deeper understanding of the issue, because the data collected from the
participants based on their experiences is multi-faceted and multi-layered (Symon,
Buehring, Johnson, & Casel, 2004; Groenewald, 2004).
The qualitative case study method appears to be the most logical approach for
evaluating juvenile restorative justice programs for their effectiveness in urban
communities for African American males 12 to 17. Compared to quantitative research,
qualitative research focuses on the how and the why of the issue being studied (Gay,
Mills, & Airasian, 2009). This examination was facilitated through rigorous data
collection strategies using data triangulation of various methods of information gathering,
including observation, interviews, audiovisual material, and significant documents and
reports pertaining to the case being studied. The case study was accomplished by
studying participants from a single program at a preferred designated site. Equally
important, the study incorporated the intrinsic case study design, which focuses on one
unique case/program of interest for evaluation (Creswell, 2007). Miles and Huberman
(1994) supported this view by stating that “Much qualitative research examines a single
‘case,’ some phenomenon embedded in a single social setting” (p. 27).
Describing to content validity is equally important. Maxwell (2005) pointed out
that a qualitative proposal should embrace the notion of ruling out reasonable threats to
the researcher's analysis. Content validity requires that the instruments used to facilitate
the study accurately measure the characteristics of the phenomena in question (Fink,
2008; Hagen, 2005). Fink (2008) recommended a trick to establishing a measure with
content validity is to be knowledgeable regarding the phenomena of interest (p. 195).
With that in mind, I continued to meticulously examine scholarly literature regarding the
restorative justice phenomena throughout the duration of the study. Further, I used
content analysis of data garnered to understand the restorative justice phenomenon
because the technique has been used by researchers and governments alike in a similar
fashion. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis to derive themes and
patterns within the data (Butin, 2010). Generally, content analysis refers to analytically
synthesizing voluminous qualitative data, thus reducing it to emerging themes (Patton,
2002, p. 453).
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection
I acted as the primary data collecting instrument for this study. Data was collected
at a designated restorative justice program in a Baltimore City region urban community
where substantial data was garnered to facilitate this qualitative case study. Creswell
(2007, 2009) recommended a technique for recording data, whereby the qualitative
researcher conducts semistructured interviews, which are audio-taped and transcribed.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted to facilitate data collection. Janesick (2011)
proposed that while conducting qualitative interviews researchers facilitate a peaceful
environment. Further, she identified that exhibiting authentic verbal and body language
during the interview is essential in facilitating responses from the interview. In addition,
she proposed that the interviewer provide the interviewee an opportunity to add further
discourse to the interview once the interview is completed (Janesick, 2011, p. 243).
Observation, a major instrument used in qualitative research, can be recorded
(Janesick, 2011) by using a reflective journal as a data set in the dissertation process.
Janesick (2011) pointed out that a reflective journal gives rise to innovative questions
regarding the phenomena of interest, in addition to the role that society plays in general.
Janesick also identified that “The clarity of writing down one’s thoughts will allow for
stepping into one’s inner mind and reaching further into interpretations of behaviors,
beliefs, and words we write” (p. 159). Creswell (2007) supported this view by asserting
that an observational protocol for qualitative research entails recording descriptive and
reflective field notes regarding the phenomenon (pp. 133-135). In a similar fashion,
Patton (2002) identified the importance of recording descriptive and reflective field notes
as they take place, thus assuring accuracy during analysis (pp. 302-303).
I realized the importance of creating a comfortable and relaxed atmosphere where
the participants would feel free to give their opinions and ideas regarding the subject
being studied. Therefore, all interviews were conducted in a private area, at a time and
place that was convenient for both researcher and interviewee. All interviews were
recorded on tape and transcribed and is estimated to take 45 minutes to conduct. While
the interviews were ongoing, I recorded my observations regarding the subject and the
participants. After the interview, all audio tapes were transcribed, and the data generated
was coded to derive the emerging themes on which the conclusions of the study were
based.
Data Analysis Plan
The intent of this research was to garner data regarding the utility of restorative
justice for African American males aged 12 to 17 in urban communities in reducing
recidivism. According to Creswell (2007), all research is facilitated by establishing a
problem, then studying literature on the phenomenon of interest by collecting data to
analyze and writing reports (pp. 41-42). The case study approach was utilized as a guide
to facilitate content analysis of raw data and interviews during the research process. Data
analysis entails a process whereby researchers embrace several components to examine
data, which include meticulous preparation, comprehension, and developing an
interpretation based on rich information from participants and data garnered throughout
the study (Creswell, 2009, p. 184).According to Maxwell (2005), “the appropriate answer
to almost any question about the use of qualitative research methods is it “depends” (p.
79). Maxwell (2005) and Patton (2002) pointed out that qualitative research depends on
the meticulous data analysis of voluminous raw data. Therefore, data analysis was a
continuous process from the outset of the research activity.
I was the primary data collection instrument. According to Creswell (2007), the
notion to reduce data into themes while coding and reducing codes to represent categories
is consistent with qualitative data analysis. With this in mind, the data analysis plan
encompassed a continuous strategy utilizing a triangulation (Creswell, 2007) of measures
to facilitate effective analysis. The data collected encompassed audio-recorded interviews
followed by verbatim transcription, field notes, and detailed journal. This is in addition to
advance observation strategies (Janesick, 2011), which include visiting the location
during the study numerous times to be able to describe the phenomena reflectively.
Lastly, content analysis was employed to determine the emergent themes from the data
collected from the interviewees. This process was undertaken to identify the
characteristics, behaviors, thoughts, perceptions, or experiences, which then became the
foundations of the analysis (Hseih & Shannon, 2005)
Coding
Essentially, qualitative data analysis is prudently identifying common themes,
patterns, and categories, in addition to the individual perceptions of people interviewed
(Patton, 2002). With this in mind, I inductively identified all statements that are
associated with the fundamental theme throughout the study. Inductive reasoning will be
conducted by focusing on specific observations and measures, formulate some tentative
hypotheses that I can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or
theories (Trochim, & Donnelly, 2008). Inductive reasoning was conducted by moving
from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories through a focus on
determining what things meant, why events occurred as well as what happened. In
addition, I separated essential data from nonessential data, thus compiling data into
segments grouped into categories that reveal genuine description of the phenomenon of
interest. Miles and Huberman (1994) pointed out the utility of reflective and marginal
remark coding, in addition to pattern coding as a method of early analysis. Coding is the
process of analyzing the data that moves data from diffuse and messy text to organized
ideas about what is going on (Portney & Watkins, 2009). Open coding is accomplished
by segregating the interview data into words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs that will
emphasize the functional relation between parts and the whole of the entire responses
from the interview. The benefit of coding in this research is that the reader will be able to
easily distinguish each topic, and will be able to read first-hand accounts (quotes, stories)
from the participants that illustrate their experience with each topic. NVivo8 was used
during the analysis process to code text or other elements of the data sources and to
manipulate data and graphically displaying codes. Both traditional and software-assisted
strategies have the potential to enhance the reliability, quality, and credibility of the
research findings, and a final decision as to how coding was accomplished was made
based on the volume of data that was collected.
Issues of Trustworthiness
Reliability
One of the major concerns of the study will be to maintain its reliability and
trustworthiness throughout the research. Fink (2008) suggested that “A reliable measure
is reproducible and precise: Each time it is used it produces the same value” (p. 188).
Facilitating reliability in qualitative research can be demanding because of the underlying
concerns associated with its consistency (Miles & Huberman, 1994). They also identified
several relevant strategies in describing the reliability, dependability, and audibility of
qualitative research. They suggested that a researcher: (a) use clear research questions,
(b) researcher's role be explicitly described, (c) findings be meaningful paralleling data
sources, (d) reliability is connected to theory, (e) data is broadly collected, (f) perform
data checks, and (g) use peer review (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 278). To ensure
consistent internal reliability, I used quality data checks using peer review. Data will be
collected from multiple sources, and my role as the researcher was explicitly described to
the interview respondents.
Validity
The objective of qualitative research is to present a perspective of the issues and
offer reports that reveal the researcher's capacity to describe the phenomena of interest.
Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested that internal validity, credibility, and authenticity
is realized when (a) research appears reasonably vicarious to readers (b) triangulation of
data sources produce comparable conclusions, (c) data is connected to emerging theory,
and (d) “Were the conclusions considered to be accurate by original informant? ” (p.
279). On the other hand, they suggested that external validity, transferability, and
fittingness is realized when researchers (a) use information-rich thick description for
readers, (b) findings are consistent with experiences of participants, (c) the study supports
further testing, and (d) the study is easily replicated (p. 279)
Shank (2006) indicated that reliability is accuracy in measurement. Shank (2006)
and Rajendran (2009) also identified the following key values in the researcher: honesty
in presenting the findings, conscientiousness when it comes to avoiding researcher bias
and openness and clarify when presenting the case study results. In order to ensure that a
study espouses all these values, Shank recommended the rotation of sources to
synchronize the researcher’s insights.
Creswell (2007, 2009) identified several qualitative validity strategies that
encompass peer review and debriefing that keep the researcher honest. Creswell also
identified that researchers identify their biases in the outset of the study, in addition to
member checking and external audits to ensure validity. Further Creswell (2007, 2009),
Miles and Huberman (1994), and Patton (2002) identified the utility of data triangulation
strategies in providing validity in qualitative research. Creswell (2007) recommended that
qualitative researchers embrace a minimum of two of these strategies while conducting
research. Most importantly, however, Creswell noted that triangulation of data sources,
writing detailed thick descriptions, and member checking are reasonable as well as time
and cost-effective to facilitate. With this in mind, to assure the consistency of the internal
and external validity of the study I used: (a) triangulation strategies, (b) peer review and
debriefing, (c) research bias clarifying, (d) member checking, (e) writing thick and
descriptive, and (f) using external audits.
Summary
Chapter 3 illuminated the research design and the rationale for its use, in addition
to the role of the researcher in facilitating this study. Also included in Chapter 3 was a
discussion on the methodology to be employed in this qualitative study, which will follow
a case study design. Specifically, it illuminated the instrumentation, procedures for data
collection and data analysis, as well as the coding procedure. Finally, the chapter featured
discussion of issues of trustworthiness with the reliability and validity of the study. The
following chapter presents a representation of the results for the study.
Chapter 4: Data Collection and Analysis
Introduction
This case study was conducted in order to understand and analyze the utility of
restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism for African American males aged 12
to 17 years old in Baltimore City’s urban community. This section presented the data
garnered from seven extensive face-to-face interviews using semistructured and
openended questions. A qualitative data analysis was also employed to survey the
literature of the study and the process of thematization was highlighted in order to see the
emerging knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of the participants on the
effectiveness restorative justice programs. Specifically, the qualitative data analysis
employed was a content analysis which is best used when searching for meanings or
themes from large amounts of texts. Seven interviews were done for valid and reliable
outcomes to emerge wherein such will aid in understanding better the utilization and
general effects of the restorative justice programs on the African American males, in this
case aged 12 to 17years-old. All data collected were focused to address the following
research questions earlier formed in the study:
Central Research Question (RQ1). How do restorative justice programs for
African-American males 12-17 reduce recidivism rates and lessen their involvement in
the juvenile justice system?
Subquestion 1: How do evidenced-based restorative justice programs for African
American males 12 to 17 in an urban environment affect the involvement of youth in the
juvenile justice system?
Subquestion 2: How do you describe an effective/successful restorative justice
program?
The Participants
The participants of the study were seven experts on the restorative justice
programs who have years of experiences on the issue at hand. These participants also had
to have the knowledge on the state of the restorative justice programs of African
American males aged 12 to 17-years-old in Baltimore City’s urban community. They
were all interviewed face-to-face using a semistructured interview with open-ended
questions. Overall, there were seven out of 10 facilitators at the CCC who participated in
this study. All of these participants were from different economic statuses, with varied
educational and work experiences. In addition, the participant’s ages ranged from 35 to
57-years-old, with the average of 44.57, and the years of experience from 1-18 years,
with the average of 8.66.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis of this case study, I employed a qualitative content analysis.
Bryman (2001) explained this approach as one that "facilitates contextual meaning in text
through the development of emerging themes" (p. 36) as gathered from large textual
descriptions or data (Priest, Roberts, & Woods, 2002). Patton (2002) simplified the
definition of the content analysis approach as "any qualitative data reduction and
sensemaking effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify
core consistencies and meanings" (p. 453). I then employed Miles and Huberman's (1994)
qualitative content analysis, which is a three step process or tagged as the "three flows of
activity" (Hutchins, 2008, p. 79). It must also be noted that I made use of computer
software to encode the submissions for more accurate interpretations as suggested by
Woods and Roberts that content analysis is an extensively used method of deriving
meanings from a certain text, thus computer software packages must be employed as well
(Priest et al., 2002). I used the model of Miles and Huberman's (1994) "three flows of
activity" which consist of the following steps: (a) "data reduction or the process of
selecting, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data;" (b) "displaying data"; and
(c) "drawing conclusions and verification" (p. 11). Priest et al. (2002) explained the steps
of Miles and Huberman further and more comprehensively therefore the researcher
patterned his case study into the following:
1. The first level-coding [also known as data reduction] was a line-by-line
analysis which highlighted chunks of varying size, for example: phrases,
sentences, or whole sections (Miles & Huberman, 1994) were pasted to
particular analytic categories. Thus several paragraphs of text were reduced
through content coding.
2. The second-level coding was the more detailed indexing. Concepts were then
further explored and indexed according to content in a process known as
"nesting"... Facilitated the development of visual index trees and their
subsequent concept formation comprising sub-categories or branch nodes for
the whole project.
3. The last process was the continual checking and questioning of emerging
themes (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). In order to substantiate derived themes,
a reverse process ensured to delve into distinct data sets in order to derive
sources of supportive evidence and ascertain quotations from transcript. (p.
37)
The three steps elaborated above were modified from Priest et al.'s (2002) journal
entitled "Qualitative approaches: An overview of three different approaches to the
interpretation of qualitative data (Part 1: Theoretical Issues)" in order to be employed as
the method for this particular case study (See Appendices A and B for an example of the
processes).
Presentation of Findings
The presentation of findings section discusses a wide collection of knowledge,
perceptions, and experiences of the participants of the study with great involvement on
restorative justice programs especially in reducing recidivism for African American
males ages 12 to 17 in Baltimore City’s urban community. The case study established
three themes from the responses of the participants which can all be considered as main
sources of data, as they were directly gathered and interpreted from those who have
experienced the issue firsthand. These themes are all central to the main research question
and sub research questions presented in the earlier parts of the paper. Figure 1 represents
the research questions and their developed themes according to the responses of the
participants. I was able to establish the themes per research question by acquiring the
ones with the highest responses from the seven participants—the ones with the highest or
most common responses are tagged as themes and the ones that follow them are tagged as
invariant constituents. Overall, there are three main themes developed as per the three
research questions.
Figure 1. The research questions and the developed themes.
For the first and central theme which is how the restorative justice programs for
African American males 12-17 reduce recidivism rates and lessen their involvement in
the juvenile justice system, it emerged from the responses that: (a) "By helping the young
individuals involved realize their accountability while rebuilding their lives overall, then
recidivism rates can be reduced." For the second and subtheme which is how the
evidenced-based restorative justice programs for African American males 12 to 17 in an
urban environment affect the involvement of youth in the juvenile justice system, it
emerged from the responses that: (b) "The evidence-based restorative justice programs
allow both parties to be heard that is why the youth’s involvement and situation are
considered greatly." For the third and last subtheme, which are the descriptions of an
effective/successful restorative justice program, it emerged from the responses that: (c)
"The conferencing program is one effective and successful restorative justice program as
it allows the children move on and benefit from their past mistakes." Also included in this
section are the original and verbatim texts from the interviews to support the clustered
themes gathered from the responses of the seven participants.
Theme 1
The first thematic label that surfaced from the first and central research question
of the case study, which is how the restorative justice programs for African American
males 12-17 reduce recidivism rates and lessen their involvement in the juvenile justice
system, was that "By helping the young individuals involved realize their accountability
while rebuilding their lives overall, then the recidivism rates can be reduced." It was
deduced from only two invariant constituents as seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Restorative Justice Rates and Reduced Recidivism
Invariant Constituents # of
occurrences
% of occurrences
By helping the young individuals
involved realize their accountability
while rebuilding their lives overall,
then the recidivism rates can be
reduced
5 71%
By allowing the young individuals
involved to speak and be heard
without taking away their rights 2 29%
immediately, then the recidivism
rates can be reduced
Overall, the theme: "By helping the young individuals involved realize their
accountability while rebuilding their lives overall," which I considered to be one of the
most vital findings of the study together with the three other main themes, emerged from
five, or 71% (Table 1) out of seven of the interviewed respondents.
Participant # 2 emphasized the significance of instilling the values of
accountability and responsibility to the youth and as a result can reduce the recidivism
rates and involvement in the juvenile justice system:
So the larger pictures of letting young people know that they deserve the
opportunity to be held accountable. A lot of times, people just turn their back or
turn the other way and not – they don’t want to see what’s going’ on, or we throw
kids away and just say, “We’ll just lock you up,” and the problem is taken care of,
but with restorative justice, we let them know that they’re worthy of and that they
deserve the opportunity to step up and be held accountable for what they’ve done.
And in terms of the benefits we explain to participants, when we’re preparing for
the conference and making all of our phone calls, we talk about the fact that they
get a chance to tell their side ‘cause a lot of times what comes in the report is not
exactly what happened. So they get to tell their side of the story, how they’ve
been affected and hear how other people have been affected, and then they are
part of coming up with the agreement of how to resolve things so it doesn’t
happen again. So I think those are definitely benefits that aren’t offered in the
traditional system.
Participant # 4 added that the idea of "fairness" also allows the youth to move on
and start anew after committing their mistakes as well as the values of accountability and
responsibility as well:
I think, probably, the operative word for me would be “fair,” which means – or
“justice”. When you talk about justice and even though both of those systems
have the word justice on – in them, between restorative justice and juvenile justice
system, I believe that the community conferencing center or restorative justice
and process is similar off of the real justice in that people get a chance to
participate in making the decisions about what is just for them based on whatever
harm has been caused to them versus having a system or a [sic] individual come
in and say, “Here is what’s just,” based on, “Here’s what I can assess based on the
information.” And it really involves the whole story. And if you get the story
sometimes behind an incident of harm, I think you’re better – more likely to make
a just decision. A lot of times in court systems and even juvenile justice, there’s
one side. There is not the entire story being told. So, what I truly believe, what
works about restorative justice is it offers just that – justice. Or at least an
opportunity for justice to happen. And probably the fairest way I’ve seen – or fair
process I’ve seen in any other systems. Between just going strictly to the system,
than going to juvenile justice or the police department or the state’s attorney’s
office or even an administrator in a school, making that decision for a young
person or for the adults. The adult’s making a decision for the young person
versus including that young person in the decision making. So, it becomes like a
holistic approach, like, “Wow. I have some responsibility or accountability can
happen for me too.” And it really helps tow young people to the fire – or to the
table based on their actions, unlike any other system I’ve seen.
Participant # 6 stated that another effect that restorative justice programs provide
the youth in order to reduce the chances of them into going back to their old lives was the
direct involvement in the process of changing themselves and rebuilding their lives in
order to understand the situation better:
I think the benefits of restorative justice programs – the youth involved in the
offense has a direct – youth involved in restorative justice programs get more out
of the situation than going through a traditional juvenile justice system, and that I
mean that it has a way of – without going through shaming the individual and
then repairing them from the damage that he inflicted upon the individuals he
committed a crime against. In traditional juvenile justice systems when the person
commits a crime it’s all about punitive – what can we do to lock this person up or,
you know, get him out of society; when restorative justice, they kind of creates a
way for that juvenile to be repaired from the damage he’s committed upon his
victims. I think in more description is that it has a way of repairing the person
instead of just damaging. In traditional juvenile justice system, they just,
basically, just punish instead of help rebuilding that person, and a restorative
justice program helps that person understand what they’ve done and what they
can do to try to make themselves better from it.
Participant # 7 also emphasized that in this kind of program, the youth can lessen
the chance of recidivism as they are given the chance to truly rehabilitate and change for
the better as opposed to the traditional setting wherein they are subjected and punished
without the children completely understanding what they did wrong or what their
mistakes were in the first place:
The restorative justice program gives our youth more of a chance, more of an
opportunity for – I guess rehabilitation, atonement, accountability, as opposed to
the benefits of the juvenile system. They just, you know, go to court, see the
judge, and get sentenced. So this gives them more of an opportunity. And once
they do go through the regular justice system it usually ends up being repetitive.
And the restorative justice program, I think, gives more – it’s more like a second
chance.
The second and only invariant constituent, drawn from the comments of two out
of seven participants, or 29% was that: "By allowing the young individuals involved to
speak and be heard without taking away their rights immediately, then the recidivism
rates can be reduced."
Participant # 1 stated that one benefit and advantage of a restorative justice
program is that it allows the youth to truly speak and be heard without being punished too
quickly by the government:
In restorative justice, people get to speak directly with each other, people who
have been involved and/or affected by a certain situation or incident. As opposed
to having that power removed from them and taken over by judges and lawyers
and such. So, the people get to be heard. They speak directly with each other.
They get to come up with the solutions on their own. As opposed to traditional
juvenile justice systems, where all that power is taken away from the victim and
the offender and decided according to lots of different things, not necessarily what
people want, or how people are going to heal or how people are going to benefit.
Things like plea bargaining and probation before judgment, because we think a
jury will find this young person guilty. So, lots of other factors that is not
necessarily beneficial to the participants.
Participant # 3 also shared that the restorative program can reduce recidivism rates
by highlighting one modern and almost forgotten approach of hearing and listening to
both parties before judging them:
Ok. I think traditional juvenile justice systems are very outdated. I think they
don’t take into account or consideration the youth that are coming now. I think
when most of the programs were put in place it was many, many years ago. And
youth now are very different than how they were back then, obviously. I think
restorative justice programs – restorative justice programs take into consideration
people where they are. So it’s constantly changing and evolving. They’re
constantly taking from the actual people they're serving. They’re not going from
something that’s been in place many, many years ago. So it’s more about who –
who is involved in the conflict or who’s involved in whatever it is that’s going on.
It’s not about just trying to keep things the way they always were.
I think that kids who go through programs like our own – they learn that they too
have a voice. Not only are they learning about how they're affecting others; they
get to voice what’s going on with them. They get to actually say what’s in their
heart, what was in their mind, why they did what they did, and there’s always
background to every story. It’s not always cut and dry. In the justice system, you
don’t hear stories; you just hear about whatever it is that someone’s done. In
restorative programs, you hear about what led them to that place, why they did
what they did, and it helps them. When you speak something it helps you think
about what it is you did. So I just think that gives them more of an advantage to
understand themselves even – themselves and everyone else. The juvenile justice
system doesn’t. And I actually feel like in that system, some kids who aren’t –
who are on the verge of going bad or good – well, no – not good; but on the verge
of going bad, if – when they come into contact with others who are already there,
they actually go more towards that way.
Theme 2
The second thematic label that surfaced from the second subresearch question
which is how the evidenced-based restorative justice programs for African American
males 12 to 17 in an urban environment affect the involvement of youth in the juvenile
justice system, was that "The evidence-based restorative justice programs allow both
parties to be heard that is why the youth’s involvement and situation are considered
greatly." This was deduced from three invariant constituents, as seen in Table 2.
Table 2
Effect of Evidenced-Based Restorative Justice Programs
Invariant Constituents # of occurrences % of occurrences
The evidence-based restorative justice 4 57%
programs allow both parties to be heard
that is why the youth’s involvement and
situation are considered greatly
Through the idea of altered and changed
processes of the evidence-based
restorative justice programs, the
involvement of the youth can be increased
because they do not feel locked up as
compared to the traditional system
2 29%
Through the “home-based therapy” of the
evidence-based restorative justice
programs, the involvement of youth has
been more effective and proven to be
working as well
1 14%
In general, the theme: "The evidence-based restorative justice programs allow
both parties to be heard that is why the youth’s involvement and situation are considered
greatly," which I found to be one of the four most significant findings of the study,
emerged from four out of seven, or 57% (Table 2) out of seven of the interviewed
respondents.
Participant # 2 stated that the evidence-based restorative justice program
encourages involvement and participation from the youth as they continuously strive to
remind the community that an organization that can listen and make them better truly
exists:
Yeah, this is where I struggle about wondering if they should exist as one. You
know, we exist because the system is broken and because the bureaucracy doesn’t
work, and we exist in response to that; so if we were to change what we do or
compromise the integrity or try to fit into that system, or if they tried to take on
what we did, which – we do, which is really organic and community-led and for
the community, I feel like – that it would be compromised. And it’s just – I think
we need to continue to exist and represent that we represent, and give the chance
to the folks that aren’t given a chance otherwise. And I’m not sure a program like
that could exist within the juvenile justice system and I don’t think it should.
Participant # 3 added that by talking and listening, the youth can get involved
more as they are given the chance to be heard and served justice rightly through the
evidence-based restorative justice program:
I think just talking. I think talking and listening. The conference – our conferences
have three aspects. You hear what exactly happened; you hear how people are
affected by what happened; and then they come up with a way to resolve it. So I
think a lot of the programs are just other people saying what should happen. This
has been – this is the sentence that’s supposed to be imposed. It’s just too
structured. I think that it needs to be looser. I think it needs to be more talking.
What does the victim need? What does the respondent need? What do people
need in order to move forward? The more we talk about what people need and
hear people, then it can be resolved. Is it really resolved if you're trying to resolve
it without the people involved?
Participant # 5 also highlighted the importance of dialogues in youth involvement
especially when it comes to the evidence-based restorative justice program:
You know, I’ve been working here for nine years and we have done – like – some
circle work with – like – victim/offender dialogue with youth – like – I think it
was for victim/offender – victims’ week? I think it was victims’ week. Victims’
rights week – where we held circles in actual facilities with not only the young
people who were being held there and their families, but also DJS workers, not
only from the center – from the actual facilities but also from the administration
building. So – like – Secretary Montague actually participated in one of our
circles and they had to share a time when either they were affected or – by a crime
– or that they had caused hurt to someone. And I think that more of that needs to
happen because I think that the administration and the workers really got to hear
from the young people and it was very inclusive. This process is very inclusive
and it’s not – like – top down. And you need that sometimes to run – you know –
an agency, but if you’re trying to repair harm and trying to get young people to
understand that their actions have reactions and effect people, then there needs to
be that dialogue happening with them. If you’re trying to lower recidivism rates,
then you need to have that – find out why kids are doing what they’re doing.
What do they need? And it can’t be adults deciding for kids what they need in
order to make things better. Kids have to have a say in that. And I think those
circles were really good. Like I said, I do think you need to have structure for –
not the bureaucracy, but – you know – to run an agency, but if it’s an agency
that’s trying to rehabilitate young people, then you have to include the people in
what they need. And I think that this process allows that to happen. I also think
that they need to rely on programs like us a little bit more. Like I said, every
offense, I don’t think an arrestable offense. It’s usually people that don’t get along
and that are not a crime. People are not going to get along, but how do you
resolve that conflict, and it’s usually – the fight is the ends to the means, I guess –
that’s what it –
So, you know – it’s like a suspension – like – well, why were they suspended?
Well, what was happening? Or why were they arrested? What was happening?
And so, you arrest them, take them out of community and you don’t do anything
with them and send them right back to the community without addressing the
issue – the real issue. So, I think until DJS understands, or systems like juvenile
services across the country start to realize that you have to address the issues, you
can’t cut funding for young people in a city and then wonder why crime rates are
going up. They have nothing to do and idle minds and time – it just – it’s like a
breeding ground for chaos.
The second invariant constituent, drawn from the comments of two out of seven
participants, or 29% was: "Through the idea of altered and changed processes of the
evidence-based restorative justice programs, the involvement of the youth can be
increased because they do not feel locked up as compared to the traditional system."
Participant # 1 shared the idea of "diversions" an example of an altered and
modified process to get the youth to voluntarily decide to come and get involved in the
evidence-based restorative justice programs, the participant explained that:
So, if they did diversions at – so down in Baltimore, we have the Juvenile Justice
Center, and it’s supposed to be a one-stop shop. So, kids do meet their PO there.
They get arraigned there. The actual detention center is there. And if you put a
diversion in that building, I don’t think it would be effective at all. Is that what
you’re asking?
I think it has to be managed outside of –the building, physically. And I think it
has to be managed outside of an institution that is a bureaucracy, because we all
know that they can mess up a soup sandwich. And there may be other restorative
practices that could embrace those particular cases. So, I think having those desks
or those positions or those departments within institutions that are well-trained,
understand our process, make good referrals and determine in an effective and
efficient way what cases are best for this particular process… And so, that’s
something that we work on. And we have an outreach coordinator, and you can
talk to Jennifer more about some of that. And it is an ongoing – it’s an ongoing
process. And then I think, also, like, you know, money is always some part of it.
So, how much – I don’t think the Department of Juvenile Services funds any part
of our program. And so, that kind of gives you an indication that that particular
institution isn’t fully, maybe isn’t fully committed. So, they want it, ‘cause it
looks good on their numbers. And maybe there’s an initiative from up above that
says, “We need more cases diverted,” or “We need less arrests,” or whatever. So,
the – it’s, again, not kind of part of their day-to-day mentality. And if you are
working within a lock them up institution, then it’s difficult to think about what
an alternative to that might be. And then, if you express what, sometimes, what
restorative practices look like, it sounds too loosey-goosey [sic] and not hard
enough on crime and not punitive enough and – so there’s a paradigm that would
have to shift to really embrace restorative justice processes within the system.
And, you know, that comes from top down, but also from bottom up, I think.
Participant # 4 added that the idea of having something new and out of the
traditional can definitely encourage the youth out of the juvenile system to get involved in
the evidence-based restorative justice system:
I think the term in itself, restorative justice, is relatively – not relatively new,
‘because it’s been around for quite a while, but to say, “This is a practice. This is
a way of life. This is a way that–“in dealing with a whole system - and it’s not
that we throw out the old systems. So, when you asked me – programs could be
effective in dealing with – rather than traditional – wow – they could learn a lot,
but the evidence base is what you said. And it’s really difficult because a lot of
what are considered restorative practices programs, don’t necessarily have the
evidence base because there’s not been a lot of work done – research to support –
so, there’s not a lot of factual evidence. We have evidence that we start recording
stories from people, and having people say, “How did you feel after?” That is just
being collected, say, over the last 5-10 years. Whereas, the system of justice, or
traditional systems, have been in place for centuries. Yeah, centuries. So, they
have more evidence to say, “Here’s what’s being done.” Right or wrong it’s been
the standard. It’s been the status quo or the norm, so we tend to say that’s what
people should accept. So, we’re relatively new if you think about the spectrum is
to – this is a relatively new idea. So, we don’t always have the evidence based
information to support it. Our program – I mean, we’ve been working at making
sure we develop it – and having to add that so we can even search or research and
get out there and receive grants for the work that we do. So, for the last – I mean,
I’m sure there’s probably nothing going back 20 years, but there’s probably –
maybe 10 years of evidence based research that we could have here. We’re
relatively – kind of – new program in that – in the last – you know – 10, 15 years
– I don’t know if there’s a whole bunch out there to support, but if you talk to
anyone and you have to interview those individuals who have participated – and
they will definitely tell you – so, from our information, we have like, a 95 or a
94% success rate of those people, who have participated in conferences, and who
were satisfied with the process, who agree that whatever they’ve done is more
satisfactory than traditional based – going through the system – going to court –
so, we haven’t done a comparison data study yet, but we have done status on
recidivism with juvenile services that we know there’ s a 60% less likely – young
person who participates in the conference to repeat the action, versus going
through the traditional system. And that data was small. They did a small
sampling of young people of comparable ages and information and backgrounds
to see what they could come up with and that was just something they did on their
own. I don’t know that there’s any long term, comprehensive studies in existence.
At least for the work that we do around restorative justice.
The third and last invariant constituent, drawn from the response of only one out
of seven participants or 14% was: "Through the “home-based therapy” of the
evidencebased restorative justice programs, the involvement of youth has been more
effective and proven to be working as well."
Participant # 6 shared how the "home-based therapy" is an effective mechanism
wherein the youth can get more actively involved to the evidence-based restorative justice
programs, given a more acceptable and favorable setting and environment for them:
In evidence-based programs, restorative justice programs that would be effective
in traditional. I think what evidence-based programs would be effective is those
programs that go out to the home and address the needs that are in the home with
the youth, his family, the community. Those evidence-based programs – ’cause
evidence-based research has proven that in order to really address a kid’s
problems or needs, you should be doing that in the home and not take the kid out
of the home, so one of the most effective evidence-based programs is in-home
therapy. If you could incorporate in-home therapy in a traditional juvenile justice
system – they have been trying to do that recently. Like Department of Juvenile
Services, they now have FFT, Family Functional Therapy, where they go out to
the home because evidence-based has proven that that’s what works now. So
that’s where the mindset of people in the juvenile justice system is going, that
they need to address the needs of these individuals inside their home. So that’s the
most effective part of restorative justice or evidence-based restorative justice in
the juvenile justice system – the home-based therapy.
Theme 3
The third subthematic label that surfaced from the third research question which
are the descriptions of an effective/successful restorative justice program, was that "The
conferencing program is one effective and successful restorative justice program as it
allows the children move on and benefit from their past mistakes." It was deduced from
four invariant constituents (See Table 3).
Table 3
The Descriptions of an Effective/Successful Restorative Justice Program
Invariant Constituents # of occurrences % of occurrences
The conferencing program is one effective
and successful restorative justice program
as it allows the children move on and
4 57%
benefit from their past mistakes
The “Fidelity Model” should be rebuilt
and restored so that the youth can have
trust as to who and what to follow while
undergoing the restorative justice program
for it to be effective/ successful
1 14%
The feeling of belongingness with instilled
values for the youth should be apparent to
know that indeed the restorative justice
program has been effective and successful
1 14%
The selection process should be modified as
to who goes to the restorative justice
program and those who should go juvenile
to see a more effective/ successful
program
1 14%
Overall, the theme: "The conferencing program is one effective and successful
restorative justice program as it allows the children move on and benefit from their past
mistakes", which the researcher considered to be one of the most significant out of the
four main findings of the study, emerged from four, 57% (Table 3) out of seven of the
interviewed participants.
Participant # 2 shared an effective and successful restorative justice program that
they practice in their community that promotes transparency and openness to all
stakeholders:
I think ours. I think that there are a lot of restorative initiatives that deal with
things on all different levels, and I think they all work in their own unique way. I
think what’s great about community conferencing and what we do is the
transparency we have on all levels. So we’re very clear and up-front with
everybody about what the process are, what they’re going to expect, that there’s
no secrets that are going to be told or nobody’s going to hear anything that others
won’t. They have the opportunity – it’s voluntary, so they have the opportunity, at
any point, to choose something different, and they get a say in what the outcome
is. You know, they really get to direct how the meeting goes and what the
outcome is. The other piece is that my job as a facilitator is really just – to just
make sure the conversation’s moving along, but, really, they’re empowered to be
the experts of their own conflict. They were the ones who were there. They were
the ones who were involved. I don’t know anything about it. I wasn’t there. All I
know is what’s written on a paper. I don’t go by that. These are humans sitting in
here that are much more than one sheet of paper that I got or – you know, from a
referral source, so they get to do it and I trust that they have the full capacity to do
it. And I think that’s another thing that, as facilitators, everyone in our office
really has, is that you really need to inherently believe that people are capable of
resolving their own conflicts, and I’ve seen it and I know it and I trust and have
faith that they get to do that, so – and our outcomes show it, you know, that what
we’re doing’ is working and – yeah.
Participant # 3 also added that a successful program is one that allows the youth
involved to speak and to be heard as well, which is the main idea of the community
conference:
I would describe a successful program as one that would just take the participants
into consideration and what the participants say, they would lead whatever it is.
There’s no way – and I think I said this earlier. There’s no way you can come to a
resolution or feel resolved about something if you don’t have input. I think a
successful program will have input from the participants involved.
Participant # 5 shared that their community conferencing has been very effective
and successful that even schools and other institutions have joined and participated as
well:
I think we’re successful at what we do. I mean, it would be – community
conferencing – I think it would be a staff like this. So, I don’t only facilitate. I’m
deputy director here and so, this – you really have to have a good blend of
facilitators who get it. And facilitators who are good facilitators can be – can
remain neutral, and see bigger vision, and how to grow and how to use this work
and apply it in different venues. So like, workplace conferences, we do for
workplace conferences. After school programs utilize us. Schools utilize us. Like
I said, the police, DJS, states’ attorneys use us. All the way up to crimes that are –
serious crimes conferences, but in particular, I think, for us, it’s making a dent in
those disproportionate minority context with the system. I think – it’s kind of
funny because for us to stay in business we kind of need kids to keep doing what
they’re doing, but the goal of our program is to lower recidivism, so when that
starts to happen, we have to figure out how to – and we’re kind of in that now,
because the number of cases that we’re getting is a little bit lower this year, so
how else can we use this process? So, just thinking about re-entry – like – kids
that get committed, coming back into a household, there’s clearly a conflict there.
Clearly people are affected by what happened. How do they assimilate back into
the household? So, can community conferencing be used in that? We have a lot of
young people, African American males, domestic violence cases that are coming
through, so that’s – you know – another avenue that we’re applying this process
in. I think you just kind of have to change with the times. I remember when I first
got here; the referrals were mainly African American youth – male. I think,
maybe a year and a half after I started, so like, 2005, 2006 – the number of young
women that were referred – and I know the studies about African American
males, and we’ve been talking about that as a staff too, but a lot of attention has
been poured into males and what they need, and the young women, I think, have
kind of been left behind. And so, we – its flip flopped. The majority of our cases
are African American women that come through the door now. And not just one
on ones – but large girls – like – I think my last large one was 17 young women
referred. And so, to conference that at one time is a lot.
Participant # 6 simply stated that the community conference is considered
effective and successful as it changes the children's lives overall:
Our community conferencing program. Our community conferencing program in
and around the counties. It’s successful; it’s effective because we’re changing
kids’ lives. I mean, let’s think about it, we’ve done what most people haven’t
been able to do by getting young African American kids and having mediations
that change, or conferences, that change their lives and, you know, put them back
on the right path. So how do I describe a successful-it’s a program that helps kids
move on or benefit from mistakes, help them to understand what they done, and
help them to understand that when they create a crime that they’re harming
somebody. And then when you’re – and not only harming someone else, but
you’re harming yourself, and a successful program should address that with the
youth, address that with the family, address that with the community. And a
successful program should be able to spread that restorative justice to all
individuals that it can be – can benefit from that, so that’s why I’m trying to do as
many conferences as I can to help us because I also am involved in DMC,
disproportionate minority contact, where the governor’s office recognizes there’s
too many African Americans in the system that don’t need to be, that there’s
crimes that occur that could be – that could – we could mediate and come – or
come up with a conference and help them and divert it. So a successful
community conference/effective program would divert youth from going into the
system but still make them feel whole or make them feel better – and the victim –
about the crime that has occurred. So a successful program would benefit
everyone: the victim, by making them feel better about the crime that occurred;
the respondent or the party that created the crime, by building them up from
letting them know that they made a mistake and they got to move on from that,
but you harm people when you do that; and the community, by bringing
everybody together and let them discuss their issues instead of sending everybody
to court and let them pay for it. So a successful program would benefit all parties
and the community and home and make people feel better about themselves.
The second invariant constituent, drawn from the response of only one out of
seven participants, or 14% was that: "The “Fidelity Model” should be rebuilt and restored
so that the youth can have trust as to who and what to follow while undergoing the
restorative justice program for it to be effective/successful."
Participant # 1 shared that an effective program is one that is seen as respected
and trustworthy and gave the "Fidelity Model" as an example:
I think you have to have the partners. I think this is – this word is actually –
there’s an excellent model. So, it’s taken, you know, a long time in building the
relationships, maintaining an integrity and, sort of, sticking to a fidelity model, so
that we don’t mush around and say, “Oh, well, OK. We’ll kind of compromise in
this way or compromise in that way.” I think this organization has really stuck
true to the process and how this process works, how it’s effective and for whom
it’s effective. So, it’s not effective for people who really want to keep the beef
going. It’s not effective for kids who don’t acknowledge they were even involved.
But I think only the relationships with the agencies that have – the referring
agencies being known in the community and having community knowledge,
understanding and access and sticking to what we do, not trying to modify it to fit
other agencies’ or bureaucracies’ needs is a good model.
The third invariant constituent, drawn from the response of only one out of seven
participants or 14% was: "The feeling of belongingness with instilled values for the youth
should be apparent to know that indeed the restorative justice program has been effective
and successful" should be present.
Participant # 4 explained that an effective and successful restorative program is
one that practices what it teaches and preaches the youth, and one that allows its members
to truly change because they believe in the program:
One that practices what it preaches. If you are truly a restorative justice program,
and that’s your total role and intent – in allowing people to work things out for
themselves then that should be how your organization is run. So, I think, if you
say, “What’s effective?” Then those people that participate in that organization
aren’t just offering something that they don’t believe in and that they’re not
passionate about. But, it’s like, if you want to talk the talk, you walk the walk
yourself. So, the organization is successful if it’s walking the walk that it preaches
or offers to the public. And that’s what happens here. So, that’s how I would
identify a successful organization versus – whoever can bring in the most money
or the most funding or – and so we all tend to leave feeling satisfied that we are
participating in – or doing something that is completely – and you want to belong
to an organization that you feel a part of. And that’s what restorative justice is,
“I’m a part of this. So, I’m a part of building and growing this, and selling this,
because I am the product in which I sell.” And that’s the most amazing thing
about what I would consider a restorative justice program.
The fourth invariant constituent, drawn from the response of only one out of seven
participants, or 14% was that: "The selection process should be modified as to who goes
to the restorative justice program and those who should go juvenile to see a more
effective/ successful program."
Participant # 7 stated that for the restorative justice program to be considered
effective, it should be modified to get the youth or the ones involved to actively
participate and made known that they can indeed change for the better through the
program:
Successful, effective restorative program? I think maybe tweaking the – I don’t
know how to – the selection process, as far as who goes to restorative or who goes
to juvenile. Again, you know, like I said previously, there are those that you just
can’t touch. And you can – and a lot of times, especially with males, even within
the whole conference atmosphere at first it’s a little more difficult to reach males
because they tend to have that big bravado and it’s a little bit more difficult. But
usually you can reach them. But there are those that – and although they’re very
protective and close-mouthed and whatever, but usually you can. But there are
those that – and I’ve seen it in females, as well – that it’s like you can see that the
parents are powerless. The – it’s like pretty much everything is powerless. They
just – so I think maybe being more – tweaking the whole selection process.
The Findings and the Relevant Literature
The findings that emerged in the analysis section of the study correlate to the
relevant literature identified and presented in Chapter 2. Bradshaw and Roseborough
(2005) found that “the aim of restorative justice is to repair the harm done by the crime
by bringing together the people most affected by the offence to determine how to deal
with the offence; dialogue, reparation, and accountability are critical components” (p.15).
Villa-Vicencio and Doxtader (2004) added that the aim of restorative justice is to
"contribute to the rebuilding of society in a different way as it seeks to address the
personal and communal dimensions that create the possibility of rebuilding life in the
wake of tragedy and destruction (p. 37). The studies by Bradshaw and Roseborough
(2005) and that of Villa-Vicencio and Doxtader (2004) both pertain to using the
capability of the restorative justice system to rebuild the accused males' values and lives
overall to reduce recidivism rates and lessen their involvement in the juvenile justice
system. These studies then clearly support the results, specifically Theme # 1 wherein it
was found that "By helping the young individuals involved realize their accountability
while rebuilding their lives overall, then recidivism rates can be reduced"
The study presented by Mutter et al. (2008) focused on the attitudes of the young
offenders toward the family group conferences, including any psychosocial changes that
resulted from the conference. The offender group encompassed 26 young men and four
young women. With the exception of one participant who was undecided, all the
participants felt they were heard and were treated with dignity and respect. Another study
showed by Mutter et al. (2008) identified early on that the capacity of the evidence-based
programs to hear and listen to the youth offenders’ side and make them feel involved is
another effect that allows the youth to be engaged further and accept the idea of
restorative justice. These studies again connect to another theme formed in this specific
research study with: “The evidence-based restorative justice programs allow both parties
to be heard that is why the youth’s involvement and situation are considered greatly.”
An effective/successful restorative justice program then is one where offenders
are allowed to speak and understand their mistakes according to the participants. Dhami
(2012) shared that when apologies are accepted by victims, perpetrators may be more
likely to feel satisfied with the victim-offender mediation process. In another study by
Stahlkopf (2009) the young individuals were shown to be pleased that adults asked for
their thoughts and listened to them, and in particular, they were happy that they were
given a “second chance” (p. 247). The process mentioned is done through a conference
program which again allows the children to be heard and in turn can make them realize
and learn from their mistakes. One program created is known as "family group
conferencing" which is a more recent innovation in restorative justice programs
(Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). These infer to another theme established in the study,
which was that: "The conferencing program is one effective and successful restorative
justice program as it allows the children move on and benefit from their past mistakes."
Overall, these studies and the themes explained can be condensed into the conclusion of
Hayes and Herbert’s (2011) research study. Hayes and Herbert explained that restorative
justice can "involve a fostering of dialogue between the offender and the victim showing
the highest rates of victim satisfaction, true accountability by the offender, and reduced
recidivism” (p. 124).
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 4 discussed and presented the data collected and findings from the seven
conducted interviews for the case study. Also, throughout the gathered interviews, I
carefully studied and analyzed the knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of the
participants with regard to how the utility of restorative justice programs aid in reducing
recidivism for African American males, ages 12 to 17 in Baltimore City’s urban
community. Chapter 4 also logically presented the data gathering that I employed and
followed, who the participants of the study were, the data analysis through the three flow
activity of Miles and Huberman (1994), the clustered and thematized findings with proper
descriptions to aid in understanding the results of the interviews, and the relevance of the
findings to other literature. I then was able to develop four main themes all pertaining to
the four research questions formed in the early stages of the study.
The findings developed all underpin the fact that indeed, a restorative justice is
needed in order to aid the African Americans, especially the males and those aged from
12-17 to be guided and given the chance to be better with the given program/s. The
themes that emerged in particular were the following: (a) By helping the young
individuals involved realize their accountability while rebuilding their lives overall, then
recidivism rates can be reduced; (b) The evidence-based restorative justice programs
allow both parties to be heard that is why the youth’s involvement and situation are
considered greatly; and that (c) The conferencing program is one effective and successful
restorative justice program as it allows the children to move on and benefit from their
past mistakes. The next chapter, Chapter 5 presents further the discussion of the results
and the overall conclusions of the study.
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview of the Study
The rationale of the study was to investigate the role of restorative justice in the
reduction of recidivism of African American youths in an urban community. The body of
knowledge on restorative justice is confined to the effectiveness of restorative justice
programs in reducing the engagement of youths in the juvenile justice system. Previous
studies (Hill, 2009; Maloney, 2007; Wenzel et al., 2008) focused on improving
restorative programs, realizing the role of the community in the process. Nonetheless, the
purpose of the research was validated by the claims of past studies (Gromet & Darley,
2006; Hutchinson, 2006; Priban, 2009) that restorative justice reduces recidivism.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand the utility of
restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism for African American males ages 12
to 17 in Baltimore City’s urban community. This research used a qualitative method to
study the effect of restorative justice in reducing recidivism of African American youths.
Moreover, the present research evaluated restorative justice as opposed to punitive
justice, and how these restorative justice programs could serve as an alternative way of
addressing delinquents. A case study approach was selected to induce reliable data.
Moreover, this approach provides an opportunity for using purposeful sampling to study a
bounded system/one case or multiple bounded systems/cases over time (Creswell, 2007;
Patton, 2002).
The present study further utilized intrinsic case study design, which focuses on
one unique specific case (Creswell, 2007), which was delinquent African American
youths from Baltimore City. Purposeful sampling was facilitated through intensity
sampling strategies that described the impact that restorative justice programs have on the
community. Furthermore, the approach provided an opportunity for face-to-face
interaction that facilitated an inductive data analysis approach, resulting to voluminous
data. The case study approach provided a natural setting, which enabled me to gather
various data through interviews, documents, archival data, and observation. Seven
interviews were done for valid and reliable outcomes to emerge for the better
understanding of the utilization and general effects of the restorative justice programs on
the African American males, in this case aged 12-17.
Consequently, the detailed and voluminous data gathered from face-to-face
interviews, observations, and document evaluations were reviewed collectively for
emerging themes. Facilitation of qualitative data analysis of the information gathered
subjectively described the effects of restorative justice. To establish more credible and
reliable findings from voluminous data, a computer software program was used during
the analysis process to code text or other elements of the data sources and to manipulate
data and graphically display codes. The participants selected for the study were seven
experts on the restorative justice programs who have many years of experiences on the
issue at hand.
To address the research questions, themes were developed using qualitative data
analysis. The central research question for this study was: How do restorative justice
programs for African American males 12-17 reduce recidivism rates and lessen their
involvement in the juvenile justice system? Furthermore, two subquestions were used: (a)
How do evidenced-based restorative justice programs for African American males 12 to
17 in an urban environment affect the involvement of youth in the juvenile justice system,
and (b) How do you describe an effective/successful restorative justice program?
The case study established three themes from the responses of the said
participants, which could all be considered as main sources of data, as they were directly
gathered and interpreted from those who have experienced the issue firsthand. These
themes are all central to the main and subresearch questions presented in the earlier parts
of the paper. The first and central theme which emerged from the responses is that (a)
"The restorative justice programs can reduce recidivism rates and lessen their
involvement in the juvenile justice system by helping the individuals realize their
accountability while rebuilding their lives overall." Secondly, a subtheme that emerged
from the responses is that (b) "The evidence-based restorative justice programs allow
both parties to be heard that is why the youth’s involvement and situation are considered
greatly." The second subtheme that emerged from the responses is that (c) "The
conferencing program is one effective and successful restorative justice program as it
allows the children move on and benefit from their past mistakes."
Interpretation of the Findings
The framework of the current study is based on Braithwaite’s (2002) restorative
justice theory. It is a continuous process defined by its rituals of repentance that restore
victims, offenders, and community through consensus restoration. This theory will
provide a lens for considering the utility of alternative sentencing for juvenile offenders,
particularly those of color, in urban environments. From a theoretical perspective, it is
likely that the underpinnings of restorative justice programming will be accomplished
through a theoretical lens used to examine well-documented and successful
programming. The motivation behind this proposition is the concept that studying
successful restorative justice programs increases juvenile justice practitioner's chances of
reducing youth involvement in the justice system.
Theme 1
I concluded that restorative justice programs reduce recidivism by making the
delinquents realize that they are accountable for their actions. This is considered one of
the most vital findings of the study, and was pointed out by five (71%) out of seven (see
Table 1 in Chapter 4) of the interviewed respondents.
One of the ideas developed directly related to this theme is that infusing values of
accountability and responsibility to the youth in restorative justice program reduces
recidivism as well as lessens their involvement in juvenile crimes (Participant 2). This
notion can be well-explained by Baffour’s (2006) claim about restorative justice in
relation to African American families. Baffour concluded that mediation strategies such
as family group conferencing could draw on the strengths, values, and cultural traditions
of African American families, which would optimize the effectiveness of the (restorative)
program. The effectiveness of this restorative program is assessed to be directly linked to
lower recidivism. Thus, it supported the notion that emerged in the data coming from
Participant # 2.
Similarly, Umbreit and Armour (2011) emphasized that restorative justice
programs illuminate human rights, values, human dignity, relationships, community, and
freedom, which empowers the victim, offender, and the community. Moreover, Maloney
(2007) argued that restorative justice could be broadly defined as a consensus restoration
of justice by reestablishing the values infringed upon by the offenders. In addition,
restorative justice programs should be in balance with community safety, provide
accountability for youthful offenders’ behavior, and enhance youth development and core
competencies (Maloney, 2007). Therefore, as shown above, these studies have validated
the idea that restorative justice reduces the recidivism through embedding the values of
accountability and responsibility to the youth.
Furthermore, studies by Schachter (2010) and Zaslaw (2010) noted that restorative
justice stresses the role of the offender in understanding the impact of his or her actions
and making suitable amends. This claim from both studies cited above revalidated the
idea that instilling values of accountability and responsibility provided in restorative
justice reduced the reoccurrence of delinquent acts from the youth.
Another notion developed from the first theme that emerged is the idea of
“fairness,” which allows the youth to move on and start anew after committing their
mistakes (Participant # 4). This notion can be best explained by shared identity derived
from social identity theory and has recently been introduced into the study of attitudes
toward restorative justice (Gromet & Daley, 2009). Having the sense of shared identity
between the victim and the offender promotes equality, which leads fairness. Okinomoto
et al. (2009) added that shared identity is an important influence on perceptions of
fairness. The decisions were generally viewed as fairer when they mutually were reached
by the victim and the offender, than when they were imposed (Okimoto et al., 2009). This
notion of shared identity clearly validates the claim that achieving a sense of “fairness”
reduces recidivism and further promotes involvement of the delinquents. In addition, a
qualitative study conducted by Stahlkopf (2009) concluded that juvenile offenders were
largely satisfied with the process of victim-offender mediations, which was perceived as
fair and empowering. This conclusion supports the claim by entailing that perceived
fairness in mediations promotes satisfaction, which signifies total involvement from the
offender.
Interestingly, the same study by Okimoto et al (2009) concluded that the response
was also perceived as fairer when it included punitive actions than when there was no
punishment. These results are consistent with the study of Gromet and Daley (2006), who
found that although people accept restorative justice and tend to prefer it to less serious
offenses, retributive measures are also important for eliciting a sense of fairness.
Therefore, it is essential to say that although restorative justice aims to promote
betterment of the delinquent youths, it does not tolerate the wrongdoing by not imposing
anything to the offender. What the findings clearly showed was that restorative justice
does not focus on punishment for transgressing the rules, but more on the integration of
the punishment and its effects to the offender. The sense of “fairness” then should be
clearly defined regarding its inclination to restorative justice and retributive measures.
Direct involvement of the delinquents in the process of changing themselves and
rebuilding their lives is another notion that developed from the first theme (Participant #
6). This can be attributed to restorative justice theory by Hutchinson (2006). Hutchinson
proposed that “the involvement of all the parties concerned with the criminal event
(including the victim, the offender, supporters of each, and the wider community)” (p.
453) is one of the major tenets of the theory. This view exemplified that the offender’s
direct involvement is crucial for restorative justice to be successful. Thus, indirectly
stated, an offender’s involvement may promote reduction of recidivism among the
delinquent youths.
Consequently, the last notion induced from the first theme explained that giving
delinquents a chance to truly rehabilitate and change for the better reduced the
reoccurrence of delinquent acts (Participant # 7). This claim is directly validated by the
National Juvenile Justice Network (2008) in its conclusion that most adults, comprised of
around 89%, in the Center for Children’s Law and Policy (CCLP) survey agreed that
practically all youth who commit crimes have the potential to change their behavior.
In a different light, another theme garnered 29% of the insights of the participants.
This notion proposed that recidivism could reduce restorative justice by allowing the
delinquents to speak and be heard while honoring their rights (Participant # 1). In line
with this is the idea acquired from the answers of (Participant # 3). It is the claim that
recidivism could be reduced by highlighting one modern and almost forgotten approach
of hearing and listening to both parties before judging them. This is also well supported
by the mediating strategies that promote equality between the victim and the offender.
The perceived equality by the offender will result in improved involvement, which may
be an avenue to reduce recidivism.
Theme 2
The current theme, together with the other two themes (which are found to have
lower significance compared to this theme) is developed from the research question
regarding how restorative justice affects the involvement (Participant # 2) of youth to
juvenile justice systems. This notion has garnered 57 % of the participants’ insights,
which distinguished it to be the most significant findings among the three. The most
popular form of restorative justice is victim-offender mediation, accruing the largest
empirical evidence base (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). McCarter et al. (2009)
advocated community-based efforts (such as educational programs) as well as
“evidencebased structural change” in juvenile justice policy and practice that focus on
changes in processing and sanctions to correct the existing inequities in the juvenile
justice system (p. 542). Consequently, the adoption of restorative justice practices such as
victimoffender mediation, which has a sound evidence base (Bradshaw & Roseborough,
2005), could be one of the policy changes. Umbreit and Armour (2011) added that
exchanging ideas, discussion, and collaboration are encouraged throughout the restorative
justice process. Braithwaite (2006) supported this claim by further expounding that the
apology and dialogue (Participant # 5) characteristic of family group conferencing or
victimoffender mediation could be conceptualized as a repentance ritual, which can be
regarded as a type of reintegrative shaming. As an implication, these claims confirmed
that evidence-based restorative justice allows both parties to give each other’s side.
Hence, this leeway of speaking out promotes involvement of the offenders in the process.
Furthermore, Doerr (2008) argued that youth engagement in restorative justice
programming reduces their involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Another notion developed from the second theme is the idea of an altered process
of restorative justice, which increased the involvement rate of delinquent youths because
they did not feel that they were imprisoned. This notion garnered 29% of the participants’
insights, which was determined not to be as significant as the first notion in the same
theme. This notion can be explained by Umbreit and Armour (2011), arguing that
restorative justice programs emphasized a sense of freedom, as it is part of the human
rights values. Focusing on the harm that has been done as opposed to the rules that has
been transgressed, restorative justice promotes equality in addressing the concerns of
both parties involved. One form of restorative justice that affected the perception of the
delinquent youths is Positive Behavior Support (PBS). It focuses on the social and
emotional influences on students’ behavior (Schachter, 2010). This characteristic of both
PBS and restorative justice ascertained that there could be a better alternative (Participant
# 4) to traditional punitive justice. Thus, the phenomenon can be best explained by this
realization of the delinquent youths that there are alternative justice programs other than
punitive justice. Hence, this perception of a new and better program confirmed the claim
that it increases the involvement of delinquent youths to rehabilitation.
Participant # 1 further urged diversion as a factor that makes delinquent youth
voluntarily become involved in restorative programs. Diversion is the overall goal of
victim-offender mediation (Prichard, 2010). This goal, in a way, helps the delinquent
youths to have something to look-forward to, a sense of hope that their mistakes will be
forgiven, which will allow them to move forward. This sense of hope will eventually
motivate them to become involved in restorative justice programs voluntarily.
The last notion developed from the second theme is resorting to home-based
therapy (Participant # 6). This notion proposed that youth will get actively involved if
they are in an acceptable and favorable setting. This phenomenon is supported by the
study of National Juvenile Justice Network (2008), which concluded that there is a wide
agreement (76%) of delinquents who have been supported in conducting interventions in
their respective communities and 62 % in their homes under close supervision. However,
Mendel (2011) counter argued this point by concluding, “African American youth are
more likely than White youth to be placed and, if placed, more likely to be sent to a state
youth correctional facility, rather than a private group home or residential treatment
center” (Mendel, 2011, p. 23).
The effectiveness of home-based therapies is supported by a small body of
knowledge, and future research into this field is highly suggested. However, with the
cited study above, there is evidence that granting home-based therapies has encountered
precipitating issues like bias and prejudice. This also confirmed the result, which
reflected lower significance (14%) compared to other notions that emerged.
Theme 3
This theme resulted from the research question: How do you describe an
effective/successful restorative justice program? It has emerged four notions and this
current theme is the most significant, with 57% of the participants’ insights. This
phenomenon could be addressed by the study of Priban (2009), who concluded that
effective restorative justice programs benefit the victim and builds trusting relationships,
which manifest in creating a win-win situation for all significant stakeholders in their
respective communities. Equally essential, restorative justice (Priban, 2009) reduces
economic stress and increases the moral expectation within the community. Moreover,
Priban added that effective restorative justice programs aim to restore
victims/communities back to homeostasis and assist youthful offenders to become
lawabiding citizens in their respective communities.
One notion that emerges from this theme was that effective and successful
restorative justice programs are those practiced in the community and that promoted
transparency and openness to all stakeholders (Participant # 2). This notion could be
directly addressed by the study of Mutter et al. (2008). This study presented part of an
evaluation report of the Family Group Conferences (FGC) Project for Young People Who
Offend, implemented in England and based on the New Zealand model. A unique feature
of the New Zealand model is “private family time,” which entrusts the family with all
decisions related to conflict resolution and planning for future solutions. Family group
conferencing has previously been relegated to the child welfare system in the United
Kingdom and has just recently been extended to the juvenile justice venue. With this past
study under consideration, it is clear that effective restorative justice promotes healthy
communication among family members of the offenders.
Another notion that emerged in the theme was that a successful program allows
the youth involved to speak and to be heard as well, which is the main idea of the
community conferencing (Participant # 3). This notion can also be well explained by
reintegrative shaming. Reintegrative shaming is essential to the victims and can help the
victims and the offenders recover from the harmful effects of the crime (Hayes, 2006).
Reintegrative shaming is a form of restorative justice that allows the offender to speak
and be heard while their rights are equally considered. Furthermore, Braithwaite (2006)
supported this claim by further expounding that the apology, and more broadly the
dialogue characteristic, of family group conferencing or victim-offender mediation can be
conceptualized as a repentance ritual, which can be regarded as a type of reintegrative
shaming. In contrast, the study of Choi and Severson (2009) examined apology
concerning victim-offender mediations. The results of the content analysis showed that
the perceptions of the genuineness of apologies are significantly different between
offenders and their victims, underscoring the complex relationships and processes
involved in victim-offender mediations.
Reintegrative shaming, accompanied by shared identity theory, extensively
explains this phenomenon. Between the victim and the offender sharing identity in the
victim-offender mediation process, a level of equality is established that initiates the
offender’s direct involvement to restorative justice. Verrecchia and Hutzell (2010) further
concluded that moral reasoning is a critical competency among young offenders, which
can be enhanced by their active participation in the restorative justice processes of victim-
offender mediation or family group conferencing.
Community conferencing has been very effective and successful, to the point that
even schools and other institutions have joined and participated (Participant # 5). This can
be proven by Positive Behavior Support (PBS), which focuses on the social and
emotional influences on students’ behavior, and has superseded punitive disciplinary
policies in a number of large cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Denver
(Schachter, 2010). Restorative justice is a more recent innovation, providing
opportunities to devise flexible and creative strategies for dealing with school behavior
problems. Both PBS and Restorative Justice stress the role of the offender in
understanding the impact of his or her actions and making suitable amends (Schachter,
2010; Zaslaw, 2010).
The next notion stated that the community conference is considered effective and
successful, as it changes the children's lives overall (Participant # 6). This is well
supported by the theory of diversion. Diversion is a problematic issue within the juvenile
justice system. Although the overall goal of victim-offender mediation is diverting
juvenile offenders away from more expensive, time consuming, and punitive options,
there are also concerns that it might have the unintended consequence of widening the net
(Prichard, 2010). However, the Australian study showed no evidence that diversion
strategies widened the net (Prichard, 2010). Successful diversion can be characterized as
successful change for the betterment of offenders’ lives.
Consequently, another theme that emerged from the data is the rebuilding and
restoration of a fidelity model so that the youth can have trust as to who and what to
follow in the process (Participant # 1). This notion can be explained by the study of
Forgatch, Patterson, and DeGarmo (2006), who defined fidelity as an incorporation of
two concepts: adherence to core content components of the intervention, and the
execution of competence through accomplished clinical and teaching practices. With
these definitions in consideration, fidelity model can be utilized as an intervention to
youth delinquency. Staying with the components of a delinquency intervention suggests a
lower openness in the process.
Many researchers who have studied restorative justice have neglected to consider
the roles and skills of the mediators in the victim-offender mediations. Choi and Gilbert
(2010) supported this claim by concluding that the role of mediators in restorative justice
may not always be consistent with how mediators perform their job in real life
mediations. This validated the notion that clarity on whom and what to follow in the
process is needed, which is advocated by the fidelity model. Therefore, this notion can be
significant in reducing recidivism and is discussed in this chapter.
The developmental and social disorganization lines of research converge to
provide a more sophisticated understanding of the socializing effects (positive and
negative) of neighborhood characteristics on children and adolescents. The study of
Mennis et al. (2011) supported this claim by concluding that understanding the role of
neighborhood effects on youth development and delinquency is especially important in
view of the recent proliferation of “aftercare services” for preventing recidivism among
adjudicate youth (p. 175). Mennis et al. (2011) added that neighborhood features
exhibited a much stronger influence on delinquency than on recidivism. At the same time,
two factors emerged as the dominant predictors of both delinquency and recidivism:
violent crime and poverty. This research is then an affirmation that a sense of
belongingness of the offender towards the other stakeholders is crucial for the
effectiveness of restorative justice.
Interestingly, one of the findings of the same study cited above dictates that in
spite of the effect of poverty and crime on delinquency and recidivism, there were
differences in the neighborhood effects according to race. Mennis et al. (2011) specified
that delinquency rates tended to be higher in African American neighborhoods, even after
accounting for the effects of crime and poverty, but that recidivism rates were lower in
African American neighborhoods marked by high rates of delinquency. This finding
further suggests that the rate of recidivism is not directly dependent on the rate of
delinquency among African American communities, which may be a feasible avenue for
future studies.
One notion derived from the third research question is that an effective and
successful restorative program is one that practices what it teaches and preaches to youth,
and one that allows its members to change because they believe in the program
(Participant # 4). This can be explained by focusing on a specific stakeholder, the
mediator. Although little research has been conducted that focused on the mediators of
the victim-offender mediation, this claim can be expounded using the study of Coben and
Harley (2003), who addressed three different factors relevant to restorative justice;
international discussion about restorative justice, mediation, and the law. Coben and
Harly stated that active neutrality of the mediator offers a variety of values to the parties
and makes an argument out of them. The active neutrality that should be embodied by
mediators make the offenders believe in the program. Thus, verifying the relevance of the
claim cited above.
The last emerged notion that will be discussed in this theme is the modification of
the selection process of the program and those who should go juvenile to see a more
effective/ successful program. This notion was specified by Participant # 7, who stated
that the effectiveness of the restorative program is considered through active participation
of the delinquent youths. This can be explained by the study of Vazsonyi and Chen
(2010), who studied the high risk for juvenile justice referrals. In their findings, race
plays a significant role in juvenile justice referral. The findings of this kind of research
can be further considered in selecting who should take part in a restorative justice
program. In the present situation, less serious offenders are referred to restorative justice
programs while more serious delinquent acts are preceded to retributive measures.
Limitation of the Study
The major limitation of the study is methodological in nature. The study used a
specific case to investigate the impact of the restorative justice phenomenon on the
community. With the idiographic approach, this research sets the limitation regarding the
generalization. Moreover, qualitative research is broad in scope, and may be affected by
fiscal and time constraints related to the study (Patton, 2002). Although the nature of case
studies has justified the selection of a particular program of interest for evaluation, it will
not eliminate the tendency of bias in the process. However, the methodology turned out to
be suitable in garnering the required information to express the desired results. It allowed
the researcher to select questions that would generate the desired outcome of the study
and were tailored to specifically address the phenomenon under examination. The study
narrowed its scope as much as possible to minimize the amount of time and resources
devoted to conduct this kind of study. In fact, Baltimore was selected mostly because of
its geographical proximity. Meanwhile, the biases involved did allow the opportunity to
innovate the interview and observation process using my own lived experiences and
training. Nevertheless, I mitigated this concern by explaining and identifying all
perceived biases at the onset of the research design. Bracketing techniques were also used
to separate personal feelings and opinions on the data.
The mentioned limitations hinder the generalization of its results because of the
scope of the case study. The results may vary if the general population was tested.
However, both theory and literature support the notion that recidivism rates are much
lower in restorative justice programs than in punitive programs using different
populations. This study extends the existing research with particular focus on African
American juveniles in Baltimore City’s urban community. The findings added further
credence to the effects of the use of restorative justice programs. Additionally, the
methodology and scope of the study is easy to replicate and extend. This allows other
researchers to use the current study as the foundation for further studies on the effects of
restorative justice on recidivism.
The gap in the literature on restorative justice in relation to the reduction of
recidivism among the African American youth set the significance of this study. The
validated claims as well as the themes that emerged from the data of this study will add to
the body of knowledge on restorative justice. Moreover, these findings will affect a wide
range of stakeholders. To start with, the findings of this study can help families
experiencing juvenile delinquency. The findings herein presented the advantages and
disadvantages of restorative justice programs as opposed to traditional punitive system.
Studies regarding the positive effects of these restorative justice programs are extensively
cited in the review of literature. Moreover, the findings from this research can also be
used by the community in developing their own delinquency programs based on
restorative justice. In addition, the findings from this study can also be used by policy
makers, academics, lawyers, and government bodies to establish an effective delinquency
program for youth in urban communities. Furthermore, it can give juvenile justice
practitioners a method to view and evaluate restorative justice programming’s
effectiveness in reducing recidivism rates, particularly for African American youth in
urban communities. Above all, this study will give juveniles who engaged in delinquency
acts a sense of hope to move forward with their lives.
The findings also suggest that the involvement of all the stakeholders is crucial to
initiate social change. In this phenomenon, the community has the most at stake. Juvenile
delinquency has astonishingly increased over the past years. To deal with this, a change
in the perceptions of all the stakeholders is needed. This change includes prejudice and
misjudgment of both the community and the politicians. The potential for achieving
effective restorative justice programs is nearly at hand; however, voluntary involvement
is vital to achieving this. With all these findings, restorative justice will not be considered
as a lenient form of justice system but a system that views all persons equally.
Recommendation for Future Research
There is a chance to extend the scope of this study by considering a change in the
methodological approach. The methodological purpose of this study was in line with the
approach used to garner data, which was to examine the outcomes and determine how
specific actions have led to these particular outcomes, producing themes representing the
set of data that has been garnered. Having determined the nature of restorative justice
encompassing African American youth, it is advised to look for other ways to contribute
in the literature. The role of qualitative method has been fulfilled by examining the
outcomes and how actions affect these outcomes. While qualitative methods produce rich
and detailed data, there is a need to lift the limit of generalizability. To fulfill this,
quantitative method is recommended to follow up these current findings. Determining the
consistencies as well as the relationships among the determined outcomes will greatly
enrich the body of knowledge on restorative justice. Moreover, it will help in pinpointing
which of the themes significantly affect recidivism of African American youth.
Further studies may also look into the effects of restorative justice on offenders of
different age groups and minorities to determine the effects of maturity and culture on
recidivism. Several other demographic variables such as educational attainment, family
background, and social status may also help in developing a set of best practices aimed at
youth offenders, which are the most affected by current justice system. Additionally,
other studies can investigate the perceptions of victims and the community on this type of
justice system and whether they are amenable to replacing punishment with discourse and
support for the offender. By examining the benefits of restorative justice programs on a
wide variety of different populations, various mechanisms specifically targeting the
population can be initiated to reduce youth-involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Additional positive outcomes of research on restorative justice may prompt policy makers
to revisit the current juvenile justice system and change it to be more accommodative of
the programs to influence the youth offender’s behavior and increase their involvement in
the community. Similarly, these programs should be explained thoroughly to victims and
the community to make them more receptive to this approach on juvenile justice. This is
especially important when the victim wants vindication for the offense committed.
Reflection of the Researcher
The study of restorative justice is beneficial to the community at large. In the past
years, juvenile delinquency has peaked despite the harsh punitive justice that serves the
community. This phenomenon motivated a number of researchers to come up with
alternative ways of serving justice to the people. This reason gave birth to restorative
justice. Restorative justice involves all the stakeholders in the process. Moreover, it offers
the offender a chance to speak and be heard to give back to the victim and the
community, depending on the agreement. Restorative justice, with its very sense, aims to
offer offenders a new life after committing their mistakes. However, the referral of
restorative justice is somehow underdeveloped. There is no clear modification on who
goes to restorative justice and who goes to retributive measures. Most, if not all the time,
referral is blinded by prejudice and misjudgment. It is proven through previous literature
that African American youths are often considered for the harsher option. This societal
problem has served the purpose of this research.
Juvenile delinquency was viewed in the context of the rate of recidivism;
however, studies have shown that these two are not directly related. This research offers a
new body of knowledge on restorative justice in relation to recidivism. It imposed notions
that will explain how restorative justice reduces the tendency of recidivism. Furthermore,
this approach articulates clarity to every stakeholder, apprehending their roles in making
an effective restorative program and how it reduces the reoccurrence of delinquent acts.
Conclusion of the Study
This study was in line with the case study design, which focused on coming up
with themes that clarified how restorative justice affected the reduction of recidivism.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted alongside the document review and observation
of the participants. This study is framed by the restorative justice theory. Grounds for
future research are presented together with the reflections of the researcher. The
improvement of the themes that emerged, whether it is supplementary or contradictory to
what it proclaims, is greatly needed. Application of the findings for future studies is
anticipated to broaden the body of knowledge on restorative justice in relation to
reduction of recidivism.
This study also proved to be wide-ranging because it illuminated the potential
benefit that restorative justice provides youth, the juvenile justice system, and all the
stakeholders in the community. This goal can be achieved by addressing the existing
challenges faced with finding and implementing effective restorative justice
programming in urban communities. Moreover, the study may be a driving force for
juvenile justice practitioners, policy makers, and academics to understanding
characteristics of successful restorative justice programs for youth in urban communities.
Equally important, however, the findings indicated that restorative justice reduces
economic stress and increases the moral expectation within the community. In addition,
restorative justice at its core is important because it underpins the human and social
capital of the victim, the youthful offender, and the community as a whole.
