RELEVANT
FOCUSED
READY

Examining the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice
Emerald Lutz

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of existing
literature regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ). A
mixed-methods study was conducted to determine what factors
influence the effectiveness and success of the RJ process. The term
“effective” has been operationalized to mean resulting in the
reduction of recidivism rates. The intention of this research project
was to provide an informative report in the field of law enforcement
and public safety. This study sought to answer the research question:
is restorative justice effective at reducing recidivism rates, and if so,
how?

Background

The criminal justice system in Canada is plagued with systemic issues
of overincarceration, recidivism, racism, and the effects of the
criminalization of mental illness. Often those who suffer most from
these systemic issues are the most vulnerable and marginalized by
Canadian society (Perry, 2016). There have been countless pleas from
the public and criminal justice professionals that change is needed to
the Canadian criminal justice system. One recommendation from the
Department of Justice is to increase the availability and the use of RJ
(Department of Justice Canada, 2019).

Methods

This research project was conducted using the pragmatic approach, as
the premise of this worldview is to understand the consequences of
actions in the real world and determine practical solutions (Creswell,
2014). An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used
to examine secondary literature. The researcher collected quantitative
data from studies regarding recidivism rates for RJ participants. Then
proceeded to collect qualitative data to explain the recidivism results
in greater detail. A search of peer-reviewed journals, academic books
and government databases was completed. Key search terms included
restorative justice, offender, victim, recidivism rates, reoffending,
effect, reduce, victim satisfaction, success, Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The primary resources used to find
articles were EBSCO, Google, and Google Scholar databases. Articles
were selected if they included the abovementioned criteria.
Additionally, the search was limited to peer-reviewed articles,
available in full text, and published between 1995 and 2020.

Results

After reviewing the literature, several themes were identified: the use
of RJ effectively reduces recidivism rates, overall satisfaction is higher,
victim involvement is vital, and challenges of net widening. Research
consistently indicated that the use of RJ resulted in the reduction of
reoffending. Consequently, RJ was more effective at reducing
recidivism for more serious crimes but less effective at reducing
recidivism when used with youth or for minor crimes, such as
property/theft related offences. RJ participants reported greater
feelings of satisfaction than those who went through the traditional
justice system process. The most commonly stated reason for victim
involvement is their ability to actively participate in the process.
Several research studies indicated that net widening presents a
challenge to the RJ process.

Discussion

This research is important as all themes discussed contribute to the
effectiveness and success of RJ. Studies showed that the use of RJ
resulted in a reduction of reoffending, predominantly for crimes that
were more serious or personal. Interestingly, conferences that
produced a greater emotional response were said to have a more
significant effect on recidivism (Sherman et al., 2015). Furthermore, if
reoffending did occur, it was more often for a less serious offence.
Participants frequently reported a greater sense of satisfaction over
the traditional justice process. Some keys to satisfaction for victims
were feeling prepared, ready to face and interact with the offender,
having the ability to ask questions, finally getting answers, and
receiving an apology. As for offenders, the ability to connect with
people, having a chance to pay back victims, and avoiding court were
the most important. For members of the community, keys to their
satisfaction were understanding the root causes of crime and having
a role in the restoration process (Armstrong, 2012). Participants
identified the most common reason for victim involvement is their
increased ability to participate in the process compared to the
traditional justice process. Victims reported the increased
participation allowed them to feel in control and empowered,
contributing to a higher feeling of satisfaction (Armstrong, 2012). Net
widening was reported to be a consistent challenge for the use of RJ.
Research indicates that using RJ for minor offences, especially for
youth, can result in more youth either under supervision or officially
charged. Thankfully, researchers believe that this can be adequately
addressed through increased training and policy changes (Hackler,
2004).

Conclusions

The significance of this research project is underlining the need for
change in the Canadian criminal justice system. To create a fair,
efficient, and compassionate justice system, while meeting all
Canadians’ needs and expectations. The Department of Justice Report
(2019) proposed that increased use and availability of RJ could assist
with these much-needed changes. After completing this mixedmethods literature review, it was determined that the use of RJ is
effective at reducing recidivism rates, especially for crimes that are
more serious or personal in nature and for which the RJ conference
resulted in a highly emotional conversation. Further research is
needed to determine the suitability of RJ in cases that are severe,
extremely personal in nature or involve a power imbalance.
Additionally, increased public education is necessary to ensure that all
members of Canadian society know their rights regarding the
availability of RJ.

References

Armstrong, J. (2012). Factors contributing to victims’ satisfaction with
restorative justice practice: A qualitative examination. British
Journal of Community Justice, 10(2), 39–50.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Department of Justice Canada. (2019, April). What we heard:
Transforming Canada’s criminal justice system.
https://www.justice.gc.ca
Hackler, J. (2004). Conferencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act of
Canada: Policy developments in British Columbia. Canadian
Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 46(3), 343–366.
Perry, B. (2016). Diversity, crime, and justice in Canada (2nd ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Sherman, L., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B.
(2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing
repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9

(Prison Fellowship, 2020).

Bachelor of Law Enforcement Studies

Justice Institute of British Columbia

November 2020