Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21)

  1. Nuala Livingstone1,*,
  2. Geraldine Macdonald1,
  3. Nicola Carr2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 5 MAY 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2


How to Cite

Livingstone N, Macdonald G, Carr N. Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD008898. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Child Care Research, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

  2. 2

    Queen's University Belfast, School of Sociology, Social Policy & Social Work, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

*Nuala Livingstone, Institute of Child Care Research, School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, 6 College Park, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT7 1LP, UK. nuala.livingstone@qub.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

 

Summary of findings    [Explanations]

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

 
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21 years)

Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders

Patient or population: Offenders aged 7 to 21 years
Settings: Youth justice
Intervention: Restorative justice conference

OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of Participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments

Assumed riskCorresponding risk

ControlRestorative justice conference

Number reoffending
administrative data
Follow-up: 1 year
Study populationOR 1
(0.59 to 1.71)
1029
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3

518 per 1000518 per 1000
(388 to 648)

Moderate

482 per 1000482 per 1000
(354 to 614)

Post-intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
administrative data
Follow-up: 1 year
The mean post-intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) ranged across control groups from
0.065 to 0.067
The mean post-intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) in the intervention groups was
0.06 standard deviations lower
(0.28 lower to 0.16 higher)
321
(2 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3
SMD -0.06 (-0.28 to 0.16)

Remorse
participant interviews
Follow-up: 1 year
Study populationOR 1.73
(0.97 to 3.1)
217
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3,4

452 per 1000588 per 1000
(445 to 719)

Moderate

448 per 1000584 per 1000
(440 to 716)

Recognition of wrongdoing
participant interviews
Follow-up: mean 7 years
Study populationOR 1.97
(0.81 to 4.8)
217
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3,5,6

548 per 1000705 per 1000
(495 to 853)

Moderate

539 per 1000697 per 1000
(486 to 849)

Self-perception
participant interviews
Follow-up: 1 year
Study populationOR 0.95
(0.55 to 1.63)
217
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3,7

478 per 1000465 per 1000
(335 to 599)

Moderate

467 per 1000454 per 1000
(325 to 588)

Young offender satisfaction
participant interviews
Follow-up: 12 to 24 months
Study populationOR 0.42
(0.05 to 3.81)
467
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3,8

836 per 1000682 per 1000
(203 to 951)

Moderate

791 per 1000614 per 1000
(159 to 935)

Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
participant interviews
Follow-up: 12 to 24 months
Study populationOR 4.03
(0.59 to 27.75)
428
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3,9

690 per 1000900 per 1000
(568 to 984)

Moderate

640 per 1000878 per 1000
(512 to 980)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate

 1 Random allocation procedures were adequate. However, the risk of bias due to absence of blinding procedures and self-selection was high
2 Heterogeneity indicated by the I2 statistic (70%), although no significant detection was indicated (P = 0.07)
3 Only two included studies make it difficult to ascertain the likelihood of publication bias
4 Review authors' choice of item to use as measure of remorse is somewhat subjective
5 Review authors' choice of item to use as measure of recognition of wrongdoing is somewhat subjective
6 There is moderate heterogeneity according to the I2 statistic (59%), but this is not supported by the statistical significance (P = 0.12)
7 Review authors' choice of item to use as measure of self-perception is somewhat subjective
8 There is moderate heterogeneity according to the I2 statistic (87%), but this is not supported by the statistical significance (P = 0.44)
9 There is moderate heterogeneity according to the I2 statistic (87%), but this is not supported by the statistical significance (P = 0.16)

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

A recent survey on the extent of youth crime in England and Wales indicated that 22% of young people aged 10 to 25 years admitted to committing an offence in the past 12 months, with close to half of these offences classified as severe (Roe 2008). According to the United States Department of Justice, while the percentage of juvenile arrests may have decreased slightly from 2007 to 2008, overall rates remain problematic, with 16.2% of violent crime arrests and 26.1% of property crime arrests involving those under the age of 18 (U.S. Department of Justice 2009). It is estimated that approximately half of all youth crime concerns theft and handling of stolen goods (Muncie 2004). A range of factors have been identified that appear to increase the risk that a young person will engage in criminal behaviour, and that shape the frequency, duration and persistence of offending. These include psychosocial factors such as socioeconomic deprivation, family conflict, families with a history of criminal or antisocial behaviour and substance misuse (Farrington 1989; Farrington 1996), and environmental factors (Rutter 2006; Rutter 2007), and genetic and biological factors (Garland 2002; Arsenault 2003). In general, most crime and most serious crime is committed by males, with approximately 80% of young offenders being male (Muncie 2004). However, more attention has been paid to offending among females in recent years (Whyte 2009).

The age of criminal responsibility varies. Some countries set it as low as seven years and others as low as 18 (Siegal 2008): in some jurisdictions young people can be viewed as 'minors' up until age 21. The age of criminal responsibility may also vary with gender, as in Iran where the age of criminal responsibility begins at nine for females, but 15 for males (Palme 1997). There is, therefore, no one definition of 'young offender'.

Recidivism rates amongst young offenders is significant. In New Zealand, 67% of offenders aged from 16 to 19 were reconvicted within two years of their previous offence (Triggs 2005). In England and Wales, the frequency of re-offences for young offenders ranged from 40.2% in 2000 to 37.8% in 2007 (Ministry of Justice 2009). In Northern Ireland, re-offending rates were reported as rising from 39.3% in 2005 to 41.8% in 2006 (Tate 2009). Reported recidivism rates are also likely to be an underestimate of the actual occurrence of the problem, as they only provide information on offences recorded by the judicial system, and do not take into account offences for which offenders have not been identified, or which victims have failed to report. Recidivism rates are also likely to be further constrained by the fact that even when a crime is brought to police attention, there is no guarantee it will be recorded. This decision will depend on three broader contexts: the current political context, the organisational context of policing priorities and the situational context of how the crime was reported (Coleman 1996). A young person who has committed an offence can face a variety of outcomes, from informal warnings, through restorative cautions, to referral for prosecution.

 

Description of the intervention

Restorative justice has been described as "a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future" (Marshall 2003). Stakeholders include the victim, the offender (or perpetrator) and the broader community (Morris 2002). Different names have been given to the process of restorative justice, including Victim-Offender Mediation, Community Reparative Boards, Referral Orders, Family Group Conferencing and Circle Sentencing. Family Group Conferences are distinguished by the involvement of the young person's family or support network in the overall process (Bazemore 2001).

Typically, the process will begin with a conference facilitator contacting both the victim and the offender to explain the process and inviting them to attend, making it clear that their attendance is voluntary. At this time, both the victim and offender are asked to name an individual who will also be invited to attend as their supporter. All willing parties then meet with the facilitator, usually in a neutral location. The conference proceedings begin with the offender being asked to describe the incident, followed by all other participants describing the impact of the incident on their lives. The victim is asked to identify the desired outcomes from the conference, followed by all participants contributing to the process of determining how the offender may best repair the harm caused by their actions. The conference ends with all participants signing an agreement that outlines the expectations and commitments decided upon as a result of this conference (Bazemore 2001).

The focus of the conference is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to consider an appropriate plan of action or "conference plan". These plans generally include one or more of: an apology to the victim, reparation or restitution to the victim or community, work or service to the community, restrictions on conduct, and treatment, for example to help overcome an addiction. The plan will be tailored to the age of the young person.

These restorative conferences may be ordered by the courts (court-ordered) or recommended as an alternative to court proceedings by the police or public prosecution officer (diversionary). At a minimum, the participants in this conference are the young person who committed the offence, the conference coordinator, a police officer (or a representative from the criminal justice system) and an appropriate adult, for example, the young person's parent or guardian. The victim is encouraged to attend but is under no obligation, and in some instances the victim may be represented by another party.

These conferencing models are also used in other areas, such as child maltreatment (Dignan 2001). In these circumstances, families or those with significant relationships with the child in question come together to work collaboratively to resolve issues and develop plans that address the child's safety and well-being (Knoke 2009). This review, however, will focus only on conferencing procedures aimed at young people who have committed a crime.

 

How the intervention might work

There are a number of theories as to how restorative conferences bring about change. Some have suggested that young people justify their behaviour and participation in a crime internally, using "techniques of neutralization" (Matza 1964), such as denying that any real injury was caused by their actions, for example, viewing theft as 'borrowing', or a gang fight as a 'private dispute'. The process of a restorative conference is thought to make it more difficult to maintain such justifications; face to face contact with the victim and the subsequent discussion, together with increased awareness of the harm their actions caused, challenge such denials and justifications. Bandura conceptualised this process as the Reversal of Moral Disengagement (Bandura 1990). Others have suggested that the process of restorative conferencing provides a remedial opportunity for moral development in young offenders who may hitherto have had limited exposure to morally formative experiences (Barton 2003). The offender's apology and the victim's forgiveness are generally regarded as essential parts of the process of emotional healing and the key to the successful outcomes of satisfaction and reducing recidivism (Retzinger 1996).

Sherman's Defiance Theory suggests that a possible cause of recidivism is the individual's perception that their punishment was 'unfair', leading to defiance of the law. Conversely, if they had perceived their punishment to be fair, it is more likely to have resulted in compliance with the law (Sherman 1993). Tyler's theory of procedural justice, in which a young person who feels they have been treated fairly by the justice proceedings may be less likely to break the law again, further supports this (Tyler 2005). For most individuals, a fair procedure is not just related to how favourable the outcome may be perceived to be, but also to factors such as neutrality, lack of bias, honesty, efforts to be fair, politeness and respect. There is evidence from young people to that effect, which they attribute to being part of a collaborative endeavour, rather than a bystander in normal court proceedings.

One of the core theories of restorative justice, on which the outcomes of this review are primarily based, is the Reintegrative Shaming Theory (Braithwaite 1989; Braithwaite 2001). The stigmatisation of offenders that occurs within conventional justice procedures is thought to be associated with the experience of shame. Braithwaite suggested that this stigmatising shame could be counterproductive, potentially alienating the offender (Braithwaite 1989; Braithwaite 2001). Restorative justice emphasises social processes that involve a disapproval of offending, rather than the offender, as this is thought more likely to have a more positive impact on a young person's cognitive and social development and self-esteem than conventional justice processes. By focusing on the action, rather than the person, restorative justice minimises stigmatisation. Although restorative justice aims to shame offenders by confronting a young person with the impact of his or her actions, the requirement that they make reparation provides the means of forgiveness (Maruna 2007). Shame in restorative justice is therefore 'reintegrative' and is thought to bring about better outcomes, but by definition it hinges on the presence of the victim.

It is hypothesised that reintegration and forgiveness are more likely to occur if the young person not only recognises that they have caused harm as a result of their actions (that is, recognition of wrongdoing), but in addition, are willing to take responsibility for it and make restorative gestures to express their remorse (Young 2001). Expression of remorse is not only a further useful indicator of the young person's recognition of wrongdoing, but is also perhaps one of the more beneficial outcomes from the victim's perspective.

All of the above suggests that the restorative justice process may have a differential impact on a young person's self-concept (that is, the multi-dimensional construct of identity, self-esteem, self-efficacy and personal agency (McAdams 1996; Eccles 2002; Ward 2007)) than traditional criminal justice approaches. If successful, this restorative justice process should allow the young person to reintegrate into the community without the negative stigmatising shame usually associated with retributive justice, thus leading to comparatively better self-perception.

In restorative conferences involving families, all parties are encouraged to accept responsibility for their actions, including the young person's family, who play a part in the creation of and adherence to the conference plan (Walgrave 2003). Previous evaluations of the conferencing model have indicated a 38% decrease in recidivism for young offenders, compared to a 6% increase in recidivism for adults convicted of drink-driving (Sherman 2000).

The theory and practice of restorative justice are not uncontested. Critics argue that what began as an organic, community process has become an increasingly streamlined, police-led process, with the risk that the police will improvise and act as judge and jury, thus eroding the legal rights of the young offender (Young 2001). In fact, a young offender remains entitled to consult a lawyer during this process, but more efforts are being made to have conferences facilitated by non-police bodies and held in more neutral venues (Campbell 2006). Other criticisms of restorative conferencing include: net-widening, in which those who commit very minor offences and who might previously have received a warning are caught up in a more substantial process (O'Mahony 2004); the potential trivialisation of crime, with the result that acts such as male violence towards women become a private matter to be dealt with away from the courts; and uncertainty about what the term 'restorative justice' means or what this process is able to 'restore': a sense of offender responsibility, offender sense of control or a belief that the overall process and outcomes were fair (Morris 2002). In response others have pointed out that restorative procedures take crime more seriously than court proceedings by focusing on the harm caused by the offender’s actions and finding ways they can specifically make amends for their actions (Morris 2002).

Some have expressed doubt as to the potential effectiveness of a brief intervention, given the years of social disadvantage and exclusion that many offenders are likely to have faced, and other factors linked with youth offending and desistance from crime. In particular, the interrelationships between lack of educational, training and employment opportunity and youth crime have been well documented (Burnett 2004; Hayward 2004). Similarly, the links between substance misuse and youth offending have been well documented (Britton 2008). It is argued that addressing such needs where identified is essential to reduce future offending (Burnett 2004). One of the aims of restorative justice interventions is to address the implications of offending for the future. Therefore, addressing such issues may be relevant for the 'successful' outcome of an intervention.

There is also uncertainty about the impact of restorative conferences on the victim, when he or she attends. Some victims report feelings of empowerment and resolution of their grief and distress, leading to emotional healing, and state that the 'humanising' of the offender has, for some, minimised the fear they had as a 'victim'. Others, however, report more negative experiences, for example, when faced with a conference facilitator who was perceived to have an inappropriate style or be insufficiently well prepared; or when the offender had an uncooperative attitude (for example, was aggressive, argumentative or uninformative); or when the victim felt coerced into taking part (Umbreit 1994). It is possible that both that the victim's experience and attitude towards the conference could contribute to the overall experience of the young offender, and that a negative victim outcome could be considered an important adverse effect to take into account in the overall evaluation of the intervention.

There is also uncertainty about some aspects of process. The introduction of court-ordered conferences mean that some offenders agree to participate because they feel that they have no choice, which may affect their motivation and compliance (Campbell 2006). The effectiveness of conferences may be a function of the severity of the young person's initial offence. Some studies suggest that restorative conferences can lead to a large drop in post-intervention rates of serious offences such as youth violence, but that such reductions were not evident for those convicted for less severe offences such as shoplifting or property offending (Sherman 2000).

 

Why it is important to do this review

Although reduction of recidivism is not a primary aim of restorative justice, it is a key policy concern. Furthermore, while recidivism is one measure of 'effectiveness', it is by no means the only focus, and the emergent evidence suggests that there are other ancillary benefits that are also relevant to policy-makers. Restorative justice techniques are gaining an increasingly higher profile, with conferencing models being implemented in North America, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe, and a primary aim to institutionalise these programmes as part of the justice process (Bazemore 2001). Therefore, it is clearly of importance to determine primarily whether this approach does hold any demonstrable benefits specifically for this population in terms of reducing re-offending over the standard judicial proceedings, and to explore whether there are any particular issues regarding implementation of the programmes that play a vital role in the outcome of the procedure. Most previous reviews of restorative justice conferencing have taken a broad focus, for example, including results concerning both adult and juvenile offenders (Miers 2001). This systematic review assesses the evidence of restorative justice conference for young offenders.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

To evaluate the effects of restorative justice conferencing programmes for reducing recidivism in young offenders.

To explore process and implementation issues in relation to programme effects on recidivism and improving participants' self-concept. There was insufficient information from the studies included in this review to address this objective, but it may be possible to address it in future updates.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Eligible methods of quasi-random allocation would include alternation, date of birth, or case record number. We included studies comparing restorative justice conferencing programmes to management as usual.

 

Types of participants

In order to ensure the international relevance of this review, we included studies where participants were young people aged between 7 and 21 who admitted to, or had been found guilty of, any offence, and who were deemed eligible for a restorative justice programme, by the individual study authors. Participant's 'eligibility for a restorative justice programme' was determined by factors including that they must be first-time juvenile offenders (Bethlehem Experiment; Indianapolis Experiment), have no outstanding warrants or bonds (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment), must not have committed a felony level crime, drug/alcohol crime, or sex offence (Bethlehem Experiment), must either have committed an offence of criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, theft, conversion (shoplifting) or battery (Indianapolis Experiment), and must make full admission of responsibility (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment).

 

Types of interventions

Restorative justice conferences that follow the previously outlined definition of a restorative justice programme were eligible, specifically programmes whereby "parties with a stake in a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future" (Marshall 2003).

Programmes that include all of the following features were eligible:

  1. minimum attendees included the young person, a conference coordinator, an appropriate adult (for example, the young person's parent or guardian) and a representative from a key stakeholder group (for example, the victim of the crime, a representative of the victim of the crime, a member of the community affected or a representative of the justice community);
  2. young person attended of their own free will;
  3. all parties were involved in the construction of a conference plan with a primary aim of reparation;
  4. where appropriate, plans were approved by the appropriate authorities.

Programmes that will not be eligible and therefore excluded are those in which victim-offender mediation occurs separate to the meeting with the parents/guardians. In these programmes, the parties with a stake in the offence (specifically the young person's victim and the young person's parent/guardian) are not working as a collective, and therefore do not fit the previously outlined definition of a restorative justice conference.

 

Management as usual

Depending on the area in which the study takes place, the definition of 'management as usual' may differ. For example, in Bethlehem, PA, management as usual includes formal adjudication through the magistrate court system (Bethlehem Experiment). In Indianapolis, IN, the usual course of action may include alternative diversionary practices, such as victim-offender mediation, volunteer services, teen court or garden projects (Indianapolis Experiment).

 

Types of outcome measures

Where feasible, comparisons are made at the following specific follow-up periods:

    • one year after conference takes place;
    • two years after conference takes place;
    • more than two years after conference takes place.

 

Primary outcomes

  • Recidivism rate as measured by administrative data*
  • Post-intervention rates of offending as measured by self-report

 

Secondary outcomes

  • Young person's sense of remorse
  • Young person's recognition of wrongdoing
  • Young person's self-perception
  • Characteristics of the post-intervention offence, specifically:

    • post-intervention offending with the same offence;
    • severity of the post-intervention offence.

  • Young person's satisfaction with overall process*
  • Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process*
  • Change in social circumstances, including:

    • change in employment status (for example, from unemployed to employed);
    • return to education;
    • increased attempts to attend or develop training;
    • increased or decreased substance misuse.

  • Adherence to conference plan

Outcomes indicated by an asterisk (*) were used to populate the  Summary of findings for the main comparison, where data permitted. Where data were insufficient, we have provided a narrative account of the outcomes.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

We ran the first set of searches in May 2011. Updated searches were run in November 2011 and May 2012, apart from ASSIA, NCJRS and Social Services Abstracts because they were no longer available to us.

 

Electronic searches

The following databases were searched.

  1. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2012 Issue 5, searched 4 May 2012
  2. Ovid MEDLINE, 1948 to current, last searched 4 May 2012
  3. PsycINFO (Ovid),1806 to current , last searched 17 May 2012
  4. PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)),1887 to current , last searched 16 May 2011
  5. Science Direct; 1823 to current, last searched 4 May, 2012
  6. SCOPUS, 1823 to current, last searched 10 May 2012
  7. LILACS, 1982 to current, last searched 5 May 2012
  8. Social Sciences Citation Index, 1970 to current, last searched 5 May 2012
  9. Social Care Online (SCIE),1985 to current, last searched 4 May 2012
  10. ERIC (Proquest) 1966 to current, last searched 4 May 2012
  11. ERIC (Dialog Datastar) 1966 to current, last searched 9 May 2011
  12. ASSIA - Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstract (CSA),1987 to current, last searched 9 May 2011
  13. NCJRS - National Criminal Justice Reference Service (CSA), all available years, last searched 9 May 2011
  14. Sociological Abstracts ( Proquest) 1952 to current, last searched 4 May 2012
  15. Social Services Abstracts (CSA), 1979 to current, last searched 9 May 2011
  16. WorldCat, all available years, searched 9 May 2012
  17. Index to Theses, all available years, last searched 4 May 2012
  18. Bibliography of Nordic Criminology, 1999 to current, last searched 4 May 2012
  19. Restorative Justice Online, 1975 to current, last searched 4 May 2012
  20. ClinicalTrials.gov, last searched 19 May 2012
  21. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), last searched 19 May 2012

The search strategy for each database can be found in Appendix 1.

Search filters for RCTs were used where appropriate. No language or date restrictions were applied.

 

Searching other resources

Bibliographies of included and excluded studies were scanned for possible additional references of interest.

The American Society of Criminology Conference Programme was reviewed in order to identify relevant trials.

The European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice and the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Justice Policy were also searched, in order to identify additional relevant grey literature.

Authors and key scholars were contacted to identify any additional ongoing or missed studies.

 

Data collection and analysis

For details of decisions made at protocol stage but which were not implemented in this review, please see  Table 1.

 

Selection of studies

Three authors (GM, NC, NL) independently selected and assessed studies to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria for this review. Any disagreements between the authors were resolved through discussion.

 

Data extraction and management

Two authors (NC, NL) extracted data independently and entered data into a piloted data extraction form (Appendix 2). Any disagreements between the authors were resolved through discussion. Data extracted included the following:

  • study characteristics (study author(s), year of publication, citation and contact details, study design, study duration, details of attrition, and risk of bias concerns);
  • participant characteristics (number randomised, age of participants, gender distribution, geographical location of study, and type and severity of offence);
  • intervention characteristics (aim of the intervention, who was present at the intervention, time between crime and intervention, duration of the intervention; number of interventions, source of the intervention (that is, diversionary or court-ordered), construction of a conference plan and completion of a conference plan);
  • comparison characteristics (form of 'management as usual', frequency of 'management as usual', duration of 'management as usual', time between crime and 'management as usual');
  • outcome characteristics (details on all primary and secondary outcomes, measures used, length of follow-up and summary data, including means, standard deviations, confidence intervals and significance levels for continuous data and proportions for dichotomous data).

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Using the data extraction form, two authors (NL, NC) independently assessed each study for risk of bias and assigned each selected study to one of the following categories as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011):

  • high risk of bias;
  • low risk of bias;
  • unclear or unknown risk of bias.

Assessments of risk of bias for each study was based on the following criteria as outlined by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

  1. Sequence generation (was the allocation sequence adequately generated?)
  2. Allocation concealment (was allocation adequately concealed?)
  3. Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors (was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?)
  4. Incomplete outcome data (were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?)
  5. Selective outcome reporting (are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?)
  6. Other sources of bias (was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias?)

 

Measures of treatment effect

For dichotomous outcome data (recidivism, self-concept/satisfaction scores), we calculated effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We converted continuous outcome data (post-intervention monthly rate of reoffending) into standardised mean differences (SMDs) and presented data with 95% CIs.

 

Unit of analysis issues

 

Cluster-randomised trials

Cluster-randomised trials are possible in this area of research, as allocation to the intervention group may occur by jurisdiction or by community as opposed to by individual offender. We anticipated that investigators would have controlled for a clustering effect when presenting their results. We contacted authors for further information if this was unclear. If the clustering effect was not controlled for, we requested individual participant data to calculate an estimate of the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). If individual participant data were not available, we searched for external estimates of the ICC from similar studies or available resources. As an appropriate ICC could not be found from any available resources, we sought statistical advice and were advised to use an ICC of 0.5 to re-analyse the trial data to obtain approximate correct analyses. We then entered these data into the Cochrane Collaboration's statistical software, Review Manager 2008, to analyse effect sizes and confidence intervals using the generic inverse variance method (Higgins 2011).

 

Cross-over trials

Cross-over trials are unlikely in this area. Those who are part of both a restorative intervention and full standard court proceedings are likely to do so because the conference was terminated and court proceedings were implemented as an alternative. Had this occurred, we would have excluded these participants from this review.

 

Studies with multiple intervention groups

Multiple observations are a possibility in this area, hence the decision to define specific follow-up intervals. We did not find any studies with multiple intervention groups for this version of the review.

 

Dealing with missing data

We contacted the original investigators to request missing data. Where this was not possible, we made assumptions regarding whether the data were 'missing at random' or 'not missing at random' and followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

Data that are not missing at random are likely to be missing for reasons related to the outcomes of the missing data. For example, if a participant agrees to take part in a trial, but is unhappy with the outcome of allocation, or goes on to commit a post-intervention offence, s/he may be unwilling to complete any follow-up interviews or questionnaires on their experience. In such a situation, where dichotomous data were missing, we imputed data with the assumption that the participants experienced the less favourable outcome (for example, "recidivism did occur" or "they were not satisfied").

Data imputation may not be possible in all situations, for example, if insufficient information was given regarding the exact number missing from each group. Should this occur, we will analyse only the available data.

We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact on the results of changes in the assumptions made about missing data. For example, where dichotomous data cases were missing, we also explored the possibility that those missing experienced the positive outcome and imputed data based on this assumption also.

Where studies had missing summary data, such as missing standard deviations, we derived these where possible using calculations provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

We have specified the methods used to address any missing data in the Characteristics of included studies tables. If imputation was not possible, we outline the reasons for this in the text.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We examined clinical heterogeneity by inspecting each included study for variability in the participants, interventions or outcomes described. If unexpected variability had arisen, we would have discussed it in full in the review.

We examined methodological heterogeneity by inspecting each included study for variability in the study design and risk of bias. If unexpected variability had arisen, we would have discussed it in full in the review.

We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the Chi2 statistic and its P value, the I2 statistic and by visual inspection of the forest plots.

 

Assessment of reporting biases

Publication and other reporting biases could not be assessed due to the small number of included studies. Although it is regrettable that this version of the review could not ascertain with more precision the likelihood of reporting bias, it is possible that in future updates, more than four studies could be included in the review, thus allowing for a less equivocal conclusion to be reached on this issue ( Table 1).

 

Data synthesis

Meta-analysis was performed on the results when data from at least two included studies were available. Due to the expected heterogeneity among included studies, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis using an inverse variance weighting method. When meta-analysis was inappropriate, we provide a narrative description of the individual study results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects analyses as part of our sensitivity analyses.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Due to the small number of included studies, it was not possible to conduct subgroup analysis in this review.

 

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses were performed by reanalysis, without adjusting for a cluster effect, without imputing data for the missing participants, imputing data for the missing participants assuming they experienced the positive outcome and removing the "decline" group from the experimental group in the Bethlehem Experiment.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
 

Description of studies

See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.

 

Results of the search

A systematic search for this review was conducted in May 2011. A total of 512 records of potential trials were identified. Following inspection of the titles and abstracts, 388 records were deemed irrelevant and discarded. Full texts were obtained and read for the remaining 124 records. A further 70 records were deemed irrelevant and discarded.

The search was run again in November 2011. Most databases identified no new records since the previous search. The databases ASSIA, NCJRS and Social Services Abstracts were no longer accessible to the authors and could not be searched again. Index to Theses identified four new records and Social Care Online identified six new records. Three databases were run on new platforms using new strategies, and subsequently identified an additional 11 (PsycINFO), 85 (Social Sciences Citation Index) and 44 (Sociological Abstracts) records. In total, 148 of these new records were deemed irrelevant and discarded. The remaining two records were screened and subsequently added to the list of excluded studies.

The search was re-run in May 2012. Most databases identified no new records since the previous search. The ERIC database was run on a new platform using new strategies and subsequently identified an additional 32 records. Six of the databases identified an additional 10 (Social Care Online), six (Sociological Abstracts), four (LILACS), three (Social Sciences Citation Index), five (Science Direct), and 14 (PsycInfo) new records. This most recent search also included two online trial registers, which identified an additional 26 records (Clinicaltrials.gov) and 16 records (ICTRP). In total, 115 of these new records were deemed irrelevant and discarded. The remaining one record were screened and subsequently added to the included studies list.

See Figure 1 for the study flow diagram.

 FigureFigure 1. Study flow diagram

 

Included studies

A total of four studies (16 citations) met the inclusion criteria for this review. Nine records were categorised as studies awaiting classification. See also Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.

 

Location of studies

The Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA (Bethlehem Experiment).

The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiments took place in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA (Indianapolis Experiment).

The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) took place in Canberra, Australia, and provided data for two separate experiments, the RISE Juvenile Property Personal Victims experiment (RISE JPP Experiment) and the Juvenile Property Shoplifting experiment (RISE JPS Experiment).

 

Study design

All four studies were randomised trials. The Indianapolis Experiment randomly assigned individual offenders. However, the RISE JPP Experiment, the RISE JPS Experiment and the Bethlehem Experiment randomly assigned cases or offences, regardless of whether they involved one or more individual offenders. Analyses were then conducted at the level of the individual offender, without adjusting for potential cluster effects. Following consultation with statisticians, the decision was made to follow the more conservative route of adjusting for the effects of cluster randomisation when analysing these studies. ICCs were not provided for any of the included studies. Failure to identify an ICC from any suitable similar studies led to the decision to estimate an ICC of 0.5, as recommended by the consulted statistician.

 

Participants

Participants were eligible for the Bethlehem Experiment if they were under the age of 18, were first time offenders and admitted responsibility for the crime. Those with felony level crimes, drug or alcohol crimes, or sex offences were ineligible, resulting in only participants who had committed property crimes and crimes of violence.

Study authors provided follow-up data for participants in the intervention group, participants in the control group and participants who were assigned to the intervention group, but declined to participate. For the purpose of this review, participants in the intervention group and the 'decline' group were combined to create one group, allowing all participants to be analysed based on assigned treatment, rather than treatment delivered.

Participants were eligible for the Indianapolis Experiment if they were first-time offenders under the age of 14 years, who had not been arrested for a serious violent offence and who admitted responsibility for the offence.

The RISE studies provided data on four separate experiments, examining the effect of the intervention on four separate groups of offenders: those charged with drink driving offences, those charged with youth violence offences, those charged with juvenile property offences and those charged with juvenile shoplifting offences. Because the drink driving experiment accepted participants of any age, and the youth violence offences accepted participants up to the age of 30 years, (and disaggregated data were not available), the results from these two experiments were considered ineligible and thus excluded from this review. Participants were eligible for the remaining RISE JPP Experiment and RISE JPS Experiment if they were under the age of 18 years, had no outstanding warrants and admitted responsibility for the offence. Previous offences did not render participants ineligible, unless there was an outstanding warrant.

 

Interventions

All interventions involved a meeting between the victim, the offenders, supporters of both the victim and offender, and a liaison officer. All present were given the opportunity to discuss the crime and its effects. Each intervention concluded with the construction of a reparation plan. The neutrality of the location of interventions varied, including police stations (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment), "monitored settings" (Bethlehem Experiment) and schools/libraries/ community centres (Indianapolis Experiment). The average duration of each intervention's conference was 34 minutes for the Bethlehem Experiment, 43 minutes for the Indianapolis Experiment, 85 minutes for the RISE JPP Experiment and 70 minutes for the RISE JPS Experiment. All conferences were diversionary rather than court-ordered.

 

Outcomes

 
Primary outcomes
 
Recidivism rate as measured by administrative data

Recidivism was measured by all four included studies. Recidivism is reported in the RISE studies as a one-year post-intervention monthly offending rate across groups for both the JPP Experiment (RISE JPP Experiment) and the JPS Experiment (RISE JPS Experiment). Recidivism is reported in the Bethlehem Experiment and the Indianapolis Experiment as a percentage of each group who were re-arrested at 12-month follow-up ) and at 24-month follow-up, respectively. Although in the original protocol, the intention was to conduct separate analyses for 12- and 24-month follow-ups, a post-hoc decision was made to combine all data at the furthest end point, thus allowing the Bethlehem Experiment and the Indianapolis Experiment to be combined in a meta-analysis.

 
Post-intervention rates of offending as measured by self-report

None of the included studies reported recidivism using self-reported rates of offending. All used administrative data.

 
Secondary outcomes
 
Young person's sense of remorse

Young people's remorse following the conference was measured in the RISE experiments (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment), using offenders' responses from structured interviews conducted by a trained RISE interviewer after the intervention. Remorse was measured as participants agreement or disagreement with the statement "At treatment, I felt ashamed of what I did".

A second wave of interviews was conducted two years post intervention. However, as the analyses for these interviews were reported as "still in progress", this review only considers data from the first wave interviews.

 
Young person's recognition of wrongdoing

Young people's recognition of wrong-doing following the conference was measured in the RISE experiments (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment), using offenders' responses from structured interviews conducted by a trained RISE interviewer after the intervention. Recognition of wrong-doing was measured as participants agreement or disagreement with the statement "At treatment, I felt my offence was wrong".

A second wave of interviews was conducted two years post intervention. However, as the analyses for these interviews were reported as "still in progress", this review only considers data from the first wave interviews.

 
Young person's self-perception

Young people's self-perception following the conference was measured in the RISE experiments (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment), using offenders' responses from structured interviews conducted by a trained RISE interviewer after the intervention. Self-perception was measured as participants agreement or disagreement with the statement "I felt that my self-respect decreased".

A second wave of interviews was conducted two years post intervention. However, as the analyses for these interviews were reported as "still in progress", this review only considers data from the first wave interviews.

 
Characteristics of the post-intervention offence, specifically post-intervention offending with the same offence as that for which the offender was 'conferenced', and severity of the post-intervention offence

None of the included studies assessed the characteristics of the post-intervention offence.

 
Young person's satisfaction with overall process

Both the Bethlehem Experiment and the Indianapolis Experiment measured young person's satisfaction with the overall process at 12-month and 24-month follow-up, respectively, using questionnaires. Following enquiries with the authors of Indianapolis Experiment, a more up-to-date data set than was publicly available was provided for the satisfaction scores. In both studies, participants' responses were recorded on an ordinal scale. For the purpose of analyses in this review, these were converted to dichotomous outcomes of number of participants satisfied and not satisfied. For the Indianapolis Experiment's five-point scale, young people who stated they were "very satisfied" and "satisfied" were combined to create the "satisfied" group, and those who stated they were "dissatisfied", "very dissatisfied" or "neither" were combined to create the "dissatisfied group. For the Bethlehem experiment's four-point scale, young people who stated they were "very satisfied" and "satisfied" were combined to create the "satisfied" group, and those who stated they were "dissatisfied" and "very dissatisfied" were combined to create the "dissatisfied group.

 
Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process

Both the Bethlehem Experiment and the Indianapolis Experiment measured the victim's satisfaction with the overall process at a 12-month follow-up ) and a 24-month follow-up,) respectively, using questionnaires. A more up-to-date data set than publicly available for the victim's satisfaction scores in the Indianapolis Experiment was provided by the study authors. In both studies, participants' responses were recorded on an ordinal scale. For the purpose of analyses, the responses on these scales were converted to dichotomous outcomes of number of participants satisfied and not satisfied. For the Indianapolis Experiment's 5-point scale, victims who stated they were "very satisfied" and "satisfied" were combined to create the "satisfied" group, and those who stated they were "dissatisfied", "very dissatisfied" or "neither" were combined to create the "dissatisfied group. For the Bethlehem Experiment's 4-point scale, victims who stated they were "very satisfied" and "satisfied" were combined to create the "satisfied" group, and those stated they were "dissatisfied" and "very dissatisfied" were combined to create the "dissatisfied group.

 
Change in social circumstances, including: employment, education, training and substance misuse

Change in social circumstances was reported as "Prevalence of life events" in both RISE experiments using responses from interviews with the offenders conducted after the intervention (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment). However, as no data were provided on social circumstances prior to the intervention, the data cannot be used to assess the degree of participant 'change' in social circumstances.

 
Adherence to conference plan

This was only reported by the Bethlehem Experiment.

 
Outcomes measured by studies but not included in this review

Bethlehem Experiment

  • Conference observations and coordinator performance evaluations
  • Change in police attitudes and role orientation (as measured by an officer attitudinal and work environmental survey)
  • Victim's perception of fairness, victim's belief that the offender was adequately held accountable for the offence committed, victim's perception that their opinion regarding the offence and circumstances were adequately considered in this case (as measured by victim survey, sent at least two weeks after deposition)
  • Offender's experience of fairness, offender's belief that they were adequately held accountable for the offence committed, offender's attitude towards the victim (as measured by offender survey, sent at least two weeks after deposition)
  • Parent of offender satisfaction, parent's experience of fairness, parent's belief that their child was adequately held accountable for the offence committed, parent's perception that their opinion regarding the offence and circumstances were adequately considered in this case, parent's views on the likelihood that their child will commit another/similar offence, parent's views on if the payment/community service agreement was fair to the parent/victim/offender, parent's attitude towards their child, parent's opinion of their child, parent's perception regarding the victim's opinion of their child (as measured by parent survey, sent at least two weeks after deposition)

Indianapolis Experiment

  • Post conference/diversion surveys with offending youths, victims, victim's supporters, offender's parents or supporters, measuring participation in conference/designated diversion programme, perception of participant behaviour during conference, value of programme, sense of justice
  • One-year follow-up interview with offender, measuring family and peer relationships, school performance, work involvement
  • One-year follow-up interview with victim, measuring sense of justice, degree to which victim had input into how case was handled, re-victimisation

RISE JPP Experiment

  • Offender's reactions to the conference, including their view on emotional intensity, perceived procedural justice, perceived retributive justice, perceived reintegrative shaming (including remorse and recognition and wrongdoing), perceived stigmatic shaming, perceived forgiveness, perceived anger, perceived defiance, perceived legitimacy, perceived informal social control, perceived deterrence, self-projected compliance, perceived self-stigma (including self-perception), as measured by post conference interviews
  • The victim's perspective on the process, including financial harm, emotional harm, notification of proceedings, presence at proceedings, and victims' reactions to their treatment, (as measured by post-conference interviews)
  • Police attitudes towards court and conference (as measured by post-conference questionnaire)

RISE JPS Experiment

  • Offender's reactions to the conference, including their view on emotional intensity, perceived procedural justice, perceived retributive justice, perceived reintegrative shaming (including remorse and recognition and wrongdoing), perceived stigmatic shaming, perceived forgiveness, perceived anger, perceived defiance, perceived legitimacy, perceived informal social control, perceived deterrence, self-projected compliance, perceived self-stigma (including self-perception), as measured by post conference interviews
  • The victim's perspective on the process, including financial harm, emotional harm, notification of proceedings, presence at proceedings, and victims' reactions to their treatment, (as measured by post conference interviews)
  • Police attitudes towards court and conference (as measured by post-conference questionnaire)

 
Statistical heterogeneity

The statistical heterogeneity was measured for each outcome through use of the Chi2 statistic and its P value, the I2 statistic. Caution is recommended when interpreting the subsequent results, as with the inclusion of only two studies in each meta-analysis, the precision of each analysis is low.

 
Clinical heterogeneity

There was no unexpected variability in the clinical heterogeneity in each included study. The participants in each included study were of a similar age (maximum age 14 to 18 years). The interventions all followed a similar format and closely adhered to a restorative justice conference programme. Similar outcomes of recidivism were measured by all included studies.

 
Methodological heterogeneity

There was no unexpected variability in the methodological heterogeneity in each included study. All included studies made use of a RCT design, and all similar levels of low or unclear risk of bias, it was judged that there was no unexpected variability in the methodological heterogeneity in each included study.

 

Excluded studies

A total of 32 records (23 studies) were excluded from this review. Of these records, 16 records were excluded because they did not involve random allocation or quasi-random allocation. Seven records were excluded because they involved interventions in which the meeting between the victim and offender occurred separately to the family group conference. Including these studies may have distorted results, as a crucial component of a restorative justice conference is that all parties are encouraged to accept responsibility for their actions, including the young person' s family. Therefore, these interventions may not have been as effective as a restorative conference. Three records were excluded because the age range of the participants went beyond the eligibility criteria for this review. Including older participants may have distorted results, as it is expected that this type of restorative justice intervention is more effective for young offenders.The remaining six records were excluded for various reasons, including no evaluation data provided (three records), a focus on child welfare rather than youth justice (one record), a focus on police officers' experience and understanding (one record) and recruitment from a youth justice conference but for other research purposes (one record).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

The Indianapolis Experiment had a total sample size of 782 (400 experimental and 382 control). The Bethlehem Experiment allocated a total of 215 offences (143 experimental, 72 control), consisting of 292 offenders (189 experimental, 103 control). The RISE JPP Experiment allocated 117 cases involving 143 offenders. However, many of these cases were still in progress at the time of analysis. Therefore, results from this study are based on the 108 cases (135 offenders: 73 experimental, 62 control) completed to date. The RISE JPS Experiment allocated 173 cases involving 249 offenders. However, many of these cases were still in progress at the time of analysis. Therefore, results from this study are based on the 162 cases (238 offenders: 124 experimental, 114 control) completed to date.

Full details of risk of bias assessment for each study can be found in the Characteristics of included studies tables and is displayed graphically in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

 FigureFigure 2. 'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
 FigureFigure 3. 'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

 

Allocation

Sequence generation and allocation concealment were both adequately conducted across all studies. Methods of allocation included the use of a random number generator (Bethlehem Experiment), random selection from a pile of sealed brown envelopes (Indianapolis Experiment), and a quasi-random number generator (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment).

 

Blinding

No study made any reference to procedures to blind either the participant or outcome assessors to the intervention. However, due to the nature of the intervention, it is unlikely to have been feasible to blind participants in any of the studies. Blinding of outcome assessors however, may have been feasible, as administrative data could be "blind". As insufficient information was provided by all studies on this issues, the overall assessment for this criteria remains 'unclear'.

 

Incomplete outcome data

Study authors were confident that attrition rates for the outcome of recidivism were low across all included studies, due to the use of administrative data, and by analysing participants based on "assigned treatment" rather than "treatment completed", minimising attrition bias.

The risk of bias arising from incomplete outcome data was judged to be 'unclear' or 'high' for all remaining outcomes across all four studies. For satisfaction outcomes, the Bethlehem Experiment had a response rate of 84% for participants in the intervention group and 63% for participants in the control group, while for the 'self-esteem' outcome, the RISE JPP Experiment and the RISE JPS Experiment completed interviews with respectively 73% and 87% of their intervention groups, and 77% and 72% of their control groups.

The most likely reason for attrition was participant failure, that is, the participants who were missing were likely to have reoffended since the intervention, or have felt low satisfaction with the overall process. Therefore, when missing data were imputed in this review, the assumption was made that the missing participants experienced the negative outcomes. Attrition rates for the 'satisfaction' data in the Indianapolis Experiment were particularly problematic since no information was given regarding the exact percentage missing from each group. Authors were contacted to clarify this issue, but they were only able to provide an approximate total number of 200 participants missing, and were unable to provide any further detail regarding the exact number missing in each group. Due to this, and the large proportion missing, the decision was made not to attempt any imputations for this study and to analyse using an available case analysis. Indianapolis Experiment was rated as 'high' risk of bias.

 

Selective reporting

Reporting bias appeared to vary across the studies. While not every study included the primary outcome of recidivism, there appeared no evidence that other outcomes were planned and then omitted from the results. Three of the four studies were rated as 'unclear'. One of the studies failed to report their significance values in full (Bethlehem Experiment) and so we rated this as 'high' risk of bias.

 

Other potential sources of bias

Self-selection bias was highly likely across all four studies, as participation was voluntary and required offenders to make a full admission of responsibility.

 

Effects of interventions

See:  Summary of findings for the main comparison Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21 years)

Except where stated, we conducted all sensitivity analyses planned: reanalysing the data without imputing data for the missing participants, imputing data for the missing participants assuming they experienced the positive outcome, removing the "decline" group from the experimental group in the Bethlehem Experiment using a fixed-effect model, and without adjusting for a cluster effect. The reason for reanalysing without a cluster effect is that because not all participants were cluster-randomised across all studies, the decision to treat all as cluster-randomised trials could underestimate the overall effect. By analysing without a cluster effect, it is possible to explore the less conservative option and determine whether a potential overestimation of the effect instead could reach significance.

 

Recidivism rate as measured by administrative data

All four included studies looked at the impact of intervention on recidivism. Data from Bethlehem Experiment and Indianapolis Experiment were measured in the same way, recording the number of participants re-arrested following intervention, thus allowing them to be combined in a meta-analysis.

 

Number re-arrested

The pooled estimate using a random-effects model was 1.00 (OR) (95% CI 0.59 to 1.71; P = 0.99), that is, no statistically significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention ( Analysis 1.1). The I2 statistic indicates 70% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 
Sensitivity analysis

The test for overall effect for all sensitivity analyses failed to reach statistical significance.

 

Monthly rate of reoffending

Both the RISE JPP Experiment and the RISE JPS Experiment recorded recidivism as a post-intervention monthly rate of offending. Data from these two studies were combined in a separate meta-analysis ( Analysis 1.2).

The pooled estimate using a random-effects model was -0.06 (SMD) (95% CI -0.28 to 0.16; P = 0.61), that is, no statistically significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention. The I2 statistic indicates 0% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 
Sensitivity analysis

Only two of the sensitivity analyses were performed for this outcome. Data for this outcome were re-analysed without adjusting for a cluster effect and using a fixed-effect model. The test for overall effect still failed to reach statistical significance. No data were imputed for this outcome, negating the need for sensitivity analyses with alternative imputations.

 

Post-intervention rates of offending as measured by self-report

No data for this outcome were available to be included in a meta-analysis.

 

Young person's sense of remorse

Only the RISE JPP Experiment and the RISE JPS Experiment looked at the impact of intervention on the young person’s sense of remorse following the intervention. The pooled estimate using a random-effects model was 1.73 (OR) (95% CI 0.97 to 3.10; P = 0.06), that is, no significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention. The I2 statistic indicates 13% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity ( Analysis 8.1).

 

Sensitivity analysis

The test for overall effect for all sensitivity analyses failed to reach statistical significance.

 

Young person's recognition of wrongdoing

Only the RISE JPP Experiment and the RISE JPS Experiment looked at the impact of intervention on the young person's recognition of wrongdoing following the intervention. The pooled estimate using a random-effects model was 1.97 (OR) (95% CI 0.81 to 4.80; P = 0.14), that is, no significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention ( Analysis 14.1). The I2 statistic indicates 59% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 

Sensitivity analysis

Only the sensitivity analysis that reanalysed data using a fixed-effect model reached statistical significance (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.27; P = 0.03) ( Analysis 19.1). The I2 statistic indicates 59% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity. The Chi2 statistic failed to reach significance (Chi2 = 2.43 on 1 degrees of freedom, P = 0.12).

 

Young person's self-perception

Only the RISE JPP Experiment and the RISE JPS Experiment looked at the impact of intervention on the young person's self perception following the intervention. The pooled estimate using a random-effects model was 0.95 (OR) (95% CI 0.55 to 1.63; P = 0.85), that is, no significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention ( Analysis 20.1). The I2 statistic indicates 0% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 

Sensitivity analysis

The test for overall effect for all sensitivity analyses failed to reach significance.

 

Characteristics of the post-intervention offence

No data for this outcome were available to be included in a meta-analysis.

 

Young person's satisfaction with overall process

Two of the included studies measured the number of young people who, after the intervention had taken placed, said that, overall, they were satisfied with the process (Bethlehem Experiment; Indianapolis Experiment). However, the pooled estimate using a random-effects model was 0.42 (OR) (95% CI 0.04 to 4.07; P 0.45), that is, no significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention ( Analysis 26.1). The I2 statistic indicates 88% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 

Sensitivity analysis

One of the sensitivity analyses reached statistical significance, when the missing participants were assumed to have experienced the positive outcome (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.55; P = 0.003) ( Analysis 29.1). The I2 statistic indicates 0% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 

Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process

Two of the included studies measured the number of victims who, after the intervention had taken placed, said that, overall, they were satisfied with the process (Bethlehem Experiment; Indianapolis Experiment). However, the pooled estimate using a random-effects model was 4.05 (OR) (95% CI 0.56 to 29.04; P = 0.16), that is, no statistically significant difference was detected in favour of the intervention ( Analysis 33.1). The I2 statistic indicates 88% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

 

Sensitivity analysis

Two of the sensitivity analyses reached statistical significance. The first ( Analysis 36.1), when the "decline" group was removed from the experimental group in the Bethlehem Experiment (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.28 to 17.11; P = 0.0004). The I2 statistic indicates 49% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity.

The second of the sensitivity analyses to reach statistical significance was when the data were reanalysed using a fixed-effect model (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.89; P < 0.0001) ( Analysis 37.1). The I2 statistic indicates 88% of the variation in the point estimates is due to heterogeneity. The Chi2 statistic reached statistical significance (Chi2 = 8.16 on 1 degrees of freedom, P = 0.004). The large amount of heterogeneity indicated by results strongly suggests that the results from the original random-effects model is more appropriate.

 

Change in social circumstances

No data for this outcome were available to be included in a meta-analysis.

 

Adherence to conference plan

The Bethlehem Experiment was the only study to refer to offender's adherence to the conference plan, stating that 94% of the offenders complied with the terms of the agreement.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

Overall, this review did not find reliable evidence that the use of restorative justice conferencing is more effective for young offenders than the use of normal court processing. Across all the meta-analyses conducted on the recidivism outcomes, no significant main effects were identified.

Young person's sense of remorse, recognition of wrongdoing and their self-perception failed to change significantly, except in one sensitivity analysis in which participants' 'recognition of wrongdoing' was analysed using a fixed-effect model. Results indicated that participants in the experimental group were significantly more likely to recognise that their offence was wrong than participants in the control group. Yet analyses also indicate that 59% of the variation in point estimates may be attributed to heterogeneity. While the source of the heterogeneity cannot be concretely determined, due to the insufficient number of studies for subgroup analyses, it is possible that it may be attributed to the variation in participant characteristics, considering it could not be attributed to variations in the intervention, as both were part of the same RISE intervention (RISE JPP Experiment; RISE JPS Experiment). Overall, considering this potential heterogeneity, it is likely that reliance on the original results of the random-effects model may be advisable.

For the meta-analyses conducted on participants' satisfaction with the overall process, no result reached statistical significance, with the exception of one sensitivity analysis, where the results were analysed and data were imputed for the missing participants assuming that they experienced the positive outcome (that is, that they were satisfied). However, the assumption that all missing participants were satisfied with the overall process is problematic. If true, it seems more likely that they would have been more willing to continue participation in the research. However, it is not possible conclusively to determine the reasons for the missing data and therefore, all results, regardless of the imputation procedure, must be interpreted with caution.

Results from the meta-analyses conducted on the victims' satisfaction also failed to reach statistical significance, with the exception of one sensitivity analysis, where victims in the Bethlehem Experiment whose associated offenders had been assigned to the treatment group, but declined to participate (n = 32), were removed from the analyses, thus comparing victims whose offenders were part of the treatment group (n = 54) with the control group (n = 35). These results suggest that victims in the experimental group experienced greater satisfaction than those in the control group. There is an argument that it may be more appropriate to conduct this analysis in this way, as while the young offenders in the decline group where there by choice, victims in the decline group were not, and therefore their low levels of satisfaction are understandable. By not diluting the group of "experimental" victims with the inclusion of "decline" victims who had no experience of the conference, the results are perhaps more reflective of the real benefits that could be experienced by victims involved in restorative justice conferences. This is promising and could indicate the usefulness of these restorative justice conferences for victims.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

Due to the inclusion criteria of juveniles aged 7 to 21 years, it was necessary to exclude three potential studies which could have increased the power of this review, but would have made the results less applicable to a "young offender" population, as per the objective. Study authors were contacted requesting the data pertaining only to those aged 7 to 21, but the study authors were unable to provide this data. These studies were therefore excluded because, while their intervention was eligible, the participant characteristics were not eligible. It is likely that including these studies may have weakened results further. For example, had participants from the RISE drink-driving experiment been included in the meta-analyses, it is possible that the effect would have decreased further, as this study resulted in a small increase in offences after the intervention (Sherman 2000).

The offences for which participants were arrested were relatively consistent across the four included studies, with most participants presenting with either violent or property offences. This could raise questions over the applicability of results to more serious offences including drink driving, sexual offences and drug offences. The numbers of included studies in this review are small in number, with only four eligible interventions identified. Two of the four were located in United States, with the remaining two in Australia. Some could argue this may further limit the extent to which these results can be applied internationally, considering the differing social, political and economic contexts across countries.

A common reason for which studies were excluded from this review was that the victim-offender mediation occurred separately to the meeting with the parent/guardian. These studies were excluded because a key component of a restorative justice conference was for the family of the offender to share in the responsibility. Overall, these studies failed to find a significant effect following the intervention on recidivism or relationships (Lane 2005; Brank 2008). Therefore, including these studies in this review may only have reduced the effects further.

In all four studies, young offenders were entered into the programme at police discretion. This could lead to a potential issue regarding the generalisability of these results, as it is difficult to ascertain the exact process behind these decisions made by the police in each location. This uncertainty regarding their consistency could lead to problems in replicating the exact procedure across contexts.

 

Quality of the evidence

The overall quality of the evidence is different to summarise. All studies were clear and explicit in their methods of random allocation, but were subject to bias across a number of other domains. For example, no study made reference to blinding participants in their study. Whilst this is understandable considering the difficulty in blinding a participant to a psychosocial intervention such as this, it does not remove the risk of bias. High attrition levels were evident across all studies, which leads to difficulty in making firm conclusions regarding whether those missing are missing at random or missing due to experiencing negative outcomes (for example, reoffending, or being dissatisfied with the overall process). One likely risk of bias across all studies is that of selection bias, not only from the participants who can only participate voluntarily, but also from the police officers making their initial recommendations to the study. Consequently, it is important to remain tentative when drawing conclusions from any of these studies.

 

Potential biases in the review process

We made every attempt to follow the protocol of this review when selecting outcomes from included studies to report. However, the possibility remains that the outcomes reported are a biased representation of those collected by the study authors, for example, when selecting questionnaire items that most closely reflect the outcome of participants' self-concept. There is also potential bias in the review authors' decision to assume that missing participants are more likely to have experienced the negative outcome. Finally, the estimated intracluster correlation used in analysis may also be subject to bias. The review authors took statistical advice in selecting a method of analysis for the potential cluster adjustment, and the advice given by the statistician was to use an estimated average ICC of 0.5 to re-analyse the trial data and obtain approximate correct analyses. Although based on the sound statistical advice, the possibility cannot be ruled out that use of this 0.5 figure was biased.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

Previous published reports of restorative justice conferences suggested that, descriptively, the interventions appear to be effective. Yet closer inspection of the statistical results published in the original studies that were included in this systematic review reveal that many of the results initially fail to reach statistical significance, and combining data from these studies has failed to identify any significant effect for reducing recidivism.

All of the outcomes of interest to this review were originally reported in the Indianapolis Experiment, the RISE JPP Experiment, and the RISE JPS Experiment and also failed to reach significance in those studies. However, the Bethlehem Experiment presented results separately for violent and property offenders, and indicated that while property offenders demonstrated a "negligible" difference, violent offenders who were conferenced were significantly less likely to offend than those who were unable to be conferenced (P < 0.05). This raises the possibility that the intervention is more effective for violent offenders than other offenders. However, it was not possible to explore this statistically in this review, as neither of the other two eligible studies in this review included participants charged with violent offences.

There are few systematic reviews of restorative justice conferencing completed which would be adequately homogeneous with which to compare the results of this review. Those that have been completed previously have either taken a broader focus than this current review, for example, including results concerning both adult and juvenile offenders (Miers 2001), or provided only a narrative review, and were therefore lacking in meta-analytical results (Sherman 2007). The narrative accounts of these earlier reviews both indicated that restorative conferencing would appear to be effective in reducing recidivism and increasing the satisfaction of participants. However, without any objective statistical data, it is difficult to reliably compare the results of these earlier reviews with this current review.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

Due to the overall low quality of the included studies in this review, it is difficult to state with certainty the implications for the continued practice of restorative justice conferencing. While most included studies demonstrated low risk of selection bias and reporting bias, there is an unclear risk of performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias, and a high risk of self-selection bias throughout all studies, which makes it difficult to place any firm reliance on the results of these studies, and subsequently, this review. In addition, caution must be taken considering the small number of included studies on which these results are based. The primary purpose of the review was to consider the effectiveness of the conference for young offenders, and the evidence from the review suggests that it provides no additional benefit over normal court processes. However, from the victims' point of view, the experience of restorative justice conferencing may provide significant benefit over normal court processes.

 
Implications for research

This review has highlighted the need for further research in this area. With regards to study design, further attempts at randomised controlled trials are strongly encouraged. In particular, the possibility of blinding participants and outcome assessors should be further explored to further reduce the potential bias in these studies. The process of selection and assignment to the study also requires close attention, in order to ensure the process remains regulated and unbiased. It is also recommended that every effort is made to limit the amount of missing data in the research, and to account in full for all those missing. It may also be of use to further explore the post-intervention aspects of the process, specifically, the participant's agreement with and adherence to the conference plan. It was surprising that only one included study reported on the adherence to the plan (Bethlehem Experiment), considering one of the primary purposes of the conference is to create this plan, and participants subsequent behaviour is likely to be strongly connected to their willingness to complete this plan. We plan to update this review within 24 months as per Cochrane requirements, following the protocol outlined in this review. For further information regarding potential methodological issues relevant to this review update, see  Table 1.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

We are very grateful for the invaluable support and advice provided to us by the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group (CDPLPG), in particular, the Managing Editor (Laura MacDonald) and the Trials Search Co-ordinator (Margaret Anderson). We would like to thank all the authors who responded to us and particularly to those of included studies who took the time to provide us with additional data. We would also like to thank all the statisticians who responded to our requests for advice, including Prof Doug Altman, Prof Steve Higgins and Dr Mark McCann.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Recidivism

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending21029Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.59, 1.71]

 2 Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)2321Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)-0.06 [-0.28, 0.16]

 
Comparison 2. Recidivism without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending21074Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.01 [0.59, 1.73]

 2 Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)2373Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)-0.05 [-0.26, 0.15]

 
Comparison 3. Recidivism without imputed data or cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending21004Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.06 [0.55, 2.07]

 
Comparison 4. Recidivism (imputing positive outcome)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending21029Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.01 [0.56, 1.80]

 
Comparison 5. Recidivism (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending21074Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.03 [0.56, 1.89]

 
Comparison 6. Recidivism (without decline group)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending2937Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.81 [0.63, 1.05]

 
Comparison 7. Recidivism (fixed-effect)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number reoffending21029Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.90 [0.70, 1.15]

 2 Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)2321Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)-0.06 [-0.28, 0.16]

 
Comparison 8. Young person's sense of remorse

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Remorse2217Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.73 [0.97, 3.10]

 
Comparison 9. Young person's sense of remorse without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Remorse2250Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.69 [0.98, 2.93]

 
Comparison 10. Young person's sense of remorse without imputed data of cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Remorse2186Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.72 [0.91, 3.24]

 
Comparison 11. Young person's sense of remorse (imputing positive outcome)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Remorse2217Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.56 [0.81, 2.98]

 
Comparison 12. Young person's sense of remorse (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Remorse2250Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.97 [0.41, 2.32]

 
Comparison 13. Young person's sense of remorse (fixed-effect)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Remorse2217Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)1.72 [1.00, 2.95]

 
Comparison 14. Young person's recognition of wrongdoing

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Recognition of wrongdoing2217Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.97 [0.81, 4.80]

 
Comparison 15. Young person's recognition of wrongdoing without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Recognition of wrongdoing2250Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.85 [0.77, 4.47]

 
Comparison 16. Young person's recognition of wrongdoing without imputed data or cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Recognition of wrongdoing2186Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.15 [0.87, 5.35]

 
Comparison 17. Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (imputing positive outcome)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Recognition of wrongdoing2217Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.92 [0.82, 4.52]

 
Comparison 18. Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Recognition of wrongdoing2250Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.85 [0.85, 4.05]

 
Comparison 19. Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (fixed-effect)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Recognition of wrongdoing2217Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)1.87 [1.06, 3.28]

 
Comparison 20. Young person's self-perception

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-perception2217Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.95 [0.55, 1.63]

 
Comparison 21. Young person's self-perception without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-perception2250Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.94 [0.57, 1.55]

 
Comparison 22. Young person's self-perception without imputed data or cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-perception2186Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.25 [0.65, 2.39]

 
Comparison 23. Young person's self-perception (imputing positive outcome)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-perception2217Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.32 [0.68, 2.55]

 
Comparison 24. Young person's self-perception (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-perception2250Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.34 [0.73, 2.49]

 
Comparison 25. Young person's self-perception (fixed-effect)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-perception2217Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.95 [0.55, 1.63]

 
Comparison 26. Young person's satisfaction with overall process

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2467Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.42 [0.05, 3.81]

 
Comparison 27. Young person's satisfaction without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2503Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.42 [0.05, 3.81]

 
Comparison 28. Young person's satisfaction without imputed data or cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2425Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.25 [0.06, 1.08]

 
Comparison 29. Young person's satisfaction (imputing positive outcome)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2467Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.16 [0.05, 0.55]

 
Comparison 30. Young person's satisfaction (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2503Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.24 [0.06, 0.96]

 
Comparison 31. Young person's satisfaction (without decline group)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2408Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.63 [0.03, 13.49]

 
Comparison 32. Young person's satisfaction (fixed-effect)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Young offender satisfaction2467Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.85 [0.49, 1.49]

 
Comparison 33. Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process2428Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.03 [0.59, 27.75]

 
Comparison 34. Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction without imputed data

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process2369Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.33 [0.66, 28.43]

 
Comparison 35. Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (imputing positive outcome)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process2428Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.95 [0.50, 30.90]

 
Comparison 36. Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (without decline group)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process2370Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)6.22 [2.31, 16.74]

 
Comparison 37. Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (fixed-effect)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process2428Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)2.45 [1.39, 4.30]

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. Search Strategies

 

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (Last searched 4 May 2012)

#1 (famil* or youth* or restorat*) near/2 (meet* or conferenc* or mediat*)

#2 (restorat*) near/2 (intervent* or justice* or model* or polic* or practic* or practis* or program*)

#3 (reintegrat* or re-integrat*) near/2 (sham*)

#4 (shaming NEXT experiment*) or (shaming NEXT mechanism*) or (shaming NEXT theor*)

#5 victim* near/1 offend*

#6 VORP or VOMP

#7 (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6)

#8 (juvenile* or minor* or child* or adolescen* or youth* or young* or teen* or boy* or girl*)

#9 MeSH descriptor Adolescent, this term only

#10 MeSH descriptor Child explode all trees

#11 MeSH descriptor Minors explode all trees

#12 (#8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11)

#13 (borstal* or convict* or correctional* or crime* or criminal* or delinquen* or detain* or detention* or gaol* or imprison* or incarcerat* or jail* or offend* or offens* or offenc* or penitentiar* or prison* or probation* or punish* or rearrest* or re-arrest* or recidiv* or reconvict* or re-convict* or reform* or reoffend* or re-offend*)

#14 MeSH descriptor Prisoners, this term only

#15 MeSH descriptor Prisons, this term only

#16 MeSH descriptor Juvenile Delinquency, this term only

#17 (#13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16)

#18 (#7 AND #12 AND #17)

 

MEDLINE (Ovid)  (Last searched 4 May 2012)

  1. ((famil$ or youth$ or restorat$) adj2 (meet$ or conferenc$ or mediat$))
  2. (restorat$ adj2 (intervent$ or justice$ or model$ or polic$ or practic$ or practis$ or program$))
  3. ((reintegrat$ or re-integrat$) adj2 sham$)
  4. ((shaming adj2 experiment$) or (shaming adj2 mechanism$) or (shaming adj2 theor$))
  5. (victim$ adj1 offend$)
  6. (VORP or VOMP)
  7. #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6
  8. (juvenile$ or minor$ or child$ or adolescen$ or youth$ or young$ or teen$ or boy$ or girl$)
  9. Adolescent.sh.
  10. Child.sh.
  11. Minors.sh.
  12. #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11
  13. (borstal$ or convict$ or correctional$ or crime$ or criminal$ or delinquen$ or detain$ or detention$ or gaol$ or imprison$ or incarcerat$ or jail$ or offend$ or offens$ or offenc$ or penitentiar$ or prison$ or probation$ or punish$ or rearrest$ or re-arrest$ or recidiv$ or reconvict$ or re-convict$ or reform$ or reoffend$ or re-offend$)
  14. prisoners.sh.
  15. prisons.sh.
  16. juvenile delinquency.sh.
  17. #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16
  18. #7 and #12 and #17
  19. randomized controlled trial.pt.
  20. controlled clinical trial.pt.
  21. randomi#ed.ab.
  22. placebo$.ab.
  23. drug therapy.fs.
  24. randomly.ab.
  25. trial.ab.
  26. groups.ab.
  27. or/19-26
  28. exp animals/ not humans.sh.
  29. 27 not 28
  30. 18 and 29

 

PsycINFO (Ovid) (Last searched 17 May 2012)

  1. ((famil* or youth* or restorat*) adj2 (meet* or conferenc* or mediat*)).ab,ti.
  2. (restorat* adj2 (intervent* or justice* or model* or polic* or practic* or practis* or program*)). ab,ti.
  3. ((reintegrat* or re-integrat*) adj2 sham*). ab,ti.
  4. ((shaming adj2 experiment*) or (shaming adj2 mechanism*) or (shaming adj2 theor*)). ab,ti.
  5. (victim* adj1 offend*). ab,ti.
  6. (VORP or VOMP). ab,ti.
  7. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
  8. (juvenile* or minor* or child* or adolescen* or youth* or young* or teen* or boy* or girl*). ab,ti.
  9. (borstal* or convict* or correctional* or crime* or criminal* or delinquen* or detain* or detention* or gaol* or imprison* or incarcerat* or jail* or offend* or offens* or offenc* or penitentiar* or prison* or probation* or punish* or rearrest* or re-arrest* or recidiv* or reconvict* or re-convict* or reform* or reoffend* or re-offend*).ab,ti.
  10. exp Prisoners/
  11. exp Prisons/
  12. exp Juvenile Delinquency/
  13. 9 or 10 or 11 or 12
  14. (randomis* or randomiz*).af,md,pt.
  15. (random* adj3 (allocat* or assign*)).ab,ti.
  16. ((clinic* or control*) adj3 trial*).ab,ti.
  17. ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj3 (blind* or mask*)). ab,ti.
  18. ("cross over*" or crossover*). ab,ti.
  19. exp Placebo/
  20. exp Evaluation/
  21. exp Program Evaluation/
  22. exp Educational Program Evaluation/
  23. exp Mental Health Program Evaluation/
  24. exp Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation/
  25. exp Random Sampling/
  26. exp Clinical Trials/
  27. exp Experiment Controls/
  28. ((evaluation or effectiveness) adj3 stud* research*). ab,ti.
  29. 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28
  30. 7 and 8 and 13 and 29

 

PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) (Last searched 16 May 2011)

S1. (famil* W2 meet*) or (famil* W2 conferenc*) or (famil* W2 mediat*)

S2. (youth* W2 meet*) or (youth* W2 conferenc*) or (youth* W2 mediat*)

S3. (restorat* W2 meet*) or (restorat* W2 conferenc*) or (restorat* W2 mediat*)

S4. (restorat* W2 intervent*) or (restorat* W2 justice*) or (restorat* W2 model*) or (restorat* W2 polic*) or (restorat* W2 practic*) or (restorat* W2 practis*) or (restorat* W2 program*)

S5. (reintegrat* W2 sham*) or (re-integrat* W2 sham*) or (shaming W1 experiment*) or (shaming W1 mechanism*) or (shaming W1 theor*) or (victim* W1 offend*) or VOMP or VORP

S6. S1 or S2 or S3 or S4 or S5 

S7. (juvenile* or minor* or child* or adolescen* or youth* or young* or teen* or boy* or girl*)

S8. (borstal* or convict* or correctional* or crime* or criminal* or delinquen* or detain* or detention* or gaol* or imprison* or incarcerat* or jail* or offend* or offens* or offenc* or penitentiar* or prison* or probation* or punish* or rearrest* or re-arrest* or recidiv* or reconvict* or re-convict* or reform* or reoffend* or re-offend*)

S9. randomis* or randomiz*

S10. (random* N3 allocat* ) or (random* N3 assign*)

S11. (clinic* N3 trial*) or (control* N3 trial*)

S12. (singl* N3 mask*) or (singl* N3 blind*)

S13. (doubl* N3 mask*) or (doubl* N3 blind*)

S14. (trebl* N3 mask*) or (trebl* N3 blind*)

S15. (tripl* N3 mask*) or (tripl* N3 blind*) 

S16. crossover*

S17. "cross over*" 

S18. (DE "Random Sampling" or DE "Clinical Trials") or (DE "Experiment Controls")

S19. DE "Placebo" or DE "Evaluation" or DE "Program Evaluation" OR DE "Educational Program Evaluation" OR DE "Mental Health Program Evaluation" OR DE "Treatment effectiveness evaluation"

S20. (effectiveness N3 stud* or effectiveness N3 research*)

S21. (evaluation N3 stud* or evaluation N3 research*)

S22. S9 or S10 or S11 or S12 or S13 or S14 or S15 or S16 or S17 or S18 or S19 or S20 or S21

S23. S6 and S7 and S8 and S22

 

Science Direct (Elsevier) (Last searched 4 May 2012)  

((clin* W/3 trial*) or (clin* W/3 experiment*) or (clin* W/3 investigat*) OR (singl* W/3 blind*) or (simpl* W/3 blind*) or (doubl* W/3 blind*) or (trebl* W/3 blind*) or (tripl* W/3 blind*) OR (singl* W/3 mask*) or (simpl* W/3 mask*) or (doubl* W/3 mask*) or (trebl* W/3 mask*) or (tripl* W/3 mask*) OR (random*) or (RCT) OR “randomi*ed control* trial” OR (random* W/3 allocat*) or (random* W/3 assign*) or “quantitative stud*”) AND (((TITLE-ABSTR-KEY((shaming W/1 theor*) OR (victim* W/1 offend*) OR (VORP) OR (VOMP))) OR (TITLE-ABSTR-KEY((famil* W/2 meet*) OR (famil* W/2 conferenc*) OR (famil* W/2 mediat*) OR (youth* W/2 meet*) OR (youth* W/2 conferenc*) OR (youth* W/2 mediat*) OR (restorat* W/2 meet*) OR (restorat* W/2 conferenc*) OR (restorat* W/2 mediat*) OR (restorat* W/2 intervent*)) or TITLE-ABSTR-KEY((restorat* W/2 justice*) OR (restorat* W/2 model*) OR (restorat* W/2 polic*) OR (restorat* W/2 practic*) OR (restorat* W/2 practis*) OR (restorat* W/2 program*) OR (reintegrat* W/2 sham*) OR (shaming W/1 experiment*) OR (shaming W/1 mechanism*)))) AND (TITLE-ABSTR-KEY(borstal* or convict* or correctional* or crime* or criminal* or delinquen* or detain* or detention* or gaol* or imprison* or incarcerat* or jail* or offend* or offens* or offenc* or penitentiar* or prison* or probation* or punish* or rearrest* or recidiv*) or TITLE-ABSTR-KEY(reconvict* or re-convict* or reform* or reoffend*)) AND (TITLE-ABSTR-KEY((juvenile* or minor* or child* or adolescen* or youth* or young* or teen* or boy* or girl*))))

 

SCOPUS (Elsevier) (Last searched 10 May 2012)

((TITLE-ABS-KEY(juvenile* OR minor* OR child* OR adolescen* OR youth* OR young* OR teen* OR boy* OR girl*) OR INDEXTERMS(adolescent OR child OR minors))) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY((famil* W/2 meet*) OR (famil* W/2 conferenc*) OR (famil* W/2 mediat*) OR (youth* W/2 meet*) OR (youth* W/2 conferenc*) OR (youth* W/2 mediat*) OR (restorat* W/2 meet*) OR (restorat* W/2 conferenc*) OR (restorat* W/2 mediat*) OR (restorat* W/2 intervent*) OR (restorat* W/2 justice*) OR (restorat* W/2 model*) OR (restorat* W/2 polic*) OR (restorat* W/2 practic*) OR (restorat* W/2 practis*) OR (restorat* W/2 program*) OR (reintegrat* W/2 sham*) OR (shaming W/1 experiment*) OR (shaming W/1 mechanism*) OR (shaming W/1 theor*) OR (victim* W/1 offend*) OR (vorp) OR (vomp))) AND ((TITLE-ABS-KEY(borstal* OR convict* OR correctional* OR crime* OR criminal* OR delinquen* OR detain* OR detention* OR gaol* OR imprison* OR incarcerat* OR jail* OR offend* OR offens* OR offenc* OR penitentiar* OR prison* OR probation* OR punish* OR rearrest* OR re-arrest* OR recidiv* OR reconvict* OR re-convict* OR reform* OR reoffend* OR re-offend*) OR INDEXTERMS(prisoners OR prisons OR juvenile delinquency))) AND ((TITLE-ABS-KEY((clin* W/3 trial*) OR (clin* W/3 experiment*) OR (clin* W/3 investigat*) OR (singl* W/3 blind*) OR (simpl* W/3 blind*) OR (doubl* W/3 blind*) OR (trebl* W/3 blind*) OR (tripl* W/3 blind*) OR (singl* W/3 mask*) OR (simpl* W/3 mask*) OR (doubl* W/3 mask*) OR (trebl* W/3 mask*) OR (tripl* W/3 mask*) OR (random*) OR (rct) OR "randomi*ed control* trial" OR (random* W/3 allocat*) OR (random* W/3 assign*) OR ("quantitative stud*"))) OR ((INDEXTERMS(randomized controlled trials OR random allocation OR double-blind method OR single blind method)))) 

 

LILACS (Last searched 5 May 2012)

((juvenile$ or minor$ or child$ or adolescen$ or youth$ or young$ or teen$ or boy$ or girl$) AND (borstal$ or convict$ or correctional$ or crime$ or criminal$ or delinquen$ or detain$ or detention$ or ex-offend$ or gaol$ or imprison$ or incarcerat$ or jail$ or offend$ or offens$ or offenc$ or penitentiar$ or prison$ or probation$ or punish$ or reform$ or rearrest$ or re-arrest$ or recidiv$ or reconvict$ or re-convict$ or reoffend$ or re-offend$)) And (((famil$ or group$ or youth$ or restorat$) and (meet$ or conferenc$ or mediat$)) or ((restorat$) and (intervent$ or justice$ or model$ or practic$ or practis$ or program$ or policy$)) Or ((reintegrat$) and (sham$)) Or (shaming theor$ or shaming mechanism$ or shaming experiment$) Or (victim$ and offend$) Or (VORP or VOMP)) [Words] and ((Pt randomized controlled trial OR Pt controlled clinical trial OR Mh randomized controlled trials OR Mh random allocation OR Mh double-blind method OR Mh single-blind method) AND NOT (Ct animal AND NOT (Ct human and Ct animal)) OR (Pt clinical trial OR Ex E05.318.760.535$ OR (Tw clin$ AND (Tw trial$ OR Tw ensa$ OR Tw estud$ OR Tw experim$ OR Tw investiga$)) OR ((Tw singl$ OR Tw simple$ OR Tw doubl$ OR Tw doble$ OR Tw duplo$ OR Tw trebl$ OR Tw trip$) AND (Tw blind$ OR Tw cego$ OR Tw ciego$ OR Tw mask$ OR Tw mascar$)) OR Mh placebos OR Tw placebo$ OR (Tw random$ OR Tw randon$ OR Tw casual$ OR Tw acaso$ OR Tw azar OR Tw aleator$) OR Mh research design) AND NOT (Ct animal AND NOT (Ct human and Ct animal)) OR (Ct comparative study OR Ex E05.337$ OR Mh follow-up studies OR Mh prospective studies OR Tw control$ OR Tw prospectiv$ OR Tw volunt$ OR Tw volunteer$) AND NOT (Ct animal AND NOT (Ct human and Ct animal)))

 

Social Science Citation Index (Web of Science) (Last searched 5 May 2012)

  1. Topic=((famil* OR youth* OR restorat*) SAME (meet* OR conferenc* OR mediat*))
  2. Topic=((restorat*) SAME (intervent* or justice* or model* or polic* or practic* or practis* or program*))
  3. Topic=((reintegrat* or re-integrat*) SAME (sham*))
  4. Topic=((shaming SAME experiment*) or (shaming SAME mechanism*) or (shaming SAME theor*)) OR Topic=(victim* SAME offend*) OR Topic=(VORP or VOMP)
  5. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4
  6. Topic=((juvenile* or minor* or child* or adolescen* or youth* or young* or teen* or boy* or girl*))  
  7. Topic=((borstal* or convict* or correctional* or crime* or criminal* or delinquen* or detain* or detention* or gaol* or imprison* or incarcerat* or jail* or offend* or offens* or offenc* or penitentiar* or prison* or probation* or punish* or rearrest* or re-arrest* or recidiv* or reconvict* or re-convict* or reform* or reoffend* or re-offend* ))
  8. #5 and #6 and #7
  9. Topic=((clin*) SAME (trials* OR experim* OR investiga*)) OR Topic=((singl* OR simpl* OR doubl* OR trebl* OR tripl*) SAME (blind* OR mask*)) OR Topic=((random* or RCT)) OR Topic=("randomi*ed controlled trial*") OR Topic=((random*) within 3 (allocat* OR assign* )) OR Topic=("quantitative stud*")
  10. #8 AND #9

 

Social Care Online (Social Care Institute for Excellence) (Last searched 4 May 2012)

(topic="youth justice " or topic="non-custodial sentences " or topic="reparation" or   freetext="restorative " or freetext="shaming " or  ts=”family group conferences” or freetext="family conference" or  freetext="family group conference"  or freetext="youth conference" or freetext= "reintegrative" or  freetext= "re-integrative" ) AND  (topic="young offenders " or topic= "recidivists" or topic="young people " or freetext="youth* " or freetext="adolescen* " or freetext="teen* "  or freetext="delinquent*" or freetext="juvenile*") AND  (ts="research" or  freetext="random* " or   freetext="trial* " or  freetext="blind* " or freetext="mask* "  or freetext="control group ")

 

ERIC (Proquest) (Last searched 4 May 2012)

(su.Exact("randomized controlled trials" OR "random/randomization" OR "double blind studies" OR "placebo effect") OR ((random*) NEAR/3 (allocat* OR assign*)) OR ((RCT) OR (quantitative stud*)) OR ((evaluat*) NEAR/3 (stud*)) OR ((placebo* OR random*) OR (randomi?ed controlled trial*) OR (comparative stud*)) OR ((placebo* OR random*) OR (randomi*ed controlled trial*) OR (comparative stud*)) OR ((singl* OR simpl* OR doubl* OR trebl* OR tripl*) NEAR/3 (blind* OR mask*)) OR all((clin*) NEAR/3 (trials* OR experim* OR investiga*))) AND ((((shaming NEAR/1 experiment*) OR (shaming NEAR/1 mechanism*) OR (shaming NEAR/1 theor*) OR (victim* NEAR/1 offend*) OR VOMP OR VORP) OR ((reintegrat* OR re-integrat*) NEAR/2 (sham*)) OR ((restorat*) NEAR/2 (intervent* OR justice* OR model* OR polic* OR practic* OR practis* OR program*)) OR ((famil* OR youth* OR restorat*) NEAR/2 (meet* OR conferenc* OR mediat*))) AND (su.Exact("minor/minors" OR "child/children/childhood" OR "adolescents") OR (juvenile* OR minor* OR child* OR adolescen* OR youth* OR young* OR teen* OR boy* OR girl*)) AND (su.Exact("prisons" OR "prison/prisons/prisoner/ prisoners" OR "prison/prisons/prisoner/prisoners" OR "delinquency, juvenile" OR "prisoners" OR "juvenile delinquency") OR (borstal* OR convict* OR correctional* OR crime* OR criminal* OR delinquen* OR detain* OR detention* OR gaol* OR imprison* OR incarcerat* OR jail* OR offend* OR offens* OR offenc* OR penitentiar* OR prison* OR probation* OR punish* OR rearrest* OR re-arrest* OR recidiv* OR reconvict* OR re-convict* OR reform* OR reoffend* OR re-offend*)))  

 

ERIC (Dialog Datastar) (Last searched 9 May 2011)

  1. ((famil or youth or restorat$) near (meet$ or conferenc$ or mediat$)).TI.AB.KW
  2. ((restorat$) near (intervent$ or justice$ or model or policy or practic$ or practis$ or program or programme)).TI.AB.KW
  3. ((reintegrat$ or re-integrat$) near (sham$)).TI.AB.KW
  4. ((shaming ADJ experiment$)  or (shaming ADJ mechanism$)  or (shaming ADJ theor$)).TI.AB.KW
  5. (victim$ near offend$).TI.AB.KW
  6. (VORP or VOMP).TI.AB.KW
  7. (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6)
  8. (juvenile$ OR minor$ OR child OR children OR childhood OR adolescent OR adolescence OR youth OR youthful OR young OR teen$ OR boy OR girl$).TI.AB.KW
  9. Adolescent.DE.
  10. Child.DE.
  11. Minors.DE.
  12. (#8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11)
  13. (borstal$ or convict$ or correctional$ or crime$ or criminal$ or delinquen$ or detain$ or detention$ or  gaol$ or imprison$ or incarcerat$ or jail$ or offend$ or offens$ or offenc$ or penitentiar$ or prison$ or probation$ or punish$ or rearrest$ or re-arrest$or recidiv$ or reconvict$ or re-convict$ or reform$ or reoffend$ or re-offend$ ) .TI.AB.KW
  14. Prisoners.DE.
  15. Prisons.DE.
  16. Juvenile Delinquency.DE.
  17. (#13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16)
  18. (#12 AND #17)
  19. (#7 AND #18)
  20. (RANDOMIZED ADJ CONTROLLED ADJ TRIAL).DE.
  21. (RANDOM ADJ ALLOCATION).DE.
  22. (DOUBLE ADJ BLIND ADJ METHOD).DE.
  23. (SINGLE ADJ BLIND ADJ METHOD).DE.
  24. (CLIN$ NEAR (TRIAL* OR EXPERIMENT* OR INVESTIGAT*)).TI,AB,KW.
  25. ((SINGL$ OR SIMPL$ OR DOUBL$ OR TREBL$ OR TRIPL$) NEAR (BLIND$ OR MASK$)).TI,AB,KW.
  26. (RANDOM$ OR RCT$).TI,AB,KW.
  27. (RANDOMIZED ADJ CONTROLLED ADJ TRIAL).TI,AB,KW.
  28. (QUANTITATIVE ADJ STUD$).TI,AB,KW.
  29. (RANDOM$ NEAR (ALLOCAT$ OR ASSIGN$)).TI,AB,KW
  30. (#20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29).
  31. (#30 AND #19)

 

Sociological Abstracts (Proquest) (Last searched 4 May 2012)

(su.Exact("randomized controlled trials" OR "random/randomization" OR "double blind studies" OR "placebo effect") OR ((random*) NEAR/3 (allocat* OR assign*)) OR ((RCT) OR (quantitative stud*)) OR ((evaluat*) NEAR/3 (stud*)) OR ((placebo* OR random*) OR (randomi?ed controlled trial*) OR (comparative stud*)) OR ((placebo* OR random*) OR (randomi*ed controlled trial*) OR (comparative stud*)) OR ((singl* OR simpl* OR doubl* OR trebl* OR tripl*) NEAR/3 (blind* OR mask*)) OR all((clin*) NEAR/3 (trials* OR experim* OR investiga*))) AND ((((shaming NEAR/1 experiment*) OR (shaming NEAR/1 mechanism*) OR (shaming NEAR/1 theor*) OR (victim* NEAR/1 offend*) OR VOMP OR VORP) OR ((reintegrat* OR re-integrat*) NEAR/2 (sham*)) OR ((restorat*) NEAR/2 (intervent* OR justice* OR model* OR polic* OR practic* OR practis* OR program*)) OR ((famil* OR youth* OR restorat*) NEAR/2 (meet* OR conferenc* OR mediat*))) AND (su.Exact("minor/minors" OR "child/children/childhood" OR "adolescents") OR (juvenile* OR minor* OR child* OR adolescen* OR youth* OR young* OR teen* OR boy* OR girl*)) AND (su.Exact("prisons" OR "prison/prisons/prisoner/ prisoners" OR "prison/prisons/prisoner/prisoners" OR "delinquency, juvenile" OR "prisoners" OR "juvenile delinquency") OR (borstal* OR convict* OR correctional* OR crime* OR criminal* OR delinquen* OR detain* OR detention* OR gaol* OR imprison* OR incarcerat* OR jail* OR offend* OR offens* OR offenc* OR penitentiar* OR prison* OR probation* OR punish* OR rearrest* OR re-arrest* OR recidiv* OR reconvict* OR re-convict* OR reform* OR reoffend* OR re-offend*)))  

 

ASSIA, NCJRS, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts (CSA Illumina) (Last searched 9 May 2011)

((KW=((famil* or youth* or restorat*) within 2 (meet* or conferenc* or mediat*)) or ((restorat*) within 2 (intervent* or justice* or model* or polic* or practic* or practis* or program*)) or ((reintegrat* or re-integrat*) within 2 (sham*)) or (shaming within 1 experiment*) or (shaming within 1 mechanism*) or (shaming within 1 theor*) or (victim* within 1 offend*) or VOMP or VORP) AND ((KW=(juvenile* or minor* or child* or adolescen* or youth* or young* or teen* or boy* or girl*)) or (DE=(adolescentor child or minors))) AND ((KW=(borstal* or convict* or correctional* or crime* or criminal* or delinquen* or detain* or detention* or gaol* or imprison* or incarcerat* or jail* or offend* or offens* or offenc* or penitentiar* or prison* or probation* or punish* or rearrest* or re-arrest* or recidiv* or reconvict* or re-convict* or reform* or reoffend* or re-offend*)) or (DE=(prisonersor prisons or juvenile delinquency)))) and((DE=((randomized controlled trials) or (random allocation) or (double-blind method)) or DE=((single blind method) or placebos) or (KW=(clin*) within 3 (trials* OR experim* OR investiga*)) or(KW=(singl* OR simpl* OR doubl* OR trebl* OR tripl*) within 3 (blind* OR mask*)) or(KW=(placebo* or random*) or (randomi*ed controlled trial*) or (comparative stud*))) or(KW=(evaluat*) within 3 (stud*)) or(KW=(RCT or (quantitative stud*))) or(KW=(random*) within 3 (allocat* OR assign*)))

 

WORLDCAT (OCLC) (Last searched 9 May 2012)

((kw: clin* n3 trial*) OR (kw: clin* n3 experim*) OR (kw: clin* n3 investigat*) OR (kw: singl* n3 blind*) OR (kw: simpl* n3 blind*) OR (kw: doubl* n3 blind*) OR (kw: trebl* n3 blind*) OR (kw: tripl* n3 blind*) OR (kw: singl* n3 mask*) OR (kw: simpl* n3 mask*) OR (kw: doubl* n3 mask*) OR (kw: trebl* n3 mask*) OR (kw: tripl* n3 mask*) or ((kw: placebo* OR kw: random* OR kw: control* OR kw: prospectiv* OR kw: volunt* OR kw: RCT) OR (kw: treatment w outcome*) OR (kw: randomised w control* w trial*) OR (kw: comparativ* w stud*) OR (kw: evaluat* n3 stud*) OR (kw: prospectiv* n3 stud*) OR (kw: research* n3 design*) OR (kw: random* n3 allocat*) OR (kw: random* n3 assign*) OR (kw: quantitativ* w stud*)) and (kw: famil* n2 meet*) or ((kw: youth* n2 meet*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 meet*)) or (((kw: famil* n2 conferenc*)) or ((kw: youth* n2 conferenc*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 conferenc*))) or (((kw: famil* n2 mediat*)) or ((kw: youth* n2 mediat*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 mediat*))) or (((kw: restorat* n2 intervent*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 justice*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 model*))) or (((kw: restorat* n2 polic*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 practic*)) or ((kw: restorat* n2 practis*))) or (((kw: restorat* n2 program*)) or ((kw: reintegrat* n2 sham*)) or ((kw: re-integrat* n2 sham*))) or (((kw: shaming N experiment*)) or ((kw: reintegrat* n2 sham*)) or ((kw: re-integrat* n2 sham*))) or (((kw: shaming N experiment*)) or ((kw: shaming N mechanism*)) or ((kw: shaming N theor*))) or ((((kw: victim* n1 offend*)) or kw: VORP) or kw: VOMP) and ((kw: juvenile* or kw: minor* or kw: child* or kw: adolescen* or kw: youth* or kw: young* or kw: teen* or kw: boy* or kw: girl*) and (kw: borstal* or kw: convict* or kw: correctional* or kw: crime* or kw: criminal* or kw: delinquen* or kw: detain* or kw: detention* or kw: gaol* or kw: imprison* or kw: incarcerat* or kw: jail* or kw: offend* or kw: offens* or kw: offenc* or kw: penitentiar* or kw: prison* or kw: probation* or kw: punish* or kw: rearrest* or kw: re-arrest* or kw: recidiv* or kw: reconvict* or kw: re-convict* or kw: reform* or kw: reoffend* or kw: re-offend*))

 

Index to Theses (Last searched 4 May 2012)

Restorative AND justice

 

Bibliography of Nordic Criminology (Last searched 4 May 2012)

Restorative

 

Restorative Justice Online (Last searched 4 May 2012)

+conferenc* +random*

 

Clinicaltrials.gov (Last searched 19 May 2012)

"Justice" (refined by age group: Child)

 

ICTRP (Last searched 19 May 2012)

"Justice" (refined by age group: Child) 

 

Appendix 2. Data collection form


Study characteristicsSummary


Study ID


Type of report (journal/conference/unpublished)


Study author


Year of publication


Year of study


Journal/Source


Contact details


Study design


Study duration


Attrition details


Ethical approval obtained from


Consent procedures?


Original language of report



Risk of biasJudgementComments



Sequence generation



Allocation concealment



Blinding



Incomplete outcome data



Selective outcome reporting



Other sources of bias




Participant characteristicsIntervention groupControl group 1Control group 2

Total number of participant randomised

Age of participants

Admitted dffence/found guilty

Gender of participants

Geographical location of study

Type of offence (pre-intervention)

Severity of offence (pre-intervention)

Previous offences

How participants were recruited

Education/employment/social status details

Ethnicity/other demographics


Intervention characteristicsIntervention groupControl group 1Control group 2

Name of intervention

Aim/focus of intervention

Who was present at intervention

Voluntary nature clarified

Time between crime and intervention

Neutrality of location of intervention

Duration of intervention

Number of interventions

Diversionary or court-ordered

Conference plan constructed (Y/N)

Conference plan completed (Y/N)

Approval by appropriate authorities

Concurrent interventions


Outcome data (first follow-up)Intervention groupControl group 1Control group 2

Length of follow-up


Primary outcomes

Recidivism rate

Measure of recidivism used


Post-intervention reoffending rate

Measure of reoffending used


Remorse

Remorse measure

Recognition of wrongdoing

Recognition of wrongdoing measure

Self-perception

Self-perception measure

Other self-esteem measure?


Secondary outcomes

Arrests per month of liberty

Type of offence (post-intervention)

Severity of offence (post-intervention)


Satisfaction of young person

Satisfaction of young person measure

Satisfaction of victim/stakeholder 

Satisfaction of victim/stakeholder measure


Change in employment/education/training

Change in employment/education/training measure

Change in substance misuse

Change in substance misuse measure

Change in other social circumstance


Adherence to conference plan


Outcome data (second follow-up)Intervention groupControl group 1Control group 2


(Replicate above if needed)



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

All three authors contributed to the development of this review. Livingstone conducted the literature searches in collaboration with the CDPLPG Trials Search Co-ordinator. Livingstone, Macdonald and Carr all screened the results for eligibility. Livingstone and Carr extracted data independently and entered data into a piloted data extraction form. Livingstone and Carr assessed each study for risk of bias. Livingstone conducted the meta-analyses. Livingstone, Macdonald and Carr contributed to the write-up of the review.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

Nuala Livingstone - none known
Geraldine Macdonald - none known
Nicola Carr - none known

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Queen's University Belfast, UK.

 

External sources

  • The Atlantic Philanthropies, USA.

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Index terms

The background section of the review, specifically the section "How the intervention might work" has been amended, to further clarify how the outcomes of this review are based on a Reintegrative Shaming Theory model.

ChildData (incorrectly listed as CareData in the original protocol) failed to work reliably on any of the initial or follow-up search attempts. Therefore, the review authors in consultation with the Trials Search Co-ordinator agreed to refrain from further attempts at searching this database.

A post-protocol decision was made to search two trials registers for potential included studies: ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal.

A post-protocol decision was made to change the primary outcome "Young person's self-esteem following conference" to three separate secondary outcomes, specifically "young person's sense of remorse", "young person's recognition of wrongdoing" and "young person's self-perception". It was accepted that each of these sub-outcomes are measuring three different constructs and as such, are better considered separately, rather than as one global measure of "self-esteem". By considering each outcomes separately, the review is better able to capture some of the core aims of a restorative justice intervention, specifically to encourage young people to acknowledge their wrongdoing and to demonstrate remorse for their actions.

Although in the original protocol, the intention was to conduct separate analyses for 12- and 24-month follow-ups, a post-hoc decision was made to combine all data at the furthest end point, thus allowing the Bethlehem Experiment and the Indianapolis Experiment to be combined in a meta-analysis.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Differences between protocol and review
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Bethlehem Experiment {published data only}
  • Baffour TD. Ethnic and gender differences in offending patterns: examining family group conferencing interventions among at-risk adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 2006;23(5-6):557-78.
  • McCold P. An experiment in police-based restorative justice: the Bethlehem (PA) project. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 2003;4(4):379-90.
  • McCold P, Stahr J. Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), 1996.
  • McCold P, Wachtel B. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation, 1998.
Indianapolis Experiment {published data only}
  • Hipple NK, McGarrell EF. Comparing police- and civilian-run family group conferences. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 2008;31(4):553-77.
  • McGarrell E. Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiments [personal communication]. Email to: E McGarrell 15 September 2011.
  • McGarrell E, Olivares K, Crawford K, Kroovand N. Returning justice to the community: the Indianapolis juvenile restorative justice experiment. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 2000.
  • McGarrell EF, Hipple NK. Family group conferencing and re-offending among first-time juvenile offenders: the Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly 2007;24(2):221-46.
RISE JPP Experiment {published data only}
  • Gal T, Moyal S. Juvenile victims in restorative justice: Findings from the Reintegrative Shaming Experiment. British Journal of Criminology 2011;51(6):1014-34.
  • Sherman L. Randomizing shame to criminal events: issues in experimental criminology. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference. Chicago, IL: American Society of Criminology, 1996.
  • Sherman L, Strang H, Woods D. Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 2000.
  • Sherman LW, Braithwaite J, Strang H. Experiment in Restorative Policing - Reintegrative Shaming of Violence, Drink-Driving and Property Crime: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Canberra: Australian National University, 1997.
  • Sherman LW, Strang H, Barnes GC, Braithwaite J, Inkpen N, Teh MM. Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian National University, 1998.
  • Strang H. Shaming conferences: community policing and the victim's perspective. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology conference. Chicago IL: American Society of Criminology, 1996.
  • Strang H, Barnes GC, Braithwaite J, Sherman LW. Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian National University, 1999.
  • Strang H, Sherman L, Angel CM, Woods DJ, Bennett S, Newbury-Birch D, et al. Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: a quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of social Issues 2006;62(2):281-306.
  • Woods DJ. Unpacking the Impact of Restorative Justice in the RISE Experiments: Facilitators, Offenders and Conference Non-Delivery [PhD Thesis]. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 2009.
RISE JPS Experiment {published data only}
  • Gal T, Moyal S. Juvenile victims in restorative justice: Findings from the Reintegrative Shaming Experiment. British Journal of Criminology 2011;51(6):1014-34.
  • Sherman L. Randomizing shame to criminal events: issues in experimental criminology. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference. Chicago, IL: American Society of Criminology, 1996.
  • Sherman L, Strang H, Woods D. Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 2000.
  • Sherman LW, Braithwaite J, Strang H. Experiment in Restorative Policing - Reintegrative Shaming of Violence, Drink-Driving and Property Crime: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Canberra: Australian National University, 1997.
  • Sherman LW, Strang H, Barnes GC, Braithwaite J, Inkpen N, Teh MM. Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian National University, 1998.
  • Strang H. Shaming conferences: community policing and the victim's perspective. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology conference. Chicago IL: American Society of Criminology, 1996.
  • Strang H, Barnes GC, Braithwaite J, Sherman LW. Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian National University, 1999.
  • Strang H, Sherman L, Angel CM, Woods DJ, Bennett S, Newbury-Birch D, et al. Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: a quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of social Issues 2006;62(2):281-306.
  • Woods DJ. Unpacking the Impact of Restorative Justice in the RISE Experiments: Facilitators, Offenders and Conference Non-Delivery [PhD Thesis]. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 2009.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Differences between protocol and review
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Bacon 2010 {published data only}
  • Bacon JR. Making Progress in Restorative Justice: A Qualitative Study [Masters Thesis]. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2010.
Barnes 1999 {published data only}
  • Barnes GC. Procedural Justice in Two Contexts: Testing the Fairness of Diversionary Conferencing for Intoxicated Drivers. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 1999.
Bazemore 2009 {published data only}
  • Bazemore DG, Schiff, M. Addressing the school-to-jail pipeline: restorative justice and theory for practice in real alternatives to zero tolerance. Proceedings of the American Society of Criminology conference, Philadelphia, PA. 2009.
Bennett 2008 {published data only}
  • Bennett S. Criminal Careers and Restorative Justice [PhD Thesis]. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2008.
Bergseth 2007 {published data only}
  • Bergseth KJ, Bouffard JA. The long-term impact on restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice 2007;35(4):433-51.
Brank 2008 {published data only}
  • Brank E, Lane J, Turner S, Fain T, Sehgal A. An experimental juvenile probation program: effects on parent and peer relationships. Crime and Delinquency 2008;54(2):193-224.
Calhoun 2010 {published data only}
  • Calhoun A, Pelech W. Responding to young people responsible for harm: a comparative study of restorative and conventional approaches. Contemporary Justice Review 2010;13(3):287-306.
Copeland 2001 {published data only}
  • Copeland J, Swift W, Howard J, Roffman RA, Stephens RS, Berghuis J. A randomised controlled trial of brief interventions for cannabis problems among young offenders [Abstract]. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2001;63 Suppl 1:S32.
Dansie 2010 {published data only}
  • Dansie EJ. A Multigroup Analysis of Reintegrative Shaming Theory: An Application to Drunk Driving Offenses [PhD Thesis]. Logan UT: Utah State University, 2010.
de Beus 2007 {published data only}
  • de Beus K, Rodriguez N. Restorative justice practice: an examination of program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice 2007;35(3):337-47.
Eriksson 2008 {published data only}
  • Eriksson AM. Community Restorative Justice in Northern Ireland: Building Bridges and Challenging Culture of Violence [PhD Thesis]. Belfast: Queen's University Belfast, 2008.
Errante 2010 {published data only}
  • Errante JM. An evaluation of two restorative practices on measures of moral disengagement, empathy and forgiveness among incarcerated male juvenile offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 2010;71(4):1449.
Fain 2005 {published data only}
  • Fain T, Lane J, Sehgal A, Turner S. Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: supervision and official outcomes. Crime and Delinquency 2005;51(1):26-52.
Filipcic 2004 {published data only}
  • Filipcic K. New directions in dealing with juvenile offenders [Nove usmeritve pri obravnavanju mladoletnih prestopnikov]. Preprecevanje kriminalitete V Ljubljani. Ljubljani, Slovenia: Institut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti, 2004.
Lane 2005 {published data only}
  • Lane J, Turner S, Fain T, Sehgal A. Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: supervision and official outcomes. Crime and Delinquency 2005;51(1):26-52.
Lane 2007 {published data only}
  • Lane J, Turner S, Fain T, Sehgal A. Implementing "corrections of place" ideas - the perspective of clients and staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007;34(1):76-95.
Little 2004 {published data only}
  • Little M, Kogan J, Bullock R, Van der Laan P. ISSP: An experiment in multi-systematic responses to persistent young offenders known to children's services. British Journal of Criminology 2004;44(2):225-40.
Lo 2006 {published data only}
  • Lo T, Maxwell G, Wong DSW. Diversion from youth courts in five Asia pacific jurisdictions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2006;50(1):46-61.
McKenzie 2005 {published data only}
  • McKenzie N. Beyond the Fringe: Family Group Conferencing and its Relationship with the Criminal Justice Process [PhD Thesis]. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth, 2005.
Moore 2004 {published data only}
  • Moore R. Intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for young offenders: the evidence base so far. In: Burnett R, Roberts C editor(s). What Works in Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-based Practice. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, 2004:159-79.
Nugent 1995 {published data only}
O'Dwyer 2006 {published data only}
  • O'Dwyer K. Restorative Justice in the Garda Siochana: An Evolution of the Garda Programme of Restorative Justice 2002-2003 [PhD Thesis]. Dublin: University College Dublin, 2006.
Papadopoulou 2008 {published data only}
  • Papadopoulou PC. Restorative Justice for Minors in Greece: The Impact of Act 3189/2003 [PhD Thesis]. Sussex: University of Sussex, 2008.
Riggs 2008 {published data only}
  • Riggs JW. Face-to-face: victims, offender and the community coming together in Cass County. Masters Abstracts International 2008;46(3):1335.
Rodriguez 2007 {published data only}
  • Rodriguez N. Restorative justice at work: examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime and Delinquency 2007;53(3):355-79.
Sherman 2010 {published data only}
  • Sherman LW, Strang H. Restorative Justice as a psychological treatment: healing victims, reintegrating offenders. In: Towl G, Crichton D editor(s). Forensic Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2010:398-415.
Stewart 2004 {published data only}
  • Stewart AL, Smith F. Youth justice conferencing and police referrals: the gate keeping role of police in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Criminal Justice 2004;32(4):345-57.
Sundell 2004 {published data only}
Turner 2002 {published data only}
  • Turner S, Schroeder A, Fain T, Lane J, Petersilia J. Evaluation of the South Oxnard Challenge Project 1997-2001. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002.
Urban 2008 {published data only}
  • Urban LS, Riggs J. Restorative juvenile justice: a comparison of two Missouri jurisdictions. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference. Missouri, MO: American Society of Criminology, 2008.
Van Wormer 2009 {published data only}
  • Van Wormer K. Restorative justice: what social workers need to know. In: Maschi T, Bradley C, Ward K editor(s). Forensic Social Work: Psychosocial and Legal Issues in Diverse Practice Settings. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2009:229-310.
Williams 1995 {published data only}
  • Williams LW. A Case Management Follow-up Support Strategy for Misdemeanors Processed at a Juvenile Assessment Centre [Masters Thesis]. Fort Lauderdale-Davie, FL: Nova Southeastern University, 1995.

References to studies awaiting assessment

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Differences between protocol and review
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Bergseth 2006 {published data only}
  • Bergseth K, Bouffard JA. Restorative justice and juvenile offender characteristics. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology conference. Los Angeles, CA: American Society of Criminology, 2006.
Grothe Nielsen 2000 {published data only}
  • Grothe Nielsen B. Repressive and reflexive criminal law [Repressiv og refleksiv strafferet]. Lovens liv : til Jørgen Dalberg-Larsen på 60 års-dagen 19. september 2000. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2000:283-304.
Grothe Nielsen 2001 {published data only}
  • Grothe Nielsen B. Paradigmaskift - Fra Straffende Ret Til Genoprettende Ret - En Canadisk Højesteretsdom Viser Vej. København: Danmarks Jurist- og Økonomforbund, 2001.
Grothe Nielsen 2003 {published data only}
  • Grothe Nielsen B. Does punishment bring peace? [Giver straf så fred?]. Retspolitiske Udfordringer: Dansk Retspolitisk Forening 1978-2003. København: Gjellerup, 2003:339-49.
Kim 2009 {published data only}
  • Kim HJ, Webb DW. The effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice conference. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology conference. Philadelphia, PA: American Society of Criminology, 2009.
Rane 2003 {published data only}
  • Rane CM. Restorative Justice in a Retributive System [MPhil thesis]. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2003.
Saunders Baffour 2004 {published data only}
  • Saunders Baffour TD. The Impact of Family Group Conferencing on Competency Development and Recidivism: A Comparative Analysis of Ethnicity and Gender Among Juvenile Offenders [PhD Thesis]. Washington DC: Howard University, 2004.
Scott J {published data only}
  • Scott J. The Process of Restorative Justice and its Potential to Empower Victims of Crime [Masters Thesis]. Dublin: University College Dublin, 2003.
Sørensen 2005 {published data only}
  • Sørensen J, Jepsen J. Juvenile Justice in Transition: Bringing the Convention on the Rights of the Child to Work in Africa and Nepal. Denmark: The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2005.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Differences between protocol and review
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Arsenault 2003
Bandura 1990
  • Bandura A. Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In: Reich W editor(s). Origins of Terrorism. Cambridge, UK: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and Cambridge University Press, 1990:161-91.
Barton 2003
  • Barton CKB. Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model. Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press, 2003.
Bazemore 2001
  • Bazemore G, Umbreit M. A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. In: Johnstone G editor(s). A Restorative Justice Reader. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2001:225-43.
Braithwaite 1989
  • Braithwaite J. Crime Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Braithwaite 2001
  • Braithwaite J, Braithwaite V. Revising the theory of reintegrative shaming. In: Ahmed E, Harris N, Braithwaite J, Braithwaite V editor(s). Shame Management Through Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001:33-57.
Britton 2008
  • Britton J, Farrant F. Substance Misuse - Source Document. London: Youth Justice Board, 2008.
Burnett 2004
  • Burnett R, Roberts C. The emergence and importance of evidence-based practice in probation and youth justice. In: Burnett R, Roberts C editor(s). What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Developing Evidence-Based Practice. Cullompton: Willan, 2004:1-14.
Campbell 2006
  • Campbell C, Devlin R, O'Mahony D, Doak J, Jackson J, Corrigan T, et al. Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conferencing Service. http://www.nio.gov.uk/evaluation_of_the_northern_ireland_youth_conference_service.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Coleman 1996
  • Coleman C, Moynihan J. Understanding Crime Data. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1996.
Dignan 2001
  • Dignan J, Marsh P. Restorative justice and family group conferences in England. In: Morris A, Maxwell G editor(s). Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2001:85-101.
Eccles 2002
Farrington 1989
  • Farrington D. The origins of crime: the Cambridge study of delinquent development. Research Bulletin - Home Office Research and Planning Unit 1989;27:29-33.
Farrington 1996
  • Farrington DP, Barnes GC, Lambert S. The concentration of offending in families. Legal and Criminological Psychology 1996;1:47-63.
Garland 2002
  • Garland D. Of crime and criminals: the development of criminology in Britain. In: Maguire M, Morgan R, Reiner R editor(s). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002:9-50.
Hayward 2004
  • Hayward G, Stephenson M, Blyth M. Exploring effective educational interventions for young people who offend. In: Burnett R, Roberts C editor(s). What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Developing Evidence-Based Practice. Cullompton: Willan, 2004:88-109.
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Knoke 2009
  • Knoke D. Family group conferencing in child welfare. CECW Information Sheet #77E . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work. http://www.cecw-cepb.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/FGC77E.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Marshall 2003
  • Marshall TF. Restorative justice: an overview. In: Johnstone G editor(s). A Restorative Justice Reader. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2003:28-45.
Maruna 2007
  • Maruna S, Wright S, Brown J, Van Marle F, Devlin R, LIddle M. Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long-term Follow-up Study. Belfast: Youth Conferencing Service www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads//SHAD%20MARUNA%20STUDY.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Matza 1964
McAdams 1996
Miers 2001
  • Miers D, Maguire M, Goldie S. An exploratory evaluation of restorative justice schemes. Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 9. London: Home Office, 2001.
Ministry of Justice 2009
  • Ministry of Justice. Reoffending of juveniles: results from the 2007 cohort, England and Wales. Ministry of Justice Statistical Bulletin http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/docs/reoffending-juveniles-2007.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Morris 2002
Muncie 2004
  • Muncie J. Youth and Crime. London: Sage Publications, 2004.
O'Mahony 2004
  • O'Mahony D, Doak J. Restorative justice - is more better? The experience of police-led restorative cautioning pilots in Northern Ireland. The Howard Journal 2004;43(5):484-505.
Palme 1997
  • Palme L. No age of innocence: justice for children. UNICEF Progress of Nations, Special Protections Commentary http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/pub_pon97_en.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Retzinger 1996
  • Retzinger SM, Scheff TJ. Strategy for community conferences: emotions and social bonds. In: Galaway B, Hudson J editor(s). Restorative Justice: International Perspectives. Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1996.
Review Manager 2008
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
Roe 2008
  • Roe S, Ashe J. Young People and Crime: Findings From The 2006 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 09/08. London: Home Office, 2008.
Rutter 2006
Rutter 2007
Sherman 1993
Sherman 2000
  • Sherman L, Strang H, Woods D. Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 2000.
Sherman 2007
  • Sherman L, Strang H. Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: Smith Institute, 2007.
Siegal 2008
  • Siegal LJ, Welsh BC. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory Practice and Law. 10th Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2008.
Tate 2009
  • Tate S, O’Loan C. Northern Ireland youth re-offending: Results from the 2006 cohort. Belfast: NIO http://www.nio.gov.uk/2009_-_northern_ireland_youth_reoffending__results_from_the_2006_cohort.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Triggs 2005
  • Triggs S. New Zealand Court-referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Two Year Follow-up of Reoffending. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice, 2005.
Tyler 2005
  • Tyler TR. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.
U.S. Department of Justice 2009
  • United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 2008. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_38.html (accessed 30 September 2010).
Umbreit 1994
  • Umbreit M, Coates RB, Kalanj B. Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, Inc, 1994.
Walgrave 2003
  • Walgrave L. Restorative justice for juveniles: just a technique or a fully fledged alternative?. In: Johnstone G editor(s). A Restorative Justice Reader. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2003:255-69.
Ward 2007
  • Ward T, Maruna S. Rehabilitation. London: Routledge, 2007.
Whyte 2009
  • Whyte B. Youth Justice In Practice: Making a Difference. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 2009.
Young 2001
  • Young R. Just cops doing "shameful" business? Police-led restorative justice and the lessons of research. In: Morris A, Maxwell G editor(s). Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2001:195-226.