Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb 28;2013(2):CD008898.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2.

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

Nuala Livingstone  1 , Geraldine Macdonald, Nicola Carr
Affiliations

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

Nuala Livingstone et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Restorative justice is "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). Despite the increasing use of restorative justice programmes as an alternative to court proceedings, no systematic review has been undertaken of the available evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes with young offenders. Recidivism in young offenders is a particularly worrying problem, as recent surveys have indicated the frequency of re-offences for young offenders has ranged from 40.2% in 2000 to 37.8% in 2007 (Ministry of Justice 2009)

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

Search methods: We searched the following databases up to May 2012: CENTRAL, 2012 Issue 5, MEDLINE (1978 to current), Bibliography of Nordic Criminology (1999 to current), Index to Theses (1716 to current), PsycINFO (1887 to current), Social Sciences Citation Index (1970 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current), Social Care Online (1985 to current), Restorative Justice Online (1975 to current), Scopus (1823 to current), Science Direct (1823 to current), LILACS (1982 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Restorative Justice Online (4 May 2012), WorldCat (9 May 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 May 2012) and ICTRP (19 May 2012). ASSIA, National Criminal Justice Reference Service and Social Services Abstracts were searched up to May 2011. Relevant bibliographies, conference programmes and journals were also searched.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of restorative justice conferencing versus management as usual, in young offenders.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the data. Where necessary, original investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

Main results: Four trials including a total of 1447 young offenders were included in the review. Results failed to find a significant effect for restorative justice conferencing over normal court procedures for any of the main analyses, including number re-arrested (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.71; P = 0.99), monthly rate of reoffending (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.16; P = 0.61), young person's remorse following conference (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.10; P = 0.06), young person's recognition of wrongdoing following conference (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.80; P = 0.14), young person's self-perception following conference (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.63; P = 0.85), young person's satisfaction following conference (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.07; P = 0.45) and victim's satisfaction following conference (OR 4.05, 95% CI 0.56 to 29.04; P = 0.16). A small number of sensitivity analyses did indicate significant effects, although all are to be interpreted with caution.

Authors' conclusions: There is currently a lack of high quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing for young offenders. Caution is urged in interpreting the results of this review considering the small number of included studies, subsequent low power and high risk of bias. The effects may potentially be more evident for victims than offenders. The need for further research in this area is highlighted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
3
3
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Recidivism, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Recidivism, Outcome 2: Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Recidivism without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Recidivism without cluster adjustment, Outcome 2: Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Recidivism without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: Recidivism (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Number reoffending
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: Recidivism (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6: Recidivism (without decline group), Outcome 1: Number reoffending
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7: Recidivism (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Number reoffending
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7: Recidivism (fixed‐effect), Outcome 2: Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
8.1
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8: Young person's sense of remorse, Outcome 1: Remorse
9.1
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9: Young person's sense of remorse without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Remorse
10.1
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10: Young person's sense of remorse without imputed data of cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Remorse
11.1
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11: Young person's sense of remorse (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Remorse
12.1
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12: Young person's sense of remorse (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment), Outcome 1: Remorse
13.1
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13: Young person's sense of remorse (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Remorse
14.1
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
15.1
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
16.1
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
17.1
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
18.1
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
19.1
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
20.1
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20: Young person's self‐perception, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
21.1
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21: Young person's self‐perception without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
22.1
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22: Young person's self‐perception without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
23.1
23.1. Analysis
Comparison 23: Young person's self‐perception (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Self‐perception
24.1
24.1. Analysis
Comparison 24: Young person's self‐perception (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
25.1
25.1. Analysis
Comparison 25: Young person's self‐perception (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Self‐perception
26.1
26.1. Analysis
Comparison 26: Young person's satisfaction with overall process, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
27.1
27.1. Analysis
Comparison 27: Young person's satisfaction without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
28.1
28.1. Analysis
Comparison 28: Young person's satisfaction without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
29.1
29.1. Analysis
Comparison 29: Young person's satisfaction (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
30.1
30.1. Analysis
Comparison 30: Young person's satisfaction (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
31.1
31.1. Analysis
Comparison 31: Young person's satisfaction (without decline group), Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
32.1
32.1. Analysis
Comparison 32: Young person's satisfaction (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
33.1
33.1. Analysis
Comparison 33: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process, Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
34.1
34.1. Analysis
Comparison 34: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction without imputed data, Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
35.1
35.1. Analysis
Comparison 35: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
36.1
36.1. Analysis
Comparison 36: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (without decline group), Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
37.1
37.1. Analysis
Comparison 37: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Bethlehem Experiment {published data only}
    1. 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.
    1. McCold P, Stahr J. Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), 1996.
    1. McCold P, Wachtel B. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation, 1998.
    1. 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.
Indianapolis Experiment {published data only}
    1. 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.
    1. McGarrell E, Olivares K, Crawford K, Kroovand N. Returning justice to the community: the Indianapolis juvenile restorative justice experiment. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 2000.
    1. McGarrell E. Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiments [personal communication]. Email to: E McGarrell 15 September 2011.
    1. 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}
    1. Gal T, Moyal S. Juvenile victims in restorative justice: Findings from the Reintegrative Shaming Experiment. British Journal of Criminology 2011;51(6):1014-34.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
RISE JPS Experiment {published data only}
    1. Gal T, Moyal S. Juvenile victims in restorative justice: Findings from the Reintegrative Shaming Experiment. British Journal of Criminology 2011;51(6):1014-34.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.

References to studies excluded from this review

Bacon 2010 {published data only}
    1. Bacon JR. Making Progress in Restorative Justice: A Qualitative Study [Masters Thesis]. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2010.
Barnes 1999 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. Bazemore DG, Schiff, M. Addressing the school-to-jail pipeline: restorative justice and theory for practice in real alternatives to zero tolerance. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Criminology conference, Philadelphia, PA. 2009.
Bennett 2008 {published data only}
    1. Bennett S. Criminal Careers and Restorative Justice [PhD Thesis]. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2008.
Bergseth 2007 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. Filipcic K. New directions in dealing with juvenile offenders [Nove usmeritve pri obravnavanju mladoletnih prestopnikov]. In: Preprecevanje kriminalitete V Ljubljani. Ljubljani, Slovenia: Institut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti, 2004.
Lane 2005 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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. - PubMed
McKenzie 2005 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. Moore R. Intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for young offenders: the evidence base so far. In: Burnett R, Roberts C, editors(s). What Works in Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-based Practice. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, 2004:159-79.
Nugent 1995 {published data only}
    1. Nugent WR, Paddock JB. The effect of victim-offender mediation on severity of reoffense. Mediation Quarterly 1995;12(4):353-67.
O'Dwyer 2006 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. Sherman LW, Strang H. Restorative Justice as a psychological treatment: healing victims, reintegrating offenders. In: Towl G, Crichton D, editors(s). Forensic Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2010:398-415.
Stewart 2004 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. Sundell K, Vinnerljung B. Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden. A 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse and Neglect 2004;28(3):267-87. - PubMed
Turner 2002 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. Van Wormer K. Restorative justice: what social workers need to know. In: Maschi T, Bradley C, Ward K, editors(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}
    1. 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

Bergseth 2006 {published data only}
    1. Bergseth K, Bouffard JA. In: 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}
    1. Grothe Nielsen B. Repressive and reflexive criminal law [Repressiv og refleksiv strafferet]. In: 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}
    1. 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}
    1. Grothe Nielsen B. Does punishment bring peace? [Giver straf så fred?]. In: Retspolitiske Udfordringer: Dansk Retspolitisk Forening 1978-2003. København: Gjellerup, 2003:339-49.
Kim 2009 {published data only}
    1. Kim HJ, Webb DW. In: 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}
    1. Rane CM. Restorative Justice in a Retributive System [MPhil thesis]. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2003.
Saunders Baffour 2004 {published data only}
    1. 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}
    1. 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}
    1. 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

Arsenault 2003
    1. Arsenault L, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Taylor A, Rijsdijk RV, Jafee SR, et al. Strong genetic effects on cross-situational antisocial behaviour among 5-year old children according to mothers, teachers, examiner-observers, and twins self-reports. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2003;44(6):832-48. - PubMed
Bandura 1990
    1. Bandura A. Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In: Reich W, editors(s). Origins of Terrorism. Cambridge, UK: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and Cambridge University Press, 1990:161-91.
Barton 2003
    1. Barton CKB. Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model. Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press, 2003.
Bazemore 2001
    1. Bazemore G, Umbreit M. A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. In: Johnstone G, editors(s). A Restorative Justice Reader. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2001:225-43.
Braithwaite 1989
    1. Braithwaite J. Crime Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Braithwaite 2001
    1. Braithwaite J, Braithwaite V. Revising the theory of reintegrative shaming. In: Ahmed E, Harris N, Braithwaite J, Braithwaite V, editors(s). Shame Management Through Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001:33-57.
Britton 2008
    1. Britton J, Farrant F. Substance Misuse - Source Document. London: Youth Justice Board, 2008.
Burnett 2004
    1. Burnett R, Roberts C. The emergence and importance of evidence-based practice in probation and youth justice. In: Burnett R, Roberts C, editors(s). What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Developing Evidence-Based Practice. Cullompton: Willan, 2004:1-14.
Campbell 2006
    1. 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_conferenc... (accessed February 2010).
Coleman 1996
    1. Coleman C, Moynihan J. Understanding Crime Data. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1996.
Dignan 2001
    1. Dignan J, Marsh P. Restorative justice and family group conferences in England. In: Morris A, Maxwell G, editors(s). Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2001:85-101.
Eccles 2002
    1. Eccles JS, Wigfield A. Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology 2002;53:109-32. - PubMed
Farrington 1989
    1. 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
    1. Farrington DP, Barnes GC, Lambert S. The concentration of offending in families. Legal and Criminological Psychology 1996;1:47-63.
Garland 2002
    1. Garland D. Of crime and criminals: the development of criminology in Britain. In: Maguire M, Morgan R, Reiner R, editors(s). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002:9-50.
Hayward 2004
    1. Hayward G, Stephenson M, Blyth M. Exploring effective educational interventions for young people who offend. In: Burnett R, Roberts C, editors(s). What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Developing Evidence-Based Practice. Cullompton: Willan, 2004:88-109.
Higgins 2011
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. Marshall TF. Restorative justice: an overview. In: Johnstone G, editors(s). A Restorative Justice Reader. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2003:28-45.
Maruna 2007
    1. 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
    1. Sykes GM, Matza D. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review 1964;22(6):664-70.
McAdams 1996
    1. McAdams DP, Hoffman BJ, Mansfield ED, Day R. Themes of agency and communion in significant biographical scenes. Journal of Personality 1996;64(2):339-77.
Miers 2001
    1. Miers D, Maguire M, Goldie S. An exploratory evaluation of restorative justice schemes. Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 9 2001.
Ministry of Justice 2009
    1. 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
    1. Morris A. Critiquing the critics: a brief response to critics of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 2002;42(3):596-615.
Muncie 2004
    1. Muncie J. Youth and Crime. London: Sage Publications, 2004.
O'Mahony 2004
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. Retzinger SM, Scheff TJ. Strategy for community conferences: emotions and social bonds. In: Galaway B, Hudson J, editors(s). Restorative Justice: International Perspectives. Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1996.
Review Manager 2008 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
Roe 2008
    1. 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
    1. Rutter M, Moffitt TE, Caspi A. Gene-environment interplay and psychopathology: multi varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006;47(3/4):226-61. - PubMed
Rutter 2007
    1. Rutter M. Gene-environment interdependence. Developmental Science 2007;10(1):12-8. - PubMed
Sherman 1993
    1. Sherman LW. Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1993;30(4):445-73.
Sherman 2000
    1. 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
    1. Sherman L, Strang H. Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: Smith Institute, 2007.
Siegal 2008
    1. Siegal LJ, Welsh BC. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory Practice and Law. 10th edition. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2008.
Tate 2009
    1. 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... (accessed February 2010).
Triggs 2005
    1. Triggs S. New Zealand Court-referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Two Year Follow-up of Reoffending. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice, 2005.
Tyler 2005
    1. Tyler TR. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.
U.S. Department of Justice 2009
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. Walgrave L. Restorative justice for juveniles: just a technique or a fully fledged alternative? In: Johnstone G, editors(s). A Restorative Justice Reader. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2003:255-69.
Ward 2007
    1. Ward T, Maruna S. Rehabilitation. London: Routledge, 2007.
Whyte 2009
    1. Whyte B. Youth Justice In Practice: Making a Difference. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 2009.
Young 2001
    1. Young R. Just cops doing "shameful" business? Police-led restorative justice and the lessons of research. In: Morris A, Maxwell G, editors(s). Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2001:195-226.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources