Long-term impact of family group conferences on re-offending: the Indianapolis restorative justice experiment
- 1.5k Downloads
The purpose of the current study is to test the long-term effect of Family Group Conferences (FGCs) on recidivism prevalence and time to first re-offense for first-time youthful offenders.
The current study builds on an experiment with a reasonably large sample (n = 782) conducted in Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana, USA. The current study extends this work by following the cases for an additional 10 years. To examine the empirical relationships among the variables, this study employs a two-step approach. The initial analysis, employing logistic regression, measures prevalence of re-offending based on whether the youth ever was re-arrested during the follow-up period. The second step employs Cox Proportional-Hazards Regression to examine time until first re-offense.
The findings revealed that when extended to a 12-year follow-up period, there were no significant differences between the FGC and control groups in re-offending prevalence or time to re-offense.
An earlier study suggests that treatment group youths experienced reduced risk in the short-term and there is no evidence in the present study to suggest that youths participating in FGCs were placed at greater risk for re-offending. Given these findings and the body of research suggesting improved outcomes for victims, continued experimentation with FGCs and related restorative processes seems warranted. Future studies would benefit from blocking procedures in the experimental design in order to examine whether treatment effects are moderated by gender, race, and initial type of offense. The lack of such blocking procedures represents a limitation of the current study.
KeywordsRestorative justice Family group conference Indianapolis experiment Re-offending Long-term impact Experimental design
- Ariel, B., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Randomized block designs. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 437–454). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Bazemore, G. (2000). Community Justice and a Vision of Collective Efficacy: The Case of Restorative Conferencing. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185532.
- Bradshaw, W., & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: the impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Federal Probation, 69(2), 15–21.Google Scholar
- Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2010). Checklist for reviewing a randomized controlled trial of a social program or project, to assess whether it produced valid evidence. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.Google Scholar
- Gill, C., & Weisburd, D. (2012). Increasing equivalence in small sample place-based experiments: taking advantage of block randomization methods. In B. C. Welsh, A. A. Braga, & G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.), Experimental criminology: Prospects for advancing science and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Junger-Tas, J., & Marshall, I. (1999). The self-report methodology in crime research: strengths and weaknesses. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research (Vol. 25, pp. 291–367). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kratcoski, P. C. (2004). Correctional counseling and treatment. Long Grove: Waveland.Google Scholar
- Kurki, L. (2000a). Restorative and community justice in the United States. Crime and Justice, 27, 235–304.Google Scholar
- Kurki, L. (2000b). Restorative and community justice in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research (Vol. 27, pp. 235–303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Luke, G., & Lind, B. (2002). Reducing juvenile crime: Conferencing versus court. Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.Google Scholar
- Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (1993). Families, victims and culture: youth justice in New Zealand. Wellington: Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
- McGarrell, E. (2001). Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early Response to Young Offenders. Washington D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- McGarrell, E., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning justice to the community: The Indianapolis Juvenile restorative justice experiment. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.Google Scholar
- Moore, D., & O’Connell, T. (1994). Family conferencing in Wagga Wagga: a communitarian model of justice. In C. Alder & J. Wundersitz (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice (pp. 45–86). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
- Rodriguez, N. (2004). Restorative justice, communities, and delinquency: whom do we reintegrate? Criminology and Public Policy, 4(1), 103–130.Google Scholar
- Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2008). Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction? The Fourth Report from the Evaluation of Three Schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08. London: Ministry of JusticeGoogle Scholar
- Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2004). Restorative justice: What we know and how we know it. Philadelphia: Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.Google Scholar
- Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London: Smith Institute.Google Scholar
- Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Snyder, H. N. (2006). Juvenile arrests 2003. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2001). The impact of victim-offender mediation two decades of research. Federal Probation, 65(3), 29–35.Google Scholar
- Wundersitz, J., & Hetzel, S. (1996). Family conferencing for young offenders: the South Australian experience. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds.), Family group conferences: Perspective on policy & practice (pp. 111–139). New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
- Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for criminal justice. Scottdale: Herald.Google Scholar