Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 369–385 | Cite as

Long-term impact of family group conferences on re-offending: the Indianapolis restorative justice experiment

  • Seokjin Jeong
  • Edmund F. McGarrell
  • Natalie Kroovand Hipple
Article

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Restorative justice Family group conference Indianapolis experiment Re-offending Long-term impact Experimental design 

References

  1. 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
  2. Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption: communities, victims, and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(6), 768–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & Mcanoy, K. (2002). An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(4), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. de Beus, K., & Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice practice: an examination of program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ezell, M. E., Land, K. C., & Cohen, L. E. (2003). Modeling multiple failure time data: a survey of variance-corrected proportional hazards models with empirical applications to arrest data. Sociological Methodology, 33(1), 111–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hayes, H. (2005). Assessing reoffending in restorative justice conferences. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hipple, N. K., & McGarrell, E. F. (2008). Comparing police- and civilian-run family group conferences. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 31(4), 553–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Kratcoski, P. C. (2004). Correctional counseling and treatment. Long Grove: Waveland.Google Scholar
  16. Kurki, L. (2000a). Restorative and community justice in the United States. Crime and Justice, 27, 235–304.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luke, G., & Lind, B. (2002). Reducing juvenile crime: Conferencing versus court. Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.Google Scholar
  20. Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (1993). Families, victims and culture: youth justice in New Zealand. Wellington: Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  21. Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (2002). Restorative Justice and Reconviction. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(2), 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. McGarrell, E., & Hipple, N. K. (2007). Family group conferencing and re-offending among first-time juvenile offenders: the Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Presser, L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2002). Values and evaluation: assessing processes and outcomes of restorative justice programs. Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 162–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Regoeczi, W. C., Jarvis, J., & Reidel, M. (2008). Clearing murders: is it about time? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodriguez, N. (2004). Restorative justice, communities, and delinquency: whom do we reintegrate? Criminology and Public Policy, 4(1), 103–130.Google Scholar
  29. Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2004). Restorative justice: What we know and how we know it. Philadelphia: Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.Google Scholar
  32. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London: Smith Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Snyder, H. N. (2006). Juvenile arrests 2003. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  35. Sundell, K., & Vinnerljung, B. (2004). Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden: a 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Umbreit, M. S. (1994). Crime victims confront their offenders: the impact of a Minneapolis mediation program. Research on Social Work Practice, 4(4), 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for criminal justice. Scottdale: Herald.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seokjin Jeong
    • 1
  • Edmund F. McGarrell
    • 2
  • Natalie Kroovand Hipple
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations