ABSTRACT
This chapter contributes to the Handbook’s key objectives by critically examining the question of whether or not restorative justice (RJ) can be demonstrated to reduce reoffending. Since the 1990s, RJ has emerged as a popular alternative to more traditional or conventional criminal justice responses to crime. In its growth and increasing institutionalization, there has been a growing focus by policy makers and interest by researchers on the ability of RJ to reduce reoffending. To date, however, evaluation research has failed to report consistent findings. These mixed results can be attributed to substantial variation in RJ programmes. Currently there is little consensus on what defines RJ and, therefore, what defines an RJ intervention. As a result, many programmes differ in ways that are theoretically and empirically related to offending. The conflicting results found in RJ evaluations can be further attributed to the wide variation in study design and significant methodological limitations, largely pertaining to how best to: (i) control for potential bias and form a fair and equivalent comparison group, and (ii) measure reoffending. Through a concise but thorough examination of findings of existing RJ evaluation research from English-speaking countries, we provide readers with a “user guide” for understanding and critically assessing current evidence on the effects of RJ on reoffending. We conclude that given the considerable heterogeneity in programme and research design, there remains limited methodological rigorous evidence to support the claim that RJ interventions reduce reoffending, and that the promising conclusions reported in some reviews and meta-analyses may be overly optimistic given these limitations.
