An assessment of the potential outcomes in practising restorative justice in criminal settings in Australia and the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACT Restorative justice was proposed as an alternative to the court system. Therefore, the policymakers and the researchers are keen to see how this intervention works. Many studies have evaluated restorative justice programs, but most of them lack methodological rigour leading to perform this meta-analysis. This article involves literature search and review, data collection and analysis to examine whether restorative justice is more effective than the courts in Australia and the United States (‘the US’). To this end, it first surveyed several benchmarks as success indicators in evaluating the ‘effectiveness’, including reducing recidivism, disposal time and costs and enhancing fair processes, and parties’ satisfaction. After review, two outcome variables: recidivism and satisfaction were selected. The meta-analysis revealed that the restorative justice participants had 22% decreased odds (Odds Ratio = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.86) than the court participants and restorative justice participants in the US were less likely to recidivate (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.49, 0.80) than that of in Australia (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90). Further, the study found restorative justice participants were more satisfied than the court participants (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07, 1.21), and the court participants experienced the first re-offence more quickly after referral than the restorative justice participants (18 months vs 25 months).