Restorative Justice Practices and Credible Messengers: Promising, Innovative Approaches for Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

Register for an upcoming webinar on March 27 to learn more about this project.

Background

As jurisdictions seek to address growing concerns about youth crime and violence, there is increased interest in adopting innovative programs and practices that can hold youth accountable for their behavior while also improving public safety and youth outcomes such as education and behavioral health. Simultaneously, the fact that many locales are struggling with unprecedented staffing challenges within their public agencies and private service providers has increased the urgency to identify creative, effective interventions that are less staff and cost intensive.

To this end, the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute conducted a comprehensive review of rigorous research—including over 30 research studies from 2000 to 2023—on restorative justice and credible messenger practices, two types of grassroots interventions that are growing in popularity and have shown promising outcomes for youth, victims, and communities. This brief summarizes the results of this research, identifies implementation considerations, and shares program examples.

What Are Restorative Justice Practices and Credible Messenger Programs?

Restorative justice practices are a diverse set of activities designed to engage youth in repairing the harm caused to victims, communities, or both due to their delinquent behavior. Practices range from monetary restitution and community service to victim mediation and family conferencing. These practices are designed to help young people understand and hold themselves accountable for their actions while also bringing some form of relief, control, and resolution to victims.
Credible messenger programs are also diverse but typically involve some form of mentoring, life coaching, or peer-based supports (violence interrupters, for example) that are led by people with lived experience with the justice system or who have similar life experiences and circumstances as the young people they are trying to help.
It’s important to note that neither set of interventions is designed as primary services for addressing youth’s dynamic risk factors or behavioral health needs. Instead, these practices can serve as critical supports to promote youth (and family) engagement, encourage buy-in to the behavior change process, and facilitate connections with the positive adults, peers, and prosocial activities that research shows are correlated with long-term positive youth behaviors.¹

Do Restorative Justice Practices Effectively Reduce Reoffending and Improve Other Youth Outcomes?

Most research shows that restorative justice practices have a modest but statistically meaningful effect on reducing reoffending, though more rigorous comparison-group studies are limited.²
There are key differences in the effectiveness of different types of restorative justice practices.
- Restitution has no or a negative impact on reoffending, particularly for youth of color.³
- Community service⁴ and teen courts⁵ generally show minimal if any impact.
- More direct restorative justice practices, such as victim mediation and family conferencing, show more promising, substantial recidivism-reduction benefits.⁶
Research is limited on the impact of restorative justice practices on other youth outcomes. However, some studies show evidence of improvements in educational and behavioral outcomes.⁷ More commonly, youth who participate in restorative practices often feel they have been treated more fairly compared to traditional justice system processes.⁸ This increased sense of procedural justice could have a variety of benefits including improved youth engagement with other system programs and interventions.

What Are Key Considerations for Determining Whether and How to Adopt and Effectively Implement Restorative Justice Practices?

Restorative justice practices that involve direct victim engagement or mediation consistently result in increased victim satisfaction with the justice system.⁹ These practices are more effective at “holding youth accountable” than punitive approaches, such as a long list of probation conditions, detention, or electronic monitoring, that don’t provide any proven benefits for public safety, youth outcomes, or victims.¹⁰
Research shows that arrest or court involvement for lower-risk youth increases recidivism and decreases high school completion rates compared to diversion, even if the diversion involves no services.¹¹ Restorative justice practices, then, might be particularly well suited as diversion programs,¹² especially for youth who have committed first-time, misdemeanor person or property offenses such as petty theft or minor assaults like school fights.
Other strengths of restorative justice practices include the following:
- Flexibility of setting (including demonstrated effectiveness in schools¹³
- Less intensive staffing requirements than more formal therapeutic or class-based interventions
- Opportunities for scaling through train-the-trainer approaches
- Ability to involve credible messengers and the community in the process
- Cost-effectiveness¹⁴
The relative flexibility of such practices does not mitigate the need for a high degree of program structure and staff training, including in how to sensitively communicate with an array of young people, families, and victims. In addition, research stresses that participation for young people and victims must be voluntary to achieve maximum benefits, and that preparatory meetings with both parties separately before the mediation can improve results.¹⁵
One key implementation concern is that restorative justice practices are less well tested for youth of color and indigenous groups, and there is some evidence of reduced effectiveness.¹⁶ Jurisdictions need to take a thoughtful approach to the diversity and cultural competence training of people facilitating restorative practices and collect and disaggregate data on the impact these interventions have on different youth populations.

Are Credible Messenger Programs Effective at Reducing Reoffending and Improving Other Youth Outcomes?

While credible messenger programs lack a robust research base, the evidence that does exist shows that these programs have the potential to reduce juvenile reoffending, including more serious or violent offenses, including gun offenses.¹⁷
There have been limited quantitative studies on the impact of these programs on other youth outcomes, but qualitative results are quite promising. Potential benefits of program participation include longer-term changes in youth’s thinking, behaviors, attitudes, life outlook, and peer associations.¹⁸

What Are Key Considerations for Determining Whether and How to Adopt and Effectively Implement Credible Messenger Programs?

Credible messenger programs have important benefits not just for participating youth, but also for the peers and community members with lived experience who serve as mentors and program staff.¹⁹ These programs also help with community intervention efforts such as violence interrupters that target not just youth at risk of violence but community norms related to gun possession, gang membership, and conflict resolution.²⁰
Other strengths of credible messenger programs include the following:
- The flexibility to use them for diversion, youth on probation, and higher-risk youth including as part of jurisdiction-wide violence prevention and intervention strategies
- A more community-oriented staffing approach that harnesses a potentially large ethnically and culturally diverse group of individuals with lived experience who want to give back and support youth in their communities
- The potential for these programs to impact short-term recidivism reduction and help youth transition to a crime-free adulthood long term²¹
There is limited research about the effective implementation of these programs. However, based on evaluations of similar mentoring programs, the length and intensity of the relationship between the youth and credible messenger is likely critical to success. Weekly contact and an ongoing relationship of a year or longer are key prerequisites.²² In addition, both youth and credible messengers can benefit from support to address barriers to their participation (transportation, employment, etc.) to mitigate against program dropout.

What Are Examples of These Approaches that Can Serve as Models and Resources for Interested Locales?

The Restorative Justice Project at Equal Justice USA: This is a national technical assistance and training project that partners with local communities across the country to help them establish pre-charge diversion programs using restorative justice. Their model is based on eight core elements that incorporate an emphasis on identifying and building up youth’s strengths as well as relationship-based practices.
Arches Transformative Mentoring Program: Arches is a transformative mentoring program that connects high-risk young people ages 16 to 24 on probation in New York City to credible messenger mentors in their own neighborhoods. Community-based organizations partner with probation to employ credible messenger mentors, who may be formerly justice involved or otherwise share similar backgrounds with the young people they serve, and provide them with rigorous training. Program components include curriculum-based interactive journaling, group mentoring, and individual mentoring. As an example of program impact, Arches participants had a 69 percent lower felony reconviction rate than the comparison group within 12 months of starting probation.²³
Oakland Unite: This is a “publicly funded initiative in Oakland, California, that seeks to interrupt and prevent violence through collaborative strategies focused on youth and young adults at the highest risk of violent behavior.” The program is a comprehensive effort that involves an array of public and private partner organizations and interventions, including connecting youth with life coaches that use mentoring and life coaching to help youth develop individual service plans, connect to services and prosocial activities, and move toward stable and successful lives. As an example of program impact, youth matched with a life coach were 16 percent more likely to be enrolled in the 12 months after starting services than youth not matched with a life coach.²⁴

Endnotes

1. National Research Council, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013), https://doi.org/10.17226/14685.

2. Kathleen J. Bergseth and Jeffrey A. Bouffard, “Examining the Effectiveness of a Restorative Justice Program for Various Types of Juvenile Offenders,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57, no. 9 (2013): 1054–1075, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12453551; Kimberly de Beus and Nancy Rodriguez, “Restorative Justice Practice: An Examination of Program Completion and Recidivism,” Journal of Criminal Justice 35, no. 3 (2007): 337–347, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.009; Jordan A. Grant, How Restorative Justice Practices Affect Adolescent Recidivism Rates: An Examination, University Honors Theses, Paper 857, PDXScholar, 2020; Catherine S. Kimbrell, David B. Wilson, and Ajima Olaghere, “Restorative Justice Programs and Practices in Juvenile Justice: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis for Effectiveness, Criminology & Public Policy 22, no. 1 (2023): 161–195, https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12613; Jeff Latimer, Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise, “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis, The Prison Journal 85, no. 2 (2005): 127–144, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969; Nancy Rodriguez, “Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism, Crime and Delinquency 53, no. 3 (2007): 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705285983; L. S. Joy Tong and David P. Farrington, “Effectiveness of ‘Reasoning and Rehabilitation’ in Reducing Reoffending,” Psicothema 20, no. 1 (2008): 20–28; Jennifer S. Wong et al., “Can At-Risk Youth be Diverted from Crime?: A Meta-Analysis of Restorative Diversion Programs,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 43, no. 10 (2016): 1310–1329.

3. Stacy Hoskins Haynes, Alison C. Cares, and R. Barry Ruback, “Juvenile Economic Sanctions: An Analysis of Their Imposition, Payment, and Effect on Recidivism,” Criminology & Public Policy 13, no. 1 (2014): 31–60; David B. Wilson, Ajima Olaghere, and Catherine S. Kimbrell, “Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis” (Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017); Alex R. Piquero, Michael T. Baglivio, and Kevin T. Wolff, “A Statewide Analysis of the Impact of Restitution and Fees on Juvenile Recidivism in Florida Across Race & Ethnicity,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 21, no. 4 (2023): 279–308, https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040231180816.

4. Abere Sawaqdeh Church, David K. Marcus, and Zachary K. Hamilton, “Community Service Outcomes in Justice-Involved Youth: Comparing Restorative Community Service to Standard Community Service,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 48, no. 9 (2021): 1243–1260; Wilson, Olaghere, and Kimbrell, “Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis.”

5. Lauren N. Gase et al., “The Impact of Teen Courts on Youth Outcomes: A Systematic Review,” Adolescent Research Review 1, no. 1 (2016): 51–67; Wendy Povitsky Stickle et al., “An Experimental Evaluation of Teen Courts,” Journal of Experimental Criminology 4, no. 2 (2008): 137–163.

6. Kathleen J. Bergseth and Jeffrey A. Bouffard, “The Long-Term Impact of Restorative Justice Programming for Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of Criminal Justice 35, no. 4, (2007): 433–451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.05.006; Jeff Bouffard, Maisha Cooper, and Kathleen Bergseth, “The Effectiveness of Various Restorative Justice Interventions on Recidivism Outcomes among Juvenile Offenders,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15, no. 4 (2017): 465–480, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016647428; William Bradshaw, David Roseborough, and Mark S. Umbreit, “The Effect of Victim Offender Mediation on Juvenile Offender Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24, no. 1 (2006): 87–98; William R. Nugent, Mona Williams, and Mark S. Umbreit, “Participation in Victim-Offender Mediation and the Prevalence of Subsequent Delinquent Behavior: A Meta-Analysis, Research on Social Work Practice 14, no. 6 (2004): 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731504265831; Anne Hobbs, Ana Cienfuegos-Silvera, and Lindsey E. Wylie, “Variations in Victim Presence in Restorative Youth Conferencing Programs: The Use of Surrogate Victims Increases Reparation Completion,” Victims & Offenders 17, no. 7 (2022): 994–1008; Heather Strang et al., “Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Review 9, no. 1 (2013): 1–59.

7. Ernesto Lodi et al., “Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 1 (2021): 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096; Constanze Weber and Leen Vereenooghe, “Reducing Conflicts in School Environments Using Restorative Practices: A Systematic Review,” International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1 (2020).

8. Anne Gregory et al., “The Promise of Restorative Practices to Transform Teacher-Student Relationships and Achieve Equity in School Discipline,” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 26, no. 4 (2016): 325–353; Latimer, Dowden, and Muise, “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.”

9. Latimer, Dowden, and Muise, “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis”; Heather Strang et al., “Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Review 9, no. 1 (2013): 1–59.

10. National Research Council, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013), https://doi.org/10.17226/14685; Josh Weber and Stephanie Shaw, “Breaking the Rules: Rethinking Condition Setting and Enforcement in Juvenile Probation: A Toolkit for Juvenile Probation Agencies and Juvenile Courts” (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2022).

11. Elizabeth Cauffman et al., “Crossroads in Juvenile Justice: The Impact of Initial Processing Decision on Youth 5 Years After First Arrest,” Development and Psychopathology 33, no. 2 (2021): 700–713.

12. Bergseth and Bouffard, “Examining the Effectiveness of a Restorative Justice Program for Various Types of Juvenile Offenders”; Rodriguez, “Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism; Tong and Farrington, “Effectiveness of ‘Reasoning and Rehabilitation’ in Reducing Reoffending”; Wong et al., “Can At-Risk Youth be Diverted from Crime?: A Meta-Analysis of Restorative Diversion Programs.”

13. Joie Acosta et al., “Evaluation of a Whole-School Change Intervention: Findings from a Two-Year Cluster-Randomized Trial of the Restorative Practices Intervention,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48, no. 5 (2019): 876–890; Gregory et al., “The Promise of Restorative Practices to Transform Teacher-Student Relationships and Achieve Equity in School Discipline; Lodi et al., “Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review”; Ceema Samimi et al., “Restorative Practices and Exclusionary School Discipline: An Integrative Review,” Contemporary Justice Review: CJR 26, no. 1 (2023): 28–47; Weber and Vereenooghe, “Reducing Conflicts in School Environments Using Restorative Practices: A Systematic Review.

14. Lawrence W. Sherman et al., “Are Restorative Justice Conferences Effective in Reducing Repeat Offending? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31, no. 1 (2015): 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9; Washington State Institute of Public Policy, “Restorative Justice Conferencing or Victim Offender Mediation for Court-Involved Youth,” benefit/cost method updated 2023, https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost/Program/45.

15. Bouffard, Cooper, and Bergseth, “The effectiveness of Various Restorative Justice Interventions on Recidivism Outcomes among Juvenile Offenders”; Latimer, Dowden, Muise, “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis”; Strang et al., “Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review.”

16. Bergseth and Bouffard, “Examining the Effectiveness of a Restorative Justice Program for Various Types of Juvenile Offenders”; Simon Little, Anna Stewart, and Nicole Ryan, “Restorative Justice Conferencing: Not a Panacea for the Overrepresentation of Australia’s Indigenous Youth in the Criminal Justice System,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62, no. 13 (2018): 4067–4090, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18764524; Wong et al., “Can At-Risk Youth Be Diverted from Crime?: A Meta-Analysis of Restorative Diversion Programs.”

17. N. Gonzalez et al., Life Coaching and Employment and Education Support for Youth at Risk of Violence (Mathematica, 2019); David Muhammad and Cait Ahearn, Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Transformative Credible Messenger Mentoring to Reduce Violence and Justice System Involvement (National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2023); Rod Martinez et al., “New York City’s Wounded Healers: A Cross-Program, Participatory Action Research Study of Credible Messengers” (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/evidence/wounded-healers-finalreport-2022.pdf; Julia Lesnick et al., “Credible Messenger Mentoring to Promote the Health of Youth Involved in the Juvenile Legal System: A Narrative Review,” Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 53, no. 6 (2023); Mathew Lynch et al., “Arches Transformative Mentoring Program An Implementation and Impact Evaluation in New York City” (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018).

18. Lesnick et al., “Credible Messenger Mentoring to Promote the Health of Youth Involved in the Juvenile Legal System: A Narrative Review.”

19. Ibid.

20. Marla Becker et al., Caught in the Crossfire Program Manual: A Peer-Based Hospital Intervention Program for Violently Injured Youth (Oakland, CA: Youth ALIVE!, 2009); Jeffrey A. Butts et al., “Cure Violence: A Public Health Model to Reduce Gun Violence,” Annu Rev Public Health 36 (2015): 39–53.

21. Lesnick et al., “Credible Messenger Mentoring to Promote the Health of Youth Involved in the Juvenile Legal System: A Narrative Review.”

22. David L. DuBois, “How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12, no. 2 (2011): 57–91; Jean B. Grossman and Jean E. Rhodes, “The Test of Time: Predictors and Effects of Duration in Youth Mentoring Relationships,” American Journal of Community Psychology 30, no. 2 (2002): 199–219; Michael D. Lyons and Samuel D. McQuillin, “Risks and Rewards of School-Based Mentoring Relationships: A Reanalysis of the Student Mentoring Program Evaluation,” School Psychology Quarterly 34, no. 1 (2019): 76–85; Karen Zilberstein and Renee Spencer, “Breaking Bad: An Attachment Perspective on Youth Mentoring Relationship Closures,” Child and Family Social Work 22, no. 1 (2017): 67–76.

23. Lynch et al., “Arches Transformative Mentoring Program An Implementation and Impact Evaluation in New York City.”

24. Gonzalez et al., Life Coaching and Employment and Education Support for Youth at Risk of Violence.

Project Credits

Writing: Josh Weber, CSG Justice Center
Research: Ashleigh LaCourse, University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute
Editing: Leslie Griffin, CSG Justice Center
Web Development: Yewande Ojo, CSG Justice Center
Public Affairs: Sarah Kelley, CSG Justice Center

This project was prepared by The Council of State Governments Justice Center with support from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention through grant number 15PJDP-21-GK-03216-JRIX. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice.

About the Author

Josh Weber

Deputy Division Director, Corrections and Reentry

Josh Weber directs the CSG Justice Center's juvenile justice program, which focuses on helping states use effective methods to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for youth in contact with the juvenile justice system. Previously, Josh spent 10 years working on

...

building the capacity of programs and systems that serve vulnerable youth in the juvenile justice, youth development, workforce development, and child welfare systems. Josh managed research programs for the Youth Development and Research Fund in Maryland and the Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. In addition, Josh led the development and implementation of NYC Administration for Children’s Services' alternative to placement and reentry program for juveniles using evidence-based practices. He also directed the District of Columbia’s Justice Grants Administration, which managed all federal juvenile and criminal justice grants for the District. Josh received his BA in psychology from Duke University and his MPA from Princeton University.