https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9219-218X
![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
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).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2023.2297833.
Notes
1. A good number of studies were undertaken to show how restorative justice works in New Zealand to reduce recidivism and to secure participants’ satisfaction. See, some of those notable studies.