Restorative Justice Conferencing¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 9 studies (6 causal, 2 review, 1 quant-synthesis), q2–q4 · 0 of 9 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) brings together the person who caused harm, those harmed, and sometimes family or community members, in a structured meeting facilitated by a trained coordinator. Participants describe what happened, discuss its impact, and jointly agree on steps to repair the harm — apologies, restitution, service, or behavioral commitments. In schools, the same structure replaces exclusionary discipline with accountability conversations that keep students in community.

Design Implications¶

RJC works as a learning intervention because it converts a disciplinary event into an opportunity for perspective-taking, moral reasoning, and social-emotional skill practice. Face-to-face dialogue with those harmed produces genuine remorse and reintegration rather than stigmatizing exclusion Sherman & Strang's trials find restorative justice conferencing reduces repeat offending and increases victim satisfaction. [+M]. The mechanism is reintegrative shaming — disapproving the act while reaffirming the person — which Braithwaite showed reduces reoffending compared with stigmatizing punishment [~S]. Empathic, relationship-preserving responses to misbehavior reduce suspensions, particularly for at-risk students Brief empathic discipline interventions cut suspensions among Black and Latino students. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A trained, neutral facilitator who manages turn-taking, emotional intensity, and the agreement process
• Voluntary participation by the harmed party; coercion undermines the legitimacy on which the process depends
• Follow-through on the repair agreement — unmonitored commitments erode trust in the process
• School-wide alignment: RJC fails when teachers simultaneously use exclusionary discipline for the same offenses [~M]

Constraints¶

• Ineffective when the offender denies responsibility or the power imbalance between parties is severe (e.g., chronic bullying, violence) — victims can be re-traumatized by face-to-face contact [-M]
• Requires significant facilitator training and time; poorly run conferences can devolve into coerced apologies [-W]
• Less effective for repeat or systemic harm where the underlying conditions (climate, inequity) are unaddressed [~M]
• Can be perceived as "soft" by staff and families, undermining buy-in unless outcomes data are shared [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Whole-school model: conferencing embedded in a broader restorative practices framework (circles, mediation, restorative questions), as in Denver Public Schools and Oakland Unified
• Diversion model: conference as an alternative to suspension or court referral, triggered by the offense
• Community model: victim-offender conferencing run by justice agencies (e.g., restorative justice panels in Vermont)

Target Learners¶

• Adolescents developing moral reasoning and perspective-taking capacity; the structured dialogue scaffolds empathy that lecture-based anti-bullying programs do not Building empathy improves intergroup attitudes. [+M]
• Students at risk of exclusionary discipline, for whom relationship-preserving responses improve belonging and outcomes Belonging interventions improve academic outcomes. [+M]
• Less appropriate for very young children without facilitation adaptations, or for offenders with no remorse or readiness to take responsibility [-W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Social-emotional learning: empathy, perspective-taking, conflict resolution
• Moral reasoning: understanding harm and responsibility rather than rule compliance
• Community repair: rebuilding trust and reintegration after conflict

Instructions¶

1. Prepare separately. The facilitator meets offender and victim individually to assess readiness, explain the process, and secure voluntary consent.
2. Open the conference. Facilitator sets ground rules; each party describes what happened from their own perspective (Active Listening).
3. Surface impact. Participants articulate the harm's effects on themselves and others, prompting perspective-taking (Building Empathy).
4. Acknowledge responsibility. The offender names the harm and its causes without deflection; the facilitator guards against minimization.
5. Agree on repair. The group co-constructs concrete, time-bound repair actions (Action Planning).
6. Follow up. The facilitator monitors completion and reconvenes if commitments are unmet (Check-In).

Claims¶

• Denver Public Schools' restorative justice reforms coincided with falling suspension rates and a narrowed Black-White suspension gap [~W]

Related Strategies¶

• Restorative Circles — proactive community-building variant used before harm occurs
• Peer Mediation — student-led conflict resolution between peers without a harm/offense frame
• Social-Emotional Learning Curricula — builds the skills conferencing exercises

Examples¶

• Oakland Unified School District (https://www.ousd.org) — whole-school restorative justice program that reduced suspensions substantially after replacing exclusionary discipline with conferencing and circles.
• Denver Public Schools Restorative Justice Program — peer-led conferences and accountability agreements as an alternative to suspension.
• RISE (Restorative Initiatives for Safe Environments), UK Youth Justice — victim-offender conferencing delivered by youth offending teams.

Key Sources¶

• Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. J., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offenses? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(1), 139–146. doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9
• Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804618
• Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute.
• Karp, D. R., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth & Society, 33(2), 249–272. doi:10.1177/0044118x01033002006
• Okonofua, J. A., Walton, G. M., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). A vicious cycle: A asymmetric psychological approach to punitive discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 481–499.