Last updated: November 2010 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Restorative Justice 

Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. 

Practices and programs reflecting restorative purposes will respond to crime by 1) identifying and 

taking steps to repair harm, 2) involving all stakeholders, and 3) transforming the traditional 

relationship between communities and government in responding to crime. The goal of restorative 

justice is to bring together those most affected by the criminal act—the offender, the victim, and 

community members—in a nonadversarial process to encourage offender accountability and meet the 

needs of the victims to repair the harms resulting from the crime (Bergseth and Bouffard 2007). There 

are several models of restorative justice discussed below; however, they all share common features, 

including an emphasis on community-based sanctions, a nonadversarial and informal process, and 

decision-making by consensus (Bergseth and Bouffard 2007). 

While most approaches to juvenile justice concentrate on punishing or treating delinquent youths, the 

restorative justice process seeks to repair the harm by involving the entire community in rehabilitating 

offenders and holding them accountable for their behavior. In the traditional juvenile justice system, 

professionals ask questions such as what laws have been broken or what punishment does the offender 

deserve? Under the restorative justice model, questions are framed differently, asking: What is the 

nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to repair the harm? (National 

Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence 2009). By bringing together victims, offenders, 

families, and other key stakeholders in a variety of settings, restorative justice helps offenders 

understand the implications of their actions and provides an opportunity for them to become 

reconnected to the community. 

From a restorative justice perspective, rehabilitation cannot be achieved until the offender 

acknowledges the harm caused to victims and communities and makes amends (Bazemore and 

Umbreit 1997). Therefore, restorative justice programs are generally voluntary in nature and require 

offenders, if they are to participate, to admit responsibility for the illegal act. Some of the most common 

programs typically associated with restorative justice are mediation and conflict-resolution programs, 

family group conferences, victim-impact panels, victim–offender mediation, circle sentencing, and 

community reparative boards. 

Family Group Conferences 

Family group conferences (FGCs) are facilitated discussions that allow those most affected by a 

particular crime—the victim, the offender, and the family and friends of both—to discuss the impact 

of the crime and decide how the offender should be held accountable for it (Umbreit 2000). FGC 

originated in New Zealand as a way to address the failures of traditional juvenile justice. It 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2010. “Restorative Justice.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Restorative_Justice.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

incorporates indigenous Maori values that emphasize the roles of family and community in addressing 

wrongdoing (McGarrell 2001). Australia subsequently adopted the concept and has implemented 

several FGC models. Today, FGC is used extensively as a formal juvenile sanction in New Zealand and 

Australia and to a lesser extent in the United States (Immarigeon 1999), including communities in 

Florida, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia 

(McGarrell, Olivares, and Kroovand 2000).

Group conferencing follows principally from the theory of reintegrative shaming. It argues that people 

are generally deterred from committing crimes by two informal types of social control: conscience and 

fear of social disapproval (Braithwaite 1989). Braithwaite argues that the consequences imposed by 

family members, friends, or other individuals important to an offender are more meaningful and 

therefore more effective than those imposed by the legal system. As a result, the fear of being shamed 

by the people most intimate with an offender is the most significant deterrent to committing crime.

A typical conference begins when the victim, the offender, and the supporters of each are brought 

together with a trained facilitator to discuss the incident and the harm it has caused. It proceeds with 

the offender describing the incident and each participant describing the impact of the incident on his 

or her life. The purpose of this process is for the offender to face the human impact of his or her crime 

(Umbreit 2000). The victim then is presented with the opportunity to express feelings, ask questions 

about the offense, and identify desired outcomes from the conference. All participants may contribute 

to the process of determining how the offender might best repair the harm. By the end of the conference, 

the participants must reach an agreement on how the youth can make amends to the victim and sign a 

reparation agreement. The agreement typically includes an apology, and it often includes a requirement 

that some type of restitution be made to the victim. Some agreements require youth to perform 

community service or call for other actions such as improving school attendance, completing 

homework, or performing chores at home or school (McGarrell 2001).

Although the evidence to date is somewhat limited, the existing research supports the use of group 

conferences as an alternative to traditional juvenile justice practices. Three formal experiments of group 

conferences found promising results. In the United States, an evaluation of police-run conferences in 

Bethlehem, Pa., found high levels of victim satisfaction and some evidence of reduced reoffending for 

person offenses, but not property offenses (McCold and Wachtel 1998). In Canberra, Australia, an 

evaluation of the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments also reported high levels of victim satisfaction 

and showed positive changes in the attitudes of offenders (Strang et al. 1999), but the impact of group 

conferences on recidivism remains under investigation. Finally, the Indianapolis Restorative Justice 

Experiment found that group conferences produced high levels of satisfaction among participants and 

promising recidivism results. The evaluation found that youths participating in conferences were 

significantly less likely to have been rearrested 6 months after the initial incident. The rate of rearrest 

was 20 percent for conferenced youths compared with 34 percent for the control group. When limited 

to those youths who successfully completed the diversion program (conference or control group 

program), 12 percent of the youths involved in conferences had been re-arrested compared with 23 

percent of the control group (McGarrell, Olivares, and Kroovand 2000). Similar findings were observed 

at 12 months for the total sample (McGarrell 2001).

Victim-Impact Panels

Victim-impact panels are forums for crime victims to explain the real-world impact of crime to 

offenders. Unlike group conferences, victim-impact panels do not involve direct personal contact 

between the offender and his/her victim. Instead, victim-impact panels generally use surrogate victims 

or family and friends of victims of similar experiences. The purpose of the panel is to help offenders 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

individualize and humanize the consequences of their crimes on victims and the community 

(Immarigeon 1999).

Today, there is a small but growing trend in the use of victim-impact panels as a sentencing option for 

a variety of offenses such as property crimes, physical assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and elder 

abuse. Panels have been used in prison and jail settings, with parolees, and in treatment programs, 

defensive driving schools, and youth education programs. Offender participation in these panels is 

generally court ordered. Panels typically involve three or four victim speakers, each of whom spends 

about 15 minutes communicating his or her story in a nonjudgmental manner. Victim service 

organizations generally either implement the program for the court or work in collaboration with 

justice personnel. They provide services such as screening potential panel members, moderating the 

panels, and record keeping. 

Research on victim-impact panels is relatively limited and contradictory, but promising. Fors and Rojek 

(1999) compared the rearrest rates of 834 DUI offenders who attended a victim-impact panel as part of 

their sentence to those who did not. The authors found that rearrest rates were lower for individuals 

who participated in the victim-impact panels. Moreover, the authors argue that the panels can be a costeffective way of reducing the probability of arrest in DUI offenders. By contrast, Polacsek and 

colleagues conducted a randomized field experiment with 813 DWI offenders in New Mexico and 

measured their progress through the stages of pretest, posttest, 1-year follow-up, and 2-year follow-up. 

The participants were randomly assigned to a DWI school or a DWI school plus a Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving victim-impact panel. The authors found no difference in recidivism between the groups 

(Polacsek et al. 2001). 

Research on victim impact panels also suggests that they are promising in terms of victim satisfaction. 

One evaluation of victim panelists speaking to convicted drunk drivers collected 1,784 individuals who 

either participated in a victim impact panel or did not. The study found that panelists scored similar to 

nonvictims on measures of self-esteem, locus of control, hostility, and well-being. Moreover, the 

panelists were less angry at the offender compared with nonpanelists. These results suggest that 

panelists benefit from participation (Mercer, Lorden, and Lord 1994).

Victim–Offender Mediation

Victim–offender mediation is a process that provides victims the opportunity to meet their offenders in 

a safe and structured setting for dialog, negotiation, and problem solving (Umbreit and Greenwood 

2000). The goal of this process is twofold. The first is to hold the offenders directly accountable for their 

behavior, learn the full impact of their actions, and develop plans for making amends to the person or 

persons they violated. The second goal is to foster a sense of empowerment for the victim. Overall, this 

process is designed to develop empathy in the offender (which can help prevent future criminal 

behavior) and address the emotional and informational needs of the victim. 

Mediation programs have been used for more than 20 years for various conflict situations. Today there 

are more than 300 victim programs throughout the United States and more than 700 in Europe (Umbreit 

et al. 2000). Although these programs vary substantially, all victim–offender mediation programs share 

one unique feature: the purpose of victim–offender mediation is not to determine guilt (generally, guilt 

has already been determined in another forum), rather it is to teach the offender to accept responsibility 

and repair harm. 

The mediation session or sessions involve a dialog between the victim and the offender, facilitated by 

a professional mediator. The purpose of dialog is to actively involve the victim and the offender in 

repairing (to the degree possible) the emotional and material harm caused by the crime. It also provides 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

an opportunity for both victims and offenders to discuss offenses and express their feelings and for 

victims to get answers to their questions. Finally, the dialog presents an opportunity for victims and 

offenders to develop mutually acceptable restitution plans that address the harm caused by the crime. 

More than 95 percent of victim–offender mediation sessions result in a signed restitution agreement 

(Umbreit and Greenwood 2000). However, research has consistently found that the restitution 

agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to express their feelings about the 

offense directly to the offenders (Umbreit and Greenwood 2000).

A considerable amount of research demonstrates that the victim–offender mediation process produces 

several positive effects for both victims and offenders. In general, victims who meet their offenders tend 

to be more satisfied with the process than victims whose cases are handled in the formal justice system 

(Umbreit 1994a, 1994b) and are less fearful of being revictimized (Umbreit and Roberts 1996; Umbreit 

and Coates 1993; Umbreit 1994a, 1994b). Similarly, offenders who meet their victims through mediation 

are far more likely to be held directly accountable for their behavior (Umbreit 1994a, 1994b; Marshall 

and Merry 1990), successfully complete their restitution obligations (Umbreit and Coates 1992), 

subsequently commit fewer and less serious crimes (Pate 1990; Nugent and Paddock 1995; Schneider 

1986; Umbreit 1994a, 1994b), and are satisfied with both the process and outcome of victim–offender 

mediation (Coates and Gehm 1989; Marshall and Merry 1990; Umbreit and Coates 1993).

Circle Sentencing

Circle sentencing, sometimes called peacemaking circles or talking circles, originated as traditional 

sanctioning and healing practices of American Indians in the United States and aboriginal peoples in 

Canada. Circle sentencing is a holistic reintegrative approach that is designed to address the criminal 

and delinquent behaviors of offenders as well as the needs of victims, families, and communities 

(Bazemore and Umbreit 2001). The “circle” includes crime victims, offenders, family and friends of 

both, justice and social service personnel (including police officers, lawyers, and judges) and interested 

community residents. The members of the circle take turns discussing the event, trying to search for an 

understanding of what happened. Together they identify the steps needed to assist in the healing of all 

affected parties and prevent future crimes. All circle members participate in deliberations to arrive at a 

consensus for a sentencing plan that addresses the concerns of all interested parties (Bazemore and 

Umbreit 2001).

The goals of circle sentencing include promoting healing for all affected parties; providing an 

opportunity for the offender to make amends; empowering victims, community members, families, and 

offenders by giving them a chance to discuss the event and share responsibility in finding constructive 

resolutions; addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior; and building a sense of community 

by promoting and sharing community values. Specifics of the circle process may vary from community 

to community and are designed to fit the local community needs and culture. In most communities, 

circles are facilitated by a trained community member, often called the keeper. Discussions in the circle 

usually involve the use of a talking piece. Only the person holding the talking piece is allowed to speak, 

while everyone else must be respectful as the speaker shares his or her experience of the incident 

(National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence 2009). There may be a healing circle 

for the victim, a healing circle for the offender, a sentencing circle to develop a consensus on a 

sentencing plan, and follow-up circles to monitor the progress of the offender. 

Circle sentencing may not be an appropriate response to all offenses. Circles have been used in response 

to serious and violent crimes, but circles are often labor intensive and require a substantial amount of 

time and effort from invested parties. Circles rely on several key factors, including the victim’s input to 

the process, the dedication of victim’s and offender’s support groups, and the offender’s character, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

personality, sincerity, and connection to the community. Therefore, circles should probably not be used 

in response to first offenders and minor crimes. Also, because of the situation surrounding the 

perpetration of certain crimes, circle sentencing may not be an appropriate response. For example, in 

an ethnographic study of judicially convened sentencing circles, Cunliffe and Cameron (2007) argued 

that circle sentencing may be too simple a solution to a complex and longstanding problem of cases 

involving intimate partner violence of Aboriginal people in Canada.

There has been little research conducted on the effectiveness of circle sentencing. A study by Judge 

Barry Stuart in Canada found that recidivism was less likely among offenders who had participated in 

circle compared with offenders who were processed traditionally in the juvenile justice system (Stuart 

1996). A qualitative study of peacemaking circles in Minnesota found that, despite initial discomforts, 

more than two thirds of circle participants reported feeling at ease speaking in the circle (Umbreit 2002). 

Effective circles depended on the use of a speaking piece, which guaranteed each participant 

uninterrupted speech, and on a skilled circle keeper who established and maintained ground rules. 

Most cases required several circle meetings and follow-up circles held after the offender made amends.

Community Reparative Boards

Community reparative boards have generally been used in response to adult offenders convicted of 

nonviolent and minor offenses, but recently some communities have begun to use the boards with 

juvenile offenders. A reparative board usually includes small groups of specially trained citizens who 

conduct public, face-to-face meetings with offenders who have been court-ordered to participate. The 

members of the board develop a sanction agreement with offenders, monitor compliance, and submit 

compliance reports to the court (Bazemore and Umbreit 2001).

During the meetings, board members discuss with the offender the nature of the offense and the 

negative consequences that resulted from the incident. Board members develop a set of proposed 

sanctions and discuss the options with the offender until an agreement is reached on specific actions 

the offender will take to make reparation for the crime. The offender is required to document his or her 

progress in fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The board submits a progress report to the court on 

the offender’s compliance with the agreed-on sanctions. At this point in the process, the board’s 

involvement with the offender ends.

The goals of community reparative boards include providing an opportunity for victims and 

community members to confront offenders in a constructive manner, providing opportunities for 

offenders to take personal responsibility and be held accountable for the harm they caused, and 

generating meaningful consequences for criminal and delinquent actions, thereby reducing reliance on 

formal juvenile justice system processing (Bazemore and Umbreit 2001).

Community reparative board programs are a controversial approach to the restorative justice model. 

Though victims of the offense are usually supposed to be a part of the restorative justice process, in 

practice reparative boards have proved better suited to community input than to victim involvement. 

Some suggest that, because of the weak involvement of victims, reparative boards are not a good 

example of restorative justice (Bazemore and Umbreit 2001).

There has been little research on the effectiveness of community reparative boards. Vermont has 

implemented the use of reparative boards, primarily with adult offenders, but recently has begun to 

use them with juvenile offenders. However, the state has not yet completed any published studies on 

their effectiveness with juvenile offenders.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

Some programs may be designed to encompass more than one type of restorative justice program. For 

example, de Beus and Rodriguez (2007) evaluated the restorative justice program in Maricopa County, 

Ariz., known as Community Justice Communities (CJC), which includes program functions similar to 

family group conferencing and reparative boards. They found that youths who participated in CJC 

were significantly less likely than youths in the comparison group to recidivate.

There are several methodological limitations to the literature examining the effectiveness of restorative 

justice programming, including varying definitions of reoffense, the length of the follow-up time 

period, and various analytic strategies use to compare youths involved in restorative justice programs 

with those receiving other forms of processing. A recent study by Bergseth and Bouffard (2007) was 

designed to respond to the methodological limitations of previous studies, including some studies 

discussed above. The Bergseth–Bouffard study addressed several design issues through three steps: 

1. It examined not only recidivism rates but also the number and seriousness of later official 

contacts, to broaden the definition of reoffense.

2. It examined multiple outcomes over a longer follow-up period, including up to four years past 

the referral. 

3. It examined groups on the basis of the intervention they were originally referred to (using an 

intent-to-treat analysis), to eliminate the confounding influence of treatment motivation or 

offending propensity (youths who are more motivated to change are more likely to change).

While addressing the methodological issues from previous studies and meta-analyses, the authors still 

found that juvenile referred to restorative justice programming showed better results on each measured 

outcome compared with juveniles referred to traditional juvenile court processing, including 

prevalence, the number of later contacts, seriousness of later behavior, and time to first reoffense. The 

study showed that, even with several methodological weaknesses of previous studies taken into 

account and controlled for, juveniles referred to restorative justice programming had significantly 

positive outcomes compared with juveniles who go through traditional court processing.

Future research of restorative justice will need to examine whether the programming works similarly 

for different types of youth. For example, future research should look at the various effects of restorative 

justice referrals for older and younger youths, for males and females, and for youths with various 

offending histories. Research should also explore how community characteristics contribute and affect 

the restorative justice process (de Beus and Rodriguez 2007). In addition, future research is planned to 

study whether progression through various restorative justice stages (conferencing, consensus on 

sentencing agreement, completion of agreement) contribute to more positive outcomes, beyond the 

referral to the restorative process itself (Bergseth and Bouffard 2007).

References

Bazemore, Gordon, and Mark S. Umbreit. 1997. Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A Framework 

for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Bazemore, Gordon, and Mark S. Umbreit. 2001. A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Justice 

Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Bergseth, Kathleen J., and Jeffrey A. Bouffard. 2007. “The Long-Term Impact of Restorative Justice 

Programming for Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of Criminal Justice 35(4):433–51.

Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 

Press.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Coates, Robert B., and John R. Gehm, eds. 1989. An Empirical Assessment. Edited by M. Wright and B. 

Galaway, Mediation and Criminal Justice. London, England: SAGE Publications.

Cunliffe, Emma, and Angela Cameron. 2007. “Writing the Circle: Judicially Convened Sentencing 

Circles and the Textual Organization of Criminal Justice.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law

19(1):1–35.

de Beus, Kimberly, and Nancy Rodriguez. 2007. “Restorative Justice Practice: An Examination of 

Program Completion and Recidivism.” Journal of Criminal Justice 35:337–47.

Fors, Stuart W., and Dean G. Rojek. 1999. “The Effect of Victim Impact Panels on DUI/DWI Rearrest 

Rates: A 12-Month Follow-Up.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 60:514–20.

Immarigeon, Russ, ed. 1999. “Restorative Justice, Juvenile Offenders, and Crime Victims: A Review of 

the Literature.” In G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds.). Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the 

Harm of Youth Crime. New York, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Marshall, Tony F., and S.E. Merry. 1990. Crime and Accountability. London, England.

McCold, Paul, and Benjamin Wachtel. 1998. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 

Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, Pa.: Community Service Foundation.

McGarrell, Edmund F. 2001. Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early Response to Young Offenders. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

McGarrell, Edmund F., Kathleen Olivares, and Natalie Kroovand. 2000. Restorative Justice Conferences as 

an Early Response to Younger Offenders: Final Report on the Indianapolis Experiment. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Mercer, D., R. Lorden, and J. Lord. 1994. “Sharing Their Stories: What Are the Benefits? Who Is 

Helped?” Paper presented at the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies, Chicago, Ill.

National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence. 2009. An Introduction to Restorative 

Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration. Available at: 

http://www.promoteprevent.org/publications/prevention-briefs/introduction-restorativejustice.

Nugent, William R., and Jeff B. Paddock. 1995. “The Effect of Victim–Offender Mediation on Severity 

of Reoffense.” Mediation Quarterly 12(4):353–67.

Pate, K., ed. 1990. Victim–Offender Restitution Programs in Canada. In B. Galaway and J. Hudson (eds.). 

Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation. New York, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Polacsek, M., E. Rogers, W. Woodall, H. Delaney, D. Wheeler, and N. Rao. 2001. “MADD Victim Impact 

Panels and Stages of Change in Drunk Driving Prevention.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 62:533–

52.

Schneider, Anne L. 1986. “Restitution and Recidivism Rates of Juvenile Offenders: Results From Four 

Experimental Studies.” Criminology 24(3):533–52.

Strang, Heather, Geoffrey C. Barnes, John Braithwaite, and Lawrence W. Sherman. 1999. Experiments in 

Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE).

Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.

Stuart, Barry. 1996. Sentencing Circles—Making ‘Real’ Differences. Whitehouse, Canada: Territorial Court 

of the Yukon.

Umbreit, Mark S. 1994a. “Crime Victims Confront Their Offenders: The Impact of a Minneapolis 

Mediation Program.” Journal of Research on Social Work Practice 4(4):436–47.

Umbreit, Mark S. 1994b. Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Monsey, 

N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, Mark S. 2000. Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Victims of Crime.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

Umbreit, Mark S. 2002. “Peacemaking Circles in Minnesota: An Exploratory Study.” United States Crime 

Victims Report 5(6):81–95.

Umbreit, Mark S., and Robert B. Coates. 1992. “The Impact of Mediating Victim–Offender Conflict: An 

Analysis of Programs in Three States.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43(1):21–28.

Umbreit, Mark S., and Robert B. Coates. 1993. “Cross-Site Analysis of Victim–Offender Mediation in 

Four States.” Crime and Delinquency 39(4):565–85.

Umbreit, Mark S., and Jean Greenwood. 2000. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim–Offender Mediation: 

Restorative Justice Through Dialog. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, Mark S., Jean Greenwood, Claudia Fercello, and Jenni Umbreit. 2000. National Survey of 

Victim–Offender Mediation Programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Victims of Crime.

Umbreit, Mark S., and Ann Warner Roberts. 1996. Mediation of Criminal Conflict in England: An 

Assessment of Services in Coventry and Leeds. St. Paul, Minn.: University of Minnesota, Center for 

Restorative Justice and Mediation.