DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02993.v1
title: Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999
title: Version 1

description: The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project
compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of
a restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four
kinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any
age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile
shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth
violent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins
the conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed
by their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions
they care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to
society and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both
material and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police
officers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten
minutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the
hypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a
conference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more
satisfied with conferences than with court, (3) both offenders and
victims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the
public costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and
perhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court. This
study contains data from ongoing experiments comparing the effects of
court versus diversionary conferences for a select group of
offenders. Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists of data
from reports by police officers. These data include information on the
offender's attitude, the police station and officer that referred the
case, blood alcohol content level (drunk driving only), offense type,
and RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5 are data from observations by
trained RISE research staff of court and conference treatments to
which offenders had been randomly assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5
include duration of the court or conference, if there was any violence
or threat of violence in the court or conference, supports that the
offender and victim had, how much reintegrative shaming was expressed,
the extent to which the offender accepted guilt, if and in what form
the offender apologized (e.g., verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how
defiant or sullen the offender was, how much the offender contributed
to the outcome, what the outcome was (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment,
fine, community service, bail release, driving license cancelled,
counseling program), and what the outcome reflected (punishment,
repaying community, repaying victims, preventing future offense,
restoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, Year 0 Survey Data from
Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences and Year
0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and
Conferences, were taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE
interview staff after the court or conference proceedings. Variables
for Parts 6 and 7 include how much the court or conference respected
the respondent's rights, how much influence the respondent had over
the agreement, the outcome that the respondent received, if the court
or conference solved any problems, if police explained that the
respondent had the right to refuse the court or conference, if the
respondent was consulted about whom to invite to court or conference,
how the respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for
the justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or
conference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent
was about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent
felt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment
would be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the
court or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if
the respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the
respondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if
the court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if
the respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the
respondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income,
how police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent
regretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what
he/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of
what the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or
alcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection
include offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income,
and employment.
description: The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project
 compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of
 a restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four
 kinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any
 age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile
 shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth
 violent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins
 the conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed
 by their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions
 they care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to
 society and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both
 material and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police
 officers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten
 minutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the
 hypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a
 conference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more
 satisfied with conferences than with court (3) both offenders and
 victims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the
 public costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and
perhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court.
description: This study contains data from ongoing experiments
 comparing the effects of court and conferences for a select group of
 offenders. Because the aim of the research was to compare cases that
 were assigned to court with equally serious cases that were assigned
 to conference, a case could be accepted into the experiments only if
 it would normally be dealt with by a court. The research protocol also
 required, however, that eligible cases not be so serious that in the
 estimation of the apprehending police officer they could only be dealt
 with in court. Thus, the aim of the research team was to include in
 the experiment "middle-range" offenses, neither so trivial that they
 would normally be dealt with by a simple caution or warning, nor so
 serious that police would be reluctant to bypass the court system in
 favor of an experimental alternative. Additional eligibility
 requirements for drunk-driving cases were: (a) the offender's blood
 alcohol content (BAC) was over .08 at the time of the incident, (b)
 the offense didn't involve an accident, (c) the offender was not a
 police officer, and (d) the offender was eligible for VATAC (Voluntary
 Agreement to Attend Court). Eligible offenders for juvenile personal
 property and juvenile property security offenses had to be under 18
 years old and violent crime offenders had to be under 30 years
 old. Cases were sent to RISE from officers throughout the Australian
 Federal Police (AFP) in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT)
 region. This included uniformed patrol officers from each of the four
 Canberra police stations and its special "City Beat" office in the
 center of the city, and also from the Traffic Division and the Crime
 Branch. Just prior to the commencement of data collection, almost
 every constable and sergeant in the region underwent a day-long
 information and training session with RISE staff and was provided with
 guidance on case eligibility and the procedure for referring matters
 into RISE. When police officers had a matter that they believed was
 RISE-eligible, they called a 24-hour mobile phone number that was
 permanently in the custody of one member of the research
 team. Officers were then asked a series of ten screening questions to
 verify the eligibility of the case. Once case details were entered
 into a log, an envelope containing the random assignment (court or
 conference) was opened and the officer was informed of the recommended
 disposition immediately. After being informed of the randomly assigned
 treatment (court or conference) for each case by the RISE staffer, the
 apprehending officer then processed the case accordingly. Victim data
 were limited to the juvenile personal property and youth violence
 experiments. No drunk-driving offenses included direct victims, so
 consequently there were no drunk-driving data on victims. Files were
 created consisting of data from reports by police officers (Part 1),
 data from observations by trained RISE research staff of court and
 conference treatments to which offenders had been randomly assigned
 (Parts 2-5), and data from interviews with offenders by trained RISE
 interview staff after the court or conference proceedings (Parts 6 and
7).
description: Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists
 of data from reports by police officers. These data include
 information on the offender's attitude, the police station and
 officer, that referred the case, blood alcohol content level (drunk
 driving only), offense type, and RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5
 are data from observations by trained RISE research staff of court and
 conference treatments to which offenders had been randomly
 assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5 include duration of the court or
 conference, if there was any violence or threat of violence in court
 or conference, supports that the offender and victim had, how much
 reintegrative shaming was expressed, the extent to which the offender
 accepted guilt, if and in what form the offender apologized (e.g.,
 verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how defiant or sullen the offender was,
 how much the offender contributed to the outcome, what the outcome was
 (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment, fine, community service, bail release,
 driving license, cancelled counseling program), and what the outcome
 reflected (punishment, repaying community, repaying victims,
 preventing future offense, restoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, were
 taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE interview staff
 after the court or conference proceedings. Variables for Parts 6 and 7
 include how much the court or conference respected the respondent's
 rights, how much influence the respondent had over the agreement, the
 outcome that the respondent received, if the court or conference
 solved any problems, if police explained that the respondent had the
 right to refuse the court or conference, if the respondent was
 consulted about whom to invite to court or conference, how the
 respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for the
 justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or
 conference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent
 was about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent
 felt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment
 would be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the
 court or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if
 the respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the
 respondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if
 the court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if
 the respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the
 respondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income,
 how police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent
 regretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what
 he/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of
 what the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or
 alcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection
 include offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income,
and employment.
description: Response Rates: The findings from court and conference
 observations (Parts 2-5) are based upon the completion of at least one
 independent observation report for 86 percent of drunk-driving
 offenders, 66 percent of juvenile personal property offenders, 75
 percent of juvenile property security offenders, and 68 percent of
 youth violent crime offenders. The findings from offender interviews
 (Parts 6 and 7) are based upon completion rates of 85 percent for
 drunk-driving offenders, 76 percent of juvenile personal property
 offenders, 73 percent of juvenile property security offenders, and 72
percent of youth violent crime offenders.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Random sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Administrative Data for All Cases
DS2: Observations of Court Cases
DS3: Case-Based Observations of Non-Drunk-Driving Conferences
DS4: Offender-Based Observations of Non-Drunk-Driving Conferences
DS5: Observations of Drunk-Driving Conferences
DS6: Year 0 Survey Data from Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences
DS7: Year 0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences
description: Individuals who committed offenses of drunk driving over
.08 blood alcohol content at any age, juvenile property offending with
personal victims, juvenile shoplifting offenses detected by store
security officers, and youth violent crimes (under age 30) in the
Australian Capital Territory.
description: A user guide, a codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems
Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as
the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the
Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Web site.