Vol. 13 No. 10 (October 2003)

YOUTH OFFENDING AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, by Adam Crawford and Tim Newburn. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services, 2003. 264 pp. Cloth $59.95. ISBN: 1-84392-012-3.

Reviewed by Andrew L. Giacomazzi, Department of Criminal Justice Administration, Boise State University.

Program and policy evaluation has long given short shrift to potentially rich, detailed study of process and implementation, succumbing rather to the temptation of focusing on outcomes. While outcome evaluations in their various forms provide some sense of whether a program or policy is meeting its intended objectives, evaluations focusing solely on outcomes ignore two important points. First, they ignore the fact that programs as administered may differ substantially from the program “as conceived.” This point leads to the second important issue: without knowing precisely what the program entails, one is left wondering what, exactly, leads to the discovered outcomes.

Adam Crawford and Tim Newburn’s recent book, YOUTH OFFENDING AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: IMPLEMENTING REFORM IN YOUTH JUSTICE, is an impressive account of the changing nature of juvenile justice philosophy and policy in England and Wales. It represents a rather large-scale implementation and outcome study of referral orders and youth offender panels piloted at 11 sites prior to the national roll-out of the 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA), which occurred in 2002. The YJCEA dramatically changed the philosophy of a youth justice system in England and Wales from one that was decidedly punitive in nature. The change sought to introduce elements of restorative justice to the system.

The philosophy of restorative justice has been receiving wide attention over the last several years. In a nutshell, restorative justice views crime as producing harm, which must be repaired. It seeks to provide a balance among the needs of the victim, offender and community, each of which is involved in an active way in the justice process (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1999). At the heart of restorative justice are sanctioning practices that include such activities as victim-offender mediation, community decision-making, restorative community service, restitution, and victim and community impact statements (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1999). These activities promote accountability, competency and public safety in non-traditional ways. For example, questions regarding who did it, what law was broken, and what punishment should be imposed are replaced in the restorative model with questions such as, what harm has resulted from the crime, how can harm be repaired, and who is responsible for the repair (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1999; Zehr, 1990).

Within the context of gaining popularity of restorative justice as a movement in the United States and abroad, Crawford and Newman embark on a study of the youth justice system in England and Wales by examining the philosophy and practice of restorative justice. Chapters 1 through 3 essentially set-up Chapter 4’s consideration of referral orders and youth offender panels— the crux of restorative justice under the YJCEA (1999). These first three chapters are important in a number of ways. First, they provide the context under which New Labour began to introduce restorative justice initiatives. Second, they provide a review of youth justice practice and philosophy in England and Wales from an historical perspective. And third, they review the restorative justice paradigm, delineating available research evidence and raising debates about the values that underlie the concept and its ability to fit within an existing youth justice system.

Main findings from the 11 pilots in the subsequent empirical chapters include the following. Court magistrates and clerks held positive views of referral orders, welcomed the emphasis on restorative justice and broader community involvement, and believed the approach improved the working relationship between Youth Offender Teams and the court. Youth Offender Panels (YOPs) appeared to be an appropriate forum to discuss youth offenses and remedies for repairing harm to the victim and/or community. In addition, inclusion of a victim on the panel appeared to shift the mood of the team toward more empathy for the offender. However, the focus of the contracts produced by most YOPs was on community, rather than victim reparation, due in part to problems in engaging victims of crime. The research also suggested that there was considerable support among community members regarding their participation in the YOP, although there were some problems in implementation, including the lack of reparation programs. Additionally, most offenders and their parents held positive views of the referral order, corresponding YOP, and elements of the subsequent contract. They believed that they were treated fairly and appreciated their voice in the process. Finally, victims who attended panel meetings with offenders exhibited high levels of satisfaction; however, across most of the pilot sites, low levels of victim participation prevailed.

Chapter 12 is an excellent summary and discussion of findings, focusing on the broader implications of the study as it relates to restorative justice generally and to the national roll-out of the initiative in England and Wales specifically. For the most part, this chapter raises important, unresolved questions about implementation of the restorative justice paradigm. For example, if victim reparation is a driving force, how and to what extent can victims be encouraged to participate in a system that historically has been offender centered? To what extent should referral orders be mandatory? How costly is the implementation of restorative justice? Of course, Crawford and Newburn do not purport to answer these questions, but rather raise them to guide future research agendas.

One finding that perhaps deserved greater attention by Crawford and Newburn concerns the mandatory nature of the referral order for first-time offenders and Court magistrates’ consequent lack of discretion. Magistrates felt some frustration by the restrictions on discretion, which might ultimately lead to a widening of the system’s net for those youth who simply may not need additional court intervention. This issue may surface in future evaluations regarding the costs and benefits of the YJCEA (1999).

In addition, an important positive finding was noted in Chapter 9 regarding the relations between community panel members and Youth Offender Team staff, comprised mainly of system personnel. Across all 11 pilots, these two groups worked well together and eventually gained mutual respect. This finding has far reaching implications regarding the potential for community members and formal justice system personnel to partner in the co-production of order, not only within the context of restorative justice, but also in other contemporary endeavors, such as community policing. For those interested in an insightful exploration of the complexities accompanying involvement of lay persons in functions once solely reserved to justice officials, I highly recommend a close reading of Chapter 5, which delves into the world of recruiting, training, and reasons for becoming a community volunteer.

One bit of fair warning to the reader with only passing familiarity with policies, laws, programs, and justice agencies in England and Wales—this book is chock full of acronyms, the longer forms of which are referred to only in the early chapters. If you are like me, you will have to search earlier chapters or the index for references to the short forms that appear in subsequent chapters. At times, this search is frustrating.

YOUTH OFFENDING AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE would make for an excellent supplemental text in a graduate course in juvenile justice. Its thorough review of restorative justice and its application in England and Wales will provide the student with a contemporary approach to juvenile justice from which to compare more traditional practices, and it will likely lead to fruitful class discussions. I also would recommend this book as a supplemental text for graduate level research methods courses that spend time covering program and policy evaluation. The authors provide numerous examples of the multiple methods that can be used to monitor programs and evaluate outcomes, along with discussions concerning the administrative and political complexities of conducting multi-site assessment. In addition, instructors have a classic example of the misuse of the term “impact evaluation.”

Beyond the academic audience, YOUTH OFFENDING AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is a necessary read for juvenile justice officials and other key-stakeholders contemplating a launch of restorative justice principles within their jurisdictions. The journey on which Crawford and Newburn take the reader undoubtedly will provide great insight into the complications, frustrations, and successes that can come from implementing a restorative justice model.

Crawford and Newburn should be applauded for their efforts. Their sound research methodology and rich description and analysis of referral orders and youth offender panels make an excellent contribution to the literature on restorative justice both in the United States and abroad. Ironically, although I began this review by emphasizing the need for more implementation studies, I now find myself wanting to know more about the effects of such a dramatic change to youth justice beyond attitudinal research—in a word, does it prevent future deviant acts? With the research on restorative justice still in its infancy, I am left wondering whether the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act were too hasty, too premature. Perhaps Crawford and Newburn will collaborate once again to continue the story.

REFERENCES:

Bazemore, Gordon and Mark Umbreit. 1999. CONFERENCES, CIRCLES, BOARDS, AND MEDIATIONS: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE RESPONSE TO YOUTH CRIME. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department of Justice.

Zehr, Howard. 1990. CHANGING LENSES: A NEW FOCUS FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.

************************************************************************
Copyright 2003 by the author, Andrew L. Giacomazzi.