Mediation and Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice is based on the core belief that “all human beings are worthy and interconnected” (Evans & Vaandering, 2022, p. 10). Restorative practices focus on bringing together individuals who have caused harm and those harmed, as well as members of the parties’ community to find ways to heal harms caused, strengthen relationships, and retain or restore the individual who caused harm in their community. Restorative practices can serve as both prevention and intervention.

Mediation is a restorative practice used in schools and the juvenile justice system and is a form of conflict resolution in which trained leaders help the victim(s) and offender work together to resolve disputes. Mediators do not make judgements or offer advice, and they have no power to force decisions. Victims are able to have input into an offender’s sentence. Includes victim impact statements, defining the restitution owed, or other forms of affecting resolution of a juvenile justice case. Other stakeholders may participate in the process as well.

Evaluating Mediation Programs

As part of our yearly evaluations for Community-based Juvenile Services Aid funded programs in fiscal year 2025, the JJI, in partnership with the NCC, developed evaluation matrices to categorize important outcomes for each program type evaluated. The following categories describe the important program outcome indicators for mediation programs. These categories can be used to assess the standing of a program in terms of whether it is successfully applying best practices and meeting expectations or common goals for such programs.

Click here for the Mediation Program Evaluation Matrix PDF

Evaluation framework

Any program assessment must start by reviewing what data is available on processes and outcomes. Incomplete data or small sample sizes (i.e. few client cases) increase the risk of error in analysis. Shreffler and Huecker (2023) describe what Type I and II errors are – with high risks for error we might fail to identify a positive impact that’s occurring or falsely state the program was effective when it wasn’t. Small sample sizes run the risk of an outlier (one or two cases with unique, or very low/high values in an outcome) skewing the results.

A major goal of the Community-based Juvenile Services Aid (CBA) and Juveniles Services Commission Grant (JS) funding is to provide community-based services for juveniles who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and prevent youth from moving deeper into the system. All CBA/JS funded programs are evaluated on how effective they are at preventing future system involvement (FSI) after youth are discharged from the program. FSI is evaluated in two ways – 1) comparing FSI between successful cases and unsuccessful cases and 2) overall FSI for all youth served. Evaluating these metrics gives a program the overall picture of FSI for the youth they come into contact with and helps programs more deeply understand how successful completion or discharge from their program impacts FSI of youth.

The “total possible points” will include all categories with enough data to evaluate. If a specific category cannot be evaluated due to missing data or non-applicable categories, these points will not count against the program. Instead, the new total possible points will be calculated based on categories with available data. However, if a program is unable to be evaluated on two or more categories, the evaluation will be considered “inconclusive.”

The following is a brief review of some of the existing literature related to mediation programs to further explain the importance of evaluating mediation program outcomes in rating program effectiveness.

Brief literature review

An effective mediation program should result in high rates of successfully completed agreements. In Johnstone and Van Ness’s (2013) Handbook for Restorative Justice, successfully completing reparation agreements and improving victim satisfaction are proposed as additional positive outcomes for evaluating restorative justice programs. Indeed, Bazemore and Elis argue “The primary goal for any restorative intervention is to repair, to the greatest extent possible, the harm caused to victims, offenders and communities who have been injured by crime. This goal is achieved by focusing attention on the dialogue process in a restorative encounter and on the extent to which the offender (often with the help of others) takes action to make things right” (p. 404).

Sharpe (2013) recommends three ‘optimal’ conditions for creating reparation agreements to increase the likelihood they are successfully completed and have a positive impact on all involved. First, reparation agreements should be tailored to the specific harms done. Tailoring the reparation agreements also increases the likelihood individuals take responsibility for their actions and better understand how they caused harm. Reparation agreements should also be determined by the stakeholders, “primarily the victim, who will live with the outcome, and the offender, who is responsible for the repair, as well as others who might also be affected” (p. 30). Finally, reparations are most successful when offered, and/or readily agreed to, by the individual who caused harm.

In general, restorative justice processes facilitate the optimal conditions for effective reparation, insofar as they involve all interested stakeholders, help victims articulate the full range of harms they have experienced and assist offenders in finding ways to make amends (Sharpe, 2013, p. 32).

Additionally, Bazemore and Elis (2013) recommend not discussing the agreement in the preparation or early stages of mediation so the process does not become too focused on “settlement-driven mediation” but instead focused on supporting victim and offender dialogue (p. 407).

Restorative justice and mediation can effectively reduce reoffending while also producing other beneficial outcomes, such as improve victim satisfaction, greater prosocial involvement from individuals who previously caused harm, and stronger relationships between community members (Kimbrell et al., 2023). Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found support for restorative justice programs’ effectiveness at reducing recidivism and further system involvement (see Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Hayes & Daly, 2003; Kimbrell et al., 2023; Latimer et al., 2005; Strang et al., 2013, Wilson et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2016). From these reviews, a number of key elements of restorative programs have been identified as associated with greater reductions in recidivism. Hayes and Daly (2003) found “youthful offenders who were observed to be remorseful and whose outcomes were reached by consensus were less likely to reoffend” (p. 725) - further emphasizing the importance of a collaborative approach to reparation agreement development. Restorative diversion programs have also been found to significantly reduce recidivism, particularly for low-risk and first-time offenders (Wilson et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2016).

For additional resources or to access articles referenced above, contact the JJI at unojji@unomaha.edu.

Additional Resources

JCMS Guides

JCMS Screen Definitions

JCMS User Guide

*You can find more JCMS training materials and videos on the Trainings & Tools page.

Resources for Restorative Justice & Mediation Programs

There are numerous books, handbooks, and guides available explaining what restorative justice is, how to implement a restorative program, and how to meet the goals of a restorative program. The Handbook of Restorative Justice, edited by Gerry Johnstone and Daniel Van Ness (2013), is particularly useful and multiple chapters were cited above in the JJI’s evaluation guide for mediation programs.

Living Justice Press also publishes a series of “Little Books” covering a wide range of restorative justice topics, including Race and Restorative Justice (Davis, 2019), Youth Engagement in Restorative Justice (Aquino et al., 2021), and Restorative Justice in Education (Evans & Vaandering, 2022).

Local Resources

The Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) “promotes mediation and RJ in the courts and in our families and communities.” The ODR provides resources and guidance for implementing RJ, including parent education, guidance on mediating a parent plan, and assistance finding a mediator. The ODR also approves mediation centers and mediators across the state that can directly help with a variety of issues. There are currently six approved Mediation Centers across Nebraska.