Program Profile: Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments

This is a restorative justice program that uses conferencing to repair the harm. The program is rated Promising. Participants had a statistically significant lower likelihood of committing violent offenses, and a greater likelihood of reporting a belief in the law, negative attitude toward reoffending, and greater effort to not drive drunk, compared with the control group. There were mixed findings in the rate of drunk driving, and no difference in property crimes, shoplifting, or recidivism.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Canberra, Australia, were designed to measure the impact of “restorative policing” on both victims and the person who committed the offenses’ perceptions of justice, as well as overall satisfaction following the conference. The experiments also investigated the impact of restorative justice diversionary practices, particularly those that used the Wagga Wagga conference model, on repeat offending. The ultimate goal of the conference is to repair the harm caused by the offense by bringing together the person who committed the offense, victim, and members of the community in a way that allows convicted persons to reintegrate into the community, and victims to return to their normal routines without fear of further victimization.

Program Theory

Restorative justice places both the victim and the person who committed the offense at the center of the framework, allowing the victim to express the harm caused, while allowing the person who committed the offense to take responsibility for his or her actions and make amends for the future. It is believed that a conference, which brings together the person who committed the offense, victim, and supportive individuals for both parties, is a less stigmatizing environment for person who committed the offense. Some scholars believe that conventional criminal justice process stigmatizes the person who committed the offense as an “other,” excluding him or her and hindering the reintegration process. Therefore, it is believed that the reintegrative shaming process used in restorative justice conferences could have a far greater impact on the reoffending rate, as it expresses disapproval of their actions, yet offers support and belief in the individual for the future (Braithwaite 1989). Likewise, victims will have a more positive perception of justice and less fear of re-victimization by participating in restorative justice conferences, as they are able to have a voice in the process (Braithwaite and Mugford 1994). 

Program Components

The RISE experiments were conducted to test the impact of reintegrative shaming conferences used in restorative justice. Diversionary conferencing, particularly the Wagga Wagga model investigated in the RISE experiments, typically lasts 1–2 hours. During this time the person who committed the offense, victim, and supportive individuals for both parties discuss the crime, its impact, and reach an agreement on how the individual can make amends for the future. The Wagga Wagga model is different than other diversionary conferences in that the conference coordinator and facilitator is a police officer, and the conference is held at a police station; other diversionary conferences are held by non-police coordinators and facilitators at various other locations. In contrast to other restorative justice models, the Wagga Wagga conference model also used a great deal of reintegrative shaming.

The RISE experiments included those who had committed four types of offenses: drinking and driving, juvenile property offenses, juvenile shoplifting offenses, and youth violent offenses. The aim of the project was to include “middle range” offenses, neither so trivial that they would normally be dealt with by a simple caution or warning, nor so serious that the police would be reluctant to bypass the court system in favor of an experimental alternative (serious, sexual, and domestic violence offenses were excluded).

Study 1

Sherman, Strang, and Woods (2000) investigated the recidivism behavior of individuals involved in diversionary restorative justice conferences. The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) randomly assigned cases, rather than person who committed the offense, to either the treatment condition (conference) or to conventional court processing. A “case” was defined as all of the individuals who were apprehended together for the same criminal offense. Both males and females were included in the study, with an age range of 15–29. RISE took place between 1995 and 2000 in Canberra, Australia. New cases were accepted until July 1, 2000.

In this study, four offenses were analyzed: drinking and driving, juvenile property offenses, juvenile shoplifting offenses, and youth violent offenses.

• Drinking and driving was defined as having blood alcohol content over .08. The drinking and driving subset consisted of 900 cases, with 900 individuals (450 for court processing and 450 for diversionary conferencing).
• Juvenile property offenses was defined as offending with personal victims committed by persons under the age of 18, and included offenses such as theft, burglary, auto crime, or criminal damage. The juvenile property offending-personal victims subset included 162 cases, with 238 individuals (114 for court processing and 124 for diversionary conferencing).
• Juvenile shoplifting offenses were offenses committed by individuals under the age of 18 and were detected by security staff. The juvenile shoplifting offenses subset consisted of 108 cases, with 135 individuals (62 for court processing and 73 for diversionary conferencing).
• Youth violent offenses were offenses committed by individuals under the age of 30, and included offenses such as common assault or aggravated assault. The youth violence subset sample included 89 cases, with 110 individuals (52 for court processing and 58 for diversionary conferencing).

Repeat offending was calculated using criminal history data from the Australian Federal Police. This data includes the criminal trajectories of all individuals in each of the four offense categories. Most, but not all, offense categories included at least a 1-year follow-up period. The analysis examined before–after differences in offending rates between the treatment and comparison groups. One limitation of the experiment is that it did not control for the person who committed the crime and victim differences within the offense categories. Therefore, preexisting differences could have impacted any similarities or differences both within offense categories, as well as between the control and experimental conditions. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Study 2

Tyler and colleagues (2007) also used data from the RISE experiments to analyze the impact of restorative justice conferencing, specifically the reintegrative shaming aspect of the Wagga Wagga conference model, on recidivism and measures of support for the law. However, Tyler and colleagues only used data from the drinking and driving portion of the earlier study in their analysis. In this study, all participants were arrested between July 1995 and December 1997, with the majority of individuals arrested as a result of police conducting random breathalyzer tests in Canberra, Australia. A randomized design was used, with individuals randomly assigned to the restorative justice conference or traditional court processing (the control).

The impact of the restorative justice conferencing was analyzed using three different methods: an interview with them shortly following the conference or court processing regarding their experience; a follow-up interview with them two years after the conference or court processing regarding their experience; and the analysis of police records four years prior and four years following the conference or court processing.

Of the 900 individuals included in this study, 730 were interviewed shortly after the conference or court processing, with 377 individuals from the treatment condition and 353 from the control condition. Two years later, 620 individuals were interviewed regarding their experience, which included 313 individuals from the treatment condition and 307 from the control condition. Finally, police records included criminal activity for all 900 individuals four years prior and four years following the conference or court processing.

The first interview was conducted to investigate their experience in the conference or court processing. In this interview, they were asked to make judgments on the fairness of the conference or court processing, the fairness of police treatment, and the legitimacy of the legal system. The second interview, conducted two years after the conference or court processing, investigated their law-related attitudes. These interviews focused on their belief in the legitimacy of the law and the obligation they felt to obey the law, as well as the problems they believed breaking the law would create for their family or community. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

A Wagga Wagga restorative justice conference requires participation from a police officer to function as a conference coordinator. There also needs to be a willingness from the offender and victim to participate in the conference, as well as the presence of supportive individuals for both the offender and victim at the conference. Forced participation from either party would not be appropriate, as the person who committed the offense has to enter into an agreement that he or she will attempt to make amends for the offense. Similarly, the victim must be open to listening to the person who committed the offense and allow him or her to attempt to make amends for the crime (Sherman, Strang, and Woods 2000).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Juvenile Diversion Programs

An intervention strategy that redirects youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism rates of juveniles who participated in diversion programming compared with juveniles who were formally processed in the justice system.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Restorative Justice Programs for Juveniles

Restorative justice programs aim to repair the harm to the victim, decrease recidivism, and improve perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with the process. The practice is rated Promising for reducing juveniles’ recidivism rates, increasing victims’ perceptions of fairness, and increasing juveniles’ completion of restitution and reparation. It is rated No Effects for juveniles’ recognition of wrongdoing or remorse, and satisfaction of the victim or young person committing the offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Victims’ perceptions of fairness
	Justice Systems or Processes - Compliance with restitution/fines/payments
	Justice Systems or Processes - Reparations by offending individual
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Offender satisfaction
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Victim satisfaction
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Remorse
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Recognition of wrongdoing

Police-Initiated Diversion for Youth to Prevent Future Delinquent Behavior

This practice includes pre-court interventions or strategies that police can apply as an alternative to court processing or the imposition of formal charges against low-risk youth. This approach is designed to reduce reoffending by minimizing youth contact with the criminal justice system and divert youth toward services that address their psychosocial development and other needs that contribute to their at-risk behavior. The practice is rated Effective for reducing future delinquent behavior.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?