Protocols for Evaluating Restorative Justice Programmes

AuthorPaul McCold
Pages9-28
Protocols for Evaluating Restorative Justice Programmes
9
PROTOCOLS FOR EVALUATING
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
PROGRAMMES
Paul McCold, Director of Research at the International Institute for
Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
This article provides a review and critique of the current research findings about
restorative justice. It is suggested that some of the positive findings are not due to
programme efficacy, but rather to well-known threats to validity. The effect of case
attrition on selection bias is considered in light of the voluntary nature of many
restorative justice programs. Standardization of program measures is urged with specific
research protocols presented and described. Protocols for measuring participant
perceptions are compared. Before scientifically valid statements can be made about best
practices, much more rigorous research needs to be conducted. If the results of multiple
program evaluations are going to contribute to accumulated understanding of the practice,
measures across programs must be standardized. A research agenda is described that would
eventually allow for empirically fitting the forum to the fuss and establishing best practice
standards across models. Six programme level and six case level measures are proposed as
the minimum required for basic program comparisons to be meaningful.
Key words: case attrition, selection bias, research protocols, restorative justice,
program evaluation, threats to validity
Public policy responses to crime should not be based upon the enthusiasm or popularity of
programme advocates. The long history of failed criminal justice reform efforts justifies a
healthy skepticism. If a justice programme is effective, it should be possible to scientifically
measure and convincingly demonstrate these effects. If programme advocates cannot
objectively demonstrate the merits of an intervention programme using sound empirical
measures, they, too, deserve a large measure of skepticism. Confidence in a given
programme’s effectiveness becomes appropriate only when positive results are convincingly
demonstrated. Confidence in a type or model of practice is justified only after positive
results have been replicated in a number similar programmes. There have been nearly 100

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT