Restorative justice conferencing
Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023. Literature review updated February 2017.
Restorative justice conferences are face-to-face meetings, typically between the victim and the convicted individual, facilitated by a professionally trained mediator. The purpose of conferences is to discuss the harm done and to come to an agreement between all parties about reparations. Conferences may also include other supporting persons or community members to resolve the harm done by the convicted individual. Conferences can take place during incarceration, before sentencing following a guilty plea, as a diversion program, or during re-entry. This intervention is brief, typically one or two conferences that last an hour or two.
ALL |
BENEFIT-COST | META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant |
|
|
Taxpayers |
$1,020 |
|
Benefits minus costs |
$1,371 |
|
|
Participants |
$0 |
|
Benefit to cost ratio |
$2.05 |
|
|
Others |
$1,800 |
|
Chance the program will produce |
|
|
|
Indirect |
($143) |
|
benefits greater than the costs |
57% |
|
|
Total benefits |
$2,677 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net program cost |
($1,307) |
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits minus cost |
$1,371 |
|
|
|
|
|
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.
2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.
3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant |
|
|
Taxpayers |
Participants |
Others2 |
Indirect3 |
Total
|
|
Crime |
Criminal justice system |
$1,020 |
$0 |
$1,800 |
$510 |
$3,331 |
|
Program cost |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
($653) |
($653) |
|
|
|
Totals |
|
$1,020 |
$0 |
$1,800 |
($143) |
$2,677 |
|
Click here to see populations selected
Click here to hide populations selected
Populations - Primary |
Crime |
Adults under DOC community supervision – low risk Adults sentenced directly to Department of Corrections community supervision for a criminal offense who were classified as low risk for recidivism as measured on a risk assessment instrument |
Earnings |
Previous criminal justice involvement All individuals with a previous arrest and booking |
For more information on populations see the
Technical Documentation
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant |
Program costs |
$1,078 |
2013 |
Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) |
($1,307) |
Comparison costs |
$0 |
2013 |
Cost range (+ or -) |
10% |
Per-participant cost from the Dispute Resolution Center of Thurston County: 2013 Annual Report. Olympia, WA.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs |
Benefits by Perspective |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value |
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment. |
Benefits by Perspective Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
The graph above illustrates the breakdown of the estimated cumulative benefits (not including program costs) per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. These cash flows provide a breakdown of the classification of dollars over time into four perspectives: taxpayer, participant, others, and indirect. “Taxpayers” includes expected savings to government and expected increases in tax revenue. “Participants” includes expected increases in earnings and expenditures for items such as health care and college tuition. “Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance. “Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the changes in the value of a statistical life and changes in the deadweight costs of taxation. If a section of the bar is below the $0 line, the program is creating a negative benefit, meaning a loss of value from that perspective. |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., . . . Sorsby, A. (2008,). Does restorative justice affect reconviction: The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes (Ministry of Justice Research Series). Sheffield, United Kingdom: University of Sheffield, Centre for Criminological Research.