Cited by 96Criminal Justice and PenologyLegal and Social Justice StudiesCrime Patterns and Interventions

Family Group Conferencing and Re‐Offending Among First‐Time Juvenile Offenders: The Indianapolis Experiment

McGarrell, Edmund F., Hipple, Natalie Kroovand·2007·Justice Quarterly

Abstract

Restorative justice processes, and family group conferences in particular, have become increasingly common in justice system practices across the globe. There has also been significant scholarly interest. Yet, with several notable exceptions, much of the research has been characterized by relatively weak designs, and questions related to the impact of family group conferences on re‐offending remain unanswered. This research is intended to begin to address these issues. The study is based on an experiment conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana whereby young, first‐time‐offending youths were randomly assigned to either a family group conference or one of a number of court‐ordered diversion programs. Nearly 800 youths participated in the experiment, and the cases were tracked for 24 months following their initial arrest. Survival analysis techniques were used to compare prevalence patterns of re‐offending among the treatment and control groups. The results indicated a significant difference between the two groups with the control group experiencing higher rates of failure (re‐offending). The differences were most pronounced during the period of 3–8 months following the initial arrest. Incidence rates were also compared. Assignment to the treatment group was negatively related to incidence of offending. Given the consistent finding of victim benefits in restorative justice processes, the results suggest that conferences hold promise as an effective intervention, at least for young first‐time offenders, and warrant continued experimentation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07418820701294789

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • McGarrell (2001) and McGarrell and Hipple (2007) evaluate a randomized controlled trial of a restorative justice program in Indiana focused on children and find meaningful decreases in recidivism within one year relative to a control group allocated to another diversion program.

    “McGarrell (2001) and McGarrell and Hipple (2007) evaluate an RCT of a restorative justice program in Indiana focused on children (the average age is 12.5).They find meaningful decreases in recidivism within one year relative to a control group allocated to another diversion program.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGarrell, E. F., & Hipple, N. K.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
McGarrell, Edmund F.
Venue
Justice Quarterly
Published
2007-06
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
221-246
ISSN
  • 0741-8825 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9109
OpenAlex
W2075962426
Cited by
96
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
38.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Justice Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Funders
Stichting Diabetes Onderzoek Nederland
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
family group conferences, restorative justice, recidivism, juvenile justice intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review