Using Restorative Justice Principles to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Violence: A Qualitative Study to Understand Global Practices

Background and Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) is a prevalent social issue that leads to wide-ranging detrimental outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. As first-time experiences with and use of SV often occur during adolescence, it is critical to identify ways to successfully prevent and respond to SV among young people. Adapting restorative justice (RJ) practices into SV prevention and response strategies represents one under-researched, though indicated, avenue for addressing and preventing SV. As such, this study sought to describe and analyze how programs and service systems around the world develop, implement, and evaluate RJ-informed responses and prevention strategies to address SV; and translate study findings to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of a restorative conferencing program to address SV among middle school-aged youth.

Methods: We conducted 24 in-depth, virtual, semi-structured interviews with a mix of practitioners (e.g., social service providers, legal system representatives) and researchers from six countries. Using purposive sampling methods, each study participant was recruited because of their involvement in planning, developing, implementing, and/or evaluating a restorative response to SV or a restorative response designed for youth to address any type of harm. Interviews gathered information on RJ-informed programs offered by the interviewee’s current organization, recommendations for offering such programs, challenges faced, and how RJ might be used for SV prevention. Guided by grounded theory, two coders reviewed all verbatim interview transcripts to develop an initial codebook that captured emergent themes. This codebook was then reviewed, discussed, and iteratively expanded by our team based on the data. Using NVivo version 13, at least two coders coded 7 (29.2%) of the interviews until reaching consensus before a single coder coded the remainder of the interviews.

Results: An array of themes emerged about implementing RJ-informed programs to address SV and RJ programs for youth generally. Most interviewees reported on how to offer such programs, including details on participant referrals, screening, and preparation, as well as outcomes expected (e.g., closure, reduced recidivism). Most participants also described recommendations for RJ programs to address SV or factors that may aid a program’s success (e.g., specialized training, funding) and key challenges faced by RJ programs (e.g., obtaining consent, data-sharing). Many interviewees highlighted that differences exist in public, professional, and partner understandings of RJ, which can lead to challenges in building partnerships, securing funding, and recruiting participants. Many also discussed safety concerns that might arise and ways they address these concerns (e.g., ongoing risk assessment, participant preparation). Several interviewees discussed the potential utility of infusing RJ into SV prevention efforts, particularly with young people.

Conclusion and Implications: Findings highlight that RJ-informed services and programs, though complex and resource-intensive, offer a potentially promising strategy for addressing SV when approached with participant safety at the fore. Interviewees offered a wealth of guidance grounded in both research and practice that will help inform local, national, and international RJ-inspired efforts to intervene with SV, including those for youth. Study findings support continued investigation of how RJ practices can inform SV intervention and prevention efforts.