A Review of U.S. Restorative Justice Legislation Addressing Domestic Violence: Illuminating Gaps between Policy, Research, and Practice

Background: Domestic violence (DV), including intimate partner violence (IPV), continues to be an urgent and pervasive public health crisis in the United States (U.S.) despite decades of federal funding allocations, policy advocacy, and service programs tied to the criminal legal system. While restorative practices (RP) have been codified in the U.S. since the 1970s, only recently have RP for DV gained prominence at the federal and state levels. Given unprecedented federal investment through the 2022 Violence Against Women Act reauthorization in RP for DV, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, it is critical to understand the policy contexts in which programs are implemented. Building upon Sliva and Lambert’s (2015) review of restorative justice policies in the U.S., the present study examines the DV-RP state-level legislative landscape.

Method: We apply critical feminist theory to identify how power and control, intersectionality, and structural violence are reproduced or countered in the framing of DV, agency, safety, and healing. The National Center on Restorative Justice database on state criminal and juvenile codes, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, was analyzed alongside corresponding testimony through content analysis and stakeholder analysis of key proponents and opponents of these codes to understand how DV-RP is translated into law. Data was coded for level of support (ideological support, active support, structured support), point of implementation (diversionary, intermediate sanction, post-sentencing, non-system), special contexts (juvenile, community-based, school-based), and other defining features. To achieve interrater reliability, two researchers coded each statue and testimony document, and discrepancies were discussed with the research team to reach consensus.

Results: As of 2024, there are 374 RP laws in the U.S. across 46 state, including the District of Columbia. However, of this, only 6 states specifically address DV including IPV(Alaska, New York, and Vermont allow RP for DV; Minnesota may allow RP for DV; Colorado and North Carolina prohibit RP for DV), with legislation indicating a wide range from general support to structured use of RP for DV. Preliminary stakeholder analysis reveals contentious and divergent viewpoints, including tensions between survivor agency and institutional control, differing views on safety and accountability, and structural awareness. For example, testimony on LB 595 highlighted that 95% of DV cases involving mediators and restorative justice were strictly youth-based, aimed at supporting their rehabilitation. However, in requiring court-ordered participation rather than allowing juveniles to be referred voluntarily, key aspects of the restorative approach were undermined.

Conclusions and Implications: Attention to policy is critical as it oftentimes reflects structural power imbalances and influence, which may be difficult to uncover through other methods. Despite an unprecedented federal investment, our study reveals a contentious landscape for implementation and research, with wide-ranging conceptualizations of power, safety, and healing. Implications for practitioners, policy makers, and scholars are proposed.