U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Restorative Justice Programs in Australia: A Report to the Criminology Research Council

NCJ Number
188374
Author(s)
Heather Strang
Date Published
March 2001
Length
47 pages
Annotation
This report offers information on Australia’s Restorative Justice Programs focusing on those programs involving meetings of victims, offenders and communities to discuss and resolve an offense.
Abstract
Diversion programs for young people have a long tradition in Australia. Restorative justice programs in Australia are predominantly based on the New Zealand conferencing model, the direct involvement in the resolution of the offense of both the offender and the victim and their families and supporters with the objective of healing the harm caused by the offense. The programs are seen as most suited for dealing with juvenile rather than adult offenders. This is partly due to a desire to try new programs first on less serious offenders. Restorative programs in Australia are primarily justice intervention, as a diversion from court. The report provided program descriptions for the following Australian provinces and territories: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory. Program descriptions included: program characteristics, implementation and administration, evaluation, and publications. The report provides additional information on restorative programs in both the Australian school setting and the care and protection setting. Restorative justice in the school setting dealt with a variety of incidents in the school environment, including assaults, property offenses, truancy, bullying and harassment, and drug offenses. Restorative justice in care and protection settings referred to conferencing type programs based on the principle that families ought to have the main responsibility for making decisions about care arrangements for family members because families were in the best position to make the right choices. Conferencing in care and protection is sometimes known as family group decision-making. There is currently exploration of the application of conferencing in settings beyond police and courts, such as imprisoned and paroled offenders and homeless youth. The report concluded with problems and solutions in devising, implementing, and effective program expansion. Problems and solutions included: program upscaling and case-flow problems, safeguarding rights of offenders, restorative justice and indigenous communities, and resource problems. References