The goals of the research were to identify which elements of restorative justice are most effective at reducing crime and to provide recommendations for mainstreaming restorative justice schemes. Research took place between July 1999 and November 2000, with fieldwork commencing in December 1999. Fieldwork involved the collection of descriptive information about seven restorative justice schemes, including their status, history, philosophy, policies, and practices. Also collected and analyzed was information about the practical operation of the schemes, evidence concerning the impact of the schemes and their effects on reconviction rates, and data relevant to determining the cost-effectiveness of the schemes. Furthermore, interviews were conducted with 23 victims, 43 offenders, and small numbers of staff members and volunteers to gain an understanding of how restorative justice impacts these groups. Findings indicated that there was considerable variation in the nature of the schemes’ work with victims and offenders. For example, scheme activities ranged from full-scale family group conferences and face-to-face meetings between victims and offenders to general victim awareness workshops and initiatives involving offenders writing apology letters to their victims. The findings from the victim and offender interviews suggested that victims tended to be well disposed towards the goals of restorative justice, victims tended to decide within 1 or 2 days whether they wished to participate in restorative justice activities, and of the victims who participated, most reported satisfaction with the system and the outcome. Of the offenders, most welcomed the opportunity to meet and apologize to their victims; most reported positive results from mediation sessions with their victims; and most had positive attitudes about other restorative justice intervention in which they were involved. General conclusions of the research indicated that the seven restorative justice schemes under examination had divergent understandings of the notion of restorative justice; differences in the degree of focus on victims and offenders; and differences in their restorative justice interventions. Of concern was the finding that the schemes were vulnerable to funding cuts and were dependent on the work beyond the call of duty of a small number of committed individuals. The authors suggested that the schemes would benefit from a systematic definition of goals, criteria, and interventions. Tables, appendices