Multivariate analyses indicated that juveniles referred to the restorative justice program did better than those referred to traditional juvenile court processing on each outcome measure (prevalence, number, and seriousness of reoffenses, as well as time to first reoffense) for as long as 3 years. Multivariate regression analyses also identified a consistent group of relevant variables that predicted outcome success, regardless of the outcome measure used. Residence in the small city within a generally rural county was significantly related to poorer outcomes among groups with shorter followup periods and was marginally related in some groups that had been followed for longer periods. The number of prior official contacts was also a consistent predictor of significantly poorer outcomes for all followup periods. Direct victim-offender dialog/conference was the most common type of restorative justice intervention. When some form of intervention was deemed appropriate, the intervention led to an agreement being reached in 100 percent of the cases. When an agreement was reached, it was completed as intended in 93 percent of the cases. The results presented for this study included all individuals referred to the restorative justice facilitator, even though they might not have received intensive restorative justice programming. The treatment group included all 213 youth referred to restorative justice programming during calendar years 2000 to 2003. A comparison sample (n=215) was developed by selecting youth referred to traditional court processing (usually resulting in probation) during the same time period for offenses that were largely similar to those committed by the youth in the treatment group. 6 tables, 1 figure, and 36 references