Siobhan Lawler is a Principal Research Analyst in the Serious and Organised Crime, Cybercrime and Radicalisation Research Program at the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). Siobhan holds a PhD in Medicine from the University of Sydney and a Bachelor of Psychological Science and Criminology (with Honours) from the University of New South Wales. Prior to joining the AIC, Siobhan held research positions at the Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use (University of Sydney) and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (UNSW). Her research areas of interest include violence prevention, radicalisation, sentencing and restorative justice.
Presentation
Evaluation of the ACT Restorative Justice Scheme for family and domestic violence and sexual violence offences
Dr Siobhan Lawler1, Dr Hayley Boxall2, Dr Christopher Dowling1
1Australian Institute Of Criminology, Barton, Australia, 2Australian National University, Action, Australia
Background: Research evaluating restorative justice programs for domestic and family violence (DFV) and sexual violence is limited in Australia and internationally. In 2019 the AIC was commissioned to evaluate the Phase Three of the ACT’s Restorative Justice Scheme (RJS) for DFV and sexual violence offences.
Purpose: The evaluation examined the activities and key outputs delivered as part of the Phase Three, barriers to delivery, and any outcomes associated with participation, including recidivism.
Method: Qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied including interviews with participants (n = 16) and stakeholders (n = 47), analysis of post-conference participant surveys (n = 28), and analysis of administrative data from the RJS, ACT Policing and ACT Corrections.
Results: The evaluation demonstrated Phase Three is working effectively overall. Participants and stakeholders report high levels of satisfaction with the Scheme and the service they received. Victims-survivors reported a range of benefits across different cases with varying levels of offender participation and accountability. Adult offenders who participated in Phase Three had a lower rate of DFV and sexual violence reoffending compared to a matched control comparison group, however there was no impact on recidivism for young people referred into Phase Three. Some areas for improving referrals were identified.
Conclusion: Phase Three provides an important mechanism for victims-survivors to seek redress in the aftermath of DFV and sexual violence victimisation, and for offenders to address the factors associated with their offending.