Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21)

Background
Restorative justice is “a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Marshall 2003). Despite the increasing use of restorative justice programmes as an alternative to court proceedings, no systematic review has been undertaken of the available evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes with young offenders. Recidivism in young offenders is a particularly worrying problem, as recent surveys have indicated
the frequency of re-offences for young offenders has ranged from 40.2% in 2000 to 37.8% in 2007 (Ministry of Justice 2009)

Objectives
To evaluate the effects of restorative justice conferencing programmes for reducing recidivism in young offenders.

Search methods
We searched the following databases up to May 2012: CENTRAL, 2012 Issue 5, MEDLINE (1978 to current), Bibliography of Nordic Criminology (1999 to current), Index to Theses (1716 to current), PsycINFO (1887 to current), Social Sciences Citation Index (1970 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current), Social Care Online (1985 to current), Restorative Justice Online (1975 to current), Scopus (1823 to current), Science Direct (1823 to current), LILACS (1982 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Restorative Justice Online (4May 2012),WorldCat (9May 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (19May 2012) and ICTRP (19May 2012). ASSIA,National Criminal Justice Reference Service and Social Services Abstracts were searched up to May 2011. Relevant bibliographies, conference programmes and journals were also searched.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of restorative justice conferencing versus management as usual, in young offenders.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the data. Where necessary, original investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

Main results
Four trials including a total of 1447 young offenders were included in the review. Results failed to find a significant effect for restorative justice conferencing over normal court procedures for any of the main analyses, including number re-arrested (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.71; P = 0.99), monthly rate of reoffending (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.16; P = 0.61), young person’s remorse following conference (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.10; P = 0.06), young person’s recognition of wrongdoing following conference (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.80; P = 0.14), young person’s self-perception following conference (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.63; P = 0.85), young person’s satisfaction following conference (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.07; P = 0.45) and victim’s satisfaction following conference (OR 4.05, 95%CI 0.56 to 29.04; P = 0.16). A small number of sensitivity analyses did indicate significant effects, although all are to be interpreted with caution.

Authors’ conclusions
There is currently a lack of high quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing for young offenders. Caution is urged in interpreting the results of this review considering the small number of included studies, subsequent low power and high risk of bias. The effects may potentially be more evident for victims than offenders. The need for further research in this area is highlighted.

The past never stands still ; negotiating the past and commemorating the Easter Rising in 1966 and 1976

This article looks at the role of commemoration in Northern Ireland before conflict -in the 1960's - and at the height of conflict in the 1970's. Through its comparative examination of Northern Ireland republican commemorations of the 1916 Easter Rising in 1966 and 1976 it is intended to contribute both to an historical and political understanding of commemoration practices in Ireland after partition and to current debates about commemoration and the past in the post-Troubles era.

Home-based child development interventions for preschool children from socially disadvantaged families

BACKGROUND
Social disadvantage can have a significant impact on early child development, health and wellbeing. What happens during this critical period is important for all aspects of development. Caregiving competence and the quality of the environment play an important role in supporting development in young children and parents have an important role to play in optimising child development and mitigating the negative effects of social disadvantage. Home-based child development programmes aim to optimise children's developmental outcomes through educating, training and supporting parents in their own home to provide a more nurturing and stimulating environment for their child.

OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of home-based programmes aimed specifically at improving developmental outcomes for preschool children from socially disadvantaged families.

SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the following databases between 7 October and 12 October 2010: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to week 4, September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Week 39, 2010), CINAHL (1937 to current), PsycINFO (1887 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), ASSIA (1987 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current), Social Science Citation Index (1970 to current). We also searched reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing home-based preschool child development interventions with a 'standard care' control. Participants were parents with children up to the age of school entry who were socially disadvantaged in respect of poverty, lone parenthood or ethnic minority status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the trials' risk of bias and extracted data.

RESULTS
We included seven studies, which involved 723 participants. We assessed four of the seven studies as being at high risk of bias and three had an unclear risk of bias; the quality of the evidence was difficult to assess as there was often insufficient detail reported to enable any conclusions to be drawn about the methodological rigour of the studies. Four trials involving 285 participants measured cognitive development and we synthesised these data in a meta-analysis. Compared to the control group, there was no statistically significant impact of the intervention on cognitive development (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30; 95% confidence interval -0.18 to 0.78). Only three studies reported socioemotional outcomes and there was insufficient data to combine into a meta-analysis. No study reported on adverse effects.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS
This review does not provide evidence of the effectiveness of home-based interventions that are specifically targeted at improving developmental outcomes for preschool children from socially disadvantaged families. Future studies should endeavour to better document and report their methodological processes.