Community-level prevention and restorative justice program satisfaction in Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Restorative justice seeks to repair harm, strengthen accountability, and restore relationships, but its effectiveness depends partly on the social conditions that support victim participation and offender reintegration. This article examined the role of community-level prevention in restorative justice program satisfaction in Melbourne, Australia. Community-level prevention was assessed through community responsibility for harm repair, the involvement of community representatives, awareness of community-based crime-prevention programs, community connection, support for offender reintegration, community awareness of crime impacts, perceived safety, and relationship strengthening. The research was guided by Reintegrative Shaming Theory and used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. The target population comprised 17,605 adult victims who had participated in restorative justice programs in metropolitan Melbourne between January 2022 and December 2024. A target sample of 391 victims was selected through stratified and simple random sampling, and 373 completed questionnaires were obtained, yielding a 95.4% response rate. Fourteen justice professionals, comprising magistrates, prosecutors, and probation officers, were purposively selected for key informant interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and simple linear regression, while qualitative data were analysed thematically. The findings showed that 88.20% of victims agreed that communities had a role in repairing harm, 81.23% supported greater community involvement in offender reintegration, and 78.01% believed that restorative justice strengthened community relationships. However, only 42.36% revealed having community members other than family and friends involved directly, and only 66.76% perceived the presence of community-based crime prevention programs. The community-level prevention was moderately positively correlated with program satisfaction (r = .512, p < .001) and accounted for 26.2% of the variance (R2 = .262). Qualitative evidence indicated that community members enhanced accountability and reintegration, with the participation being characterised as limited because of a lack of awareness, volunteers, and time requirements, as well as a lack of structural investment. The article concludes that at the community level, meaningful, visible, and institutionally supported roles contribute to restorative justice program satisfaction in a significant way. It suggests funded community roles, regular volunteer training, proactive public awareness, and community involvement in all types of restorative justice programs.