This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

On the basis of current definitions and approaches of restorative justice and crime prevention, and making use of a two-dimensional typology of crime prevention, this article develops a conceptual framework and seeks to offer points of connections and departure at the theoretical level between restorative justice practices and different models of offender-oriented, victim-oriented and community-oriented prevention. In order to face some of the present limitations of restorative justice, in particular the missing link to causes of crime at the societal-structural level, the author widens the perspective of restorative justice to the broader notion of ‘community justice’. The challenge for restorative justice is, then, to integrate polycentric problem-solving approaches into its operational models.

In this article, the authors summarize some important methodological problems that may be encountered when studying the crime preventative effects of restorative justice. Studies mostly focus on tertiary preventative effects, namely the reduction of recidivism. Empirical research is in that regard mainly dealing with the effects of victim-offender mediation and conferencing practices. Some problems include the definitional issue (what can be considered as a restorative justice intervention?), the (quasi-)experimental design, the small size of samples and issues of comparability between different studies due to differences in e.g. follow-period or criteria for measuring recidivism.

The authors summarize the empirical findings with regard to restorative justice and crime prevention as presented in the report of the European project on the matter at hand. With regard to the offender, they studied empirical research on the reduction of recidivism. Data refer to characteristics of the offender, the view of the offender with regard to the restorative process, characteristics of the communication processes and the type of offence as influencing factors. Results in general seem to be quite positive, although there are some cases when recidivism is worse in comparison to the traditional justice process. Crawford indicates how preventative effects for the victims can be taken into account – the researchers refer to the different effects depending on the type of crime and characteristics of the victim; satisfaction, re-victimisation and post-traumatic symptoms; and the prevention of revenge. With regard to the societal preventative effects, research on restorative justice seems to be restricted to the theoretical level: empirical research in this regard is lacking.

This article departs from a crime prevention perspective following the definition of crime prevention as adopted by the European Union Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN). This approach handles a broad notion of community involvement in crime prevention, including non-judicial measures and models of intervention. Through its participatory approaches, restorative justice has the potential of mobilising and reinforcing social capital and, therefore, of contributing to effective crime prevention and control. The community oriented approach is illustrated by the model of crime prevention and its possible connection to restorative justice as being developed in Hungary and promoted through various actions of the EUCPN.

This article addresses the question whether restorative justice is embedded in the current policy and legal frameworks on crime prevention in several EU member states. Crime prevention is defined as all actions that are aimed to prevent involvement in crime (thus more than prevent re-offending only). Of course, the situation differs among the EU member states, but there is a growing awareness that restorative justice can play an important role in the prevention of crime, and is especially useful to meet the interests of victim and offender. Concerning the situation in the Netherlands, there are some promising developments and initiatives in which restorative justice approaches are advocated, for instance by a recent advice to the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Safety and Justice, in which restorative justice interventions are proposed within the juvenile justice system. Another relevant initiative is the joint effort to explore the boundaries of the Dutch diversion ‘Halt’ programme in order to apply this form of restorative practice more often, because of its estimated positive effects on victim and offender.