[ { "category": "Legal Basis", "id": "LB1", "name": "RJ Recognition", "unit": "Binary", "definition": "Recognition of restorative justice by state authority.", "scoring": "M: data not found\n0 pts: no current explicit recognition\n1: express recognition/authorization of RJ", "instructions": "Use only current enacted statewide statutes, codes, or laws. Do not count local court rules/practices, local ordinances, nonbinding plans or guidance, or proposed, failed, repealed, or expired bills. Search primary legal repositories and broad secondary leads before assigning 0; use M if a major source is inaccessible or the search remains inconclusive.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Basis", "id": "LB2", "name": "Youth RJ recognition", "unit": "Ordinal (2)", "definition": "Level of recognition that state authority has for youth restorative justice.", "scoring": "M: data not found\n0 pts: no mention of youth\n1 pt: includes a brief/general section on youth RJ\n2 pts: includes a dedicated youth RJ law or significant focus on youth", "instructions": "Youth RJ qualifies when the law uses restorative justice, restorative practices, a synonym, or clearly describes a process involving accountability, affected parties/community, acknowledgment of harm, and repair. Score 1 when youth RJ is only a brief part of broader RJ authority; score 2 for a dedicated youth law or significant youth focus.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Basis", "id": "LB3", "name": "Duration", "unit": "Ordinal (2)", "definition": "Duration of state authority involving youth restorative justice programming.", "scoring": "X: LB2 = 0\n1 pt: temporary (specified duration, pilot program, or sunset date)\n2 pts: permanent legislation", "instructions": "Evaluate the current youth RJ authority with the broadest access. Treat a pilot, sunset clause, or specified expiration as temporary; treat authority without a termination date as permanent.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Basis", "id": "LB4", "name": "Referral Directive Strength", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Strength of state authority governing whether authorized decision-makers must consider or offer youth RJ in legally eligible cases.", "scoring": "X: LB2 = 0\n0: RJ permitted, but referral entirely discretionary\n1 pt: law encourages/identifies RJ as preferred\n2 pts: consideration of RJ required\n3 pts: requires eligible youth to be offered RJ", "instructions": "Code the operative legal directive, including may, encourage, consider, shall, or must. Award 3 only when nearly all youth who satisfy the state’s eligibility rules must be offered RJ, allowing only narrow exclusions or minimal decision-maker discretion.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Accessibility", "id": "LA1", "name": "Offense Eligibility", "unit": "Ordinal (4)", "definition": "Strength of statewide legal offense eligibility for youth restorative justice diversion.", "scoring": "X: LB2 = 0\nM: controlling authority inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: completed search finds no meaningful statewide offense-eligibility rule\n1: state law expressly delegates offense eligibility locally without a statewide floor\n2: statewide eligibility is limited to low-level or nonviolent offenses\n3: selected violent or serious offenses are expressly eligible\n4: eligibility is individualized with no broad categorical exclusion.", "instructions": "Use current enacted statewide law and binding statewide rules. Statutory silence after a completed search is 0, not M. Award 1 only for explicit delegation to counties, prosecutors, courts, or local programs. If delegation operates under a statewide offense ceiling, score the applicable statewide restriction. When multiple operative statewide pathways exist, score the pathway offering the broadest legally authorized access.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Accessibility", "id": "LA2", "name": "Prior System Contact Eligibility", "unit": "Ordinal (4)", "definition": "Strength of statewide legal prior-contact eligibility infrastructure for youth restorative justice diversion, reflecting both formal state specification and breadth of legally authorized access.", "scoring": "X: LB2 = 0\nM: controlling authority inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: completed search finds no meaningful statewide prior-contact rule\n1: state law expressly delegates prior-contact eligibility locally without a statewide floor\n2: eligibility is restricted to first-time youth or prior contact generally disqualifies\n3: only specified serious, recent, or formal prior history automatically excludes\n4: eligibility is individualized with no statewide prior-record exclusion.", "instructions": "Use current enacted statewide law and binding statewide rules. Prior contact includes arrest, referral, diversion, petition, adjudication, probation, or other formal juvenile processing. Statutory silence after a completed search is 0, not M. Award 1 only for explicit delegation. If delegation operates under a statewide prior-contact restriction, score that restriction. When multiple operative statewide pathways exist, score the pathway offering the broadest legally authorized access.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Accessibility", "id": "LA3", "name": "Young Adult RJ Eligibility", "unit": "Binary", "definition": "Whether current statewide authority or a state-administered justice/diversion pathway permits a new referral to a qualifying restorative process for at least some people ages 18–25.", "scoring": "M: controlling evidence is inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: completed search finds no qualifying statewide new-case pathway for ages 18–25\n1: qualifying statewide law, binding rule, or state-administered pathway permits at least some new referrals for ages 18–25", "instructions": "Score independently of LB1 and LB2; LA3 never uses X. Count a generally applicable adult restorative pathway when it necessarily includes ages 18–25. Exclude continued or extended jurisdiction over cases initiated before age 18, extended correctional supervision, generic adult diversion without a qualifying restorative component, generic community mediation, and local-only programs without statewide authorization or administration. Apply the common restorative qualification test and cite current primary or official evidence.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Legal Accessibility", "id": "LA4", "name": "Legal Benefit of Completion", "unit": "Ordinal (4)", "definition": "Strength of the legal benefits guaranteed following successful completion of RJ program.", "scoring": "X: LB2 = 0\n0 pt: no guaranteed benefit\n1 pt: discretionary dismissal\n2 pts: guaranteed dismissal\n3 pts: expungement/record sealing (by petition)\n4 pts: expungement/record sealing (automatic)", "instructions": "Use the highest legal benefit guaranteed by statewide law after successful completion. Nonfiling may count as dismissal when the case does not proceed; do not treat a discretionary benefit as guaranteed.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Governance and Accountability", "id": "GA1", "name": "State Administrative Oversight", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Strength of the designated state role responsible for administering or overseeing youth restorative justice or a broader youth-diversion system with an identifiable restorative component.", "scoring": "M: responsible authority inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: no responsible state actor found after the complete search\n1: responsibility assigned to an existing state youth justice or diversion agency with a verified restorative role\n2: named state coordinator or formal state function oversees the work\n3: dedicated state agency, office, or team.", "instructions": "Use current official state materials. A broader youth-justice or diversion actor qualifies at tier 1 only when its restorative responsibility is explicit or the administered program contains a verified restorative component. Generic juvenile-justice administration does not qualify.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Governance and Accountability", "id": "GA2", "name": "State-Local Collaboration", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Presence of a formal public body/committee dedicated to coordinating state & local collaboration on youth RJ", "scoring": "0: none found\n1: primarily local with some state gov representation\n2: joint body exists with meaningful representation from both groups\n3: formal, active body with representation from localities across state", "instructions": "Meaningful representation requires multiple local representatives from different bodies, not only one or two local members. Active means at least one meeting in the last year. A State Advisory Group counts only when youth RJ is a substantive focus; its existence for Title II eligibility alone is insufficient.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Governance and Accountability", "id": "GA3", "name": "State Implementation Support", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Extent of current state support for implementing youth restorative justice or restorative-capable youth-diversion programs through public resources and assistance.", "scoring": "M: relevant support evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: no qualifying state implementation support found after the complete search\n1: current forms, basic guidance, approved models, or implementation references\n2: recurring guidance, tools, or technical assistance\n3: substantial training, webinars, certification, or statewide implementation infrastructure.", "instructions": "Count current state-government resources that directly support a qualifying restorative program or an identifiable restorative component within broader youth diversion. Historical materials, generic diversion guidance, or one-time references without a restorative component do not qualify.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Governance and Accountability", "id": "GA4", "name": "Program Oversight", "unit": "Ordinal (4)", "definition": "Strength of state monitoring and public accountability for youth restorative justice or broader diversion systems containing identifiable restorative programming.", "scoring": "M: monitoring evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: no recurring relevant monitoring found after the complete protocol\n1: reporting is required or broader relevant diversion monitoring exists, but restorative activity is not separately reported\n2: recurring public aggregate reporting includes an identifiable restorative component\n3: recurring public reporting provides provider- or jurisdiction-level funding, participation, or outcome detail\n4: reporting produces recommendations, corrective action, or formal accountability.", "instructions": "Broader diversion-system monitoring may receive tier 1 only when the monitored system includes a verified restorative component. Higher tiers require increasingly specific public evidence. Recurring means at least once every two to three years.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Funding", "id": "F1", "name": "State Youth RJ Funding Commitment", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Specificity of current state-origin funding committed to youth restorative justice or broader youth diversion and alternative practices with an identifiable restorative component.", "scoring": "M: funding evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: no qualifying state-origin funding found after the complete search\n1: broader youth diversion or alternative-practice funding includes an identifiable restorative component, but the restorative amount is inseparable\n2: one or more restorative awards, contracts, reimbursements, operating allocations, or appropriations are separately identified\n3: funding is dedicated primarily to qualifying restorative diversion or alternative programming.", "instructions": "Use the most recent active or completed state funding cycle as of the research cutoff and record exact dates. Count state appropriations, grants, contracts, reimbursements, or state-operated program funding. Exclude federal pass-through funds, proposals, and broad juvenile-justice funding without an identifiable restorative component. Generic diversion alone does not qualify. Record raw qualifying dollars and dollars per 1,000 residents ages 0-17 as display fields when available; they are not the F1 score. Do not use recurrence or geographic reach in F1; those belong in F2 and F3.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Funding", "id": "F2", "name": "State funding recurrence", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Frequency of state funding being awarded to RJ providers", "scoring": "M: data unavailable\nX: no state funding\n1: one-time funding or pilot grant\n2: funding renewed more than once but without a permanent mechanism\n3: dedicated recurring fund/grant program", "instructions": "Evaluate only qualifying state youth RJ funding under F1. Revised dependency: F1=0 → F2=X; F1=M → F2=M; F1>0 → score recurrence independently even when the restorative amount is inseparable. Use the same qualifying mechanism and actual awards or appropriations, not an authorized but unfunded program or proposed future cycle.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Funding", "id": "F3", "name": "Geographic Reach of State Funding", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Extent to which state funding is allocated to youth RJ programs across the state ", "scoring": "M: data unavailable\nX: no state funding\n1: funding reaches one jurisdiction/program\n2: funding reaches multiple jurisdictions\n3: funding supports nearly all/all jursisdictions across state", "instructions": "Use the state’s relevant local jurisdictional unit, normally counties or county-equivalents. Revised dependency: F1=0 → F3=X; F1=M → F3=M; F1>0 → score funded geography independently even when the restorative amount is inseparable. Count only actual funded units under the same qualifying mechanism, not general juvenile-justice funding, and record the number funded and total jurisdictions.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Funding", "id": "F4", "name": "FY2025 Title II Funding per Eligible Youth", "unit": "Dollars per eligible youth", "definition": "FY2025 OJJDP Title II state allocation divided by the state’s 2024 population within its general original juvenile delinquency jurisdiction age range.", "scoring": "Raw value = FY2025 Title II allocation ÷ eligible-youth population.\nComposite value = straight min-max normalization across the 50 raw state rates: (state rate − minimum rate) ÷ (maximum rate − minimum rate).", "instructions": "Use the attached OJJDP FY2025 allocation table literally: Connecticut $0, Texas $0, and Wyoming $30,000. Use the state’s explicit statutory minimum age when one exists; otherwise use age 10. End with the upper age of original juvenile delinquency jurisdiction, inclusive. Exclude continuing/extended jurisdiction and offense-specific transfer exceptions. Use 2024 Census PEP single-year-age data, retain full precision, and display dollars per eligible youth to two decimals. This measures federal juvenile-justice resource intensity, not restorative-specific spending.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Reach", "id": "R1", "name": "Provider-Location Geographic Presence", "unit": "Percentage", "definition": "Percentage of state county-equivalents containing at least one verified, active operating location for a qualifying youth restorative justice provider or program.", "scoring": "M: the provider-location universe is inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0%: the complete protocol finds no verified active operating location\nScore = unique county-equivalents with at least one qualifying operating location ÷ all state county-equivalents × 100.", "instructions": "Verify youth focus, restorative qualification, current activity within the previous two years, and a physical operating location. Count each county-equivalent once. A headquarters, historical listing, statewide or virtual claim, grant lead, or directory entry does not add a county unless current operations at that location are verified. Use official state or court maps, grant rosters, network directories, and provider sites through the complete source protocol.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Reach", "id": "R2", "name": "Eligible-Juvenile Population Proximity", "unit": "Percentage", "definition": "Percentage of the state’s eligible juvenile population living in county-equivalents containing at least one R1-verified qualifying provider operating location. This measures geographic presence or proximity, not confirmed eligibility or access.", "scoring": "M: R1 location data or consistent population data unavailable\n0%: R1 = 0%\nScore = eligible-age population in unique R1 provider-location counties ÷ statewide eligible-age population × 100.", "instructions": "Use the same jurisdiction-age rule as F4: the state’s explicit statutory minimum when one exists, otherwise age 10, through the upper age of original juvenile delinquency jurisdiction, inclusive. Exclude continuing/extended jurisdiction and transfer exceptions. Use the same R1-verified county-equivalents and 2024 Census PEP single-year-age data for county and statewide populations. Do not expand the numerator from service-area, virtual, or statewide claims without an operating location. Record age range, numerator, denominator, source year, and calculation.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Reach", "id": "R3", "name": "Restorative Approach Diversity", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Diversity and distribution of functionally distinct, active youth restorative approaches across providers or jurisdictions; listed models are illustrative rather than exhaustive.", "scoring": "X: no qualifying provider verified\nM: approach evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: one qualifying approach verified\n1: multiple approaches verified but concentrated in one provider or locality\n2: multiple approaches are independently offered across at least two providers or jurisdictions\n3: at least three functionally distinct approaches are distributed across multiple providers or jurisdictions.", "instructions": "Apply the common youth-restorative qualification test. Examples include conferencing or mediation, circles, family or community decision-making, restorative peer or youth court, reparative boards, and Indigenous or tribal restorative processes, but the list is not exhaustive. Different branding alone is not a distinct approach; the documented participant structure or restorative process must differ meaningfully. Maintain a versioned coding dictionary for cross-state consistency.", "indexRole": "" }, { "category": "Reach", "id": "R4", "name": "School-Based Restorative Implementation", "unit": "Ordinal (3)", "definition": "Highest verified level of operational school-based conflict resolution, restorative practice, or formal restorative diversion available in the state.", "scoring": "M: operational evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved\n0: no verified operational school-based alternative or restorative programming after the complete protocol\n1: operational conflict mediation or comparable informal conflict-resolution programming\n2: operational programming includes substantive restorative components (accountability, affected-party or community participation, acknowledgment of harm, and repair) but is not a formal diversion pathway\n3: formal school-linked restorative diversion substitutes for disciplinary, police, or court processing.", "instructions": "Score the highest verified operational level anywhere in the state; this indicator measures intervention depth, not geographic coverage. Tier 1 is an explicitly permitted precursor and need not satisfy the full restorative test. Peer or teen court, restorative conferencing in lieu of suspension, or a formal school referral that diverts a case from police or court may qualify for 3. Policy, statutory authorization, training, or general restorative-climate language alone does not establish operation.", "indexRole": "" } ]