YRJIYouth Restorative Justice Index

Methodology

Index structure

LB

Legal Basis

Does state law recognize and permit restorative justice for youth?

LA

Legal Accessibility

Who can access YRJ services under state law, and what legal benefits follow completion?

GA

Governance and Accountability

Does the state government collaborate with YRJ providers to monitor delivery and support implementation?

F

Funding

What funding do YRJ providers in the state receive from the state and federal government?

R

Reach

To what extent are YRJ services available and accessible to youth across the state?

Calculating scores

Each indicator was scored on the appropriate scale using the highest level fully supported by the available evidence.Unknown (M) values were treated as missing. A category with more than two unknown indicators received a score of zero. Structurally Inapplicable (X) values were distinct from zeros but contributed no points.

Indicator scores were normalized by their maximum possible values. Category subscores were calculated by averaging the four normalized indicator scores within each category.

The composite score was calculated as the average of the five category subscores and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Indicator scoring

Select an indicator to view its definition, measurement scale, and complete scoring criteria.

LB

Legal Basis

Does state law recognize and permit restorative justice for youth?

LB1RJ RecognitionBinary

Recognition of restorative justice by state authority.

Scoring criteria

  • M: data not found
  • 0 pts: no current explicit recognition
  • 1: express recognition/authorization of RJ
LB2Youth RJ recognitionOrdinal (2)

Level of recognition that state authority has for youth restorative justice.

Scoring criteria

  • M: data not found
  • 0 pts: no mention of youth
  • 1 pt: includes a brief/general section on youth RJ
  • 2 pts: includes a dedicated youth RJ law or significant focus on youth
LB3DurationOrdinal (2)

Duration of state authority involving youth restorative justice programming.

Scoring criteria

  • X: LB2 = 0
  • 1 pt: temporary (specified duration, pilot program, or sunset date)
  • 2 pts: permanent legislation
LB4Referral Directive StrengthOrdinal (3)

Strength of state authority governing whether authorized decision-makers must consider or offer youth RJ in legally eligible cases.

Scoring criteria

  • X: LB2 = 0
  • 0: RJ permitted, but referral entirely discretionary
  • 1 pt: law encourages/identifies RJ as preferred
  • 2 pts: consideration of RJ required
  • 3 pts: requires eligible youth to be offered RJ
LA

Legal Accessibility

Who can access YRJ services under state law, and what legal benefits follow completion?

LA1Offense EligibilityOrdinal (4)

Strength of statewide legal offense eligibility for youth restorative justice diversion.

Scoring criteria

  • X: LB2 = 0
  • M: controlling authority inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: completed search finds no meaningful statewide offense-eligibility rule
  • 1: state law expressly delegates offense eligibility locally without a statewide floor
  • 2: statewide eligibility is limited to low-level or nonviolent offenses
  • 3: selected violent or serious offenses are expressly eligible
  • 4: eligibility is individualized with no broad categorical exclusion.
LA2Prior System Contact EligibilityOrdinal (4)

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 criteria

  • X: LB2 = 0
  • M: controlling authority inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: completed search finds no meaningful statewide prior-contact rule
  • 1: state law expressly delegates prior-contact eligibility locally without a statewide floor
  • 2: eligibility is restricted to first-time youth or prior contact generally disqualifies
  • 3: only specified serious, recent, or formal prior history automatically excludes
  • 4: eligibility is individualized with no statewide prior-record exclusion.
LA3Young Adult RJ EligibilityBinary

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 criteria

  • M: controlling evidence is inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: completed search finds no qualifying statewide new-case pathway for ages 18–25
  • 1: qualifying statewide law, binding rule, or state-administered pathway permits at least some new referrals for ages 18–25
LA4Legal Benefit of CompletionOrdinal (4)

Strength of the legal benefits guaranteed following successful completion of RJ program.

Scoring criteria

  • X: LB2 = 0
  • 0 pt: no guaranteed benefit
  • 1 pt: discretionary dismissal
  • 2 pts: guaranteed dismissal
  • 3 pts: expungement/record sealing (by petition)
  • 4 pts: expungement/record sealing (automatic)
GA

Governance and Accountability

Does the state government collaborate with YRJ providers to monitor delivery and support implementation?

GA1State Administrative OversightOrdinal (3)

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 criteria

  • M: responsible authority inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: no responsible state actor found after the complete search
  • 1: responsibility assigned to an existing state youth justice or diversion agency with a verified restorative role
  • 2: named state coordinator or formal state function oversees the work
  • 3: dedicated state agency, office, or team.
GA2State-Local CollaborationOrdinal (3)

Presence of a formal public body/committee dedicated to coordinating state & local collaboration on youth RJ

Scoring criteria

  • 0: none found
  • 1: primarily local with some state gov representation
  • 2: joint body exists with meaningful representation from both groups
  • 3: formal, active body with representation from localities across state
GA3State Implementation SupportOrdinal (3)

Extent of current state support for implementing youth restorative justice or restorative-capable youth-diversion programs through public resources and assistance.

Scoring criteria

  • M: relevant support evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: no qualifying state implementation support found after the complete search
  • 1: current forms, basic guidance, approved models, or implementation references
  • 2: recurring guidance, tools, or technical assistance
  • 3: substantial training, webinars, certification, or statewide implementation infrastructure.
GA4Program OversightOrdinal (4)

Strength of state monitoring and public accountability for youth restorative justice or broader diversion systems containing identifiable restorative programming.

Scoring criteria

  • M: monitoring evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: no recurring relevant monitoring found after the complete protocol
  • 1: reporting is required or broader relevant diversion monitoring exists, but restorative activity is not separately reported
  • 2: recurring public aggregate reporting includes an identifiable restorative component
  • 3: recurring public reporting provides provider- or jurisdiction-level funding, participation, or outcome detail
  • 4: reporting produces recommendations, corrective action, or formal accountability.
F

Funding

What funding do YRJ providers in the state receive from the state and federal government?

F1State Youth RJ Funding CommitmentOrdinal (3)

Specificity of current state-origin funding committed to youth restorative justice or broader youth diversion and alternative practices with an identifiable restorative component.

Scoring criteria

  • M: funding evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: no qualifying state-origin funding found after the complete search
  • 1: broader youth diversion or alternative-practice funding includes an identifiable restorative component, but the restorative amount is inseparable
  • 2: one or more restorative awards, contracts, reimbursements, operating allocations, or appropriations are separately identified
  • 3: funding is dedicated primarily to qualifying restorative diversion or alternative programming.
F2State funding recurrenceOrdinal (3)

Frequency of state funding being awarded to RJ providers

Scoring criteria

  • M: data unavailable
  • X: no state funding
  • 1: one-time funding or pilot grant
  • 2: funding renewed more than once but without a permanent mechanism
  • 3: dedicated recurring fund/grant program
F3Geographic Reach of State FundingOrdinal (3)

Extent to which state funding is allocated to youth RJ programs across the state

Scoring criteria

  • M: data unavailable
  • X: no state funding
  • 1: funding reaches one jurisdiction/program
  • 2: funding reaches multiple jurisdictions
  • 3: funding supports nearly all/all jursisdictions across state
F4FY2025 Title II Funding per Eligible YouthDollars per eligible youth

FY2025 OJJDP Title II state allocation divided by the state’s 2024 population within its general original juvenile delinquency jurisdiction age range.

Scoring criteria

  • Raw value = FY2025 Title II allocation ÷ eligible-youth population.
  • Composite value = straight min-max normalization across the 50 raw state rates: (state rate − minimum rate) ÷ (maximum rate − minimum rate).
R

Reach

To what extent are YRJ services available and accessible to youth across the state?

R1Provider-Location Geographic PresencePercentage

Percentage of state county-equivalents containing at least one verified, active operating location for a qualifying youth restorative justice provider or program.

Scoring criteria

  • M: the provider-location universe is inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0%: the complete protocol finds no verified active operating location
  • Score = unique county-equivalents with at least one qualifying operating location ÷ all state county-equivalents × 100.
R2Eligible-Juvenile Population ProximityPercentage

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 criteria

  • M: R1 location data or consistent population data unavailable
  • 0%: R1 = 0%
  • Score = eligible-age population in unique R1 provider-location counties ÷ statewide eligible-age population × 100.
R3Restorative Approach DiversityOrdinal (3)

Diversity and distribution of functionally distinct, active youth restorative approaches across providers or jurisdictions; listed models are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Scoring criteria

  • X: no qualifying provider verified
  • M: approach evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: one qualifying approach verified
  • 1: multiple approaches verified but concentrated in one provider or locality
  • 2: multiple approaches are independently offered across at least two providers or jurisdictions
  • 3: at least three functionally distinct approaches are distributed across multiple providers or jurisdictions.
R4School-Based Restorative ImplementationOrdinal (3)

Highest verified level of operational school-based conflict resolution, restorative practice, or formal restorative diversion available in the state.

Scoring criteria

  • M: operational evidence inaccessible, contradictory, or unresolved
  • 0: no verified operational school-based alternative or restorative programming after the complete protocol
  • 1: operational conflict mediation or comparable informal conflict-resolution programming
  • 2: operational programming includes substantive restorative components (accountability, affected-party or community participation, acknowledgment of harm, and repair) but is not a formal diversion pathway
  • 3: formal school-linked restorative diversion substitutes for disciplinary, police, or court processing.