This study was conducted to evaluate the 'restorative dialogue' program implemented by the Korean Police as part of restorative police activities and to identify areas for improvement.
In order to increase the reliability of the evaluation results, th ...
This study was conducted to evaluate the 'restorative dialogue' program implemented by the Korean Police as part of restorative police activities and to identify areas for improvement.
In order to increase the reliability of the evaluation results, this study conducted both process evaluation and effect evaluation. For this purpose, observation of participation in the restorative dialogue program, in-depth interviews with relevant persons (facilitator, police officer in charge, and investigator), and a survey on relevant persons (perpetrator, victim, moderator, police officer in charge, and investigator) were conducted. First, through participatory observation, pre-meeting, holding stage, separation meeting, the offender's attitude, the victim's attitude, the degree of agreement between the parties on the contents of the case and the victim's needs, the moderator's attitude, the moderator's communication promotion skills, police officers role and attitude, mutual consultation and agreement stage, and termination stage were observed. Second, through an in-depth interview, the role of the police officer in charge in the restorative dialogue, satisfaction with the restorative dialogue facilitator, the appropriate time for pre-conversation, main dialogue, and post-conversation, appropriate place for restorative dialogue, and the need for restorative police activities, the effectiveness of the restorative dialogue, the appropriate target case for the restorative dialogue, and the need for improvement of the restorative dialogue program were confirmed by the stakeholders.
Finally, through the survey, overall perception about the participants' satisfaction with restorative conversation, understanding of restorative conversation explanation, restorative conversation experience, invitation to participate in restorative conversation, perception of recidivism, and emotional change after experience of judicial process was confirmed.
The results of this study can be summarized in several ways. First, the level of satisfaction among stakeholders about the restorative dialogue was generally high. Second, the perpetrators and victims generally understood the restorative dialogue explanation well. However, the level was higher in women than in men. Third, the restorative dialogue was conducted fairly for the perpetrators and victims in general, and the facilitators and police officers were reliable and the perpetrators and victims in general were satisfied with the outcome of the agreement. On the other hand, the perception of fairness was higher in women than in men. Fourth, the stakeholders were generally aware that the restorative dialogue program could reduce recidivism. Finally, through restorative dialogue, the perpetrators and victims showed positive emotional changes.