Victim-Centered Restorative Justice: A Qualitative Study of Victim-Only Circles

Background and Purpose: Restorative justice (RJ) has increasingly been applied in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV), yet concerns remain regarding the extent to which RJ processes meaningfully center victims’ needs. While most RJ interventions emphasize joint encounters between victims and offenders, some programs have begun offering victim-only restorative pathways. However, little is known about how these approaches emerge in practice or how stakeholders understand their development. This study examines the emergence of victim-only circles within a Circles of Peace RJ program for misdemeanor domestic violence crimes in cases of IPV, exploring how participants and stakeholders involved in the program understand and describe the factors leading to the emergence of victim-only circles.

Methods: This qualitative study employed Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis. Data was generated through 33 semi-structured interviews and two focus groups with 16 stakeholders involved in implementing an RJ program, including circle facilitators, victim advocates, community volunteers, and representatives from the prosecutor’s office and probation. Participants were purposively sampled based on their involvement with the Circles of Peace program. Data were collected across three waves via telephone and videoconferencing, with interviews and focus groups lasting one to two hours. Participants’ perceptions of victims’ roles, experiences with victim-only circles, program development, and implementation challenges were explored. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively. Coding focused on shared patterns of meaning related to the emergence and function of victim-only circles. Themes were iteratively developed and interpreted through a victim-centered RJ lens emphasizing safety, voice, autonomy, and access.

Results: Four themes captured stakeholders’ accounts of the emergence of victim-only circles. First, participants framed victim-only circles as a return to RJ’s victim-centered foundations, addressing concerns that offender-only processes risked marginalizing victims’ voices. Second, stakeholders identified practical challenges in offender-only circle processes, including limited ability to assess risk, verify narratives, and prevent misuse of restorative content, which contributed to the emergence of the need for direct victim engagement. Third, participants described victims’ motivations for engaging in victim-only circles, including reluctance to meet offenders, resistance to victim labeling, a desire for autonomy, and a preference for safe spaces focused on their own goals. Fourth, organizational and external factors, including pandemic-related disruptions, court delays, and efforts to improve access, encouraged adoption of victim-only circles as a flexible and responsive intervention pathway. Together, these findings suggest that victim-only circles emerged as both an ethical and practical adaptation within existing RJ frameworks.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings highlight victim-only restorative circles as a flexible, victim-centered pathway that can complement (but need not depend on) joint encounters in IPV-related cases. This approach may enhance victim autonomy, improve safety assessment, and broaden access to RJ participation. The study contributes to RJ research by illustrating how victim-centered adaptations emerge through program implementation processes rather than solely from theoretical design. Implications include developing parallel restorative pathways, strengthening victim-informed assessment practices, and incorporating non-encounter restorative options into policy frameworks. Future research should examine victims’ perspectives directly and evaluate how victim-only processes influence outcomes such as safety, empowerment, and engagement.