Circles of Peace Implementation for Domestic Violence Crimes In a New U.S. Jurisdiction

Background and Purpose: Restorative justice (RJ) seeks to address harm by centering the voices of those affected. RJ has been increasingly applied both within and beyond the criminal legal system. Circles of Peace (CP), an RJ peacemaking circle model, has shown promise as an alternative intervention for reducing domestic violence (DV) crime reoffending, and is perceived as more closely aligned with the desired outcomes of those affected by harm. However, limited research has examined how such programs are selected, adapted, and implemented in real-world settings. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, this study examines stakeholder experiences and perspectives on implementing CP for misdemeanor DV crimes in a new U.S. jurisdiction, including perceived relative advantage and other intervention characteristics as well as outer and inner setting factors shaping implementation.

Methods: This study used reflexive thematic analysis to examine stakeholders’ experiences and perspectives on the implementation process of CP in a northeastern jurisdiction in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders (N = 8), including criminal legal system and treatment provider personnel, victim advocates, and policymakers. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an iterative process. Two researchers independently coded the data and met regularly to refine themes using Atlas.ti.

Results: Five key themes emerged. First, stakeholders perceived a strong relative advantage of CP, highlighting its ability to hold offenders accountable by fostering meaningful engagement in the CP process and promoting community reintegration. Second, outer-setting barriers, including state DV standards and skepticism toward RJ approaches in DV cases, influenced uptake, while participant-level barriers, such as transportation, childcare, and financial constraints, shaped engagement. Third, CP operates within a community context, relying on community engagement and mobilization while also contributing to increased awareness of domestic violence in the community and strengthening community capacity to prevent and respond to DV. Fourth, leadership engagement and organizational readiness were critical, with strong support from key stakeholders facilitating implementation and reflecting a broader tension for change. Finally, victim safety concerns were prominent, particularly regarding risk assessment and case selection.

Conclusions and Implications: Overall, these findings underscore that implementation of CP to address DV is shaped by the interplay of system priorities, structural barriers, community context, organizational readiness, and safety considerations, highlighting the complexity of implementation. Findings suggest that CP is a promising alternative to traditional DV interventions, particularly in its emphasis on accountability through connection, community engagement, and reintegration. Implementation within the criminal legal system shaped how CP was conceptualized in practice, with stakeholders emphasizing offender accountability as a key aspect of CP’s relative advantage. Outer setting barriers and participant-level barriers influenced uptake and engagement in CP. CP was embedded in the community and reflected mutual reciprocity. Leadership engagement and organizational readiness were critical to implementation, reflecting both facilitators and tensions in adopting RJ within systems. Across contexts, victim safety remained a central concern. Given RJ’s emphasis on reconfiguring power relative to traditional interventions, this study demonstrates the value of implementation science frameworks in illuminating how these approaches are operationalized and sustained in practice.