Advocating for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices: Examining the Overlap between Restorative Justice and Behavior Analysis

Pavlacic et al. (2022) wrote a narrative review. They asked if restorative-justice tools can live inside a behavior-analytic frame.

The paper looks at police departments as the setting. It maps circle talks, harm-repair plans, and victim meetings onto ABA principles like reinforcement and observable behavior.

No new data were collected; the goal was to show BCBAs a fresh place to work.

The authors found strong overlap. Restorative questions ("What happened?" "Who was hurt?") are simply functional assessments.

Agreements to fix harm are behavior contracts. Follow-up circles supply reinforcement for keeping the contract.

They conclude the fit is good enough to pilot in real police agencies.

Leland et al. (2022) make the same point in the same year. Both papers say ABA ethics line up with restorative justice; Pavlacic stays inside police departments while Leland imagines life beyond policing.

Luna et al. (2022) push the idea further. They show how juvenile halls can drop coercion and use behavioral skills training instead. The spirit is identical—repair harm, teach new behavior—but the tools move from talking circles to BST and group contingencies.

McDonald et al. (2024) scan every behavior-analytic study in criminal justice and find almost none. Their gap map proves Pavlacic’s call is arriving in a near-empty field, so early adopters will be breaking new ground.

If you consult with probation, school safety officers, or campus police, you now have a ready-made framework. Offer to run a restorative circle after a fight or property damage. Treat the circle as an FBA, write a behavior contract, and schedule follow-ups for reinforcement. You expand ABA into justice settings while helping agencies fix harm instead of handing out more punishments.